Youtube comments of John Roberts (@view1st).
-
245
-
237
-
216
-
166
-
142
-
127
-
103
-
98
-
97
-
94
-
86
-
80
-
79
-
79
-
69
-
61
-
58
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
54
-
53
-
52
-
51
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
The Netherlands will become dependent on the USA and those countries under its influence for food. In effect, as you say, its to bring about food and energy shortages in Europe and the wider world for the benefit of a small group of people and to make sure no one country in the European Union can resist effectively. Saving the planet and stopping Russia are just pretexts. It makes you question the whole of the global warming/climate change/green/overpopulation agenda.
▪︎
In my opinion all of what's happening is at least in part because the rentier elites in western Europe and the USA know the game's up, that the bubble of all bubbles is about to burst, and are, as a result, planning for the consequences: US default, hyperinflation, the loss of the dollar as the world's reserve currency, widespread political dissent (especially against the ideology of neoliberalism), and the accompanying potential for civil unrest. The elites who control corporate monopoly capitalism have anticipated this and are now seemingly implementing plans that have been drawn up long ago in response. It is coordinated using bodies such as the EU, NATO, WTO, UN.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@sirvidia
Ah, when it's the Chinese you call it "eradicating a culture" but when the USA and the West do it it's called by the much nicer sounding cultural assimilation or integration. Even indigenous peoples like First Nations Indians, Native Americans, Maori and Aborigines are expected to conform to western cultural diktats (think America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand's forced removal of children from their parents and their violent deculturaton in state schools).
Westerners, Americans in particular, think non-westerners should adapt to the majority white Christian, English speaking European culture when they come the their countries , yet think immigrants and minorities in places like China should be at perfect liberty to form virtually separate countries.
In the West right now the issue of non-white, non-western immigration is high on the agenda because of fears, stoked by the media, of foreigners not assimilating (think what irrational fear and hatred words like 'sharia law', 'female circumcision', 'polygamy', 'honour killings', 'arranged (child) marriage' evokes in westerners).
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
North Korea a hostile nation? 8000 miles from Uncle Sam's shores, surrounded by Uncle Sam's warships and bases that threaten to wipe it off the map and very nearly did within living memory and that divided the nation in two. Why would North Korea threaten its neighbours anyway? Does South Korea threaten its neighbours? Does Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia? The USA is the one threatening not just its neighbours (Latin America) but the whole world. It's now a we speak even threatening China and Russia, the two biggest nuclear and conventionally armed countries in the world (if India falls outside its orbit it will probably be sanctioned too).
Sanctions kill. They kill indiscriminately. They kill the innocent. They kill men, women, children, the elderly, babies. Sanctions are murder. Sanctions are mass murder. Sanctions are an act of war. You sanction North Korea which has never militarily threatened the USA or its lackeys in western Europe (indeed, is incapable of doing so) and threaten them with nuclear annihilation and expect them not to be hostile? And when they defend themselves against a nuclear armed superpower, the only country to have actually used nuclear weapons against civilians, you accuse them of threatening their neighbours. What you've by just said is a perverse inversion of reality.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@joshbeck9761
The western media can't seem to make up it's mind about that issue though. Is China communist, capitalist, state capitalist, or state communist? On the one hand the peoples of countries like the United States want to portray the Chinese as out-and-out (state) capitalists as a way of showing that communism is a complete failure and what they call American/western liberal capitalism is thereby vindicated. Yet, on the the other hand, when they need a bogey man to secure funding for their bloated military-industrial-political complex they revert to calling them communist again. So what is it - are the Chinese communist, capitalist, or a peculiar and (so far) unique hybrid of the two… and does it really matter?
It cannot be denied that the Chinese economic and political system, for all its faults, is successful and shows no sign of being less successful for the foreseeable future, despite the gainsayers of the West.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
There is no such thing as humanitarian bombing. Neither is there such thing as humanitarian sanctions. And certainly not when carried out by people who are, directly or indirectly, responsible for much of the mayhem occurring in the first place.
The best way to end internal conflicts is to try and get all sides to sit round a table and talk. Foreigners coming in from outside and causing more death and destruction isn't the answer. There are almost always better alternatives with war or sanctions being usually the least effective. Besides, what gives the West the right to intervene in the affairs of states that don't directly affect them or threaten them militarily whilst hypocritically denying those same countries the same right to interfere in theirs.
The arguments of people who advocate intervention on humanitarian grounds usually take the form: Stalin is killing millions of his own people so let's try to save them by nuking Moscow. For most people, when you put it this way, the sheer absurdity of humanitarian intervention that will inevitably involve mass killing (which the intervention is supposed to stop) AND could backfire in a big way (by causing an even greater war) becomes apparent. And yet, THAT is exactly the argument advocates of humanitarian intervention propose. Apparently, when the target country is weak and can't fight back it seems to make perfect sense to interventionists. But it shouldn't because, weak or strong, whether applied to Stalin's Russia or Assad's Syria, the logic is still the same: you'll end up killing far more people and destabilising the region even further by intervening than by not intervening.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Rift
Don’t believe the whitewashing of history that followed world war 2 (that Britain wanted peace and that it was the Germans who wanted war). The truth is that Germany had set itself on rearmament and economic great power competition, reasserting itself on the world stage in defiance of the British and French and this went against the geopolitical interests of Britain, not least its prime position in Europe after the previous defeat of Germany in world war 1. The British empire was just playing for time as it wasn’t quite ready for war. Make no mistake, war would have broken out sooner or later as British industry couldn’t compete with an assertive and powerful Germany. Indeed, the main reason for world war 1 is that the German economy was growing faster and becoming bigger than Britain’s and it was set to overtake them. The same position, incidentally, that the USA now finds itself in vis-à-vis China. The war on communism by the USA these last 50 years (Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia) was just an attempt by the United States to stop Asia from developing in ways prejudicial to it’s interests; in effect, a continuation of imperialism and colonialism cloaked in the rhetoric of democracy, freedom and human rights.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
China, Russia, Vietnam, Cuba and other countries that have, at one time or another, experimented with the types of socioeconomic system that fall under the broad term of socialism would like to disagree. Using various metrics their economies, and more importantly the overall well-being of their societies, usually improved in the years immediately following the introduction of socialist policies and, conversely, it can be argued deteriorated upon the discontinuation of such policies. Socialism is not monolithic either and every country that has introduced elements of socialism into its society has usually done so pragmatically, according to the specific needs of time and place rather than the one size fits all approach of neoliberalism.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bonk1600
It was never about ideologies or human rights (capitalism versus communism, democracy versus dictatorship). It was about resources. To wit, non-western resources, the same resources that made western Europe and its offshoots, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, so wealthy in the first place. The whole of the cold war was basically a fight to stop the third and second worlds from wresting control of their resources back from the first world and using them for their own development and to gain genuine independence and autonomy from western domination (in effect bringing to an end several centuries of European imperialism and colonialism). Control of gas and oil from the Middle East and other mineral resources from Asia (eg. Afghanistan) is a classic case of this.
In my opinion the United States of America is fighting a rearguard action to prevent what the independence movements of the immediate postwar period fought for and that stalled during the 1960's and 70's when the US began its rollback of the initial gains achieved under nationalist leaders like Abdul Nasser of Egypt and Mosaddegh of Iran (as well as similar gains made by the women's movement, civil rights and labour movements back home).
Unfortunately, both a resurgent Russia and China, are, with increasing success, hindering the USA and western worrier Europe in their hegemony of both the third world and it looks increasingly likely that strategically important parts of the non-western world may finally get to control their own resources and attain a level of economic development that finally frees them from vassalage to western capitalism/corporatism.
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
Realistically (from a purely military viewpoint) you are almost certainly correct. However, from a geopolitical and economic viewpoint what the impact will be in the short to medium term for China if it does so (boycotts, embargo, political isolation, increased tensions, arms race, loss of trade, etc.) is anybody's guess and I think that it is considerations like these that are, more than anything else, currently serving to put a brake on China's more belligerent intentions in places like the South China sea. However, this state of affairs will last only for as long as China is weaker or on a par with the USA and it's allies in the military and economic fields; the moment China has a decided advantage in both I suspect very few countries will be willing to sacrifice their economic and political relations with Asia's - and the world's - premier superpower.
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
World war? No! USA‐China war? Maybe... but unlikely.
—
China will pick off US allies and potential allies by coopting them economically and politically. The One Belt, One Road Initiative and the Shangai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and similar organisations will slowly encompass more and more countries both big and small and make it extremely difficult for the USA to, in effect, fight the whole world and certainly the greater part of it, a part that is already avital part of the global economy. That's why the USA is currently gearing up to using full‐spectrum information war and proxy war (propaganda, terrorism, sabotage) along with military intimidation (eg. South China Sea) because direct country‐to‐country conflict is not militarily advisable right now.
—
There is also Russian‐Chinese cooperation to consider, a cooperation that is de facto fast becoming, if it isn't already, a strategic alliance that will in time, I think, decisively preclude any realistic direct military intervention in East/ South East Asia, especially if they can get India to join them as well. Indeed, I'm sure Russia is very eager to play its role in European affairs as are France and Germany and if they can overcome historic animosities and current political realities these countries taken together could combine to form a Eurasian block.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@micksherman7709
Risking one's own life in the process of taking another's does not detract from the innate cruelty of the act. The cruelty lies in the act itself and not necessarily in the one who engages in it and a person who commits an act that they know with absolute certainty is going to cause physical pain or mental suffering to other sentient beings is, intentionality aside, still being cruel. Cruelty is as much an act as it is a feeling, indeed even more so. Just because you personally have no ill‐will towards someone as you snuff out there life, and just because you snuff out their life as painlessly as possible, does not free you from the charge of cruelty because it is the nature of war to be cruel and of logical necessity those who engage in it. Less cruel depending on circumstance perhaps but still cruel.
And what is the purpose of the military? At bedrock it's all about raw, naked, in your face power. The power to impose by sheer brute force one's will upon others. Pomp, pageantry and propaganda aside, war and the military are all about killing people. You can dress it up as justified and righteous defence of an idea, a cause, a nation... but a pig with lipstick on is still a pig by any other name.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bipolarbear9917
Hong Kong pro-democracy protesters
Mostly rioters led and organised by groups linked to western intelligence agencies such as the National Endowment for Democracy – a known CIA front. Whatever genuine, spontaneous movement there was to begin with was quickly hijacked by these nefarious groups with the agenda of politically destabilising Hong Kong.
▪︎
Surveillance and censorship
Not really very different from what we have in the West. Maybe more obvious and less hedged with formal legal restraints but no less ubiquitous. The USA and its allies in NATO (5 eyes, 8 eyes) mop up all information, economic, political and military. Just look at what Edward Snowden (now living in exile) has to say about the subject.
▪︎
Imprisonment and disappearing of human rights activists, lawyers, journalists and political dissidents
Again, compared to the allies of the USA in places like Latin America, the Middle East and Asia, China is a pretty good place to be a different. Stay within the limits of acceptable dissent and you can pretty much say what you like. However, all countries have their limits (just look at Chelsea/Bradley Manning and Julian Assange) and no government in its right mind will tolerate groups sponsored by foreign countries and that engage in destabilisation operations within the country under the guise of human rights.
▪︎
Uyghurs in Xinjiang
The problems in the Chinese province of Xinjiang - in no small way exacerbated by the United States sponsoring terrorists in the region to destabilise it - is complicated and certainly doesn't amount either to genocide or mass incarceration of its people. Rather, the people almost always portrayed as political prisoners held in concentration camps are actually for the most part radicalised Muslims who pose a threat to the country. The same kind of Muslim we find in Syria and elsewhere and who go by the name of al-Qaeda and are called terrorists, though, for some reason, here they are called freedom fighters.
—
And as for "authoritarian repression" have you not seen the neo‐McCarthyism and rabid fear and hate‐mongering in the USA and western Europe?
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
China will continue on its path and will surpass the United States in its own good time and if this means the dollar loses its status as the world's reserve currency or the United States defaults on its debts and becomes bankrupt then that is what will happen regardless. And if that happens the USA will either take active and vigorous steps to emulate the Chinese model of growth (moving away from service industries into manufacturing, implementing extensive central state planning that prioritises long term gains over short term profits, and begins a programme of heavy investment in infrastructure projects in such fields as transport, communication, education, healthcare and housing) or... it will fall further behind and become a third world country. It can, perhaps, delay this by forcing parts of the world (eg. Europe, Latin America) to continue propping up its economy, but ultimately the economies of Asia will overtake it and begin using their economic, military and political power to force it into a position of dependency, creating a comprador elite that serves the interests of the East at the expense of its own people, like exists now in such places as Latin America.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The film on its own terms is good but I dislike how the issue is framed in terms of modernity versus backwardness, as if Tibetan culture is inherently inferior (indeed, all non-capitalist, non-industrialised, non-urban societies), implying an underlying belief in the idea of social progress and historicism (the idea of history being teleological in nature, that their exists some end state, modernity, to which all societies are heading). This, in my opinion, leads to a negative value judgement from the very beginning.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Cripto136: you do not condemn modern atrocities committed by the USA the way you condemn the Holocaust, Nazism, communism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc. Also, all the things you mention are condemned long after they happened, when nothing can be done and no one can be punished; no genuine restitution or reparations - native Americans still live second class lives on reservations, blacks are still ghettoized, Hispanics discriminated against; the people who oversaw genocide and slavery (your founding fathers, for instance) are still lionised, as are the politicians, generals and soldiers who all played a part in the less savoury parts of US history. Yet Germany and Japan are expected to be uniquely sorry for their country's behaviour as if the Americans, British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italians and Dutch behaved somehow differently and be forever apologising for wars that, if we are being honest, were at least in part forced on them by others, and wars at that, that happened more than a generation ago.
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
-
Britain has no genuine independent nuclear weapons, they are all de facto under the control of the USA and the technology, from the missiles themselves, through to the launch systems (submarines), as well as the navigation systems (satellites) are under the control of the USA, directly or indirectly, as is most of the military and dual‐use technology on which they rely.
I'm also under the impression that France's nuclear weapons have been placed under NATO (i.e. US) control as well, or at least operate within the NATO command structure, though I'm not sure.
To wit, neither Britain or France are in a position to act independently of the USA. And, indeed, why would they? A scenario where either country would feel the necessity of unilaterally using nuclear weapons is all but inconceivable.
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
-
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
-
@dylreesYT
Some say that Tiananmen was a botched attempt at a colour revolution in China by the USA riding on the back of genuine protests, though even if it was one hundred percent genuine and spontaneous no government could allow its capital city to be held by naive students wanting what amounted to revolution. And massacre, what massacre? Where are the photos and other documentary evidence that proves their was a massacre. From what I can gather, most of the violence and deaths (are their even trustworthy sources for a massacre as properly understood?) occurred outside Tiananmen Square, not within it, so a massacre, if it happened at all, almost certainly did not occur in the square itself (maybe a 'Beijing massacre ' would be more accurate, but it's a moot point).
Apropos, most westerners tend to naively think that the protests were against the Chinese communist party or Chinese communism when, in fact, most of the discontent could be said, students aside, to have been aimed at the reforms of Dong Xioping - that is to say, capitalist reforms. So, here we have, ironically, the kind of protests which the Western media would have normally not given much coverage to and would have been quickly consigned to the memory hole getting a hollowed place in the cannon of anti-communist folklore, effectively turning a pro-communist protest against Deng Zioping - who was dismantling communism Gorbachev/Yeltsin style) into an anti-communist one, pro-capitalist one.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This US war against Russia is making it increasingly likely that, in cooperation with China, they will very soon create an alternative to the US dollar, British pound and the euro of the EU, a system of currency exchange that they will then use in amongst themselves and the rest of the world (BRICS, ASEAN, SCO, EAEU, etc.). When that happens the currencies of western Europe will not be worth the paper they are printed on, their continued acceptance as currency being at the sole discretion of countries whose industrial economies are backed by productive manufacturing, limitless raw materials, bountiful oil and gas... and good old fashioned gold and silver. The USA, on the other hand, plans to lock Europe into a dollar‐denominated currency area, possibly using digital currency, that will favour itself and subsidise its reindustrialisation while keeping Europe as a captive market, semi‐deindustrialised, largely reliant on the USA for energy and food, and turned into a second world, eastern Europe.
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
-
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
-
2
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Shah Ismail
Whatever they should have done then, the moment for doing it has long since past. We are no longer there, we've moved on and are here, in the present, and everybody - banks, Greece and the EU - must deal with present realities and their consequences. That means, at the very minimum, the realisation by its creditors that Greece cannot currently pay back the loan in full and at interest without being given another loan to pay off the first loan, which it is all too evident the EU/Troika are not willing to lend unless Greece declares bankruptcy and sells itself, lock, stock and barrel, to its creditors - which no self-respecting nation should be willing to do.
Sorry, but I think you are applying too much hindsight to the situation -coulda, shoulda, mighta are not helpful here, in my opinion. In retrospect it's all to easy for critics to say what should have been done, much harder for them to propose practical solutions that are both workable and fair.
It's just a start but if the debt owed by Greece is to be repaid at all then I think it wise that a debt moratorium be imposed until the country is in better shape and in its economy is up and running again. Interim, the austerity measures which are stifling the economies of the EU should be removed or modified to take account of reality.
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
-
No, where a group of countries conspire to form a hostile alliance against another group of countries those countries can be expected to create a similar counter-alliance, which is what the Warsaw Pact was.
Anyone who knows their history will have understood the reason behind the creation of the Warsaw Pact: a defensive alliance designed to repel an invasion by NATO, led by a country that had supported fascism and was dedicated to the destruction of the Soviet Union, an alliance that included Germany no less, the very country that had killed 20 million Russians and nearly destroyed it.
But that is in the past and the Warsaw Pact is long gone. What we are faced with now is a hostile NATO led by a hostile, aggressive, imperialist and expansionist USA which, not content at having absorbed the eastern European states Russia had set up for its own protection, now wants to expand both its own and its proxy NATO army right to the borders of the Russian Federation itself. To the Russians this is 1939 all over again when, after the annexation of Poland, it shared a common border with a country hellbent on its destruction. Only now its worse, much worse; not just a few countries but the whole of western Europe.
As I've already said, buffer states exist to separate powerful countries - or alliances! - that might otherwise go to war. The USA removes them at its -and the rest of Europe's - peril.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Synonyms
peter
[ Verb ]
[ In the phrase ] "(to) peter out"
dwindle, taper off, fade, wane, evaporate, ebb, diminish, fail, cease, stop, die away, come to an end, come to nothing
[ colloquial usage] fizzle out
"Cotton on"
To (begin to) understand
[ colloquial usage]
cotton on (to), get, get it, click, twig, tumble to, latch onto, get the hang of, rumble, suss out, get the message, get the picture, get wise, get your head/mind round, know the ropes, the penny drops
afoot
[ Adverb ]
about, around, circulating, current, going on, going about, in the air, in the wind, brewing
[ Formal Usage ] abroad
[ Colloquial Usage ] in the pipeline
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What makes me afraid is that all the major players — China, Russia, India, Brazil, Argentina, Germany, France, Japan — are all happy to go along with it. There is no pushback. None. There appears to be no communism, fascism, syndicalism, anarchism, or any other kind of viable ideological or philosophical alternative to the status quo like there was back in the 19th and 20th centuries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They're all tied in to the military-industrial-political complex of the USA and are thus an integral part of the country's wealth generation, job creation and technological dominance.
You see, the economy of the USA since 1945 has been based around an essentially Keynesian conception of economics based on using fiat currency (money created out of thin air, deficit financing) to stimulate what is at its core a centrally planned war economy of a kind first pioneered by the Germans and Japanese in the 1930's. However, for some reason they insist - erroneously - on calling this American form of corporatism a free market, capitalist economy even though such an economy was proven to have been such a total failure that it needed bailing out (the New Deal), state regulation and world war to save it from itself and has never been quite the same since.
The USA has had it good these last fifty years, however, it now faces stiff competition from China and renewed competition from Russia - often referred to as state capitalist but pretty much variants of the US model - that appear to be increasingly more successful, possibly because their economies have a solid foundation built on manufacturing which the USA has neglected in favour of services, banking and war).
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
-
It has has much right to its independence as Libya, Iraq, Iran, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Elsted Salvador, Sudan, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Palestine and all the other places the USA and its protégés in Europe and elsewhere have attacked, are attacking, or plan to attack.
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
-
China and India share a common border imposed on them by the British, a border that is somewhat vague and at times disputed. Furthermore, it is for India and China to sort out their border disputes not the USA. What common border does the USA, six thousand miles away, share with China? None. As for building up its military, one, it has every right to do so within its own borders and, two, when faced with the existential threat that is the corporatist USA, continually goading it over issues like North Korea and Taiwan – a country that, incidentally, it formally recognises as belonging to China anyway – and which, as with India, it has no business meddling in. As for the West, I think what you really mean is the empire of monopoly capitalism made up of half a dozen or so corporations and banks located in the core imperialist countries that is hell bent on taking over the last remaining opposition to their dominance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Islamic terrorists of which you speak are largely funded by the UK, USA and Israel for the express purpose of destabilising West Asia and North Africa. Whether it's al-Quaida, Boko Harum, al-Shabab, ISIL, ISIS, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, and yes, even Hamas... the aforementioned states can usually be found somewhere in the mix, together with their collaborators, the Gulf States, traitors to their own people, the Arabs and Muslims.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No room for complacency! We have to do something now because tomorrow might be too late. These things work out over decades so, no, we can't wait until 50 years in the future to do something. A pro-fertility, pro-natalist approach must be adopted NOW! To hell with women's rights, men's rights: the future of the human race is at stake; it is an existential decision that cannot be left to selfish individual choice (individualism) because what's good for the individual is NOT, in this case at least, good for society. Not good at all!
I'd have thought this would have been apparent to Asian societies like Japan, Korea and China but, strangely, these group-orientated, statist countries that you would expect to be most active in promoting healthy population growth/stabilisation are, paradoxically, the ones with the fastest declining populations. If the Chinese can force women not to have children then they should be able to force them to have children. Coercion was used by the Chinese in their anti-family campaigns and so they can just as easily use coercion to promote population growth. If men and women don't want children they should be made to have them, mutatis mutandis/ceteris paribus.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
Bullshit! Afghanistan was in no way responsible for 9/11 and its people, who suffered the most and are still suffering terribly from the actions of the USA, certainly didn't do 9/11. The attack on the triple towers was an inside job that was conducted by elements within the US military-security establishment itself, almost certainly with the collusion of elements of from within the military-security establishment of Israel. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Osama Bin Laden were just the fall guys. Plans were afoot long before 9/11 to attack Afghanistan. Another thing is that you don't just go in an demand, without a shred of evidence, that a country just hand over another country's nationals, especially if it doesn't have an extradition treaty with you. If there was a country that actually warranted an attack it was Saudi Arabia (if you believe the official story that the hijackers being Saudis working for Bin Laden, a man known to be dying of kidney failure and who was long dead before he was allegedly killed by the USA in Pakistan and who always denied the charges against him). You also aren't supposed to just bomb other countries without the approval of the UN Security Council.
The United States its also not the sole superpower as events in Ukraine and with China vis-a-vis Taiwan are showing. Tibet, by the way, is an integral part of China, as is Taiwan. The USA is a genocidal monster and saying that this is how its always been is not an excuse. If such an excuse wasn't good enough for the Germans and Japanese back then it certainly isn't an legitimate excuse now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
According to British TV and print media all Asians either hate the Chinese, hate the Japanese, or both.
80‐odd years after world war two ended the mass media of Britain are still bringing up Japan's apparent need to atone for what it did in the 1930's and 40's and their equally apparent refusal to do so to the satisfaction of the English speaking world is always alluded to, often with some seemingly obligatory reference to the a rape of Nanking. It's a way, I suppose, of justifying that war by implying how nasty the Japanese were and how they thus deserved to be fire bombed and nuked by the USA, it being done for the benefit of Asians like the Chinese, Koreans and Filipinos and for which the Chinese in particular should be eternally grateful (but to the great chagrin of Uncle Sam and John Bull aren't, or only grudgingly so) and why US troops are still stationed in Japan so long after the war has ended — obviously to protect Asia from itself, which it can't do without a generous helping hand from the white man. To be honest I find it both irksome and subtly racist.
Something similar occurs with Germany, only in their case the portrayal is one of being suitably repentant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ShuCarolina
Basically, the United States wanted to have its cake and eat it. It wanted to reestablish diplomatic ties with the People's Republic whilst at the same time still wanting to maintain its hegemony over Taiwan (and by extension China) by continuing to recognise the government in Taipei. The only way it could do that to China's satisfaction was with a strategy of 'strategic ambiguity', appearing to tell China one thing and Taiwan the complete opposite, hence the double speak. So it does, in my opinion, strongly imply (to the Chinese) that Taiwan is a part of China, a part of China that is de facto independent but notwithstanding still falls squarely within the sphere of influence, if not outright control, of the PRC; that it's in effect disputed territory who's final status is yet to be decided. To the Taiwanese, of course, it implies that the United States recognises its de facto independence but not its de jure independence. Anyone who cannot see that to all practical purposes the United States recognises Taiwan as a territory belonging to the Peoples Republic of China is to me being wilfully blind.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They might be doing this to force governments to be dependent on the USA and the IMF/BIS at a later date or to precipitate a wider, global crisis.
Also, If there is an economic crisis that looks like moderately left wing governments — read radical or hard left to neo‐liberals — are going to win elections like Podemos or Syriza those countries will be over a proverbial barrel with regards energy because they will have depleted their strategic reserves and therefore will be in no place but to obey those who are behind the Great Reset (European Union, IMF, BIS, UN corporations, etc.), just like Greece with the troika.
Another reason might be manipulation of the stock market to steal money for the deep state and its crooks like they did with Enron, Libya, Iraq, 9/11, etc.
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
-
@davehallett810
Anglo-American capital located in the USA and Britain in no small way caused the wars against Germany and Japan in the first place, as well as the war against Russia by proxy.
The idea that the corporations of London and New York, the two biggest empires on Earth, both genocidal, racist, anti-disabilist, war-mongering, slavery practicing, paraphilia-phobic and anti-semitic/anti-catholic, are the heroic saviours of the world and its people is to any genuinely dispassionate observer simply untrue.
At the heart of the matter is that the German, Japanese and Russian systems of industrial capital were successfully competing and beginning to undermine the parasitical, piratical and predatory system of extractive rentier capitalism of the British and the Americans and as a consequence had to be destroyed.
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
-
But she wasn't fighting against her country, quite the opposite. As Britain has effectively declared war on Bashar al Assad's Syria then she's actually doing her patriotic duty in helping the (US) empire.
The paramilitary group ISIS is but a generic term and Muslim-bashing propaganda meme for the various special forces, intelligence operatives, mercenaries and regular troops of certain countries, not least, those belonging to Britain. A creation of an unholy alliance between Saudi Arabia (a US client state) and the USA and its allies, it was sent to destroy Syria (just like it did in Libya), thus, she's actually fighting for her country, or rather, it's pro-American rulers.
The fact that our war on Syria is undeclared, is supposed to be humanitarian, and uses the same false flag terrorist organisations we are so fond of denouncing to achieve its goal of subordinating Syria to Anglo-American corporate and banking interests, doesn't make her actions warrant removal of subjectship (one can never be a citizen in a monarchy). In fact, she should be praised, just like the SAS/SBS/MI5/MI6 doing the same thing in Syria and around world.
1
-
1
-
@Mabibol
"Sociological and political stage."
Sounds too much like a teleological explanation or an explanation based on historicism – that history has a purpose or that we go through stages with each stage better than the one before it. In other words, the peculiar idea originating in western Europe of something called 'progress' exemplified in the division by the West of the rest of the world into developed, developing and underdeveloped countries, something which seems to me to be nothing more than an updated (yet despite this universally accepted) form of racism whereby it is postulated there exists in the real world a hierarchy of countries (in previous eras, races) that are compared to one another with one group (usually implicitly) representing the best, the most civilised, the most virtuous, by virtue of ostensibly objective, empirical and neutral criteria (such as GDP, Gini coefficient, human development index, human rights, democracy, etc.). A certain book by the title of The End Of History And Last Man by one Francis Fukuyama exemplifies this kind of thinking.
The events of the 20th century along with post modernism should have put an end to such ideas, ideas which, furthermore, easily lend themselves to a misguided sense of moral superiority and cultural chauvinism. Dialectical/historical materialism is a case in point, the idea that you can deduce 'laws' from historical events and then assume that your society is the pinnacle of progress and that if you just implement x policies society can be improved.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al now billionaires.
Israel safe.
Middle East destabilised.
Russia's borders threatened.
Opium flowing freely into black projects and propping up insolvent western banks.
Creeping corporate coup d'etat begun in the 1960's, coming out of the closet in the 1980's, consolidating in the 1990's, now almost complete.
Military-corporate-security state virtually in de facto control under Joe Biden. Democracy a sham.
Such quaint notions as human rights, habeas corpus and the like legislated out of existence by things like the PATRIOT act.
FEMA camps, like gulags and concentration laager, at the ready.
Twenty-four seven surveillance.
Lockdowns, curfews.
False flags rehearsed and perfected (Murray Building bombing, Triple Towers, Boston marathon bombing).
Etc., etc., etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If the AfD desire to see Germany conduct a foreign policy independent of the USA, or for Germany to no longer be under the thumb of the USA, then it is inevitable that they will be, by hook or by crook, prevented from exercising any real power, irrespective of whether they are extreme right wing/neo-fascist or not.
• • •
Wenn die AfD wünscht, dass Deutschland eine von den USA unabhängige Außenpolitik betreibt oder dass Deutschland nicht mehr unter der Fuchtel der USA steht, dann ist es unvermeidlich, dass sie auf Biegen und Brechen daran gehindert wird, wirkliche Macht auszuüben , unabhängig davon, ob sie rechtsextrem/neofaschistisch sind oder nicht.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
Neither has the West truly come to terms with its imperialism (and continued) neo-imperialism, colonialism (and continued) neo-colonialism, chattel and other forms of slavery, war-mongering and genocide (just look at present-day Israel). Truth be told, the Japanese were no more brutal than any other empire in history and neither were they uniquely savage or brutal. Why then must they forever be apologising to the American empire and its satraps ìn Asia for doing exactly doing what the USA has done and continues to do? The Japanese commit one Nanjing massacre 80 years ago and no one is allowed to forget; the USA (along with France and Britain) commits massacres on far larger scales – Rwanda, Congo, Libya, Sudan, Israel, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Indonesia – almost daily and most westerners are either ignorant of it, deny it, or justify it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@microcontrolledbot
I don't understand this obsession with stealing technology. Instead of seeing ideas and technology as being stolen, why don't you see it as being shared. Surely sharing things with your fellow humans is better than hoarding and monopolising them (and aren't monopolies generally considered bad, even by capitalists?). I also find it strange that you behave as if Chinese 'theft' of American technology (in fact a product created solely for profit and the benefit of some fascist multinational corporation run by a corrupt elite that has no loyalty to the nation state, nor any particular concern for your wellbeing and that, by the logic inherent in the capitalist mode of production, always underpays - hence steals from - its employees) that they're stealing from you personally. I'm amazed how your emotional attachment to the concepts of private property, property rights, and ownership of both material and immaterial things extends to you feeling vicariously threatened/indignant when the Chinese undercut the profits, not of you personally, but of an elite property owning class whose actions, at the very best, will only benefit you yourself incidentally and marginally.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why would they kill someone who has no real political power? Did he exercise such influence on the Russian leadership, was his pen so mighty, that it affected Putin's decision to go to war with Ukraine and that by killing him they would be exacting a righteous vengeance on behalf of the Ukrainian people, or that, somehow, it will have such an effect on Putin himself that it will effect the outcome of the war?
Though I myself found Dugin to be borderline fascist with his hardcore nationalism and strident deriding of perceived western decadence, still, attempting to kill him is, in my opinion, going too far. Murdering people with no real power is not only pointless but counterproductive and comes across as cowardly. Incidentally, it's got me wondering whether the United States is in some way behind this.
1
-
The needs or wants of the United States intelligence community/deep state are behind 'big tech' doing this so the idea that lawsuits and the like are going to have any significant effect in stopping spying or censorship, etc. in the long term are misplaced, in my opinion. Indeed, what's happening with big tech censorship by silicon valley is just one part of a much bigger and more comprehensive breakdown of the things we most typically associate with western democracy, effecting things like freedom of speech, the press, association, etc. and human rights more generally.
I think it really began after 9/11 when a pretext was created by dark forces within the military-industrial-congressional complex but probably planned well in advance. Furthermore - and what's really worrying to me - is that these things will not just be confined to the USA but will be become worldwide, especially among the so-called 5 eyes and NATO, with Russia and China either actively or passively colluding.
The US economy (or at least its currency) is going to crash sooner rather then later (though how far the show can go on is anybody's guess) and a new reserve currency is going to come to the fore with possibly grave consequences in the short term for the political stability of the USA and those countries whose economies are linked to it. It's inevitable, the powers that be know this, and they have contingency planned for it (fusion centres, homeland security, generalised surveillance, the PATRIOT act and similar legislation) in advance of the now very real possibility of an economic crash and subsequent dislocation of the global economy in the manner of the Great Depression of the 1930's.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@betrousaltaweel
Considering that the group known as Al-Qaeda is basically at this point in time a proxy for the USA and its ally Saudi Arabia, as well as a propaganda meme used to justify US interventions around the globe and prop up the 9/11 official government conspiracy narrative, I would say the question you ask is both moot and rhetorical.
It is the USA and its allies who are enabling this so-called Al-Qaeda to do what its doing by supplying them with weapons, training, intelligence and safe havens to launch attacks from and generally protecting them from being effectively dealt with. The USA, Israel, Britain and others are the ones providing Al-Qaida and its offshoots with both material and political support so it's not really 'terrorists' who are attacking other countries, it's countries that are attacking other countries (i.e. it's the USA's 'war on - read of - terror').
In answer to the question though I would emphatically say, no, terrorists should be dealt with. But they should be dealt with by the domestic authorities of the countries being attacked through international efforts coordinated by the United Nations in accordance with international law, something consistently thwarted by the United States.
To reiterate my original post: countries that are being attacked, invaded, occupied, sanctioned and their peoples daily subject to the war crimes and other indignities of a foreign occupation on pretexts we know are false (Iraq had nuclear weapons, Afghanistan was in some way responsible for 9/11, the Syrian government is gassing its own people, etc.) should be resisted and such resistance is entirely legitimate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And what are traditional Christian values?
Persecution of heretics, blasphemers and non‐Christians, systemic misogyny, suppression of women's rights, support of patriarchy, holy wars and inquisitions, support of racism, classism, casteism, royalty, aristocracy, the status quo and justification of slavery, imperialism, colonialism, capitalism, fascism, as well as opposition to innovation, learning and science.... That's what I think of when I hear people speak of traditional Christian values.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Britain –London to be more precise – is a major centre of money laundering, fraud and foreign flight capital as well as being a refuge for miscreants and terrorists from other countries (Russian oligarchs and political opponents of other countries come to mind). It's also a rentier economy that maintains a parasitical relationship within the global economy, constantly seeking rent and other forms of unearned profit.
Because the Russian Federation is now probably one of the few places that has not been fully exploited by this Anglo-American form of capitalism (banksterism, corporatism) the British rentier class naturally as it as an enemy and an obstacle to their control over Russia's assets, whether that be land, labour, minerals, whatever. Like in the USA, the ruling class of Britain abhors autarky and mercantilism. Resistance to the whims of western finance and corporations, such as countries engaging in protectionism, stopping capital flight or industrial development that redirects resources and capital away from the Global North to use in their own economic development is something that cannot be tolerated. That's also why they don't like China. Countries that will not submit to western capital must be subverted or destroyed. This is the western, and in particular the Anglo-American model, of economics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's a vast money laundering operation, gun running, drug and people smuggling racket, just like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Vietnam were, all for the corrupt families of the American oligarchy and the security state who use it to fund their private armies and state-within-a-state that came into its own after the false flag attacks orchestrated by the likes of Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearl, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
They are already attacking, it's just secret and behind the scenes using special forces, paramilitaries, terrorists, guerrillas and death squads. The overt presence is there just to deter the Chinese and (especially) the Russians the way that NATO did in Europe and SEATO did in Asia, allowing the USA to wreak havoc everywhere else knowing that there was precious little the Soviet Union could (or was willing) to do. Ultimately, Russia's inaction led its undoing, it being fatally weakened from within because they had adopted a 'siege mentality' from the Cuban missile crisis onwards, being content to hide behind the Iron Curtain, thinking they could win with words and moral suasion what only wars can win. In the end, like the city of Rome and the Great Wall of China, the gates were opened by traitors from within who had grown impatient with the promise of a better life under communism that never came.
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
-
Probably put forward on the recommendation of US intelligence as a British equivalent of Barack Obama. We had the first woman prime minister (and most people of the real left know where that led) and now folks it's time for Britain to have a 'person of colour', a POC as they say in woke land, as our prime minister. Like his US counterpart a hopey, changey kinda guy, all appearance and no substance: the ideal candidate to advance the cause of neoliberalism under the cloak of inclusiveness. Attack him and you'll be accused of racism. But, hey, look folks, the City of London isn't racist, it's just allowed to be elected (in elections in which there's no real choice between candidates) the City's first POV so we can keep up with the Jones's across the pond. What next, the first transsexual, the first homosexual, the first non- binary?
[I better shut now before I'm accused of lacking sufficiently in political correctness.]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
How you can imagine liberal/neo‐liberal globalists pursuing a communist path is beyond me. Fascist, right‐wing, rightist, conservative, Republican, Christian Democrat, etc. but left‐wing they aren't.
The fact is Asia and Europe (which is with India but a subcontinent of Asia) are, potentially, drawing closer together to form a single trading block, Eurasia, which if ever realised to any great degree will most likely completely dominate the global economy, eclipsing that of all others combined. And naturally the USA doesn't want that and will do everything in its power to prevent it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't think that it's necessarily a case of these organisations being compromised regarding their apolitical nature, their impartiality, etc. because, at the end of the day it's the United States government that is seizing these internet domain names and websites and not the organisations themselves. These organisations, together with the basic architecture (physical infrastructure) of the internet, it's central core if you will, as I'm given to understand it are located within the territory of the USA itself and therefore fall under its legal jurisdiction. Whether the United States should have done what it has done and acted in the way that it has acted is another debate entirely but ICANN is not realistically in a position to refuse. I dare say that the SWIFT system used for country-to-country financial transactions is also in the exact same position in that neither organisation can stop the United States from taking these unilateral actions. That said, what the United States government has done is, in my opinion, deplorable and has completely undermined confidence in the country as a safe repository of the main transit nodes of the internet/world wide web and as Alexander Mercouris has rightly pointed out will only serve to encourage China and Russia and other countries to set up their own ICANN and create their own internet architecture/infrastructure independently of the USA, though how fast that can be achieved is anyone's guess as neither of the two ostensible adversaries of the USA seem to be in much of a hurry to do anything that really challenges America beyond their immediate interests.
Great show as always, guys. Keep it up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
YouTube is filled with propbots and cyber warfare trolls, probably with the full consent and cooperation of YouTube's owners. Indeed, all western media is fully integrated into the propaganda and information warfare complex of the USA, especially now we're having a 'great reset' and this little war is just a trial run (together with the common cold, aka coronavirus, pseudo‐pandemic) to test whether the Pentagon's total information warfare system, integrated with its total surveillance and intelligence system and secret police are ready. They've had plenty of false flags to prepare for this – JFK, BK, 9/11, Boston marathon, Murray building/McVeigh, corona. Compulsory injection by gene warfare agents with spike proteins going by the name of 'vaccines' and 'therapies' (or involuntary infection by variants designed specifically to allow the already infected to infect others)....
—
Maybe this is how the military‐industrial‐corporate complex plan to dominate the late 21st century and ultimately bring Russia and China to heel – by use of bioweapons deployed against everybody, ostensibly created by big pharma and big aggro but actually created by the USA in its multitude of biolabs located, like its secret prisons, all over the world.
Oral 'vaccines' and 'gene therapies' in our food and water and even the air we breath delivered courtesy of Bill Gates and friends with his philanthropic eugenics foundation.
The Chinese and Russians, the ones many people look to to resist Bilderberg‐Davos‐WEF control, will probably actively collude and, like with the shamdemic, go along with the Great Reset. Or else they will only wake up to what is happening when it's too late. Like with the Co²/climate change and overpopulation scams which they are fully behind.
[ Sorry for the rant. I got out of the proverbial bed the wrong side this morning. LOL ]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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’ve just read that the U.S. Congress has now banned gain-of-function research in the USA by public research laboratories, but it's a pity they haven’t banned gain-of-research by the US military and intelligence agencies (who , naturally, will ignore with impunity, however explicit, any ban on their activities) and those who, knowingly or unknowingly, do the dirty work of the US military such as – ta da!–China, whose alleged gain-of-function research was at the behest of, or in collaboration with, the U.S. government, or so I’m told.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
Ritter's ideas on making the USA relevant are a non-starter in my opinion given the USA is the one causing most of the problems in the first place. For instance, what if China says nothing short of complete surrender by Taipei (more realistically, the implementation of a two-systems-one-country form of governance á la Hong Kong) is the only thing that's acceptable and that, regarding Ukraine and elsewhere – Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. – the United States will not stand in the way of China creating a transcontinental transportation and energy corridor that will unite Asia with Europe (á la Mackinder's heartland theory) and allow, ultimately and over the longer term, a Eurasia more or less completely dominated, at least economically, by China with which the USA may not be able to compete?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1. They don't have to take on China directly. Just look at the Soviet Union as an example of what can be achieved over time by indirect methods.
2. If they are desperate enough, or greedy enough, or stupid enough then, yes, they could very well take us to war. If we consider accidental war, such as a nuclear missile accident, or war caused by an incident getting out of hand and escalating, as by miscalculation, then even more so.
3. The USA doesn't have to go to war with China, there are plenty of other countries that it and western European capital can destroy and parasitise. And there's nothing that China could, or would even want to, to anything to stop. Indeed, China would be just as exploitative.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The more aware I become of all the censorship, whitewashing, gaslighting, political correctness, wokeness, etc. that's going on the more convinced I am that the entire media of the West is fully integrated into an information management system that is controlled by the deep state of the USA and its closest allies the five eyes This extends to the internet as well. I say this because the same set of messages are being uniformly given out across all media platforms with hardly any differences between them whatever language they are in. And its a grip I fear will only tighten, its sophistication only increase, along with its pervasiveness.
The USA wants to dominate the information space of the world no less that it wants total dominance on land, sea, air and in space and has come as close as you can currently get with the technology that's currently available with regards the information space of its NATO‐EU allies.
Let's face it, we're in a the first decade of new cold war instigated almost entirely by the neocons in the USA, Australia and Britain.
Instead of the end of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact leading us to a more peaceful world it has instead led to the elites in certain western countries thinking they can maintain the unipolarity moment of the Yeltsin era. However, we've moved on since 1989 and Russia is resurgent thus there is an urgent need for such thinking to be abandoned in favour of one acknowledging the bi‐ or tri‐polarity (China, Russia, India) of the nascent new world order that is emerging.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pickinthatbanjo Sweden and Finland were already, to all practical purposes, part of NATO before they formally joined. Their official membership is more symbolic than anything else. Furthermore, NATO is, was, and always has been an existential threat to Russia. Its primary purpose was to deter Russia from liberating the European continent from the control of the fascists and capitalists, the USA formost among them.
You see capitalism, especially of the Anglo-American variety, is predicated on profit for its continued success and when it can no longer make profits it begins to decline, then capitalism is in trouble (look up 'declining rate of profit'). What this means is that capitalist countries cannot and will not stop expanding until they are stopped by force and the fact that NATO still exists despite the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the disappearance of communism and is no longer confined to defence but offence (Libya, Yugoslavia) should be all the proof you need.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Ukrainian government is, it seems to me, basically a puppet government in the fullest sense of the word. The hands of its president are tied by the die‐hards in Kiev (neo‐fascists, US‐trained elements in the army capable of removing him) yet he is, in my honest opinion, in a losing position, militarily speaking, so eventually he, or his replacement, must come to the negotiating table.
As for sanctions, they aren't really designed to work in the way they are described. They are basically a form of warfare permanently waged on a country which, like all warfare, is designed to kill and maim. They are, rightfully in my opinion, criminal under international law and and act of war.
Another thing is the USA might even want the current economic, financial and international system and its institutions to collapse; controlled implosion followed by reconstruction of the (at least western) world's financial architecture under US auspices. In other words a kind of Bretton Woods 2 tying the European Union, Australia and New Zealand willingly our otherwise, to the USA (maybe akin to the continental blockade system that Napoleon Bonaparte tried to use against against Britain during the Napoleonic Wars or the similar system used by the USA during the cold war against the Soviet Union and Pact).
Whether such a thing would work and whether China – which I'm assuming is the biggest economy round about now in real terms rather than the nominal terms reported in the media – would go along with it or has the power to modify it in such a way that it thwarts the USA'S continued dominance I have no idea. The use of the IMF's Special Drawing Rights as a – presumably temporary – form of international currency for this purpose (perhaps in the form of digital currencies which I am given to understand allows for more governmental control over ordinary people) might be used for this purpose, but I'm just speculating wildly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 think to be fair he may have been referring to the idea that, over the longer term, Russia may eventually lose, not TO Ukraine, but to the United States IN Ukraine (i.e. that the war is no longer a US proxy war between Ukraine and Russia but a more direct war between the USA itself and Russia; that the USA is now in it for the long haul, a war of attrition, terrorism, subversion, guerrilla war, insurgency, etc.)
I think that what he might be trying to suggest is that this war, far from being over, is actually just beginning and that Russia should realise that what it's involved in now is the beginning of world war 3, a war, albeit undeclared, between the USA and the Russian Federation as well as the Russo‐Chinese axis. In other words, Russia may be interpreting events wrongly and making a grave strategic mistake in so doing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulbadman8509
I have always had the impression that the core western countries have always viewed Russia as being somewhat on the periphery, a latecomer to 'western civilization', as well as being Orthodox and thus outside the mainstream of western European Christendom (Catholicism, Protestantism); that they were never quite accepted fully into the gentleman's club, as it were. The same for eastern Europe in general, something that was sort of reified during the cold war between East and West, with the Warsaw Pact being made up of slavs with their mixture of Catholic, Orthodox and Muslim – especially Muslim – religions, multitude of ethnicities (unlike the largely mono-ethnic cultures of western Europe) and the fact that they had never been ruled by the Romans (and therefore were not the direct heirs to the Greco-Roman patrimony, supposedly the birthplace of the West conferring status as a 'western' country) and had been ruled for a time by 'The Other', Mongols and Turks, something that had in some way contaminated their culture, cut them off from the current of western history and made less Western.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@lizzy-wx4rx
Masks, my dear, are almost totally ineffective at stopping the spread of what is, to be honest, a common cold or influenza virus. Just a simple online search as to the effectiveness of masking should, if its from an honest source, be enough to dispel most, if not all, of the arguments of the pro‐masking lobby. I'm not saying that wearing certain types of mask cannot reduce your likelihood of catching the disease under certain circumstances but, for the most part, the protection that such mask wearing confers, especially in the long term, is negligible. Indeed, the prolonged wearing of masks may even be as, or more, harmful than the disease.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ankor Wat seems to have been a theocracy, like ancient Egypt, Inca Peru, Axtec Mexico, pre-1950's Tibet and modern-day Saudi Arabia. It seems their architecture, literature and art served only two purposes: religious and monarchical. Architecture, the arts, writing... practically all culture, either glorifying fictitious deities or hereditary tyrants. An entire society bound together by priests and autocrats, each in symbiosis with the other. It seems most societies were like that until at least the European Reformation. With the possible exception of the Chinese, secular societies seem to be rare in history, if not unique to the modern period. Even the Chinese could not escape entirely their need for religious justifications for the status quo.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Does that international community of yours include China, India, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Serbia/Kosovo (Yugoslavia), Sudan, Libya, Vietnam, North Korea, Laos, Cambodia, Yemen...? No? I guess we'll just have to limit the international community to the European Union and the English speaking world of the USA, Canada, 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
They can also use various forms of coercion or commit to what will amount to an artificial breeding programme consisting of eggs fertilised in vitro and gestated in artificial wombs, (genetically engineered) animal wombs, the wombs of women (or even children who have undergone medical treatment to make them precociously fertile), or some pseudo‐human 'half‐person' consisting of lower torso only containing the reproductive organs. Science fiction for the most part, yes, but, who knows, future technology may be developed that allows this. As the saying goes, where there's a will there's a way.
Of course, in keeping with Agenda 2030, etc. they could do nothing and just allow a natural (or as at present, an unnatural) die off of people (mainly the elderly I should imagine) until they've reached what is deemed an optimum demographic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Pegaroo_
Paying or not paying in rubles for Russian gas, oil, or whatever other products the Russian Federation wishes to sell is a political and not a financial or economic decision, in my opinion, thus it is European leaders, collectively or individually, who are to blame. To wit, the Russians aren't punishing regular Europeans, European elites are punishing regular Europeans
As for reducing or stopping altogether the flow of oil/gas, well that is Russia's prerogative and given all the sanctions that the European Union has heaped upon them I for one wouldn't blame them one bit for using their own resources as a counter-sanction. But like I said, it's not so much a case of Russia not providing these resources as much as the European Union not accepting them or refusing to pay for them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The USA wants Europe to pay for an army to threaten and deter Russia, an imaginary threat, while it uses its own money to threaten and deter China, yet another imaginary threat (imaginary that is if you don't threaten them, otherwise the threat of retaliation becomes very real).
Basically, the USA wants another cold war, albeit one on a shoestring budget due to straitened circumstances. The aim, I presume, is not so much actual readiness for war but grift, pure and simple. The military‐industrial complex of the USA is the core of its economy and, like cancer, it must grow else the whole thing collapses (a bit like Germany in the 1930's, which used pretty much the same military pump-priming to keep its economy growing. And we all know where that ended don't we?)
Like western Europe prior to the Great War (1914-1918) the USA has grown fat off of the grift of its empire and doesn't want either the Russians and Chinese muscling in on the action (à la Germany vis‐à‐vis Britian's empire) or its neo-colonies from gaining genuine independence (à la France vis‐à‐vis Africa).
1
-
@Supernautiloid
I beg to differ. Capitalism hasn't been around for all that long, maybe 200-300 years at most starting with the industrial revolution in Britain; so if it's taken this long to become corporatist (starting in the 1920's with Mussolini), I'm assuming that we do not have any precedent and this is the first time it's happened. Saying that capitalism always turns into corporatism implies that we've gone through this at least once before, which I don't believe we have, this being the first.
For what it's worth, I'd say all of the major countries of the West became corporatist in the 1940's and '50's and what we mistook for the 'golden age' of capitalism in the immediate post war years up until the 1970's was in fact, merely a period of 'benevolent' corporatism, when corporatism was consolidating.
The question of whether corporatism (fascism/neo-fascism?) is good for the majority of people I think revolves around the question of who does the capturing - a strong state capturing and controlling business, or business capturing and controlling the state. In China I think it's the former and that's why it seems to be delivering returns for its people, while in the USA it's the latter and, driven entirely by greed and the profit motive, is actually leading (or will eventually lead) to something akin to feudalism and possibly social collapse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
I don't think the USA so much 'won' as Russia basically decided it didn't want to play the game by the USA's rules anymore so it started playing by new rules – it's own – and like China, after initial trials and tribulations, began to prosper and seems now to be slowly gaining ground over its rival.
Ironically, the USA is 'winning' this war against itself by doing what it did so successfully against the Soviet Union. That is, it's going bankrupt. I suppose this is where the phrase 'going for broke' really comes from.
The Keynesian pump-priming of its military‐industrial economy, a system pioneered by the National Socialists of Germany during the 1930's, is finally running out of road. It didn't turn out well for them and it looks like it's not turning out well for the USA either. A war economy ultimately based on fiat currency and deficit spending not only causes inflation but runs out of low hanging fruit to conquer. Like the Roman empire, once it's reached the limits of what it can expand into and new loot is no longer coming in can no longer sustain itself. The USA has met those limits in the form of China, Russia and India: it can no longer conquer with impunity and exploit the resources of the conquered without coming up directly against those aforementioned countries, states at least as powerful as itself.
As Karl Marx noted more than a century ago, under capitalism the rate of profit tends to drop as time goes by necessating capital seeking out new returns on investment (i.e. infinite growth). Unfortunately, the USA cannot grow using the existing model, one made worse because the kind of capitalism the USA is using is primarily based on rentierism – parasitizing the capital gains made by others rather than making and using it's own. The rentier eventually runs out of other people's money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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