Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
489
-
220
-
169
-
99
-
94
-
47
-
47
-
44
-
43
-
41
-
39
-
32
-
30
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
24
-
24
-
22
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
14
-
Blackjack My message for the day :-)
Yes, the USA is a great nation, with strengths and weaknesses like all other nations.
Let's hope Trump does what he promised, and breaks the grip that dark side of The Force has on the nation, which rules America in the background, pulling the strings....the CIA interfering and meddling...the lobbying of the establishment for wars in shitholes where their business interests run...
Instead, make America great, by improving the infrastructure, investing in the the education of the youth, and improve neighbouring relations.
Oh, boy. In the words of Yoda: A tough uphill battle that 'dark side' is :-)
If you are young, I wish you luck....
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@The Postman Thank you for the statistics.
What about causes?
Additional article information
Abstract
Background:
Suicide rate and suicidal tendencies among transgender persons are considerably high compared to general population. Hence, this review is an attempt to understand the issues around the suicide and suicidal behavior among transgender persons.
Methodology:
The literature search conducted using three sources, i.e., electronic databases (PubMed, ProQuest, Google Scholar, PsycInfo), manual search (library catalog), and gray literature (consultation with experts).
Results:
The suicide attempt rate among transgender persons ranges from 32% to 50% across the countries. Gender-based victimization, discrimination, bullying, violence, being rejected by the family, friends, and community; harassment by intimate partner, family members, police and public; discrimination and ill treatment at health-care system are the major risk factors that influence the suicidal behavior among transgender persons.
Are you sure you are not doing anything that might contribute to the high suicide rates?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@sugariedreams2707 In order to justify your stance, you are drawing a "false equivalency" (which you can google for more info). If you'd be willing to study the topic you're voicing your opinion about, you'd realise that Transgenders and Schizophrenics are entirely different things.
Transgender (or any LGBTQ for that matter) does not fall in the same category as people who believe they are animals, or people who "believe they are Jeff Bezos".
Yes, there are even people out there who believe they are Barbie Dolls, and spend hundreds of thousands on operations. Should we forbid or enforce unwanted therapy that too?
Should therapy be enforced for everything and anything everybody doesn't like?
Or, just the things you don't like?
As far as I'm concerned:
1) if people are no danger to society, or seriously infringe on the lives of others, let them be (as foreseen by the Declaration of Independence aka "pursuit of life liberty and happiness)
[note, I consciously write "infringe", not "cause discomfort" to others]
2) help people who want to be helped (voluntary basis), no force or excessive coercion applied
3) institutionalize those who are dangerous to others, paid for by the taxpayers who benefits from a safer environment/society
Unless you can come up with some really good arguments why 2) or 3) should apply to the LGBTQ community, you dont really have a case.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
zhang Americans don't want to hear about these kinds of things.
They prefer the whitewashed version of history.
Atrocities, war crimes and crimes against humanity, if mentioned at all, are not discussed with enough criticism.
This leads to a mentality of 'well, its OK to kill, rape, murder, steal, starve, torture and so on', as long as you are fighting on the good side.
Of course, Americans are always on the good side (according to the perpetrators of the crimes), so the apologia gets handed down from one generation to the next...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Starts off with a strawman argument.
"Strawmanning" is PragerU's favorite strategy.
The Green New Deal is about creating forward facing jobs, at the expense of "the old". Instead of subsidizing oil and coal with billions of taxpayer dollars every year, invest these billions in the future, to keep up with the rest of the world.
Fun fact, is that China and Europe don't care about American conservative policies, and are investing in the future.
But yeah, I guess if the internet existed a 100 years ago, PragerU would have created videos about "evil cars" and "stinking unreliable engines", and telling you all about how protecting the interest of the "horsebuggy industry", farmers growing hay, vets, and all that had to be protected...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
No, not really.
A Germany, with most of Central Europe as Axis partners, and able to import everything it needed, and 100% focused on one frontline, would have defeated the SU.
It did not happen, because the British policy for the continent was that no single country should have full control over the entire continent.
Google "British policy of Balance of Power".
To achieve this, they used "divide and rule", like they did in their colonies. They would create friction between the different countries (for example Versailles) by drawing random borders. Then, the resulting infighting would keep their Empire safe.
Furthermore, their entire effort was directed at keeping an area of Central Europe known as the Heartland (google Mackinder Heartland theory) divided. In no way should a single hegemony control this area, since it would (in theory) unhinge the balance in the world, leading to the Empire collapsing.
Fast forward to 1945-1950, and Stalin had the Heartland, and Empire disintegrated bit by bit.
Churchill desperately tried to avoid this (google Operation Unthinkable), but the Americans kinda liked the idea of the British Empire collapsing, and refused.
Europe was carved up.
100 000 000 commie slaves for Stalin.
Thanks a lot, Churchill....
Great show 'murica...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
Greg B Truman had a forth choice.
Let the Japanese keep their emperor, and follow that up with a demonstration of the force of the new weapon in the Tokyo Bay area.
In hindsight, which is what we are doing here, it was even the better choice, because dropping the nukes almost led to a successful coup d'etat by young officers who would have fought to the death, partly because the Potsdam Declaration insisted on unconditional surrender.
Making a small concession to the Japanese, coupled with a demonstration of the new weapon over Tokyo Bay, in full view of the Japanese government, would have had the same effect ( Japanese surrender).
Furthermore, that would have meant that the support for the coup would have disintegrated, meaning even less likelihood of it succeeding.
Note, creating hypothetical scenarios (the millions of deaths following an invasion, which didn't happen) can also be countered by other hypothetical scenarios, which didn't happen.
In this discussion, there is no need to state WHY the bombs were dropped on cities filled with civilians. The reason WHY that happened is because those who made the decision felt absolutely no empathy for the Japanese civilians ( the firebombing raids proved this). Therefore any attempt to spin the discussion into 'we saved millions of poor Japanese civilians' is flawed from the outset.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Flam1ngicecream As far as I'm concerned, it has little to do with any political mindset.
It has more to do with a general human characteristic which is a willingness to be led, rather than take an initiative.
In most human interactions, whether it is business, war, social events, whatever...
In almost any situation of human interaction, most prefer to follow. It's what's often referred to as 'the herd instinct'. Simply doing what everybody else does. Taking the 'safe' option, rather than leaning out to be different.
War mongers simply make use of this characteristic.
It happens in all countries, but sticking to the subject of 'USA and war', it doesn't matter whether we are talking about the explosion of the Maine in 1898, or WMDs in 2003. The 'recipe for success' (the resulting effect) is the same.
Lie to the people, couple that with a whole lot of fear and war mongering...and presto, they've got the war that they want.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
ambidextrousfapper LOL
OK, have it your way.
" In 2012, a man in Oregon was sentenced to 30 days in jail for collecting rainwater on his property (in a pond). In the state of Oregon, the government owns the rain, and you have to have a special permit to collect and hold it. Other states have laws against rain barrels, which is a huge plastic barrel, usually with an attached filter, that's used to collect rainwater and then water gardens. The important thing to note is that the government can't charge for rainwater freely collected."
Isn't that ridiculous?
So what so ridiculous about doing another human being a favor, not being an arsehole, be nice, and call them whatever the eff they want?
Correct, nothing wrong with it.
If somebody wants me to call him "green alien", or "doctor Smith", or "sir", I'll simply do it.
What's the problem. Why be a snowflake about it.
Why don't you Google "dumb laws", and notice that there will be literally hundreds you won't agree with, yet you don't make a fuss about it do you ?
Why not?
[Note, my question. Please answer it now]
2
-
@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
-
2
-
@Timothy Dyck You make a good point about sport, and to be honest I had to Google it, because I've never heard of it.
I did some research, and discovered that the statistical probability of that happening is next to zero.
Pointing out single cases would again be "anecdotal evidence".
Suffice to say that of the 50,000 Olympic athletes, none are transgender.
Only about 0,5 in our societies are, so that the probability is in fact rare.
In other words it's like you not going to a friend's party, and when asked you say "Well there's a 0,1% chance of a car crash". Suffice to say, people will conclude that there are other reasons for you not going ;-)
My advice?
Deal with it on a case by case manner, and then introduce a scientific way to measure whether they may participate (blood, hormones, etc.). In other words, a simple neutral way to determine whether it should be allowed in a competitive sports.
On the other hand, what about a "normal woman" with an abnormally high "male" blood (testosterone levels). Should such women then also be banned from women's sport because they are "not normal"?
Remember that both cases would be human beings with a physical advantage based on a brain morphed into something which doesn't fit the norm.
Transgender are basically "male brains" born into "female bodies", and vice versa...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tomspriggs9478 These are "gender roles.
Do concentrate.
There are 2 sexes.
A "gender role" is whatever a society wants it to be.
Because to anybody even halfway informed, would know that throughout history, gender has been fluid. Joan of Arc playing a "gender role" not foreseen by the society she lived in, proves that for example. Remember her? The woman who didn't want to be "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" even though society and the rulers expected it of her?
She wanted to be a soldier (note : soldier = gender role for men)
Did you know that "men were women" and "women were men" in literally all cultures throughout history?
It is in fact during the 1,000 years or so of Christian dictatorial rule that it turned "abnormal", as the Catholic church burned people alive they deemed "witches" (basically, everybody who didnt bow to the dogma of the church, or literally the most extreme form of dictatorship you can imagine).
So.
Today.
As some say those "feminazis with their short cut hair, in-your-face" with their logic.
I once saw one, confronted by tatooed wannabe tough guy with some tough slogans. It turned out she served, and the first thing she said to him was "I'm in the military, defending your right to insult me".
Precious.
The debate was over.
Just accept people the way they are, as foreseen by the Declaration of Independence: the unalienable right to pursue life, liberty and happiness.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@behind you
What about causes of suicides among the transgender?
Additional article information
Abstract
Background:
Suicide rate and suicidal tendencies among transgender persons are considerably high compared to general population. Hence, this review is an attempt to understand the issues around the suicide and suicidal behavior among transgender persons.
Methodology:
The literature search conducted using three sources, i.e., electronic databases (PubMed, ProQuest, Google Scholar, PsycInfo), manual search (library catalog), and gray literature (consultation with experts).
Results:
The suicide attempt rate among transgender persons ranges from 32% to 50% across the countries. Gender-based victimization, discrimination, bullying, violence, being rejected by the family, friends, and community; harassment by intimate partner, family members, police and public; discrimination and ill treatment at health-care system are the major risk factors that influence the suicidal behavior among transgender persons.
Concerning the last bit about "causes":
Are you sure you are not doing anything that might contribute to the high suicide rates?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hi there "exactly it's called compromise".
In principle, "compromise" is a good thing.
However, in reality, there is something known as "good compromise vs. bad compromise".
Lemme try and use an example of what I mean, in terms you might be able to follow.
Statement 1:
Let's "compromise with terrorists to find peace"...
Me: Uhm......nope. Terrorism is a fundamental stance, that doesn't accept compromise, and "meeting in the middle" will mean making deals with corrupt crooks that will eventually erode away the compromise, to shift towards a position they want...
Statement 2:
Let's find a moderate position on both sides, based on sound reasoning and logic, that appease a majority consensus, and then make compromises...
Me: yeeeaaahh, cool, peace, yippeeeeee
2
-
@John-lq7hs Yes, I already posted this 3 days ago, and none of you chose to address it.
So, here is my question again...
[note, I'll highlight the important part of the study :-)]
What about causes for such unhappiness and resulting high suicide rates?
Additional article information
Abstract
Background:
Suicide rate and suicidal tendencies among transgender persons are considerably high compared to general population. Hence, this review is an attempt to understand the issues around the suicide and suicidal behavior among transgender persons.
Methodology:
The literature search conducted using three sources, i.e., electronic databases (PubMed, ProQuest, Google Scholar, PsycInfo), manual search (library catalog), and gray literature (consultation with experts).
Results:
The suicide attempt rate among transgender persons ranges from 32% to 50% across the countries. Gender-based victimization, discrimination, bullying, violence, being rejected by the family, friends, and community; harassment by intimate partner, family members, police and public; discrimination and ill treatment at health-care system are the major risk factors that influence the suicidal behavior among transgender persons.
Are you sure you are not doing any of the above behaviour, which might then contribute to their unhappiness, and high suicide rates?
[note, you can chose to ignore this question, in typical flawed dogmatic stance of "if I don't answer it, I'll prove my strength, and remain correct"]
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hi there Trying to link suicide rates to Christianity is disingenuous and bound to fail.
Here, from Sweden, one of the most atheist countries in the world, which shows that a decent monitoring system avoids suicide.
Note, this monitoring can also be religious in nature, but does not necessarily have to be religious:
Suicide in Sweden
Sweden has a very low suicide rate, but this rate can be misleading because it may not account for physician-assisted suicide, which is legal there. In 2012, Sweden only had 12 reported suicides per 100,000 people.
Historically, Sweden has had a high suicide rate, with the most suicides in the developed world during the 1960s. That may have been due, at least in part, to cultural attitudes regarding suicide and long, dark winters, particularly in the northern regions. The government responded to the crisis with social welfare and mental health services, and the numbers have dropped dramatically. Today, Scandinavian countries – Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland – have very high rates of happiness and relatively low suicide rates. However, the dark winters – 20 hours of darkness or more in each day in some areas – causes seasonal affective disorder (SAD), a form of depression, which has been known to correlate with higher rates of suicide...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
@sugariedreams2707 And the "bathroom thingy".
Did you know that men and women actually used the same toilets for centuries, and that it was only rising wealth and the oh so frowned upon "regulation" that forced separate bathrooms onto us?
Do you know that there are still hundreds of thousands of cafes, small restaurants, and bars in Europe which (traditionally) only have 1 bathroom for everybody?
This is simply because for centuries, nobody gave a (literally) "sh*t.* :-)
What's the problem with separate cubicles for all, as it had always been before that oh so dreaded regulation came along and forced cafes and restaurants to have separate bathrooms?
(Note, separate stalls, wheelchair accessible bathrooms, nappy changing rooms, etc. already exist, to ensure your privacy in certain situations).
Or is it a problem for you if somebody sees you washing your hands?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sugariedreams2707 Then we are in agreement concerning titles, gender pronouns, and preferred etiquette of being addressed in a certain way.
As far as I'm concerned, it's not a big deal.
Whatever makes the recipient happy.
My motto is "just be nice". Smile, and the world will smile back, and all of that.
Also, as far as I'm concerned nobody is going to get chucked into jail for getting it wrong, so what's the big deal.
90% of people, in their daily lives, will never even meet a transgender.
I'm 55, and I've never met one. So again, no big deal.
Thing about cause and effect though, is that the bullying, discrimination, insulting language, degrading remarks and real life disadvantages (getting fired from a job or losing an apartment) came first and the effect of that was a law.
I don't think such a law would ever be made use of, unless it was as a direct result of the above.
We should not stand up for dubious "rights" of bullies and assh*les to be bullies and assh*les.
2
-
@sugariedreams2707 As for the "bathroom thingy".
The idea idea is actually to simply return to the way is was for many centuries.
The single bathroom, which all can use.
As you have noted, it is not only cheaper for small cafes, but also better in the way of flow. Have you ever seen those long queues in front of the ladies, whilr the stalls in the mens were unoccupied?
Dumb, I would say.
A much better use of the space (and cheaper to build) is one big room, with separate stalls. That way anybody can just go in wherever they want.
There is no need to build "special bathrooms" for each and every person, gender, or sex.
One bathroom, one room, one door (many separate cubicles inside).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mrcool2107
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.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
Looks like the "army of empire apologists" have discovered this video, making the same kind of superficial apologia which a dozen "reaction videos" have already debunked as bs.
*The statement to "govern with the lightest possible hand" (H.W. Crocker) as "indirect rule", is divide and rule/conquer, which is what London did everywhere it went, FOR OWN GAIN.*.
"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.
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Jabib Galt Easy.
Socialism is, in a nutshell "the means of production and distribution of goods under the control of the state", and often means wide scale control of the economy by the people.
Populism is, also in a nutshell "handing out of goodies (social programmes) in return for populist support.
Both are present in many forms, and in many political and economic models.
China is a Marxist Socialist state. Google it.
Examples of populism? Currently, for example Poland (handing out state revenues as "baby money" to increase birth rates), or the US (Trump using state revenues, i.e. trade tariffs to struggling farmers).
Such "freebies" and "goodies" in return for support of populist leaders is common. It led to the downfall of Greece, after cheap EU loans stayed out after the financial crisis of 2009.
It also led to the downfall of Venezuala, because the state could not keep up with the promises it had made to supporters, once the price of oil fell...
How am I doing so far?
You seem to be a smart chap. I suggest doing your research elsewhere, and not on the channel of a conservative think tank, skewing and indoctrinating the uninformed into chanting "VENEZUELA" and "SOCIALISM" .
They are using misdirection and spinning information for political purposes...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@apexpredatorXx Yes, a great comment.
Even the Bible implores God's followers "not argue about words."
https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/2-14.htm
Obviously the message of the Bible, taken as an entirety, not cherry picked, is as follows: be good, do good
Simple.
Yet, on videos like this by PragerU his most devout followers judge, interpret words, dismiss, get offended, and "strike back" ...because of words.
Irony...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
Dear PragerU.
Morals are, according to definition, standards of behaviour.
No, it wasn't ok to have slaves 200 or 300 years ago, because the Bible says to "do onto others, as you wish to be done onto", setting the moral standard for Christians.
If I remember correctly, they were reading the same Bible 200 or 300 years ago. The message in the Bible was the same, and the behaviour of slave traders, owners, or the markets selling them like animals was therefore immoral.
The question "Was it moral?" doesn't change, because a few hundred years passed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@stevemitz4740 My first 2 comments were to the OP.
But I'm ok with anybody answering them.
Throughout history, gender has been fluid. Joan of Arc proves it. Did you know that "men were women" and "women were men" in literally all cultures throughout history?
It is in fact the 300-400 years or so, that it turned "abnormal", as the Catholic church burned people alive they deemed "witches" (basically, everybody who didnt bow to the dogma of the church, or literally the most extreme form of dictatorship you can imagine).
So.
Today.
As some say those "feminazis with their short cut hair, in-your-face" with their logic.
I once saw one, confronted by tatooed wannabe tough guy. It turned out sje served, and the first thing she said to him was "I'm in the military, defending your right to insult me".
Precious.
The debate was over :-)
Just accept people the way they are, as foreseen by the Declaration of Independence: the unalienable right to pursue life, liberty and happiness.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
Yes.
Excellent comment.
It get's even worse than that.
Investors, and venture capitalists have discovered a new field of operation.
In today's age, finding a lemon to squeeze until the pips squeek is getting more and more difficult.
So now, America's richest have discovered America's poorest, buying up trailer parks, doubling the rents to make it a "worthwhile investment", and throwing more poor people into homelessness.
Because you live in a morally deplorable country that kisses ass up (to money), and kicks down (to the weak). True, even for the poorest of the poor. Unfortunately, reading the comments, too many have already fallen for the PragerU propaganda, and are unwilling, ignorant, indifferent, and complacent....
People have forgotten that someday it'll be their turn.
History has predestined this....
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@greenlife8514 The Constitution needs to be heeded only according the words written down.
There is no need to adhere to words not written down.
The fact that certain words were left out (like "secular"), was done on purpose, because the creators knew that the Constitution was a timeless document. They knew that times change, and therefore allowed for changing realities by the use of words/formulations which are adaptable to the time the people live in, and by allowing the creation of amendments according to very strict democratic principles.
Let's take the 2nd.
It grants the "right" to "bear and arm".
In other words, you have the right to buy any "arm" you can carry. What is meant by "arm" is not stated in the Constitution.
That means, for example, that you or I (personally) don't have the "right" to buy a tank. It isn't possible to "carry/bear" a tank.
These weapons did not exist when the Constitution was written, and the Founding Fathers specifically chose "arm" and not specific "weapon systems" or the word "firearms" or "explosives".
See the difference?
You don't have the right to buy a nuke, even if you had enough money, because a nuke is an explosive device.
How "arms" is interpreted, is therefore a matter of debate, which takes place in every generation.
What the Constitution is very specific in, is that if it doesn't grant something as a right, which is not specifically mentioned as a right.
I hope that is what you meant.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@greenlife8514 Yes, I'm also a bit disappointed that "secularism" isn't specifically stated as a principle in the Constitution.
But it was a different world back then, and 99% of people were deeply religious, and might have felt dissed, resulting in I'll feelings towards the new leaders in the so-called "New World".
Religious people today forget that historically Christian were actually the biggest enemy of Christians, in the form of the different Confessions.
As shortly ago as the 1970s, Christians were terrorizing and murdering other Christians (Northern Ireland/IRA which was a political battle about whether Protestant pro-UK or Catholic pro-Ireland about "who rules").
Religion is toxic, because it serves as a platform to divide people.
Therefore, I'm a secularist.
Religion should be a personal matter (for each individual) and not a political tool, as many today see it. That includes PragerU, which misuses religion and their supporters as a political tool for an own agenda.
PragerU would love to see the USA become a religious state, forgetting that the world has already "been there, done that" in history, and it wasn't pleasant.
Nope, I don't want to live in the reality of a society dominated by religiously motivated ideals. Take "Sundays" for example. In a religious government, it won't take long before shops are closed on Sundays, because "God said so"....
Regards :-)
2
-
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.
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Africa and the ME, 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.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
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 Africa and the ME) 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?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@francisyockey2215 Yes correct.
But that makes Zionist the "lapdog", and the British Empire the "alpha male" (late 19th/early 20th century).
Today, the British Empire has been replaced by the USA (the Brits ran away from the sh*tstorm they caused in 1948, tail between the legs).
Today, "Washington" is the alpha male, Zionism is still the lapdog. Israel, is a "tool" of Washington's policy of divide and rule, not the other way round.
Israel is a child of the Cold War. When the hegemonic power (British Empire) ran off, leaving the region in a power vacuum, a new hegemon simply stepped in and took over. Israel was financed and supported as a tool of western influence in an otherwise "Moscow" dominated ME (along with Saudi Arabia, etc.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
notalloftheabove First of all, we have to clarify a misconception. The deal with Iran was not to ' give them a nuclear weapon'.
The deal will allow Iran to continue its nuclear development for peaceful purposes, under STRICT supervision, to prepare the country for the end of the age of oil.
First off, who are we to tell them that they are not allowed to use nuclear power to solve the energy problem?
Secondly, even IF you have the suspicion that (despite the STRICT control) that 'sneaky muslims' (hint, hint) are going to misuse the deal to build a nuke, what the hell are they going to do with it?
Using it, would mean instant annihilation.
Are you saying that each and every one of the 1,7 billion Muslims are fanatics, and each and every one of their leaders is crazy?
That would be the epitome of xenophobia buddy.
Which 'Muslim government' has ever broken a treaty or deal made? Turkey? Indonesia? Pakistan? Dubai? Saudi Arabia?
They might have laws we don't agree with, but not sticking to international treaties is something entirely different.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
notalloftheabove ONLY the nukes convinced them they couldn't win?
The Japanese didn't enter the war, hoping they could WIN.
They entered the war, hoping they could settle for a compromise peace, based on the mistaken notion that Americans wouldn't have the stomach to face hundreds of thousands of deaths trying to fight back.
Completely different concepts.
The Japanese already knew they had lost, as soon as mid-1944, when the first peace feelers went out.
Are you really saying that the fact that almost the entire Japanese surface fleet had been wiped out, that US aircraft carriers were sailing around Japanese waters at will, attacking whatever they wished, that US submarines had wiped out the merchant marine, that US aircraft were employing an extremely successful coastal mining campaign, that Japan had no more allies since Germany had surrendered, that the only hope of still finding conditional surrender (Russian neutrality) was gone, every single city had already been razed to ground....none of these things played a role?
That must have been a brain fart on your part.
FYI, the Japanese government wanted to surrender before the bombs were dropped (3 for, 3 against, Hirohito undecided).
The role played by the nukes is WILDLY exaggerated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
mijnkampvuur Seeloewe is a bit of a mystery.
It never had much support from the Army and Navy, the two branches which stood most to lose if it failed. Top Nazis (incl. Hitler) were mostly negative about the chances of success. I suppose a correct way to formulate their attitude would be saying 'lukewarm'.
At the LW, only Goering was all for it, and even most junior or mid-level officers were highly skeptical.
Of course, they were very confident on the tactical level, bearing in mind the previous successes they enjoyed in Poland and France, but as far as the entire plan was concerned, again a 'lukewarm'.
Almost unknown to many, is the fact that Raeder tried his very best to convince Hitler to go for the Suez Canal, rather than the English Channel, even before the BoB had really started (June 1940), and he had good reasons for that.
By late-September, the preparations were more in a way of exerting pressure on GB.
Hardly anybody on the German side still considered it a serious option.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dean West ....and how would the Soviet soldiers have invaded Japan?
For that, a country needs thousands of ships -- invasion barges, LCIs, LSTs, escort destroyers, battleships (shore bombardment, etc.), HQ ships, supply ships.
They had nothing, because it was a continental power.
You can't just say 'the SU would have invaded Japan', but then don't state (with some detail) how they would have carried out such landings....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
canopeaz Well, if I had lived 1,000 or 5,000 years ago, I would have read my stone tablet news, and would have said 'oh, those nasty Arabs, throwing out those poor Jews...'
But....I don't live 1,000 or 5,000 years ago.
According to your 'logic', every single white has to leave North and South America, Australia, and New Zealand....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
random 1 Now you're getting confusing :-)
There wasn't a 'Jewish state' before 1948, only foreign immigrants (and post WW2) refugees. These foreigners had foreign passport, and were therefore citizens of the states they had left, or fled from.
The indigenous people were the ONLY original inhabitants (Jews, Arabs, Christians, Bedouins, etc. collectively called 'Palestinians').
These original inhabitants were already living living here when the foreigners arrived, and obviously not happy about being swamped by foreigners. Similar to Europeans today, moaning about refugees, and Americans carrying on about 'Mexican immigrants'.
It is entirely justified to fear becoming a minority in one's own lands, on which one has lived for generations, and have therefore got the customary right (note, a legal term) to.
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com - Customary rights
The origins of the disputes you mentioned before 1948 (you wrote 'war') are therefore between the original inhabitants who have mostly always lived here, and new arrivals (immigrants and refugees), and are the result of indecent behaviour by the radical fringes of BOTH sides.
As for your final statement, that is exactly the point.
These people did not want to live in a country under the regime of foreign immigrants and refugees.
They were there before.
They lived here first.
1
-
random 1 You are merely drawing from a pool of criteria, to justify your own opinion.
Here is something for you to ponder....
If one allows people to decide their own destiny, and then has politicians to implement the resulting consensus, one gets 'self-determination'.
If one FIRST draws a line around people (border), and THEN lets them chose their destiny, one gets a mind trick often used by nationalists to justify their actions....sold as 'democracy'...
The easiest way to expose bias, is to ask oneself the 'in their shoes' question.
If you had been from 'the other side', a majority in the homelands you have always lived in, according to own traditions, and customs, overwhelmed by immigrants and refugees from a foreign culture....how would you have decided?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
random 1 OK, we are starting at the beginning again :-)
Lets try another approach...
Here is the standpoint of (many, not all) new, more liberal international community. These are people who voice a similar opinion to mine. I'm not claiming to speak for the rest of the world, but if you continually want to ignore valid opinions, then the citizens of Israel are partly to blame for the peace process not moving ahead....
In 1948, as these videos claim, "lawyers" did everything to assure that the declaration was legal. If one's definition of "legal" is so far removed from the definition of "moral", then simply expect opposition.
The ONLY thing that was "legal" about the founding of the state, was that it didn't break any laws.....think about that formulation.
But, that is not how the rest world works.
Many DON'T take sides anymore, but are neutral observers, like me. Most of the ruling elites of the world are not Christians anymore either, so that the Judeo-Christian traditional way of thinking is disappearing fast.
Put yourself into the mindset of others, if you guys want to find a solution.
Suffice to say, I've had hundreds of debates with my family in Israel over a dozen years, and it normally ends with a "...yeah, yeah, I understand...I know...let's have lunch..."
That's not how to go about solving a problem.
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Uri Ben meir Again, "land ownership" has nothing to do with "British rule".
It is therefore irrelevant how much land Jews and Jewish organisations bought.
The rest of the land was owned by Arab estate owners from big cities, or they were local smallholdings.
Again, one does not have to own land to be an inhabitant.
Millions of people around the world don't own land (tenets, renters, leasers, etc.). Hundreds of thousands of Jews who flooded into Palestine ALSO didn't buy land, especially the refugees after WW2, who were often penniless.
They settled on (became tenants, rented, or leased) lands bought by other Jews or Zionist organisations.
So what was the difference between an Arab tenant, living on land owned by a big land owner from Damascus, or a Jewish tenant, living on a Kibbutz?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jung Bolosse Under Israeli property law, private individuals cannot buy land.
Only around 7% of Israel is private land, the rest is state property leased back to citizens who...ahem..."qualify" by law....nuff said....
A large part of this 93% state property, was once confiscated under an "absentee ownership" law.
en.m.wikipedia.org - Israeli land and property laws - Wikipedia
The state merely took (and still takes) what it wanted, and therefore citizens like Uri need to feel no remorse about...cough, cough...."legally" leasing the land they live on. How convenient, for one's personal 'moral standards', if one isn't personally responsible...
This process, continues to today.
Even today, the state of Israel makes use of this law (once decided on by Jews) to steal land formally owned by 'Palestinians' (mostly non-Jews)....who once fled, or still flee, because living on their own land is made (or was made) unbearable.
You see...Uri doesn't grasp the difference between 'moral' and 'legal'....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** There was a relatively long period of peace, for more than 400 years to be exact (Ottoman Empire) when there was peace and stability.
Jews also thrived in secular Muslim states, like in Iran under Shah Rezah.
All of that changed when the state of Israel was called out by a minority of European immigrants (around 30% of the population), without the consent of, and without consultation with the Arab majority or the League of Nations (which only granted GB the authority to undertake steps for 'a Jewish homeland' in 1924).
A separate state was never foreseen under the original plan.
Violence stemmed from fractional minorities on both sides, against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of good people (on both sides) who just wanted to live in peace.
So, there was instigation of violence, and terrorism on both sides, and the overwhelming majority of innocents (again, both sides) suffered the consequences.
Calling out the state of Israel, without consulting neighboring states or even local inhabitants, was a selfish move too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** 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
-
***** Not 'Monday morning quarterbacking' :-)
You are actually explaining how the world works, because of human nature.
Of course, we are all either victims or perpetrators in the age old game of 'spin doctoring' or 'propaganda'. The more autocratic the state, the more 'propaganda' with agendas in mind, and the more liberal and free, the more 'spin doctoring' with ulterior motives in mind.
In term of WW1, I agree completely.
If I had lived back then, I would have jumped on my little boat and sailed to some remote island, waiting for the stupidity to balance itself out :-)
That is of course, if I had managed to see through the smoke of lies and deceit on all sides.
Of course, I wrote my comment on WW1 with lots of 'ahems' and 'cough, coughs', because these...lol...'entirely legitimate reasons' in 1914, were of course only pretexts to lure 'Jack, Joe, Giovanni, Igor, Fritz, and Sergei' the 'plumbers' out of the bar, and onto the battlefields...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rikudō Sennin I disagree.
Firstly, Hiroshima and Kyoto were chosen because they had not been fire bombed so far, making it clear that their military significance were neglectable. If these had been vital to the Japanese war economy, they would have already been razed to the ground by conventional attack.
The only reason Kyoto was saved, was because Henry Stimson had spent time there, and obviously didn't want to kill the people who had been kind to him during his stay — so the 'logic' was to kill people he didn't know....
Secondly, if the military base had been chosen as the target area (epicenter), then every single Japanese soldier would have died, while less civilians would have been killed (of course, civilians would always have died, irrelevant of the target area).
Thirdly, Hiroshima was chosen because it was undamaged, and would supply a giant open air experimental field after the war was over, to test the results of a nuclear attack on the surviving human beings.
Now bear in mind that this 'thinking pattern' comes from people who tell us that gassing and burning people is wrong....
Those in favor of aiming nukes at civilians, should at least not claim the rights of higher moral values, like this clown in a priest costume, or the previous poster....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** That is incorrect...drummed into you by continuous repetition.
First off, there was a potential chance that the nuke could have been a dud, making the entire reasoning baseless.
Secondly, there was obviously another choice, which was the negotiated settlement.
This would have meant dissing Stalin and the commies, negotiating a peace treaty with the Japanese leadership (based on a complete US occupation of all remaining Japanese colonies, and areas, incl. the Kurilles, and southern Sachalin) and avoiding more than 500,000,000 post-war communist enemies in China, Korea, and Vietnam.
The only condition granted to the Japanese, would then be the guarantee of the status of Emperor Hirohito....nothing else.
This is not only hindsight.
Only a fool would have believed that Stalinism and capitalism could have lived together in harmony, once the war was over....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
FletchforFreedom Maybe you should study basic English first before you study fancy theories.
We are not discussing 'salaries' needing skilled labor, but unskilled labor (wages), for which there are hundreds or thousands of applicants per job opening. Of course, sought after experts or specialists don't need minimum wage laws. Same is true for dangerous or unpleasant work.
FYI, a 'fact' is something which has happened, or known to be true.
dictionary.com
Therefore, in your theory, an example of a 'fact' is a statement like: 'in modern capitalism, workers are paid wages for labor'. That is a fact, and is not up for debate.
As soon as you add something to that, you end up with a 'theory' or ' hypothesis' (you can Google these definitions yourself, thank you).
Therefore, a sentence like 'in modern capitalism, workers are paid fair wages', is obviously debatable, making it a theory or hypothesis.
You're wellcome :-)
1
-
1
-
FletchforFreedom I'm simply pointing out a basic flaw in your argument.
In case you wish to state that doctors, pilots, Apple employees or oil rig workers don't need minimum wage, then we have no differences.
America, however, is a two-class society.
It's the first and the third world in one country.
For the lowest part, the 'third world' part of the US, your fancy theory doesn't work.
Now you state that the problem is the lack of jobs?
Well, that is exactly the point.
Never mind how you twist and turn it, the wages paid depend on the type of job. With no regulation some scumbag employers will pay 3 or 4 dollars an hour, and some desperate soul will STILL do it.
For that there is a NEED for minimum wage, and social security.
Minimum wage will ensure that a laborers will get a wage that will enable them to feed a family.
Social security will ensure that the 5-10% of people who will never find work (seeing that there are not enough jobs in their sector) don't end up on the street or as petty criminals (for lack of alternatives).
That is the 'European model'.
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
FletchforFreedom I've already psychoanalysed both our comments :-)
Your use of words (for example 'gravitate towards') makes it clear to me that you know that some people will always exploit, and others will always be exploited....but you'll leave that to common decency to right itself (a priest or an NGO somewhere).
That 'conscience of the majority', is not as powerful a tool as the law, the courts and a hefty fine. The intention of these is to scare off. In other words, avoid the worst BEFORE it happens.
Our difference here is simply one of 'prevention before injustice occurs' (my standpoint) vs 'correction after the event has started' (seemingly, your standpoint).
It is the difference between doing a yearly preventive maintenance on your car to try to avoid problems BEFORE they arise, or simply driving your car until something breaks.
None of these two are 'wrong' or ' right'.
It is simply a question of one's own mindset.
You want to explain a great idea (granted, it is a great idea), and I'll spoil it by telling you how human nature will corrupt it....
I do yearly maintenance on my car BTW :-)
There is no need to try and convince me, as there is no need for me to try and convince you.
In end effect, society will 'gravitate towards' the majority's will :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
khai do Sorry about assuming you were from Thailand, honest mistake :-)
Thank you for clarifying the importance of 'saving face' in the Asian culture.
IMO, and bearing in mind that it was the Japanese who surrendered (and not the popular misconception that the bombs MADE the Japanese surrender), and therefore the fact that Japanese leaders could not simply surrender without a complete loss of face.
One can therefore almost say that those Japanese leaders favoring the unconditional surrender, were relieved that they could now blame 'a terrible new weapon' for their own failures, thereby saving face.
Therefore we can conclude that it was the fact THAT the bombs were used, and not WHERE they were used which is the defining concept.
In other words, it did not really matter where the bombs were dropped, it would have given Japanese leaders the 'face saving' they needed to end the war.
My personal conclusion?
The bombs could also have been dropped on a military target, for example the Yokusuka Naval Arsenal across the bay from Tokyo.
The effect, and therefore the result (Japanese surrender) would have been the same....
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
AU HTWO O Now, this is always the point where "debates" turn interesting. It's the stage of misinterpretation, putting words into the other sides mouth, assumptions about the other mindset, and the prelude to the final stage (name calling, insults, etc)
In case that is your objective, I'm not interested. Here is what I mean.
You wrote "Yea the way we supplied the communists during the second world war, did Truman support their cause?"
Where did I write that western nations supported CAUSES?
My point is that western nations have no scruples in supporting and UPHOLDING the worst terror regimes the world has ever seen, and then hypocritically still claim the moral high ground.
"We did not bring about the revolution in Iran it was co opted by the Ayatollah and his thugs read a book dude"
The books I read start LONG before the Ayatollah. Western nations were crucial in shaping the regime of the corrupt puppet called "Shah", who infuriated his own people to such a degree that a guy like the Ayatollah seemed like a good idea. Of course, it turned out they were wrong, but which PREVIOUS meddling brought about the Shah, kept him in power and therefore supported him?
My suggestion.
Stop meddling, and let the people who live in other places shape their own way of life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's not about free speech.
As a private individual, she can think and say what she wants.
It's also not about her abstaining from voting, but the way she chose to go about it.
She didn't just simply abstain from voting.
Doing so, was within her rights and nobody objected to it of course.
PragerU is putting a spin on this story, to incite outrage.
Here is what happened.
She didn't merely chose not to vote (perfectly ok), but linked a political decision she took (which impacted the lives of others btw), to her own personal convictions.
That, should be frowned upon, because the USA is based on the separation of church and state. That means, as a leader, you're not supposed to value personal convictions higher than the law or founding documents of the USA, like the Constitution, or The Declaration of Independence. Note here, that it guarantees every American (not only Christians) the unalienable right to "life, liberty, and happiness".
We should be constantly reminded not to stand in others way (within the laws of the land) who pursue happiness.
1
-
1
-
@ventriloquistmagician4735 Even better.
I let Thomas Jefferson do it for me :-)
"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."[1]
from wiki
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@williammoney962 I understand the point you are trying to make, which is that "life was rougher", and that "hardship/brutality was the norm", etc.
That is why I would ask the historians "How do you know what most people thought 300 years ago?"
The fact that life was hard, tough, brutal, does not mean that the average Joe agreed to it or considered it fair. Fact is, none of the elites back then gave two sh*ts about what Joe thought, and Joe knew that if he voiced an opinion, he'd be on the next boat to Australia. And we're not talking Carnival Cruise Lines. More like a one-way ticket to hell.
Point is that the average people back then probably saw the brutality, but bit theirs lips and rather said nothing, rather than swinging from the gallows.
There were no polls (asking commoners what they thought about issues), there was no freedom of speech, no rights, no widely available newspapers, no nothing. Most people couldn't read, spread ideas, or write their thoughts down.
The question therefore is, if one says "it was considered ok back then", we can follow that up with "how do you know that?"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just for context:
She delivered an unrequested sermon...
“As a Christian, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right, and true,” Chow wrote. “I believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and designed sex for marriage between one man and one woman.
Where this bill crosses the line for me is that I am asked to promote a choice of identities that I do not agree to be right or best for an individual, and to promote certain organizations that uphold values contrary to those of my community."
Again, Christians try to define what is "right", and then cry foul if they are called out for their narrow mindedness....
Nobody asked her to give a sermon, and quite frankly, people are tired of it.
Nobody has to listen to anybody's personal opinions about "right vs wrong".
The founding fathers drafted the Declaration of Independence, that grants every American the unalienable right to "life, liberty, and hapiness "
Yup, as a real American, that trumps your or mine, or some random Christian's sermon any day, don't you think?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
She didn't just simply abstain from voting.
Doing so, was within her rights and nobody objected to it.
PragerU is putting a spin on this story, to incite outrage.
Here is what happened.
She didn't merely chose not to vote (perfectly ok), but linked a political decision she took, to her own personal convictions.
That, should be frowned upon, because the USA is based on the separation of church and state. That means, as a leader, you're not supposed to value personal convictions higher than the law or founding documents of the USA, like the Constitution, or The Declaration of Independence. Note here, that it guarantees every American (not only Christians) the unalienable right to "life, liberty, and happiness".
We should be constantly reminded not to stand in others way (within the laws of the land) who pursue happiness.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
Random Stranger OK. So I read from that that you wouldn't want the same for your own country, what Israel is doing...
So you admire wealth?
It wouldn't bother you if the wealth you admire comes from theft?
In 1956 (Suez), and 1967 (6-day War), Israel waged illegal wars of aggression, which included "land grabs".
Since 1945, wars of conquest are forbidden under international law. Israel started these wars using lies, in a similar way as 2003 was a war based on a lie (WMD, Saddam about to attack neighbors).
Unlike 1967, 2003 was not a "land grab". In other words, no territory was stolen.
Israel, however, STILL sits on occupied territory.
Would you admire a crook who turns up in your neighborhood with nice clothes and a big car?
1
-
Random Stranger OK.
Fine by me.
Just remember this.
If one directs a shitload full of money and innovation at a project, it is bound to succeed (as long as it is technically feasible).
That is why states like Oman, Dubai, or Qutar are similarly successful as Israel, which has received trillions of dollars in aid from various western powers over the past fifty years or so...
What you see in this video, could also have been achieved by a Palestinian state, similarly funded for fifty years, and in a situation of peace (no duress, outside meddling aka "divide and rule", war, or political intrigues, wars for oil, etc.).
This is what the west (and Israel) has been doing to the rest of the Middle East for 100 years....
Just remember, how the west uses money as a weapon.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mary Most Holy You are funny. You start "I will educate you..." and end with "....God this and God that..." :-)
So you believe in an invisible thing that made you out of mud, your wife out of a rib, then killed a bunch of people to make space for his "chosen", then got bored and left never to be seen again...
Sorry. Don't need "education" from anybody who believes in that.
I don't believe in your version of invisible friend in the sky, and don't have to in order to follow the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
You are consciously trying to erase the border between "rights" and "laws".
Rights are unalienable and always valid.
Laws change over time, to adapt to the times. A majority consensus automatically ensures that "liberty" does not slide down the slippery slope towards "depravity", if that is what you are hinting at, because the laws can simply change or be amended (state or federal level).
A legal document is a legal document.
Do you doubt the Constitution?
You don't wish to abide by the Declaration of Independence?
Therefore, all that is needed for a society to succeed is that everybody honors the unalienable right of all to "life, liberty and happiness".
Rights are rights.
If you think you can get a majority in Congress to change a law? Fine. That is your right.
The founding fathers thought hard about the weight their words carry, and they did a good job.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Live life, according to own convictions.
Just like the founding fathers wanted it to be.
Not to impose own convictions onto others...
You should have a chat with Chan.
She didn't just simply abstain from voting.
Doing so, was within her rights and nobody objected to it.
She didn't just merely choose not to vote (perfectly ok), but linked a political decision she took, to her own personal convictions.
That should be frowned upon, because the USA is based on the separation of church and state. That means, as a leader, you're not supposed to value personal convictions higher than the law or founding documents of the USA, like the Constitution, or The Declaration of Independence. Note here, that it guarantees every American (not only Christians) the unalienable right to "life, liberty, and happiness".
We should be constantly reminded not to stand in others way (within the laws of the land) who pursue happiness.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why?
Simple.
Zionist is the "lapdog" of western influence in the ME, and the British Empire was the "alpha male" (late 19th/early 20th century).
Today, the British Empire has been replaced by the USA (the Brits ran away from the sh*tstorm they caused in 1948, tail between the legs).
Today, "Washington" is the alpha male, Zionism is still the lapdog. Israel, is a "tool" of Washington's policy of divide and rule, not the other way round.
Israel is a child of the Cold War. When the hegemonic power (British Empire) ran off, leaving the region in a power vacuum, a new hegemon simply stepped in and took over. Israel was financed and supported as a tool of western influence in an otherwise "Moscow" dominated ME (along with Saudi Arabia, etc.)
1
-
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
-
PragerU spinning again.
Crime is a socio-economic problem.
"According to the latest FBI report detailing the most dangerous cities in the country.
Of the fifty most crime-ridden cities on our list, all but fifteen were located east of New Mexico and south of the Mason-Dixon line. Other notable hot spots were Michigan, with six of the fifty most dangerous cities, and New Mexico, with three cities that made our list.
Opioid addiction and loose gun laws no doubt contribute to the violence in the region. However, lay the map of poverty in the US over that of crime and the two are almost a perfect match.
Take, for example, Anniston, Alabama. With thirty-three violent crimes and seventy-seven property crimes per 1,000 people, this town experiences more crime per capita than anywhere else in the country. Meanwhile, nearly a third of its 22,000 residents live in poverty. From the smallest towns (Wellston, Michigan, and Bel-Ridge, Missouri) to the biggest cities on the list (Detroit and Memphis), the poverty level remains stubbornly high at a fourth to a third of the population."
[Safewise.com]
1
-
1
-
1
-
@waynesullivant The unruly mob of protesters broke in illegally, and destroyed private property.
"That evening, a group of 30 to 130 men, some dressed in the Mohawk warrior disguises, boarded the three vessels and, over the course of three hours, dumped all 342 chests of tea into the water.[67] The precise location of the Griffin's Wharf site of the Tea Party has been subject to prolonged uncertainty; a comprehensive study[68] places it near the foot of Hutchinson Street (today's Pearl Street).[better source needed] The property damage amounted to the destruction of 92,000 pounds or 340 chests of tea, reported by the British East India Company worth £9,659 worth, or $1,700,000 dollars in today’s money. [69] The owner of the two of the three ships was William Rotch, a Nantucket-born colonist and merchant.[70]
Another tea ship intended for Boston, the William, had run aground at Cape Cod in December 1773, and its tea was taxed and sold to private parties. In March 1774, the Sons of Liberty received information that this tea was being held in a warehouse in Boston, entered the warehouse and destroyed all they could find. Some of it had already been sold to Davison, Newman and Co. and was being held in their shop. On March 7, Sons of Liberty once again dressed as Mohawks, broke into the shop, and dumped the last remaining tea into the harbor.[71][72]"
[Wiki]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is apparently a scheme in place to keep people from certain ZIP codes from voting, because they don't vote for conservatives, neither from the GOP nor the DNC...
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
— John Ehrlichman, to Dan Baum[45][46][47] for Harper's Magazine[48] in 1994, about President Richard Nixon's war on drugs, declared in 1971.[49]"
[from wiki, War on Drugs]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jessiealvey2945
Venezuela didn't fail because of socialism, but because of populism.
I suggest googling "what is the difference between populism and socialism".
In a nutshell, populism is the "distribution of goodies" to supporters of a specific party (usually with a typical "supreme leader" who can do no wrong)...
Socialism is the "control over the means of production by the state" (note, socialism does not exclude neither private property, nor capitalism).
Populism is what Trump is doing, and PragerU, Shapiro, FOX, and other channels are screaming "socialism" at every country which fails, as a distraction of what the Trump Admin is doing to the US (populism = handouts and freebies to supporters).
Another country which failed due to populism? Greece, during the financial crisis of 2009/10, when the EU ran out of cheap credit to give to Greek populist leaders.
Venezuela failed yuuuugely when the price of oil dropped steeply. Now the price of oil is rising, but US sanctions means they cannot sell it, in order to stabilize the economy.
Trump is doing the same as Chavez initially did, which is taking a state income (USA = tariffs vs. Venezuela =oil revenues), and redistributing it to supporters.
Not everything "labeled" Socialism, also contains socialism :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dianem6951 Umm...I'm a centrist.
So I should "get out more"?
I've been to 65 countries, most for longer than a few months, on 6 continents of which I've lived and worked on three, and in 4 different countries...including the USA.
What should I "get out more to"?
Have you ever been out of your village, or how do you inform yourself?
Let's take your assumption that privatization of college make it cheaper and better.
Nope.
Wrong.
Just like drug prices in the USA are 3 times more expensive than Canada and every other country in the world due to the fact that it is in a for profit corporate hands, so will education...if privatized.
You're falling for a very simple trick, which is false equivalency.
Because cars become better if development and production is in private hands, it doesn't mean than education is the same.
Cost intensive fields like education and health care get more expensive if there is an incentive to make a profit.
[See US drug prices as an example]
Without strict regulation, it will become the next field for scammers, opportunists, and other snake oil salesmen...
1
-
@Kip Winner Even better.
Instead of listing sources, I'll give you a tip.
Take a few key words from my comment, and use Google.
Type "why is US health care 3 times more expensive than Canada", or "Why does a medication which costs a few dollars to make, cost the patient 120,000 dollars", etc.
Me, "old man", doesn't have to worry about getting wiped out by a medical emergency.
It always costs me 12% of what I earn.
It's 12% of my taxable income if I earn well, and it's 12% if I don't earn well.
It's 12% if I'm 20, and it's 12% if I'm 50.
You on the other hand, can't tell me how much you'll be paying in 15 or 20 years....that's up to an industry out for profit.
So, Madame.
How much will your health insurance cost you in 25 years?
You haven't thought about that?
Sleep tight :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kip Winner So I'll give you an example of how to utterly defeat a subjective opinion (rather than "conclusion/hypothesis" based on facts).
You write "wiki/rational wiki can be altered by anybody", presumably as statement that it isn't a reliable source.
Well...wrong.
Wiki is a PEER CONTROLLED open source platform.
That means anybody can theoretically join, and change things (to suite his or her subjective opinions), but that will then be just as quickly removed, if it cannot be followed up by facts or evidence.
[Note here, every wiki page has numerous reviewed sources and links at the bottom of each page]
In other words, write a bunch of uninformed bs, and it'll be taken down faster than you can cry "muh FREE SPEECH....WAHHH?!?"...
So, the counterfactual argument:
Why don't you go to the wiki site on the Holocaust, and read all about how it was a scam to promote Israel (right wing conspiracy theory), because according to YOUR theory, any neonazi can go to wiki, and change it to suit his personal view of "history", without a shred of evidence....
Well LMFAO.
It just doesn't happen.
If you want to post on wiki, you make damn sure that you have facts and evidence to follow up what you write.
So there...debunked :-)
1
-
1
-
@dianem6951 As for your 1st comment, you're spot on.
Your suspicion derives from the simple fact the "power corrupts, and ultimate power corrupts ultimately".
Once you've embraced the truth that any position of power in a hierarchy (political, military, financial, industrial, boards, journalism, think tanks/information, family, etc.) will ultimately corrupt if left intransparent, unchallenged, and unchecked, then you've become woke to the world we live in...
With PragerU, you are actually watching a spin doctor aka "think tank", twisting words and concepts to fit a preconceived conviction.
That is not how scientists work.
True scientists, gather as many facts as possible, to then conclude a most likely theory/hypothesis....and are willing to change this theory if new facts come to light...
As for your second comment.
You might be using a fallacious argument called "anecdotal evidence", in other words, deriving one's view of the world from what one witnesses (own surroundings or TV) without having evidence that this is actually the norm.
Yes, there are certainly a lot of dimwits, responsible for their own misery, but there are also probably just as many people, who just like you, do everything right but fall into misery due to forces beyond their control.
We, the people, should make sure that those who lead us inplace the barriers so that as few as possible "descent average folks" become the victims of avoidable circumstances.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TomFranklinX As for your second a third paragraph...uhm, well yes. Whoever said this wasn't so?
What is missing here, is the analysis why "venture capitalism" should be considered the nonplus ultra standard of a nation's success.
Note here that 90% of venture capitalist fail (50% in the first year).
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/288769
So it could also be used as a statement regarding "burning money" and innovation which could better be used elsewhere, in well-thought out innovation and research.
The examples you mention for "success" are also subjective.
Not always does the best product win.
Often it is merely the venture capitalist which gathers the biggest amount of cash, able to market and produce his product better, at the expense of a truly better product (see here, the "battle" between Beta and VHS, which the worst product won).
The battle aka "dominant design" is not always "won" by the best product, at the expense of the consumer...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_design
Money, is not always the best way towards innovation.
It can also stifle innovation, if left unchecked, and the forces of corruption and greed take over.
Which, leads to my next point....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TomFranklinX OK, I can agree with a lot of what you write.
There is little point in trying to prove the best way of reaching a certain goal, if the way is subjective.
We totally agree that the world is going to be faced with a massive problem in around 30 to 40 years. One of mass-unemployment and mass-underemployment of unskilled labor due to AI, robotics, and further steps in productivity.
Let's leave it at that.
As far as Wiki is concerned, they follow strict guidelines, which is more than I can say for PragerU videos, which is basically paid advertising.
https://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet/basics/wiki1.htm
All contributors are reminded of the Neutral Point of View policy....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
It is simply not possibly to write a paid contribution, with the hope of getting away with it, if that paid contribution does not follow the guidelines.
In case you have a specific grievance (say, a specific page or paragraph in wiki), maybe you can state this so we can explore this further.
In case you cannot state a specific grievance, I'm not exactly sure where to "file your complaint" :-)
Rgds
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@Kip Winner "Yes, Apps thank to Steve Jobs. Idiot."
Nobody "owes" Steve Jobs anything.
When I fire up my smart phone and use apps, I think about Steve Jobs as much as you think about Carl Benz when you fire up your truck.
Now, I'm just guessing, but you pay homage to Karl Benz every day, and send a prayer to him hoping that he made it to heaven....lol
Honestly, dude.
Get a life.
If it were up to arsehole-in-chief Trump, Jobs wouldn't even have made it to the USA
Steve Jobs - Wikipedia
Steven Paul Jobs was born on February 24, 1955, to Abdulfattah Jandali and Joanne Schieble, and was adopted by Paul and Clara Jobs (nee Hagopian). His biological father, Abdulfattah "John" (al-)Jandali (Arabic: عبد الفتاح الجندلي) (b. 1931), grew up in Homs, Syria, and was born into an Arab Muslim household.
FROM WIKI SORREEEE :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TomFranklinX Again, as for your question as to why European investors didn't jump at the "opportunity" of ride sharing.
It is simple.
Public transport.
To explore this, let's look at 3 metropolitan areas.
London
The Ruhr
Los Angeles
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_metropolitan_area
If you lived in Long Beach, how would you get to Venice?
By bus? I did and....lmao....it wasn't fun...
If you did the same in....
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhr_Area
...and ask the same question: how do you get from Duesseldorf to Oberhausen, the answer is simple...hop on a train, or "S-Bahn", and in a jiffy you're there.
Same for London....
[Note, not merely "anecdotal evidence", but true for all of Europe]
All of these regions are compatible, but due to the history of transport, only London and Ruhr have excellent and fast public transport. Europe evolved under the impact of trains, not cars.
So why should European investors fork out millions in start-ups when public transport (especially short and medium ranged) was fast?
Note also, that Uber was not "created" in New York City, with relatively good public transport.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TomFranklinX My question was specifically those available before 2010 (Motar App), before mass 3-g coverage for smart phones?
Hint, hint...Mobile coverage....
http://jammers.store/germany-faq-19.html
....compared to railway density...
https://www.google.com/search?q=german+railways+map&oq=german+railways+map&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l3.7543j0j8&client=tablet-android-asus-rev&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=Qpz77s3q0kCn2M:
...which you can overlay with "POPULATION DENSITY"....
And discover that it's all the same.
How many more hints do you need?
Obviously, the first question a VC would have had about the business plan of a ride-sharing app *before 2010" would have been about POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS.
To which the rhetoric would then have been "why should somebody wait 20 minutes for a car, to drive him through narrow streets, if he can hop on a train and be there in 15 minutes? Hmmmm?
[Note, not valid after say 2010, when both smart phones, coverage and the potential nr. of customers greatly increased. Uber did not expand to Europe until 2011, so that point is moot]
Where was the first Uber ride?
What was the difference between the METROPOLITAN San Francisco Bay Area, and the Ruhr?
Why would something which was a good idea in San Francisco (before 2010) be a bad idea in the Ruhr (before 2010)?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ambidextrousfapper LOL
OK, have it your way.
" In 2012, a man in Oregon was sentenced to 30 days in jail for collecting rainwater on his property (in a pond). In the state of Oregon, the government owns the rain, and you have to have a special permit to collect and hold it. Other states have laws against rain barrels..."
Isn't that ridiculous?
So what so ridiculous about doing another human being a favor, not being an a-hole, be nice, and call them whatever the eff they want?
Correct, nothing wrong with it.
If somebody wants me to call him "green alien", or "doctor Smith", or "sir", I'll simply do it.
What's the problem. Why be a snowflake about it.
Why don't you Google "dumb laws", and notice that there will be literally hundreds you won't agree with, yet you don't make a fuss about it do you?
Why not?
[Note, my question. Please answer it now]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@augustuscaesar8287 How would you know who is misusing the system, and who is just down on their luck?
Obviously, a system once implemented (social welfare system), cannot judge itself, but needs independent bodies to investigate/trial suspected cases.
Note here that many of these YT videos and "reality shows" are "paid actors" (seriously, they are), who are paid to "act" a "role" of "the typical welfare recipients" because it is known to be popular, and attract viewers.
The intention is to show "typical" welfare recipients as whole groups, in order to marginalize them (drug addicts, poc, homeless, immigrants, refugees) and spread hatred and dissent towards the entire group, foster stereotypes, etc. rather than doing case-by-case investigations.
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markarmage3776
She should have voted against or abstained, and keep her personal convictions out of a political decisions.
Fact is, Chow started it, by linking a political decision she took (simulated on campus) to a choice she made for others. Note, not for herself. For others
Here is what she wrote, linking her personal belief system, to a political decision she made: “As a Christian, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right, and true,” Chow wrote. “I believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and designed sex for marriage between one man and one woman.
Where this bill crosses the line for me is that I am asked to promote a choice of identities that I do not agree to be right or best for an individual, and to promote certain organizations that uphold values contrary to those of my community."
The US is based on the understanding that the "pursuit of life, liberty and happiness" is everybody's right, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. As an aspiring politician, she should honor the separation of church and state, and she should therefore have left her personal beliefs and judgement of others out of it.
1
-
1
-
@markarmage3776 @Mark Armage First, off. She did not only abstain.
If she had only abstained, or even voted against the bill, then nothing would have come of it.
Secondly, you are trying to turn the argument around.
Which of her rights are being restricted, if the bill had passed?
None.
Fluffy "feelings" do not count as a "right". She already has the right to discriminate in her church, but she is now asking to make that a state or federal right.
"LGBTQ nonsense" is merely your opinion
Her "liberty" is not restricted.
In which way?
Yes, she has religious protection, granted to her by the Constitution, and she is hiding behind this (as well as fake "love") to try and take the rights of others away.
What a lovely world you wish for yourself: the right to have a "protected status" to scream "discrimination" whenever you are targeted because of religion, BUT, a wish to have the privilege to discriminate against others....hmmm...how "do onto others" Christian-like...
In case you disagree, what right does the bill (state law) grant the LGBTQ community, that she does not already enjoy (Constitutional right)?
Same as politicians of any cult, religion, or movement, she should keep own convictions to herself.
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markarmage3776 Some people are born deaf. Some people are born without arms and legs.
Are you nice to them, despite them being different?
Some people are born with the "wrong" brain.
In around 0,5% of births, a "female brain" is born into a male body, or vice versa. Your god, according to your belief, wanted it like that. Obviously, if not, he would not allow it to happen.
https://www.papermag.com/victorias-secret-trans-model-2639631221.html
Be nice.
Don't discriminate, because they want the same rights you already have. That is the right not to be discriminated against, based on their personal convictions ...
1
-
1
-
So what do you you base your beliefs on, if not emotion?
Thing is, 99 % of the comments here don't understand simple rules about what being American is about...
As a real American, you keep your opinions to yourself, and don't try to impose yourself onto others. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for all .
There is a simply rule in politics, known as "separation of church and state".
Chow should simply have abstained from voting, and kept her personal opinions to herself. Nobody would have cared.
Instead, she chose to link her personal belief system, to a political decision she made...yup, and that is exactly why millions of people once immigrated to the USA, to escape the bigotry of Europe...lol, honestly, the irony...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just for context:
She delivered an unrequested sermon...
“As a Christian, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right, and true,” Chow wrote. “I believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and designed sex for marriage between one man and one woman.
Where this bill crosses the line for me is that I am asked to promote a choice of identities that I do not agree to be right or best for an individual, and to promote certain organizations that uphold values contrary to those of my community."
Again, Christians try to define what is "right", and then cry foul if they are called out for their narrow mindedness....
Nobody asked her to give a sermon, and quite frankly, people are tired of it.
Nobody has to listen to anybody's personal opinions about "right vs wrong".
The founding fathers drafted the Declaration of Independence, that grants every American the unalienable right to "life, liberty, and hapiness "
Yup, as a real American, that trumps your or mine, or some random Christian's sermon any day, don't you think?
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
PragerU is not telling the whole story.
They are using a propaganda method called "lying by omitting".
Here is what happened, and the timeline is important.
It is Miss Chow who "started it" by wanting to restrict fellow Americans' unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and happiness" and trying to impose her own convictions onto others .
Trying to restrict another American's rights, not based on a factual argument (say, restricting gun rights because of the many deaths), but using one's own "feelings" is un-American.
That means not understanding basic rights , as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
She didn't choose for herself.
She made a political decision (simulated of course) that impacted others and that goes against the spirit it of separation of church and state as desired by the founding fathers.
She did not only "abstain", which is her right to do.
She hid behind her Bible, stating that is what made her choose the way she did. Obviously, it is her own convictions, but she blames her "god"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rappakalja5295 But Empire need not have faded away.
Timely changes, to adapt it to changing times, and it would still exist today. Not as a "ruled top down" and imposed on others "Empire", but as a partnership of equals, suitable for the changing realities of the 20th Century.
The premise that "Empire was going to fail anyway" is faulty reasoning.
In the long term, those who "tried to defend everything, defended nothing" (Friedrich the Great)
In end effect, those who stood up for Empire "defended nothing", because Empire was lead by fools who were unwilling to adapt to changing times, and tried to cling to "the good ol' days"...
A "pound block of equals" of sorts (not stating anything exactly defined) would have been the best long term strategy, but the lords in London were not ready or willing to give up anything, so they lost everything.
The second big mistake according to the fallacy of "trying to defend everything" (external reasons for the decline of Empire) was clinging to the Policy of Balance of Power for the continent, in a rapidly changing world ("shrinking" as a result of technology late-1900s/early-20th Century).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Ensing also shared a photo of former US President Donald Trump with a reflection of a lion below him with the words, “It will be biblical.”
The YouTuber also tweeted “there’s not enough popcorn in the world for what’s about to happen”, on the day of the riot, clarifying a short time later she was referring to “the amount of corruption about to be revealed in our government”.
“As usual, the left twists our words,” she wrote.
Sephora, which contracted Ensing through the third-party rewardStyle platform, said it had been “recently made aware of concerning behaviour by Ms Ensing on her social platforms”, in a statement to The Hill.
“Most recently, she made light of the violence and tragic loss of life at our nation’s Capitol last month,” Sephora said.
“For this reason, we made the decision to cease all programming with her indefinitely, including having the video she created through an external vendor, taken down.”
Sephora said Ensing’s political views did not play a role in them ending her contract.
“Any claim that this decision was made on the basis of political or religious beliefs is inaccurate, we respect each individual’s right to have their own perspectives and freedom of expression,” it said."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@rappakalja5295 Whoever said "do nothing"?
Of course not.
If you have two enemies, who hate each others guts, then don't interrupt them
We shouldn't have had even the slightest inhibitions about "tweaking Lend-Lease" (to avoid the complete collapse of the SU, but not enough for communism to win)
We should have "aided" the Nazis by as little strategic bombing as possible, but only as much as necessary to aid D-Day, but to avoid the complete collapse of Germany, the backbone of the Axis.
Why it shouldn't have bothered us in the least if the Eastern Front had settled somewhere between Leningrad and the Black Sea, with the two sides fighting until utter exhaustion...
Why everything should have been done so that the war lasts as long as possible, in order that both sides become exhausted...
"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
Stalin 19th August 1939
1
-
@solologanuk @Rappa Kalja Whoever said "do nothing"?
Of course not.
If you have two enemies, who hate each others guts, then don't interrupt them
We shouldn't have had even the slightest inhibitions about "tweaking Lend-Lease" (to avoid the complete collapse of the SU, but not enough for communism to win)
We should have "aided" the Nazis by as little strategic bombing as possible, but only as much as necessary to aid D-Day, but to avoid the complete collapse of Germany, the backbone of the Axis.
Why it shouldn't have bothered us in the least if the Eastern Front had settled somewhere between Leningrad and the Black Sea, with the two sides fighting until utter exhaustion...
Why everything should have been done so that the war lasts as long as possible, in order that both sides become exhausted...
"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the [German] Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany, and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time."
Stalin 19th August 1939
1
-
PragerU is not telling the whole story.
They are using a propaganda method called "lying by omitting".
Here is what happened, and the timeline is important.
It is Miss Chow who "started it" by wanting to restrict fellow Americans' unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and happiness" and trying to impose her own convictions onto others .
Trying to restrict another American's rights, not based on a factual argument (say, restricting gun rights because of the many deaths), but using one's own "feelings" is un-American.
That means not understanding basic rights , as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
She didn't choose for herself.
She made a political decision (simulated of course) that impacted others and that goes against the spirit it of separation of church and state as desired by the founding fathers.
She did not only "abstain", which is her right to do.
She hid behind her Bible, stating that is what made her choose the way she did. Obviously, it is her own convictions, but she blames her "god"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jsatko You can actually google the answer, because "conservative" actually means an urge to stick to the status quo.
The status quo is obviously wrong if core human values as stated in the Bible (do onto others, thou shalt not lie, steal, etc.) are not adhered to.
These Christian values are smart, because ignoring them are often at the beginning of causal chains of escalation, which sometimes end in war.
What counts on the micro level (families, society), also counts for the macro level (states, alliances).
Or, "not doing to others" is then "reap what you sow".
Just look at the world today. Can you name me a single crisis or war that we did not cause ourselves due to the arrogance of power?
Causality is not forgiving.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
blue222blue Yup. Al Copone (Israel).
Well-dressed (facade), rich (GDP), treats his wife (citizens) nicely. Always surrounded by "lawyer types" (laws).
But, check behind the facade, or dig around to discover the skeletons in his basement and discover the depths of his crimes.
Again. No "anti-Semitism", because I can make a similar comparison to almost every single nation on this planet, with VERY FEW exceptions.
The reason I'm dumbing down my comments, is to address the obvious low IQ of the reader. I'm simply adapting my writing style, in order to get my point accross.
Yup. Even "laws" a state makes can be DISGUSTING.
For example the "Land Absentee Law". Even though it "doesn't mention any specific groups" [ to address the grievances of the other commenter] it is VERY CLEAR WHO IS MEANT.
It doesn't HAVE to "mention any names", if you look at HOW THE LAW IS APPLIED.
GET IT?
[Oh, and how convenient if OTHER LAWS make sure that the "absentee" in this law also remains "absent"].
CAUGHT OUT. GANGSTER.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Seeing how most of the comments are slogans and appeals to emotion, I'll just jump into the fray.
For hundreds of years, the British Empire went around the world bomb(ard)ing and terrorizing nations around the world. Not a week goes by and some new attrocity is unearthed: for example, search "The Bombardement of Alexandria in 1882" (then click on "images"). When they invaded half the planet, their "heroes" wrote stories about how exiting it was to "dodge bullets". The locals defending their own? Pfffft. Nobody cared...
Famines accompanied by racial slurs of "breeding like rabbits anyway", sticking women and kids into concentration camps, scorched earth policies, torture chambers, slave labor camps (called "penal colonies"), and terror bombing innocents called Air Policing...
No doubt getting a bit of their own medicine when their own cities burned down, and V-2s killed their kids, and they finally knew what it felt like. Not so "exiting" dodging rockets, right? Not so nice "reaping" what had been "sown" for a few hundred years, eh?
Brits are nice today, but back then they simply had to be taught a lesson they wouldn't forget.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NTJedi "A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion. A red herring may be used intentionally, as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g., in politics), or may be used in argumentation inadvertently.
The term was popularized in 1807 by English polemicist William Cobbett, who told a story of having used a kipper (a strong-smelling smoked fish) to divert hounds from chasing a hare." [wiki]
The core issue here is obviously
1) exploitation of children in general ( all children, boys and girls)
2) international scope, due to internet
The solution in the international internet age
1) special human rights for children
2) each country issue laws accordingly
Once this is in place, you can actually arrest and sentence the perpetrators you've identified.
No law. No crime.
No matter how much you whine and complain on the internet, nothing will change from the fore problem....no law = no crime.
Obviously, get your representatives to implement the laws.
What are you doing to achieve that?
Any kind of distraction from this core issue, is a classical case of Red Herring (distraction from the core issue ).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Starts off with a snowman argument.
"Snowmanning" is PragerU's favorite strategy.
The Green New Deal is about creating forward facing jobs, at the expense of "the old". Instead of subsidizing oil and coal with billions of taxpayer dollars every year, invest these billions in the future, to keep up with the rest of the world.
Fun fact, is that China and Europe don't care about American conservative policies, and are investing in the future.
But yeah, I guess if the internet existed a 100 years ago, PragerU would have created videos about "evil cars" and "stinking unreliable engines", and telling you all about how protecting the interest of the "horsebuggy industry", farmers growing hay, vets, and all that had to be protected...
1
-
1
-
PragerU are not telling the whole truth and neither are you...
You conveniently forget the waves of extreme poverty of the late-1980s and early-1990s, leading to Chavez being elected in the first place. The lesson of democracy is simple. If you cannot convince the people that the "model" you preach is better, by example, they will drift off...
Venezuela was subsequently ruined by "populism", not "socialism".
Google the definitions, and realize that PragerU is a propaganda channel, which skews facts in order to gather support.
China is a "socialist state". To be exact, a "Marxist Socialist" state.
Venezuela fits the definition of a social democracy, and it failed because Chavez bribed supporters with state revenue, funded by a high price of oil. When the price of oil caved in, he could no longer fund the promises he had made, and shifted more and more to threats, rather than coercion (more "stick", less "carrot").
Note, all of the above are "internal politics".
Today, the price of oil is back up, but US sanctions are stifling a recovery. Note, that this is "foreign meddling" building on the foundation of a corrupt system.
Same happened in Greece, minus the extreme foreign intervention. For decades, Greek politicians had lavishly coaxed supporters with gifts, predominantly paid for by generous EU loans. Greece collapsed when cheap EU loans stayed out after the 2009 economic crisis.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
She is not "persecuted".
That is your straw man...
She is being called out because of trying to restrict the rights of fellow students, based on these students personal convictions.
Here's the reality check...
Some people are born deaf. Some people are born without arms and legs.
Are you nice to them, despite them being different?
Some people are born with the "wrong" brain.
In around 0,5% of births, a "female brain" is born into a male body, or vice versa. Your god, according to your belief, wanted it like that. Obviously, if not, he would not allow it to happen.
https://www.papermag.com/victorias-secret-trans-model-2639631221.html
Be nice.
Don't discriminate, because they want the same rights you already have. That is the right not to be discriminated against, based on their personal convictions ...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lennard Church Go and argue with Menachem Begin and Mosche Dayan.
They HAVE ADMITTED that Israel started 3 wars.
What YOU think is irrelevant.
I don't have to listen to BS "History Channel"- propaganda from the 1980s...
But...I'll give you another chance.
The principle of your argument shall be EVIDENCE.
[Note here, NOT "speculation", "he said", "provocation, as a result of provocation, as a result of provocation", blah, blah, blah]
In other words, Arab documents, mass mobilisations, coordinated attack plans, etc. [HARD EVIDENCE] which will point to an eminent Arab attack in 1967.
PROOVE your allegation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Anthony
Whoever said that molesting a child should be considered "normal"?
IMO, the current system of placing barriers (21 for drinking, 18 for contracts, sex, etc.) to adulthood is a good start .
Molesting a minor is therefore a crime under law, and it should be, and everybody breaking such a law is guilty of a crime.
Now, that we've got that assumption out of the way....
Laws are result of debate, and change over time.
What was normal 300 years ago, is no longer normal today (ask Shakespeare...fun fact, Juliet was 13 years old).
What is "normal" today, will not necessarily be "normal" tomorrow.
You've actually got it backwards.
Marrying kids was actually normal not so long ago, and conservatism fought to keep it that way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mr Dyntasy In respect to the topic at hand?
Easy.
"Male and female" fall under the category "sex", of which there are 2.
"Gender" is a role model in society, played (or chosen not to) by the 2 sexes.
Concerning "gender": an individual with individual rights ("freedom, liberty, self-determination, pursuit of happiness" and all that) can either chose to conform to the pressure of peers or society, or go the own way.
Just to remind that just 100 years ago the gender role model of women was basically "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen".
Peers and society would have frowned upon and criticized women who wore trousers, or sidestraddled a horse, because that was not the "gender specific" clothing or behaviour at the time.
In case you are a woman, are you happy that rebels back then went against these norms of society, and fought for the right to chose own "freedom, liberty, and pursuit of happiness"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One for all No, I didn't say it was "unsuitable for kids".
I said it was unsuitable for smaller kids to watch, in the same way that the Bible is unsuitable for younger kids to read, without the guidance of adults [please read my post again].
In the same way there are simplified children's Bibles, PragerU could make a simplified version of their 10 Commandments video for YouTube Kids [Note, there is a kids channel on YouTube].
Instead of being whiny about "oppression", they should rather look at the other sides argument, and adapt their videos (for example, not including forbidden Nazi symbols like Swastikas in their video....google it, because it is forbidden to show this in Germany. YouTube is international and not only for the US. TouTube must consider international regulations, or get banned themselves. Why should they risk this? )
If they really wanted to be available unrestricted (in libraries), they could make a kid's version of each video at a fraction of the price of dumb lawsuits
But here's what people under the mistaken perception of being "persecuted" and therefore constantly preaching about being oppressed don't get....take the most logical way out, and go forward.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anthonyvigil7567 Just read the wiki article about the war in the Pacific, and consider the impact of "forces freed".
The millions of Chinese, British, Australians, Kiwis, Dutch, Indians, Soviets, plus resistance fighters from dozens of nations, etc. saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, simply by being there , and drawing off the Japanese forces.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Socialism is, in a nutshell "the means of production and distribution of goods under the control of the state", and often means wide scale control of the economy by the people.
Populism is, also in a nutshell "handing out of goodies (social programmes) in return for populist support.
Both are present in many forms, and in many political and economic models.
Examples of populism? Currently, for example Poland (handing out state revenues as "baby money" to increase birth rates), or the US (Trump is using state revenues, i.e. trade tariffs to aid struggling farmers).
Such "freebies" and "goodies" in return for support of populist leaders is common. It led to the downfall of Greece, after cheap EU loans stayed out after the financial crisis of 2009.
It also led to the downfall of Venezuala, because the state could not keep up with the promises it had made to supporters, once the price of oil dropped.
I suggest doing your research elsewhere, and not on the channel of a conservative think tank, skewing and indoctrinating the uninformed into chanting "VENEZUELA" and "SOCIALISM" .
They are using misdirection and spinning information for political purposes.
China is a Marxist Socialist state. I dare say, economically very successful. Mike drop...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Channels who use the "free speech" excuse to make blanket statements discrimination against certain races, ethnicities, political affiliation, or religions, should weigh their words carefully, or get banned. Period.
Nothing, but nothing to do with free speech, if one discriminates on entire groups, based on the actions of individuals in that group.
Both the far-left, and the far-right have few inhibitions concerning misdirection, lies and deceit...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wmthewyld It has been illegal to discriminate against any religion, ever since the Constitution was written (1st Amendment).
However, despite the founding documents of the USA, ALL PEOPLE were NOT the same, as is written down in ink.
The documents did not stop the discrimination against other races to continue (despite the beautifully crafted words). Blacks, Native Americans, etc. were constantly discriminated against (jobs, housing, etc.) BASED ON WHAT THEY ARE.
After 40 years of fighting, the LGBTQ community FINALLY managed to be included in the laws that made illegal to discriminate against them, BASED ON WHAT THEY ARE.
Chow, and other "good Christians" are fighting a battle to take that away from them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In the beginning, one nation's leaders made another nation's people "the default rival in peace/default enemy in war" as a matter of policy.
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, available for download as PDF file]
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.
And so the policy makers set off to encroach upon and surround their own chosen "default rival" with a ring of "temporary best friends"...
And so the biblical "seeds" were sown, which Europe had to "reap" later.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TropicalCoder For context:
“As a Christian, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right, and true,” Chow wrote. “I believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and designed sex for marriage between one man and one woman.”
“Where this bill crosses the line for me is that I am asked to promote a choice of identities that I do not agree to be right or best for an individual, and to promote certain organizations that uphold values contrary to those of my community."
Again, Christians try to define what "right", and then cry foul if they are called out for their narrow mindedness....
Nobody asked her to give a sermon, and quite frankly, people are tired of it.
Nobody has to listen to anybody's personal opinions about "right vs wrong".
The founding fathers drafted the Declaration of Independence, that grants every American the unalienable right to "life, liberty, and hapiness "
Yup, that trumps your or mine, or some random Christian's preaching opinion any day...
1
-
99 % of the comments here don't understand simple rules about what being American is about...
As a real American, you keep your opinions to yourself, and don't try to impose yourself onto others.
There is a simply rule in politics, known as "separation of church and state".
Chow should simply have abstained from voting, and kept her personal opinions to herself. Nobody would have cared.
Instead, she chose to link her personal belief system, to a political decision she made...yup, and that is exactly why millions of people once immigrated to the USA, to escape the bigotry of Europe...lol, honestly, the irony...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AllAhabNoMoby There is a difference between the definitions of "mass killings" (your essay), and "mass shootings".
Same as there is a difference between "mass murders", and "mass killing".
Wiki has a good description, in case it really interests you.
Analysts of crime make these distinctions, so that they don't compare apples and pears.
Fact of the matter remains.
These US-style mass shootings (per definition, lone gunman/gunmen, random victims, no motive) are extremely rare in other parts of the world, and if one wishes to get to the root cause, one first has to define it.
In Europe it happens maybe once a year. In the US, around once a week.
Can't hide behind "statistics", bro...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just for context:
She delivered an unrequested sermon...
“As a Christian, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right, and true,” Chow wrote. “I believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and designed sex for marriage between one man and one woman.
Where this bill crosses the line for me is that I am asked to promote a choice of identities that I do not agree to be right or best for an individual, and to promote certain organizations that uphold values contrary to those of my community."
Again, Christians try to define what is "right", and then cry foul if they are called out for their narrow mindedness....
Nobody asked her to give a sermon, and quite frankly, people are tired of it.
Nobody has to listen to anybody's personal opinions about "right vs wrong".
The founding fathers drafted the Declaration of Independence, that grants every American the unalienable right to "life, liberty, and happiness "
Yup, as a real American, that trumps your or mine, or some random Christian's sermon any day, don't you think?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just for context:
She delivered an unrequested sermon...
“As a Christian, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right, and true,” Chow wrote. “I believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and designed sex for marriage between one man and one woman.
Where this bill crosses the line for me is that I am asked to promote a choice of identities that I do not agree to be right or best for an individual, and to promote certain organizations that uphold values contrary to those of my community."
Again, Christians try to define what is "right", and then cry foul if they are called out for their narrow mindedness....
Nobody asked her to give a sermon, and quite frankly, people are tired of it.
Nobody has to listen to anybody's personal opinions about "right vs wrong".
The founding fathers drafted the Declaration of Independence, that grants every American the unalienable right to "life, liberty, and hapiness "
Yup, as a real American, that trumps your or mine, or some random Christian's sermon any day, don't you think?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Correct.
She should have voted against or abstained, and keep her personal convictions out of a political decisions.
Fact is, Chow started it, by linking a political decision she took (simulated on campus) to a choice she made for others. Note, not for herself. For others
Here is what she wrote, linking her personal belief system, to a political decision she made: “As a Christian, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right, and true,” Chow wrote. “I believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and designed sex for marriage between one man and one woman.
Where this bill crosses the line for me is that I am asked to promote a choice of identities that I do not agree to be right or best for an individual, and to promote certain organizations that uphold values contrary to those of my community."
The US is based on the understanding that the "pursuit of life, liberty and happiness" is everybody's right, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. As an aspiring politician, she should honor the separation of church and state, and she should therefore have left her personal beliefs and judgement of others out of it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wmthewyld I've already said several times, that EVERYBODY has the same rights.
I have said several times, that EVERYBODY has the same rights to pursue "life, liberty and happiness".
That, counts for ALL.
It counts for Christians, Jews, Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Native Americans, atheists, Scientologists, immigrants, LGBTQ community, hippies, farmers....rich, poor, you name it....get it? EVERYBODY.
If your idea of "happiness" means taking away the rights of others to pursue their idea of "life, liberty, and happiness", well...screw you. Your fluffy FEELINGS are not protected by the Constitution.
Your particular "god" is not protected by the Constitution. You have the right to practice any religion, and pray to your version of invisible guy in the sky whichever way you like (within the laws of the land), but the moment you try to restrict others in their pursuit of life according to their wishes, then expect to be called out for it...
Leave others alone, and you will be left alone.
Don't try that "confusing cause and effect"- trick on me.
Chow started it, by trying to rescind Title IX protection for fellow students, and linking that decision to her personal convictions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Will CVL Yes. Correct.
There is however, a truth which is "empirical", based on empirical evidence...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
As for myself, I assess information from a myriad of sources before reaching a conclusion, in a similar scholarly way as international organisations such as the UN.
Personal "truth" is often biased. Bias skews the conclusion. For example, a scientist who wishes to prove a certain theory, ignoring evidence which counters the theory. Or, historians who wish to achieve a certain predetermined outcome, will simply ignore any uncomfortable facts which counter the conclusion...
The reason I stated that the other commentor is "a fool", is because I've discussed with him on other videos, and under other comments. He "filters" all empirical evidence according to his ideological stance (aka "religion").
What makes his kind dangerous, is that they derive current political privileges from an unprovable ideological stance (for example the statement "God gave us this land", is not an empirical truth. There is neither evidence for "God", nor can the supposed statement be proven (for example, a date or document supplied as evidence).
1
-
Will CVL Well. Here comes the fun part.
There are no "bad guys" accept for the radical fringes of BOTH societies. The overwhelming majority of the people are prisoners of the situation they were born into, simply want peace, and are willing to make compromises....but they often can't due to the radical fringes in their own society.
My advice when reading or watching news?
Where there are interests (political, economic, vested, national, etc.) simply doubt EVERYTHING. Usually, the guy shouting the loudest is one doing it himself.
Then. Read, read, read...from as many sources and as many different analyses as possible.
I'm no expert either.
I've travelled to Israel many times, and have family there. They are mostly liberal in their outlook, and willing to compromise. Unfortunately they can't, because the peace process is often torpedoed by the Israeli far-right wing. They have often described themselves as "prisoners", as much as those on the other side.
A solution?
There is none.
The train is heading for the concrete wall and whoever is left will have to pick up the pieces afterwards.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikem1956 Here is the full context.
Note that PragerU "spins" the story, in order to generate outrage.
" Chow abstained and issued a five-paragraph statement explaining her abstention.
“As a Christian, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right, and true,” Chow wrote. “I believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and designed sex for marriage between one man and one woman.”
“Where this bill crosses the line for me is that I am asked to promote a choice of identities that I do not agree to be right or best for an individual, and to promote certain organizations that uphold values contrary to those of my community.”
“She could have merely abstained,” said QARC president Regan Putnam. “But she took it upon herself to go into this long dialogue, talking about marriage between a man and a woman, and shrouding hate in ‘love.’ Nobody asked her to explain her vote. Nobody who voted ‘yes’ had to explain their vote.”
End of quote
What is it about Christians, that they constantly have to judge others, and filter things according to the own belief system?
Why didn't she simply abstain?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikem1956 Nobody is upset with her, because of her personal belief system.
Maybe you understand it wrong, because you have not been given all the facts to draw a conclusion?
Here are some facts you might not have considered.
She voted on a topic which affect the unalienable right to life, liberty, and happiness of others
She clearly stated that her personal opinion affected her choice (at this point, I suggest googling her full statement).
As a representative, she should keep her personal opinions to herself (then nobody would care).
There is a principle called "separation of church and state" (which she should look into in case she wishes to pursue a career in politics).
So, again :-)
It wasn't the fact that she abstained (that is her right to do so), but her rubbing it into people's faces that her personal belief in an "invisible guy in the sky" ( her personal belief system) lured her onto this path.
Here is the counterfactual argument:
Let's turn this around.
Let's take the hypothetically possible situation of a vote about "abortion", and an LGBTQ member abstains, then giving a long-winded sermon about how his/her belief in a certain "god" made him/her do it.
Let's say this sermon includes references to a personal opinion, that all Christians do not live a "true life", because they do not follow the LGBTQ rules.
Would you agree to such statements on personal belief systems ?
Would you call that person out?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lennard Church They were "invited" by a third party. So, even worse. Imagine I get "invited" to settle in your house by a third party?
At this this point, I'm not sure if you KNOW what's been going on for a hundred years, but don't CARE, or whether you DON'T KNOW, and are not willing to find out...
Jewish land purchases have ALWAYS had a political background. There has ALWAYS been a strategy to land purchases (right from the start in the mid-19th century).
Right from the start, "money" and "a deed" were used as weapons, in a strategic game...
Here, to exemplify what has been going on since around 1850...
https://www.haaretz.com/1.5162149
Do you think the locals were stupid, and did not know what happened to Native Americans before that, who were ALSO fooled by the same old game of white colonialism?
First...put your foot into the door...
Second...use that foothold to EXPAND....
Third...bring in more and more and more of your own, displacing the original inhabitants...
Four...DEMAND political rights...
Five...Dispose of the original inhabitants, put them in "reservations", or allow them the "right" of becoming 2nd- class (or even 3rd-class if proxies are involved) citizens...
Tell me. How many Arabs were there on the Kibbutzim as EQUAL partners in the late-19th, or early-20th century?
These people were NOT STUPID. They knew what happened to indigenous people everywhere over the world over the previous 500 years when white colonists showed up, and OBVIOUSLY resisted...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jabibgalt5551 From wiki:
" The 1980s oil glut led to anexternal debt crisis and a long-running economic crisis. Inflation peaked at100% in 1996 and poverty rates rose to 66% in 1995[13] as (by 1998) per capitaGDP fell to the same level as 1963, down a third from its 1978 peak.[14] The recovery of oil prices in the early 2000s gave Venezuela oil funds not seen since the 1980s.[15] The Venezuelan government under Hugo Chávez then established populist social welfare policies that initially boosted the Venezuelan economy and increased social spending, temporarily[16] reducingeconomic inequality and poverty in the early years of the regime.[20] However, such populist policies[21] later became inadequate, causing the nation's collapse as their excesses—including a uniquely extreme fossil fuel subsidy[22]—are widely blamed for destabilizing the nation's economy. The destabilized economy led to a crisis in Venezuela, resulting in hyperinflation, an economic depression,[23] shortages of basic goods[24] and drastic increases in unemployment,[25] poverty,[26] disease, child mortality, malnutrition and crime. "
End of quote
1
-
@jabibgalt5551 According to the definition, socialism is:
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Miriam Webster
Yes, I know what socialism is.
China has socialism.
Be be exact, it is a Marxists Socialist state, and a very successful one.
Therefore, the logical conclusion is that it isn't "socialism" alone which is a problem, but rather a whole collection of problems which lead to decline.
Read any well researched article about the decline of Venezuela, and you'll see that it was firsto populism (Chavez used state income to redistribute to supporters, i.e. oil revenues to fund social programs). These programs had the effect of reducing poverty, and that worked as long as the price of oil remained high. The problems started when the price of oil dipped.
After the price of oil rose again, US sanctions blocked sales.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just for context:
She delivered an unrequested sermon...
“As a Christian, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right, and true,” Chow wrote. “I believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and designed sex for marriage between one man and one woman.
Where this bill crosses the line for me is that I am asked to promote a choice of identities that I do not agree to be right or best for an individual, and to promote certain organizations that uphold values contrary to those of my community."
Again, Christians try to define what is "right", and then cry foul if they are called out for their narrow mindedness....
Nobody asked her to give a sermon, and quite frankly, people are tired of it.
Nobody has to listen to anybody's personal opinions about "right vs wrong".
The founding fathers drafted the Declaration of Independence, that grants every American the unalienable right to "life, liberty, and hapiness "
Yup, as a real American, that trumps your or mine, or some random Christian's sermon any day, don't you think?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Everybody in America has the same rights to pursue "life, liberty and happiness".
It counts for Christians, Jews, Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Native Americans, atheists, Scientologists, immigrants, LGBTQ community, hippies, farmers....rich, poor, you name it....
You have the right to practice any religion, and pray to your god whichever way you like (within the laws of the land), but the moment you try to restrict others in their pursuit of life according to their wishes, as Ms Chow did, then expect to be called out for it...
Leave others alone, and you will be left alone.
PragerU is using that "confusing cause and effect"- trick, by leaving out who started it...
Chow started it, by campaigning to rescind Title IX protection for fellow students, and linking that decision to her personal convictions.
[Note, the fact that she abstained is beside the point. The fact that she judged her fellow students in a 5-paragraph statement in which she called only her own lifestyle as being "good and true" is not even mentioned by PragerU]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Zhou Wu Let's say I come to your house with a gun. Proclaim that "this is such a big house, you must therefore give me a room, because I have a god who says this room is mine". Of course, you MUST give it to me, because your house is big, and I've had a tough childhood...if you don't, YOU are the bad guy...
Then, I settle in, start changing everything, expecting you and the other people already living there to comply to my logic.
Of course, if you and the other original inhabitants of the house protest, I've got lotsa friends who have money and guns too, who see things exactly the same way I do...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Zhou Wu So, while everybody is squabbling about what to, a lot of time has passed, and you find yourself outside a fence around the house you used to live in...
That smart "lawyer type" with his powerful friends, let's call him "Abel"...has simply managed to get the town council, the mayor, chief of police, and the local money elite on his side by sacrificing tons of "dough"...
Now they are all at the pool, having a party, while you're at the fence.
It seems as if "Abel" has simply planned ahead better, and his ass-kissing tactics of sucking up to "the powers that be", have been more successful than you. You apparrently didn't sacrifice enough "dough" to the "gods" who ruled the world...
Strange philosophy.
Strange, strange...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Blah, blah, blah...America has always been about expansion at the expense of somebody else.
Like all Empires, policies like the Manifest Destiny, Monroe Doctrine, and the New American Century (and the new PNAC) will guarantee eternal war.
Wars of choice, like the Spanish -American War, like WW1, endless war.
War on this, war on that.
A violent militarist nation that is being torn apart on the inside (crime, gun violence) and tearing the world apart on the outside.
Bye, bye. F*ck off. Nobody will miss you...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wmthewyld PragerU is not telling the whole story.
They are using a propaganda method called "lying by omitting".
Here is what happened, and the timeline is important.
It is Miss Chow who "started it" by wanting to restrict fellow Americans' unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and happiness" and trying to impose her own convictions onto others .
Trying to restrict another American's rights, not based on a factual argument (say, restricting gun rights because of the many deaths), but using one's own "feelings" is un-American.
That means not understanding basic rights , as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
She didn't choose for herself.
She made a political decision (simulated of course) that impacted others and that goes against the spirit it of separation of church and state as desired by the founding fathers.
She did not only "abstain", which is her right to do.
She hid behind her Bible, stating that is what made her choose the way she did. Obviously, it is her own convictions, but she blames her "god"...
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wmthewyld "Confucianism, also known as Ruism, is described as tradition, a philosophy, a religion, a humanistic or rationalistic religion, a way of governing, or simply a way of life."
If you wish to describe atheism as philosophy...fine.
If you wish to see it as a way of life...fine.
But here is what atheism does not have that distinguishes it from all religions:
- NO churches or temples
- NO single/mixture of human or non-human cult figure/s
- NO rituals
- NO "holy books" or "books of wisdom"
- NO organised festivals, songs, events, parades, etc.
In short, no structure.
If you can't even accept the definitions of words, agreed upon by billions of people, how are we supposed to have a debate?
You can't even agree that the DEFINITION of atheism is fixed.
1
-
@wmthewyld You could have saved yourself a lot of typing by simply looking up the words "religion" and "belief" like I wrote 10 comments up.
Here, I'll help you out:
"Durkheim's definition of religion, from Elementary Forms, is as follows: "A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden – beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them."
What you then provided as "evidence" are various gatherings or movements.
None of what you link to prove that atheism is a religion.
Atheist don't believe in anything religions usually believe in.
Non-belief isn't a belief system.
You might as well post a link to cooking show and tel me that everybody attending "believe" in the "cooking spirit"...lol
No, even Druids "believed" in spirits, water spirits, fairies, nature spirits, etc.
Look up the definitions I gave you around 10 comments up, and then get back to me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wmthewyld Please scroll up.
I wrote:
"But here is what atheism does not have that distinguishes it from all religions:
- NO churches or temples
- NO single/mixture of human or non-human cult figure/s
- NO rituals
- NO "holy books" or "books of wisdom"
- NO organised festivals, songs, events, parades, etc.
In short, no structure.
If you can't even accept the definitions of words, agreed upon by billions of people, how are we supposed to have a debate?
You can't even agree that the DEFINITION of atheism is fixed."
You are simply ignoring what I wrote, and therefore strawmaning.
You cannot simply take one of those things (no churches or temples) and then show me a video of atheist meeting in a ex-Christian church, and then claim that you proved me wrong.
Nope, it is a meeting in a church.
Do you want me to show you a disco which opened in a church, and then claim that this is a religion, "because they are dancing in a church".
Atheism isn't a religion.
If you keep on repeating this bs, then answer the following question.
Who do they pray to?
What do they sacrifice?
Who is their spiritual leader?
What "holy book" do they recite from?
For a movement to fit the definition of "religion", it must...well, uhm...fit the definition.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
It is not about controlling thoughts.
Of course PragerU is not going to point out that Chow offered unsolicited advice about her own lifestyle, stating that it is to be considered "good and true", then linked it to a political decision that she made which impacted the lives of others ("simulated" in a college environment, of course).
[bear in mind, she ignored the "separation of church and state"]
Here's the deal:
People aspiring to politics, should keep their opinions to themselves, and honor the separation of church and state.
The Declaration of Independence grants every American the unalienable right to "life, liberty, and happiness". Whether it agrees with Madam Chow's lifestyle, is irrelevant, and she should keep her "advice" to herself...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ventriloquistmagician4735 Then I suppose you'll find the following hypothetical speech, made by some future trans politician in a position of power, slightly off...
Imagine it is the other way around: "As a LGBTQ, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right, and true. I don't believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and that sex and marriage is meant for everybody who wants to have a little fun. Where this bill of same sex marriage crosses the line for me is that I am asked to promote a choice of identities that I do not agree to be right or best for an individual, and to promote certain organizations that uphold values contrary to those of my community."
[Note, I took Chow's own statement, and simply changed a few words to depict the personal convictions of another human being]
So, I guess you agree with me that that sounds condescending to straight people, and that you'd choose never to make a statement like that?
Correct?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobs_toys China is a "socialist state" according to the definition...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
I'm not directing you to any specific site.
You can google, or use any other site.
The definition stays the same.
Who "controls" the "means" of production in China?
China is a socialist state (form of government) which uses capitalist measures to boost production, by means of the STRICT enforcement of government policies.
The state "controls" EVERYTHING. Laws, regulations, incomes, who works where, who lives where, who is allowed what. There is LITTLE or NO influence by the general public, or private organisations in any way. In case you have a good idea in China, the PARTY decides where that idea goes. And believe it or not, you better be nice to the party :-)
It's a socialist state.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nobody is being "persecuted". That is your straw man...
99 % of the comments here don't understand simple rules about what being American is about...
As a real American, you keep your opinions to yourself, and don't try to impose yourself onto others.
There is a simply rule in politics, known as "separation of church and state".
Chow should simply have abstained from voting, and kept her personal opinions to herself. Nobody would have cared.
Instead, she chose to link her personal belief system, to a political decision she made...yup, and that is exactly why millions of people once immigrated to the USA, to escape the bigotry of Europe...lol, honestly, the irony...
1
-
1
-
1
-
Israel only became a democracy AFTER they chased out 700,000 Arab inhabitants of Palestine.
Before, the Jews who come as immigrants, were a minority...so of course the invading "mastah" wasn't a fan of "democracy", and it wasn't even mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
Or, as one clever man once aptly put it:
"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You are not being "persecuted" Miss Chow.
That is your straw man...
You are being called out because of trying to restrict the rights of fellow students, based on these students personal convictions.
Here's your reality check...
Some people are born deaf.
Some people are born without arms and legs.
Are you nice to them, despite them being different?
Some people are born with the "wrong" brain.
In around 0,5% of births, a "female brain" is born into a male body, or vice versa. Your god, according to your belief, wanted it like that.
Obviously, if not, he would not allow it to happen.
https://www.papermag.com/victorias-secret-trans-model-2639631221.html
Be nice.
Don't discriminate, because they want the same rights you already have.
That is the right not to be discriminated against, based on their personal convictions ...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mountaindew7190 https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2011/10-anti-gay-myths-debunked
That should address all your points.
When I wrote about the brains being born into the wrong body, notice how I used quotation marks.
Obviously I know that there is no such thing as a "female brain" (only 75% of the size and mass of a "male brain", or vice versa). What I mean, is explained in detail in the article. It isn't as simple as stating "it's only genetics", or "its only environment", or "it's only the a history of abuse as a child". There are multiple factors that cause people to be LGBTQ.
Brains are a small part genetically different, but mostly "wired" as one grows up.
I stand by my principles.
It is not for me or you or anybody else to decide what another human being choses for him/herself.
You have not answered my point about "marriage" (as a legal union before the state) or "wedding/ceremony" (as a religious choice for believers).
As far as I'm concerned, the guidelines to be followed by a state, are not for any one entity to decide upon.
That, religious people can do in their churches, and on their turf.
Outside, and in society, all people have the same rights.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wmthewyld The interpretation of any code of conduct is subjective.
That includes Christian codes of conduct.
A belief system is only as good as the believer, and nothing in the Bible will stop a terrible person from carrying out terrible deeds.
Laws of a country are the same "codes of conduct".
If you go to church, do all the ceremonies, pray to God and all that, then turn around and steal, you're not a good person. Correct?
If you know the laws of the land, and don't adhere to these codes of conduct (intended to make society better for all), you're not a good person.
If you know about the Golden Rule, and don't follow it, you're not a good person.
If you wiggle, squirm, slime, bend, spin, twist and distort the meaning of words, to suit an own personal conviction, going against the simplicity of the Golden Rule, you're not a good person.
Reeeeeeeeeeaaaaallly simple.
Therefore, your example of Nazis in Germany is moot, since Christians also aided the Nazis in their rule and in their actions.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-german-churches-and-the-nazi-state
Simply stating that these were not "really Christians" is a typical lazy apologist's attempt at deflection...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wmthewyld I did not quote a certain unknown whoever called Jason Russo with "People who declare themselves god of their own little universe, but then forcing others to accept what they have declared as truth".
MountainDew7 posted that, note, which you are now trying to defend.
I posted an article about Kim Davis, who did just that.
Note, that Davis was given a job to do.
She was paid to do a job, for her fellow citizens.
She was paid BY ALL TAXPAYERS to carry out what a majority consensus had considered as "normal", with suitable "laws" corresponding.
With me so far?
Is all this too complicated for you to grasp?
This job, among other things, was to issue marriage licenses ACCORDING TO THE LAW. GET IT? Not according to her "own truth", or "the god she's playing in her own private universe" (la di da ...Jason Russo, whoever the hell that is... ho hum).
GET IT?
You do your job.
Do what citizens pay you to do.
Follow the law.
GET IT?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wmthewyld Google "confusing cause and effect".
The LGBTQ do not enjoy protection under the Constitution for their "personal convictions".
Christi and do.
You are not allowed to discriminate against Christians (any religion) based on their religion.
In other words, a Muslim baker is not allowed to refuse a Christian couple a cake with a cross on it, based on his own "personal convictions".
All religions have this privilege for their "personal convictions".
In other words, concerning religions, this works every way (in other words, Scientologists ate not allowed to refuse cakes with Jewish symbolism, etc. etc.)
The Constitution does not mention race or gender, so that was added by laws making it illegal to discriminate against race, then women.
That was later expanded (under Obama) to include discrimination against the LGBTQ community (Title IX).
Whichever way you wish to twist and turn it, it is "conservatives" or "Christians" like Ms Chow which wish to take this protection away from the LGBTQ, based on personal convictions and what should be considered "good and true".
[Note here, "simulated" as I've stated many times before, because it wasn't a "real" vote]
They had this protection for a few years, and now it is being taken away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Steven Dhanjal I didn't say you were Christian, and neither am I.
I guess you grew out of it as soon as you reached the age of reason....
In case you like stories about "normal" or "fluffy feelings", how about this one:
“As a LGBTQ, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right, and true. I don't believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and that sex and marriage is meant for everybody who wants to have a little fun. Where this bill of same sex marriage crosses the line for me is that I am asked to promote a choice of identities that I do not agree to be right or best for an individual, and to promote certain organizations that uphold values contrary to those of my community."
[note here, I simply took Chow's statement, and changed a few words]
Note also that personal convictions differ, and every American has the unalienable right to pursue "life, liberty, and happiness".
It is not for you or me, or anybody else, to decide what "normal" means.
I guess there are people who value the Constitution and Declaration of Independence more than others, and would never use their own "fluffy feelings" to try and limit the unalienable right Christians have to "life, liberty, and happiness".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
LOL, "hero worshipping" is hardly the basis for an unbiased historical analyses.
In 1940, Hitler (heading a continental power) was hardly in a position to defeat GB, Churchill or no Churchill.
Germany had no navy to speak of, and the LW a short-range tactical air force. Hardly tools which could make a dent in the defenses of a global empire, well-prepared for strategic defense by previous leaders like Chamberlain.
Each and every "war winning weapon" used during WW2, was already ordered or at least conceptually prepared before WW2 started.
After the Fall of France, it was principally Stalin's unwillingness to "make deal" to carve up the British Empire, which saved GB, the Empire, and the...ahem..."free world" (minus the millions of unfree vegetating in the colonies).
With millions of commies threatening his back, Hitler simply could not risk withdrawing his massive armies to strike elsewhere....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
@Ryvaken Just to add to the above.
If you wish to advocate a system of deputies, then a certificate of proficiency, coupled with identifying oneself has legit bearer of arms, could be the way forward.
Simply identify oneself upon entry, and then be integrated into the defense system.
An app for smartphone, finger print activated in case of a mass shooting could be another option. Such an app, coupled with a centralized "good guy" database, and GPS data could give valuable information to law enforcement, in the unlikely event of a mass shooting. Any "good guy" could then give a clear description of the shooter, identify himself, and safe valuable seconds.
1
-
1
-
Maybe it has something to do with the zealous arrogance of the Jews themselves, who marched in as white colonists (yup, DNA proves it), expecting the "brown locals" to bow down.
After years of trying to colonize Palestine according to the stone age cult they were followers of, the resorted to murder, terrorism, ethnic cleansing...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_political_violence
Today, Israeli leaders are in denial that they ever did anything wrong...
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/230783
...even if many of their leaders were terrorists, for example Begin...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(militant_group)
What kind of "uncivilized people" would name town squares, airports and streets after terrorists?
Yes, imagine the shitstorm if Germans voted a Holocaust denier into office...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joverstreet24 Your comment about Hitler is known as a non sequitur.
It does not logically follow onto the debate.
What is there in my comments which lead you to conclude that the debate is about cancelling the 2nd Amendment?
The correct answer? Nothing.
In fact, my point is to leave the 2nd Amendment exactly the way it is, but simply focus on the first clause (well organized militia) rather the the second clause (right to bear arms) in order to deal with the potential "evil government".
Scroll up.
Your first comment was that you saw a necessity for the same arms as the government, in order to stand up to them in case they turn evil. To tell you the truth, they'd take one look at a few guys in camos and AR-15s and bring on the drones, helicopter gunships, SWAT teams, SEALs, you name it, they'll roll it in....
In order to stop your uprising from spreading, they'll fabricate lies against you, which your AR-15 cannot counter. In case you are shown all over TV as a "baby killer" (lies), what are you going to do about it? Who will voluntarily join you?
Think outside the bubble.
In order to stand up to an "evil government", you'll need faaaaaaar more than a kevlar jacket and an AR-15.
That's my only point.
1
-
@joverstreet24 Correct.
The most effective "weapons" against the propaganda of the "evil government", is a counter offensive with hackers, and a dark web.
Do you have these?
The most effective weapon against Apaches are Stingers. or some other AA system.
Do you have these?
The most effective weapon against drones and UAVs are hackers, which can hack the system and cause malfunctions.
Do you have these?
Dreaming of being a "Rambo" isn't enough. Only teamwork and networking with others on multiple levels will give you the edge.
The "evil government" will not try to carpet bomb you like in 1965 or 1970.
They'll have smart weapons, killer robots, spy drones, and if you don't adapt, you'll die.
All the while the fellow Americans you are counting on to come and help you out, will sit on their couches, munching Tacos, saying "good riddance. 'nother terrorist gone" as you get splattered against a hillside...
The first step towards a future resistance, is a realistic appraisal of what the future battlefield will be like.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@amigahome Uhm, no.
I'm not confusing anything :-)
I suggested Google.
So, yes.
"Communism" and it's "little brothers" like Stalinism, or Maoism, can only be enforced from the top down by terror. Only a fool would wish for that.
Socialism is a theory.
Did you actually google it?
There is no such thing as a "purely socialist state", because it is a THEORY. In reality, socialism morphs by adapting to various political and economic models, to form mostly successful symbiosis.
Europe for example.
Not "perfect", because nothing is perfect. But certainly a model worth exploring.
"Socialism" adapts to whichever region or culture it expands to, as each nation finds the best solution to its internal problems. "Socialism" in Singapore is not the same as "Socialism" in Israel, etc.
The USA has already implemented dozens of socialist ideas, ever since Roosevelt, just not very effectively.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Their fears were probably shaped by the times the lived in, and the world they escaped from (Europe) with its monarchies, religious wars, wars of succession, etc.
IMO, they wanted to end that, and mold a new people following new principles.
If not, it would just have been a continuation of old European ways on a new continent, with division, with death, plunder and wars sweeping to and fro.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrMucc I suggest googling "what is the difference between populism and socialism".
In a nutshell, populism is the "distribution of goodies" to supporters of a specific party (usually with a typical "supreme leader" who can do no wrong)
Socialism is the "control over the means of production by the people" (note, socialism does not exclude private property, nor capitalism).
Venezuela isn't "socialist", since it is a largely capitalist system (70% of businesses).
Populism is what Trump is doing, and PragerU and other channels are screaming "socialism" at every country which fails.
Another country which failed due to populism was Greece, during the financial crisis, when the EU ran out of cheap credit to give to Greek populist leaders.
Venezuela failed when the price of oil dropped steeply (populism, not "socialism, started by Chavez).
Now the price of oil is rising, but US sanctions means they cannot sell it. So it's only a fraction of the story.
Rgds
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LeviPaladin
OK, I'll keep my sentences short, so you can follow :-)
She could have voted, or not voted.
That is her right and obligation towards those she represents.
She has the right to vote, or abstain.
Nobody, but nobody said she couldn't.
Therefore, just like everybody else who voted that day she should have either cast her vote, or abstain.
Perfectly ok
No problems...
But noooooooo
Poor Christian snowflake had to go on moral judgement campaign concerning the people whose unalienable right to "life, liberty, and happiness" she wanted to restrict.
The USA is a country which separates church and state.
Her personal convictions are irrelevant.
Nobody asked her to preach her own moral standards.
She chose to link her personal convictions, to a political decision she took
You want to have a Christian Sharia state?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UCJJwP_7uJL5yLQljDa-oXaQ I'm not a member of the LGBTQ community, but I'll defend their unalienable right to "life, liberty, and happiness".
They are not telling you how to live your life.
I'm not a member of any religion, but I'll defend any religious supporter's unalienable right to "life, liberty, and happiness".
As long as no member of a religious group tries to impose his/her personal convictions onto others, I'll defend them.
Yes, I'll even defend your rights, even if you dislike me, smear me, and falsely accuse me.
It's a principle you see.
It's called "do onto others".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
She didn't just simply abstain from voting.
Doing so, was within her rights and nobody objected to it.
PragerU is putting a spin on this story, to incite outrage.
Here is what happened.
She didn't merely chose not to vote (perfectly ok), but linked a political decision she took, to her own personal convictions.
That, should be frowned upon, because the USA is based on the separation of church and state. That means, as a leader, you're not supposed to value personal convictions higher than the law or founding documents of the USA, like the Constitution, or The Declaration of Independence. Note here, that it guarantees every American (not only Christians) the unalienable right to "life, liberty, and happiness".
We should be constantly reminded not to stand in others way (within the laws of the land) who pursue happiness.
1
-
Thanks for your reply, to which I actually agree wholeheartedly.
IMO, Chan made one tiny mistake, which I'll try to point out with a Biblical "put yourself in their shoes" situation.
Imagine this had been the other way around: "As a LGBTQ, I personally do believe that certain acts and lifestyles conflict with what is good, right, and true. I don't believe that God created male and female at the beginning of time, and that sex and marriage is meant for everybody who wants to have a little fun. Where this bill of same sex marriage crosses the line for me is that I am asked to promote a choice of identities that I do not agree to be right or best for an individual, and to promote certain organizations that uphold values contrary to those of my community."
[Note, I took Chow's own statement, and simply changed a few words to depict the personal convictions of another human being]
So I'm just guessing that that sounds a bit condescending :-)
But, I would agree that the reaction of those offended was a bit over the top, and they should also have "put themselves on Chow's shoes", and let it be...
It would certainly lead to a better life for all, if people stop preaching and making mountains out of molehill if one feels offended.
The way I see it, 50 or 100 years ago this would hardly have made waves, and the internet has a lot to do with how "outrage/fake outrage" spreads virally.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BexnRN Maybe you understand it wrong, because you have not been given all the facts to draw a conclusion?
Here are some facts you might not have considered.
She voted on a topic which affect the unalienable right to life, liberty, and happiness of others
She clearly stated that her personal opinion affected her choice (at this point, I suggest googling her full statement).
As a representative, she should keep her personal opinions to herself (then nobody would care).
Do you know about the principle of "separation of church and state"?
It wasn't the fact that she abstained (that is her right to do so), but her rubbing it into people's faces that her personal belief in an invisible guy in the sky lured her onto this path.
Here is the counterfactual argument:
Let's turn this around.
Let's take the hypothetically possible situation of a vote about "abortion", and an LGBTQ member abstains, then giving a long-winded sermon about how his/her belief in a certain "god" made him/her do it.
Let's say this sermon includes references to a personal opinion, that all Christians do not live a "true life", because they do not follow the LGBTQ rules.
Would you agree to such statements on personal belief systems ?
Would you call him/her out?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@machtnichtsseimann We are in agreement 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.
Everybody else simply voted, and got it over with, and restrained from giving long (the full "sermon" she made on her own opinions is an entire page) 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" way...
Let's turn this around.
Imagine if this was an LGBTQ person telling Chow that she should abide with the LGBTQ way of life (personal choice) and tel her that the LGBTQ way of life is "good, right, and true"?
You see, nobody does 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...
Honestly, if she had wanted to, 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...
1
-
@machtnichtsseimann Maybe you understand it wrong, because you have not been given all the facts to draw a conclusion?
Here are some facts you might not have considered.
She voted on a topic which affect the unalienable right to life, liberty, and happiness of others
She clearly stated that her personal opinion affected her choice (at this point, I suggest googling her full statement).
As a representative, she should keep her personal opinions to herself (then nobody would care).
It wasn't the fact that she abstained (that is her right to do so), but her rubbing it into people's faces that her personal belief in an invisible guy in the sky lured her onto this path.
Here is the counterfactual argument:
Let's turn this around.
Let's take the hypothetically possible situation of a vote about "abortion", and an LGBTQ member abstains, then giving a long-winded sermon about how his/her belief in a certain "god" made him/her do it.
Let's say this sermon includes references to a personal opinion, that all Christians do not live a "true life", because they do not follow the LGBTQ rules.
Would you agree to such statements on personal belief systems ?
Would you call him/her out?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why does Israel hate the UN?
In 1919, the founding nations of the LoN were predominantly...hint, hint..."Christian white colonial powers", with a few blacks, Bhuddists, and libruls thrown in to appease the left..
Just after WW2, the UN was faced with the problem of a colonial power which had recently cause a massive crisis (GB), being completely broke, and putting its tail between its legs and running from the sh*tstorm it had created by promising the same land to two peoples (independence for Arabs, and massive white immigration of European Jews to the Levant was a contradiction).
Today, the UN is a reflection of the colorful mixture of humanity, and grants each a voice. It is democratic (well, sorta), includes ALL peoples, and no longer dominated by right-wing views, and is therefore hated by those who wish for "the good ol' days" of white power..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@R Shreve Google the War on Drugs.
The violence was initiated by the state, a long time ago, in a "War on Drugs"-policy.
A "divide and rule"-tool to get citizens divided, so the tip of the pyramid scheme can skim the cream off the top and get richer and richer...
These kind of "divide and rule"-schemes are being set up all over the world, but nowhere is it more prolific/clear/visible than in the USA.
Demoncrats/Repugnicons? All the same cabal...
They go to the same parties.
The only difference is the people whose votes they are trying to buy...
The War on Drugs means that "certain people" are disproportionately controlled, rounded up, sentenced, charged and locked up for what you consider normal: a few grams of weed.
It also means that "certain neighborhoods" are disproportionately policed, invaded, controlled, and imposed upon by your state/local government/authorities.
It's time to end the dumb laws that leads to this situation.
Tell me, in case you disagree: why should a white middle-class neighborhood infested with opioid addicts, not get the same treatment by the cops, as poor neighborhoods?
Who decided that an opioid addict is a victim but a heroin/crack addict a criminal?
You answer that truthfully, even if only to yourself in silence, and you'll know the answer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
PragerU is not telling the whole story.
They are using a propaganda method called "lying by omitting".
Here is what happened, and the timeline is important.
It is Miss Chow who "started it" by wanting to restrict fellow Americans' unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and happiness" and trying to impose her own convictions onto others .
Trying to restrict another American's rights, not based on a factual argument (say, restricting gun rights because of the many deaths), but using one's own "feelings" is un-American.
That means not understanding basic rights , as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
She didn't choose for herself.
She made a political decision (simulated of course) that impacted others and that goes against the spirit it of separation of church and state as desired by the founding fathers.
She did not only "abstain", which is her right to do.
She hid behind her Bible, stating that is what made her choose the way she did. Obviously, it is her own convictions, but she blames her "god"...
1
-
1
-
Luies Wartin Why?
Would you mind adding an explanation? If not, it's only an opinion, and you know what they say about opinions, right?
Opinions are like arseholes....everybody's got one 😂😂😂
The UN today is 100% fair, because the UN is actually a REFLECTION of the diversity on our planet today. ALL races, religions, nations and countries have a say.
Unlike the League of 1919, which was basically a white privilege "colonial Judea-Christian white man's club". You're not white, or a white bootlicker, you just didn't get in and make decisions...too bad. Right?
(So you see, Luies, that's how you substantiate an 'opinion' with an explanation to make it valid)
You're not a white supremacist by any chance, are you?
1
-
Luies Wartin A short alternative history of Goa, to explain to you why YOU are wrong...
Let's say it's 1919, and a group of white ideologues decide they are "the lost tribe of Goa", and organize their "return" with the help of the equally white League of Nations at the time, and because India is a British colony, and Indians are only 2nd class on the pecking order of races...
These supporters of the "Lost tribe of Goa" (90% white, 10% Indian DNA) arrive by the millions, displacing and oppressing the people already living there. They create elitist communes, drive the locals off their land...locals who have lived on this land for generations, with the aid of shitloads of money and the guns they bring. They also use terror to suppress any objection the locals have (google Irgun, Lehi, Haganah)...
In 1948, the new state of India has had enough of this, and invades. But the whites already living in Goa are stronger, and win...
Then the whites scream "YOU ATTACKED US...BOO...HOO..."
Note here, that these whites have "friends in high places", and the international newspapers print distorted versions of the facts, exaggerating every single "Indian act of aggression", while virtually ignoring everything the white invaders do.
What do you think will happen?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
LOL...nope. He dealt with stolen property. You see, he got it from this English guy James, who knocked in the head of the previous owner called Omar or something, who was from Turkey. This dude Omar also knocked the head of some Italian, guy...but that was so long ago I honestly don't remember...
So, dealing with stolen property is now an acceptable practice?
Oh, and not "bought".
Try "down payment".
Jewish organisations only "bought" 6% of the from the rightful owners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_land_purchase_in_Palestine
Yup. Imagine if I "buy" your car, give you 6% of the value, and then simply take off...LOL.
Nice try though...
So, after a few years, I arrive on the scene with my (LOL) "legal car", new mags, plush seat, new paintjob...and EVERYBODY pats my back about how great it looks...
It seems as if there are a lot of things your "teachers" never told you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
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.
As legal representation, Chow should simply have voted or abstained, just like everybody else who voted did.
Everybody else simply voted, and restrained from giving long winded (the full "sermon" she made is an entire page) personal 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" way (quoting Chow).
In short, none of the other representatives chose to misuse their positions, as a platform to preach own personal beliefs and it is strange that only Christians ever do so...
Let's turn this around.
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 the LGBTQ way of life is "good, right, and true"?
You see, nobody does 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...
1
-
PragerU is not telling the whole story.
They are using a propaganda method called "lying by omitting".
Here is what happened, and the timeline is important.
It is Miss Chow who "started it" by wanting to restrict fellow Americans' unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and happiness" and trying to impose her own convictions onto others .
Trying to restrict another American's rights, not based on a factual argument (say, restricting gun rights because of the many deaths), but using one's own "feelings" is un-American.
That means not understanding basic rights , as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
She didn't choose for herself.
She made a political decision (simulated of course) that impacted others and that goes against the spirit it of separation of church and state as desired by the founding fathers.
She did not only "abstain", which is her right to do.
She hid behind her Bible, stating that is what made her choose the way she did. Obviously, it is her own convictions, but she blames her "god"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bluecapone You are dwelling off...
You started this comment with "nobody needs special rights" and "everybody already has equal rights".
Bull.
"At least one in five of those surveyed said they have been discriminated against in the process of applying for a job (20 percent), being paid equally or considered for a promotion (22 percent) or buying or renting a home (22 percent), the survey found.
In terms of education, among those in the LGBTQ community who applied for or attended college, 20 percent said they had experienced discrimination because of their gender identity or sexual orientation while applying or while at college."
As a good "Christian", I assume you don't care.
You feel posh with your special privileges, knowing full well that nobody can point at your personal convictions, and discriminate against you.
The other way around, you can discriminate.
Nice, "human being" huh?
[ps, it's not about religion, but personal convictions ]
1
-
1
-
@bluecapone Yes, the LGBTQ community has certainly faced a similar level of discrimination as Christianity historically also did.
The term "gay bashing" as a kind of sport for intolerant right-wingers is not a myth. In fact, it was very common when I grew up in the 1980s.
Linguistically and historically there is a difference between the words/terms gender and sex.
"In science, the general terms, "sex" refers to the biological differences between males and females, such as the genitalia and genetic differences. "
"Gender" refers to the role of a male or female in society, known as a gender role, or an individual's concept of themselves, or gender identity."
In short:
There are 2 sexes.
Gender is whatever the individual wants it to be.
It is up to society to accept or deny the gender role an individual choses while 'in pursuit of happiness".
For my part.
I don't care.
It's really such a small fraction, that it doesnt bother me, and even if there were more, it wouldnt bother me either.
I have no ideological stance against another human being pursuing happiness (within the laws of the land of course).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The reality is that it doesn't really matter whether one "believes" in climate change/climate change hoax...
The reality is that it can't harm investing in the future.
The Green New Deal is about creating forward facing jobs, at the expense of "the old". Instead of subsidizing oil and coal with billions of taxpayer dollars every year, invest these billions in the future, to keep up with the rest of the world.
Fun fact, is that China and Europe don't care about American conservative policies, and are investing in the future.
But yeah, I guess if the internet existed a 100 years ago, PragerU would have created videos about "evil cars" and "stinking unreliable engines", and telling you all about how protecting the interest of the "horsebuggy industry", farmers growing hay, vets, and all that had to be protected...
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheBigEasyConservative The video starts of with a typical strawman.
Here what really happened...
https://secondnexus.com/news/aoc-narrates-climate-change-video/
....out of which opponents of the Green New Deal then made "world will end in 12 years".
Solar is not a heavy industry but a light industry.
https://simplicable.com/new/light-industry
Large scale wind farms are also a heavy industry, but its impact is far less than oil, coal, and nuclear.
Note here, that nobody is arguing to "switch everything off at once", but to rather finally start the transition which was foreseen as necessary 40 years ago.
For 40 years, nothing but talk, debates, scheming, sidelining, deflection, and paid opinion shaping to invest further in industries with no future instead of investing the time, money and creative innovation in industries which do have a future.
Oil, coal, and gas are not endless.
When would you start the necessary transition? In a hundred years when there's nothing left?
[Note, we have to transition at some point anyway, so why not from today on?]
1
-
@TheBigEasyConservative Yes, despite the constant brake pads and backpedaling by conservative energy producers, much progress has been made.
Unfortunately, not enough.
As far as batteries are concerned....
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190201081503.htm
Salt is almost endless, and if even a fraction of the trillions poured into the research and subsidies provided to the oil industry had been invested in New technologies, we might not even be here today discussing the negative effects of lithium.
We'd already have sodium ion batteries.
Same as that example, it takes place in many areas. The resources (time, engineering, research, money, manpower, etc.) invested in conventional R&D should go to the future, not the past.
Out with the old, in with the new.
Step by step of course, but faster.
There is too much dragging of feet.
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@canesvenatici9588 Stating that there are minor differences between races is not "racist" of course.
In fact, Darwinism clearly supports the fact the people "breed" and adapt according to their surroundings.
Rural areas demand sturdy and strong people, and these will stand out as mating partners to women.
In modern societies, "geeks" and "nerds" are more affluent, and make them appear more desirable to women as mating partners.
So, each passing generation will reflect that.
Africans will remain dominant athletes, as long as Africa remains predominantly rural.
Europeans and Asians will be predominantly less sturdy, as a reflection of the urban societies they live in.
Note, exceptions do not confirm rules. So of course there will always be differences, and exceptions.
We are a reflection of our surroundings, and it will take several generations of "natural selection" to adapt to the changing environment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
PragerU is not telling the whole story.
They are using a propaganda method called "lying by omitting".
Here is what happened, and the timeline is important.
It is Miss Chow who "started it" by wanting to restrict fellow Americans' unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and happiness" and trying to impose her own convictions onto others .
Trying to restrict another American's rights, not based on a factual argument (say, restricting gun rights because of the many deaths), but using one's own "feelings" is un-American.
That means not understanding basic rights , as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
She didn't choose for herself.
She made a political decision (simulated of course) that impacted others and that goes against the spirit it of separation of church and state as desired by the founding fathers.
She did not only "abstain", which is her right to do.
She hid behind her Bible, stating that is what made her choose the way she did. Obviously, it is her own convictions, but she blames her "god"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@francisyockey2215 Yes, that is correct.
Tu quoque is, however, not a "Christian" value.
To break through the eternal cycle of violence, hatred, war, conquest, suppression, oppression, and domination... with the constant scream of "you TOOOOO" [but, but, but..."they" did it too :-)], Jesus created "do onto others".
You dig?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree.
But Chow is an ideologue.
Religion is an ideology.
The founding fathers recognized that, and separated church and state.
With their current propaganda, channels like PragerU are trying to erase that border, by telling only half the story, in order to incite outrage...
Of course PragerU is not going to point out that Chow offered unsolicited advice about her own lifestyle, stating that it is to be considered "good and true", then linked it to a political decision that she made which impacted the lives of others ("simulated" in a college environment, of course).
Here's the deal:
People aspiring to politics, should keep their opinions to themselves, and honor the separation of church and state.
The Declaration of Independence grants every American the unalienable right to "life, liberty, and happiness". Whether it agrees with Madam Chow's lifestyle, is irrelevant, and she should keep her "advice" to herself...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
PragerU is not telling the whole story.
They are using a propaganda method called "lying by omitting".
Here is what happened, and the timeline is important.
It is Miss Chow who "started it" by wanting to restrict fellow Americans' unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and happiness" and trying to impose her own convictions onto others .
Trying to restrict another American's rights, not based on a factual argument (say, restricting gun rights because of the many deaths), but using one's own "feelings" is un-American.
That means not understanding basic rights , as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
She didn't choose for herself.
She made a political decision (simulated of course) that impacted others and that goes against the spirit it of separation of church and state as desired by the founding fathers.
She did not only "abstain", which is her right to do.
She hid behind her Bible, stating that is what made her choose the way she did. Obviously, it is her own convictions, but she blames her "god"...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
blue222blue The PLO is a result of the Naqba, itself a result of the war of 1948, itself a result of the one-sided declaration of independence by one-third of the population...
Who asked them to?
So you see. It all starts with an immoral choice.
Nobody ASKED...LOL..."imgrunts and refgees" to declare their own independence over a two-thirds local majority.
So again.
No no mass immigration of ideologically indoctrinated whites into the Levant (aka Zionism), no civil war, no declaration of independence, no "neighbors attacking", no Naqba, no PLO, no terrorists, no rockets, no Hezbollah, no invasion of Lebanon, no....no...no.
You you see dude.
Yet again it starts with a bunch of German-speaking "blood and Lebensraum"- types showing up on the shores of another people....
1
-
blue222blue 2003 was a war for oil.
A causal result dating back to western meddling (regime change) in Iran in the 50s, resulting in an unpopular regime, resulting in the Ayatollahs, resulting in the support for Saddam as a regional proxy, resulting in a bloated dictator who thought his privileges included invading Kuweit, resulting in a Blitzkrieg in 1991...
At this point Saddam could not be removed, since he was still needed as "balancing powers" tool for our elites.
On the other hand, Iraqi oil was entrapped in the desert sand...not sellable. Obviously, every cent Saddam would have received would have gone towards buying arms...
So.
Of course.
To release all that oil to the market, Saddam "had to go". Another "regime change" was necessary.
Pity about the 6000 dead Americans, the trillions of dollars wasted, the scared souls and PTSD....
Should have been more :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@carissstewart3211 "Do unto others" or the Golden Rule, is near perfect, as long as one sticks to it to the letter.
Our Christian predecessors did not, obviously, and they obviously also fell for the fallacy of Tu Quoque, by pointing at others in the same time period, stating "well, they are also doing it, so why not us".
That is exactly what Christianity teaches us not to do.
It is in fact a guideline to lead by example, and these people simply ignored what didn't suite them (mainly, for reasons of greed).
Not excusable, at any point in history the past 2000 years.
I'm glad we agree on this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Everybody in America has the same rights to pursue "life, liberty and happiness".
It counts for Christians, Jews, Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Native Americans, atheists, Scientologists, immigrants, LGBTQ community, hippies, farmers....rich, poor, you name it....
You have the right to practice any religion, and pray to your god whichever way you like (within the laws of the land), but the moment you try to restrict others in their pursuit of life according to their wishes, as Me Chow did, then expect to be called out for it...
Leave others alone, and you will be left alone.
PragerU is using that "confusing cause and effect"- trick, by leaving out who started it...
Chow started it, by campaigning to rescind Title IX protection for fellow students, and linking that decision to her personal convictions.
[Note, the fact that she abstained is beside the point. The fact that that she judged her fellow students in a 5-paragraph statement in which she called only her own lifestyle as being "good and true" is not even mentioned by PragerU]
1
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nobody "hates her" because of what she is.
There is opposition, because of what she did.
Here is the reality...
Some people are born deaf.
Some people are born without arms and legs.
Are you nice to them, despite them being different?
Do you discriminate?
Some people are born with the "wrong" brain.
In around 0,5% of births, a "female brain" is born into a male body, or vice versa. Your god, according to your belief, wanted it like that. Obviously, if not, he would not allow it to happen.
https://www.papermag.com/victorias-secret-trans-model-2639631221.html
Be nice.
Don't discriminate, because they want the same rights you already have. That is the right not to be discriminated against, based on their personal convictions ...
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheL4LMusic Maybe I should've written "certain ZIP codes" rather than "certain people" :-)
There is apparently a scheme in place to keep "alternative people" from voting, because they don't vote for conservatives, neither from the GOP nor the DNC...
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
— John Ehrlichman, to Dan Baum[45][46][47] for Harper's Magazine[48] in 1994, about President Richard Nixon's war on drugs, declared in 1971.[49]"
[from wiki, War on Drugs]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
PragerU are not telling you the whole truth.
Venezuela was ruined by "populism", not "socialism".
Google the definitions, and realize that PragerU is a propaganda channel, which skews facts in order to gather support.
China is a "socialist state". To be exact, a "Marxist Socialist" state.
Venezuela fits the definition of a social democracy, and it failed because Chavez bribed supporters with state revenue, funded by a high price of oil. When the price of oil caved in, he could no longer fund the promises he had made, and shifted more and more to threats, rather than coercion (more "stick", less "carrot").
Note, all of the above are "internal politics".
Today, the price of oil is back up, but US sanctions are stifling a recovery. Note, that this is "foreign meddling" building on the foundation of a corrupt system.
Same happened in Greece, minus the extreme foreign intervention. For decades, Greek politicians had lavishly coaxed supporters with gifts, predominantly paid for by generous EU loans. Greece collapsed when cheap EU stayed out after the 2009 economic crisis.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is apparently a scheme in place to keep "alternative people" from...ahem..."certain ZIP codes" from voting, because they don't vote for conservatives, neither from the GOP nor the DNC...
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
— John Ehrlichman, to Dan Baum[45][46][47] for Harper's Magazine[48] in 1994, about President Richard Nixon's war on drugs, declared in 1971.[49]"
[from wiki, War on Drugs]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jaime Lynd Where did I write that "blacks should be protected"?
As far as im concerned, EVERY person deserves protection from discrimination, but not "protection" from being the butt-end of a joke.
As far as I'm concerned, stories which are clearly jokes are fine irrelevant if they are about blacks, Asians, Jews, Whites...whatever. Roseanne has explained herself, and apologised and deleted the tweet, which is why I said "I wouldn't have fired her". The douche who did is clearly an idiot.
That is what I meant with people should "grow a pair".
There is a BIG difference between "a joke" and "discrimination" though. Believe me, if you should EVER be fired BECAUSE you are a Christian, I'll be there and fight for your rights. Same as I'll be there to fight for the rights of every other case of discrimination.
But "jokes" and "discrimination" are two completely different things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jaime Lynd I don't get the point you are trying to make.
Roseanne worked for a company. The boss decided to fire her after her tweet.
Now, if Roseanne feels she has been unfairly treated, she can go to court.
She can do this, because it is a free country, exactly the same way as the baker did...
https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2018/june/jack-phillips-masterpiece-cakeshop-wins-supreme-court-free-.html
He went to court, and won.
I don't get your point.
It is a free country, not "your country", "my country", "the bakers country" or the "gay couples country". Everybody has the same rights, and so does Roseanne.
If she thinks she has a case, she should go to court.
What you or I think is irrelevant to the issue. Ours are just personal opinions...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidhill2444 Why should I feel hurt? I'm not a snowflake :-)
Just when I hear bs, I'll call it out.
Because to anybody even halfway informed, would know that throughout history, gender has been fluid. Joan of Arc proves for example. Remember her? The woman who didn't want to be "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" even though society and the rulers expected it of her?
She wanted to be a soldier.
Did you know that "men were women" and "women were men" in literally all cultures throughout history?
It is in fact during the 1,000 years or so of Christian dictatorial rule that it turned "abnormal", as the Catholic church burned people alive they deemed "witches" (basically, everybody who didnt bow to the dogma of the church, or literally the most extreme form of dictatorship you can imagine).
So.
Today.
As some say those "feminazis with their short cut hair, in-your-face" with their logic.
I once saw one, confronted by tatooed wannabe tough guy with some tough slogans. It turned out she served, and the first thing she said to him was "I'm in the military, defending your right to insult me".
Precious.
The debate was over.
Just accept people the way they are, as foreseen by the Declaration of Independence: the unalienable right to pursue life, liberty and happiness.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The American...cough , cough... "standard of living"...
Well, I guess that one hell of way to sugar-coat your statistics until the desired outcome matches the intended message.....ROTFL...
From Investopedia...
"An Example of a Living Standard Measure
One measure of standard of living is the United Nations' Human Development Index (HDI), which scores 189 countries based on factors including life expectancy at birth, education, and income per capita. As of 2018, the countries with the five highest HDI scores are Norway (0.953), Switzerland (0.944), Australia (0.939), Ireland (0.938), and Germany (0.936). Conversely, the countries with the five lowest 2018 HDI scores are Niger (0.354), Central African Republic (0.367), South Sudan (0.388), Chad (0.404) and Burundi (0.417), although Syria, Libya, and Yemen experienced the most dramatic decreases in living standard."
The USA doesn't even make the Top 5.
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
Yup. There we have "the narrative" again.
Same old stuff repeated ad nauseam like a mantra, until the little kids start repeating it....
Fact is, that this entire sh*storm we are living in today, started in 1919 when whites wanted to IMPOSE yet another colony in the Levant on the local "brown people". Stupid white colonial mastahs were too blind to see that the age of colonialism was coming to an end, and rather than ending it peacefully, decently, and without bloodshed, they decided to cling on to it at all costs.
At Versailles, the ME was simply carved up.
Yet again, whites were screwing over "brown locals" royally.
Only this time, there was resistance.
500 years of the horrors of colonialism had opened the "brown people's" eyes.
So.
In 1919, they said "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Socialism is, in a nutshell "the means of production and distribution of goods under the control of the state", and often means wide scale control of the economy by the people.
Populism is, also in a nutshell "handing out of goodies (social programmes) in return for populist support.
Both are present in many forms, and in many political and economic models.
Examples of populism? Currently, for example Poland (handing out state revenues as "baby money" to increase birth rates), or the US (Trump is using state revenues, i.e. trade tariffs to aid struggling farmers).
Such "freebies" and "goodies" in return for support of populist leaders is common. It led to the downfall of Greece, after cheap EU loans stayed out after the financial crisis of 2009.
It also led to the downfall of Venezuala, because the state could not keep up with the promises it had made to supporters, once the price of oil dropped.
I suggest doing your research elsewhere, and not on the channel of a conservative think tank, skewing and indoctrinating the uninformed into chanting "VENEZUELA" and "SOCIALISM" .
They are using misdirection and spinning information for political purposes.
China is a Marxist Socialist state. I dare say, economically very successful. Mike drop...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Stealing, politically disenfranchising native populations, arm-wrestling with the meek, wars on minor nations, invading, meddling, economic exploitation, slavery, extortion of poorer regions, favoritism, divide and rule...
Did I mention stealing?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@c00rey74 Well, then we agree on a few things.
Yes, I also hope China will soon join the free world with modern concepts like freedom, liberty and self-determination. I wouldn't hold my breath though. History has shown that change doesnt come easy, and it often needs the "generational change over".
Unless there is a war (which I doubt in the nuclear age) with a rapid and massive change, there is normally a gradual change over the course on a century or more.
Will we see this?
Probably not, and we'll probably be dead or extremely old before China gets there.
Just don't forget.
If you were a kid in London in 1910, you'd probably have thought that the British Empire would last forever. You'd see the battleships and all those great weapons...
That same kid witnessed the end of the British Empire in the 1960s.
It was constant war, the inability to adapt to changing times (aka conservatism) and fiscally irresponsible behaviour (massive debt) which caused the end.
That is also the way the USA will go down. Maybe not in 20 years. Maybe not even in 50 years time. But if your leaders don't change a few things, you will go down the same way.
China likes Trump BTW.
There would be nothing they'd like better than having a rival spending itself into oblivion resulting in fiscal implosion, same as the British Empire.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1