Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness; only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that.
Back to the topic, there are certain things that are can never be under national control. And those are:
Offensive Military (defensive and offensive are totally separate).
Espionage Organizations (by their nature, they are intended to subvert the elective process)
World Economics (Economics is a series of agreements between nations)
Pharmaceuticals and Health (One nation can not tolerate another possessing ownership over life and death)
Multinational Corporations (A nation can not own a corporation that is inherently stateless)
Religious Institutions (the primary concept of religion is that it supersedes all outside allegiance)
Patents and Technology (one nation can not bare to suffer knowing of a better solution, by enforcing another nations patents)
Forms of Political Unity (one nation can not separate and excel without causing unrest with its primitive neighbors)
News (one nation can not allow indecent information to reach it's populace, which it is attempting to censor)
There is essentially one exception to this, and that is Switzerland. They operate under a completely unique, and vastly superior government, with enormously higher standards of living, without inciting unrest with it's neighbors. Likewise, they contribute nothing to the world military, while setting the standards for world economics, pharmacuetical patents, espionage, news, corporate secrecy, and are the guardians of the Vatican.
All the same, offensive military is just a population tax. True conquest is done through improving organization, bettering the minds, and bettering the living conditions. The military stick is only there to 'genocide' conceptions of rebellion. The nations that are least able to defend themselves pay the cost of the military, but the bomb, tank, and weapons dealers are international in nature. No one nation would allow another to become the sole possessor of nuclear power, not for long, and never will a Tank win the hearts and minds of a people, or turn them into profitable subjects.
I won't go too far off on a tangent here, but just realize no one nation would EVER, be allowed the sole right to assassinate, sabotage, or bomb a nation. If you suspect 'cave dwelling Muslims' are even the smallest bit of the problem, imagine what an organization as powerful as the EU could do to the US, if assassination and sabotage was permitted internationally on an ad hoc basis?
No, no. All these issues are decided internationally, along with deciding which nations will pay for them, and how much. Does the US not agree with contributing $4 Trillion toward a international bombing campaign against the Iraqis? How about we kill all your bankers, steal the banking industry, and blow up a couple towers... would you pay then, or like another reminder or your true role in the world of politics?
How about we kill your President? Would you pay our tax then?
I would hope they did listen but know that's not apart of the current democracy where lobbying for economic growth is the biggest leverage. Just like the news about this potential Saudi nuclear deal, the money it brings in will outweigh the risk of adding more nuclear options to this region. I would hope that deal is fake as it may eventually create a war no one wants to see.
the military industrial complex are all traitorous, globalist scum and we are their slaves. though they are losing control of the world right now, thank god
It has been a long time since I read the document entitled, "A World Effectively Controlled By The United Nations," but to my mempry, it seems that the UN was needed until such a time as it can be reformed and radically redesigned, resulting in the appearance of something more or less, a global tyranny.
What we are witnessing now, is the way in which countries will increase their own power by uniting their people against external threats. What's different is that, while people certainly ARE becoming Nationalistic, the enemy riled against is the same for everyone- Terrorism.
So the world seems to be drifting apart, but each part is heading in the same direction. I foresee another Great War, looming on the horizon. What form the world takes after the fact, is not immediately obvious.
On the other hand, as Lincoln P Bloomfield suggested in 1961, a war or brink of war,-like scenario could be envisioned, to push reforms that would tighten control over time. Disarmament comes in three phases. We are in the second phase. I believe a fear of a global war will push people to accept the third phase of disarmament, and if that happens, the people behind the EU will have won.
In a world controlled by a central authority, nations will be able to retain their own identity. They won't be any less slaves.
The UN wants to chip the entire planet with biometric computer chips. Somehow I doubt they would just let everyone go now that they have them right where they want them.
No power vs. Little power are two different things, especially when the UN Charter can and has been radically redesigned, to apportion more power.
The UN is 75 percent funded by the USA and it's constitution was penned by 13 US Senators in San Francisco in 1963. It seems fair to presume that the UN is just an extention of the will of the United States, which itself is an extention of the will of European elites who run the EU.
So there is a lot of power there, if you aren't willing to ignore the rest of the picture.
My main point is that A) It's power may make a quantum leap soon, or
B) The USA may do away with the UN as it is no longer useful as a means t the end which is global domination.
because western military industrial and banking establishment is clearly the enemy of the entire world, most clearly it's own citizens. look at the economic policies and pointless wars they have involved the west in for profit, not to mention supporting nazism back in the day which was basically funded by East Coast industiralists and bankers.
the UN is irrelevant because it is in some ways an extension of western establishment power but has no military power.
It seems to me that the UN is more key than you think. It may be this or that, but one thing it is not, is irrelevant.
It's vision is the reason for the world going the direction it goes. Incrementally implimenting the UN's policies, is well underway, and led to developments such as the African Union, which started out with 75000 troops trained over ten years prior, by none other than the USA. Coincidence?
The powers behind the UN are very relevant, and their ambition is clear- global domination.
They have resources to make this happen, and are well into the progress of their plans.
What makes you think they are A)only Anglo, and B)Losing power?
they are only anglo. the entire EU disaster and UN disaster were design by the Wilsonian Idealist morons in the US and UK. as is the whole IMF disaster and all the financial capitalist bullshit.
they funded nazism to create the EU etc...
the UN right now as it exists is just a way for them to shame China and Russia on the world stage seemingly. it's not really working though.
there have been many articles written on the death of US military and political dominance and hegemony. the whole "american century" bullshit thing was just propaganda written by cheney among others.
the dominance of russia and china in the future was even spoken about by US intelligence analysts in the 60s by the way.
it is due to their geographical advantage in Asia, the most plentiful source of untapped resources on the planet
I agree that the last century is behind us, and a new century, with new potential lay ahead. China is certainly becoming a big deal. Russia too, but they could both be history depending on how the tides turn. America hasn't really lost military hegemony. In fact, they have made astounsing gains and anticipate (it seems), making further gains. We will really just have to wait and see.
I'm still unclear why you think everyone behind the EU is Anglo. Can you name some names?
It seems to me that anyone from that area, by now would be Anglo-Saxon, if not a mix with other types. I have a hard time believing anyone on earth is only Anglo.
I myself am from a Frisian family that stretches back over a thousand years at least, but I am 6 other things also, including Ukrainian, French (pff), and possibly Israelite (it's a rumour; a rumour I started).
You had a couple of things to say at first, but after that seemed to have gone drinking or something. Now you are just heaving insults. You haven't made sense for several comments!
I believe that my original argument was that the UN is relevant. I don't believe you have sufficiently rebutted. If I were you, I'd start there rather than proclaiming yourself the winner of Reddit and prancing around like you are..
just do some research into the Anglo Establishment and the history of wilsonian idealism. hint: making arguments about genetics or whatever nonsense you were talking about is irrelevant
Haha you have missed my point entirely! My point is that, at some point in history, the Anglo and the Saxon tribes mixed so much, that people began to call them Anglo-Saxons. This is actually, extremely relevant.
There is no such thing anymore, as an Anglo person.
Now obviously this is splitting hairs, but it is so funny how you are defending this point to the death, even though you don't have to.
I just want you to call them Anglo-Saxons. Is that so terrible?
Wilsonian Idealism is an interesting topic, sure, but how will looking it up help me? Why can't you just write a couple more sentances expoinding upon your point? Why do you just say two words and then run away? Like I said, if you don't have the time just say so, but I would prefer to have an actual conversation, rather than to have some rude person tell me what I do and don't know.
yeah keep making a bunch of pedantic arguments and somehow believing that cultural norms or differences don't exist.
you are probably some lunatic sjw at heart. sjw hate facts and hate acknowledging ACTUAL cultural differences. we are all neoliberal capitalist globalists at heart or whatever (hint: we aren't)
How is what I said, amounting to me A)Hating facts and, B)Not believing that cultural differences exist?
Neither of those things are true. I love facts, actually, which is why I would make a pedantic argument!
It is interesting that i actually have tried to make other arguments, but you insist on only talking about this one, because you don't want to go back and fix what you said initially, which I admit I didn't have much problem with!
Now can we get back to the actual conversation, which is regarding the relevancy of the UN and America's vision for the world?
You seem to just want so badly to stay on this topic. You don't seem to have an interest in actually conversing with someone fairly.
you don't even acknowledge cultural differences exist, therefore you are incapable of understanding what wilsonian idealism (the anglo establishment plan for the world) and what the UN stands for-and what it is opposed to ie real world cultural diversity.
so no you are not capable of understanding this topic
I have not said anything, which might lead one to believe, that I do not acknowledge or believe in, cultural differences. That is plainly absurd.
Seeing as you are the kind of person to make snap judgements, based on logical fallacies, I feel as if you are almost entirely a waste of time to talk to.
I did some reading about Wilsonian Idealism yesterday, and I already admitted that i find it interesting, so how can you go ahead and say what you just said? It seems as if you are actively trying your hardest, to not have a conversation.
I warn you now, if you say just one more thing about who I am, and call me names or say something bad about me, I will report you for it. I am not against wading through the IRE, to find interesting things, but you're not seeming to be offering anymore. Just non-stop spewing of toxic hate. Why do you hate so much?
But you are twisting my words. I didn't mean to say that anglo culture doesn't exist. I pointed out that the Wiki cites Anglo culture to be either Anglo-American or aome part of the Eastern UK. So if you use the word, at least use it properly and not as a general term for all white people.
I meant that Anglo is an old word, and modern times doesn't see a lot of Anglo-only culture.
Even just reading the wiki, makes it clear that Wilson would be considered an Anglo-American, which is not the same as calling him Anglo.
I admitted this is splitting hairs, which means I don't consider it to be a very important point. I really didn't want to spend so much time talking about it.
You refuse to make sweeping assertions then say something like the EU is a LIBERAL pipe dream. Apparently you forgot about the Bush family pushing for the NWO.
Please take the time to make a whole, cohesive point. I am unsure what you are getting at.
Was it truly, not fair for me to say, the EU is a Liberal Pipedream? It surely is Liberal in nature. Yes people who pretend to be Conservatives advocate for the NWO, but the EU and the NWO are not the same thing. They do seem to have similar goals, but I'm not sure why you've made a direct connection.
I am not saying you are wrong, because I do not yet understand your point.
The EU may not be the NWO but it's a stair step on the way. As for fairness you are free to use your own compass. I was merely pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of the juxtaposition of "liberal pipedream" and a caution about sweeping generalities.
Comparing shit to shit. We aren't in full engagement with ground troops. We don't have as many American soldiers dying as under Bush. Arguably, we have to do something about ISIS. Unfortunately, were in more military engagements than ever before. Supposedly we run more precision operations all over the world. But the troops are safer and we spent less money... 😐
It's almost like you didn't include our ground troops in Afghanistan. Obama had chance to wind that one down...especially after we caught "Bin Laden" but he decided to commit us for another 20 yrs. Obama is part of the same problem, and your partisanship will never solve it.
I'm pragmatic with politicians. You get idealistic during the primaries and pick what you want. But when it comes to the final election I compare policies and likelihood of getting what I can need. There is no partisanship here. I vote for what I think is best for this country and for me. If a Republican/Democrat most likely represents what I need in a botched system of pick 2 then I pick the better option. I don't vote just for platitudes but actual plans and direction.
The important thing is we're always fighting to move forward.
I have this feeling that whoever is elected president, no matter what you promise on the campaign trail – blah, blah, blah – when you win, you go into this smoke-filled room with the twelve industrialist capitalist scum-fucks who got you in there. And you're in this smoky room, and this little film screen comes down … and a big guy with a cigar goes, "Roll the film." And it's a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before … that looks suspiciously like it's from the grassy knoll. And then the screen goes up and the lights come up, and they go to the new president, "Any questions?" "Er, just what my agenda is." "First we bomb Muslims." "You got it ."
for most of us in this sub the obviousness of this quote makes the attribution quite unnecessary. this specific quote is arguably the most conspiracy relevant comedian quote of all time outside of the equally obvious George Carlin material.
inserting a painfully obvious quote into the rare situation where if fits perfectly into an unrelated comment thread is a kind of inside joke on reddit.... using a Bill Hicks quote (especially that one) in this sub is obviously a joke to anyone who has spent any time around conspiracy material, or comedy, or music, or popular culture ffs. can you understand how attribution kind of ruins the inside joke? anyone who is unseasoned enough to have not yet encountered the original bill hick's routine (or the hundreds of times it has been sampled into songs, memes, etc) will get in on the joke when they eventually do.
your righteous ignition and 'good manners' are terribly cute, keep up the good work!
the insinuation that i am attempting to take credit for this masterpiece is truly funny.
I've insinuated no such thing. It's just good manners to attribute quotes to those they belong to. Quotes are not painfully obvious to everyone, new people come here all the time.
I do not understand how this was a "joke", and clearly I'm not the only one?
According to Cliff Arnebeck (an election fraud attorney), a high-level CIA agent boasted "All it took to get Obama to stay in line was to show him the Zapruder film".
A lot of people think candidates lie during their campaigns, but I think it's more likely that it isn't until they get into office that they realize how far down the food chain the President really is. The exceptions to this of course would have been the Clintons, Bush sr, etc
Barack Hussein Obama is a crypto Muslim, he had to cut deals with the jews to be President, like they all do; but as a Muslim, his price to pay must have been unfathomably great. He visibly chaffed under the commands of Netanyahu sometimes, you can tell he's not okay with it, but he is the epitome of a self obsessed person who HAD to have his name in history books, no matter the cost
Donald "one term Trump" on the other hand, has been making deals with jews his entire life. It's second nature to him. He was the rigged election winner from the start. Hillary was paid to be the patsy
I don't even know what to think about him anymore. At first I was all for the "4d chess" and thought "hmm maybe he is playing them and then he will pull a trick out of his sleeve". Now every day, more and more, I slowly doubt that. Im not giving up hope just yet, but im also not too optimistic of any significant change.
I heard an interview trump gave where he said that he's giving the pentagon full control over the military. He doesn't want to know what they are doing, they have the authority to do what they need to...
If that is the case then he lied in his campaign about keeping us out of conflict. If he hands the reigns over then whatever he promised goes out the window I guess.
Here is a source I found but I heard him say that the generals know what they are doing and are he would just slow them down. When he was eating that chocolate cake with the president of China, he found out that the military launched those 69 missile at Syria.
How did this election prove it ? We're you that naive to think the American public had any control whatsoever over the military 😂 the party system is an illusion . You have no choice , you're all slaves .
Also I don't actually see how Trump has suddenly changed your mind on this.. What war is the US fighting ? There were some bombs dropped on an insignificant Syrian air base , which was most likely agreed upon in advance, certainly Russia knew.
Either way the gen pop had no control over it.
Only the American people can make America th greatest country on earth. Ain't no chump in the White House can do that for us. They're there to oppress the people. Fuck them. Y'all need to clean your motherfucking house homies.
The Frisians had the most egalitarian society ever on this planet (if you value that sort of thing). Imo, that makes them the best in history. Of course being Frisian, I would say that.
Frisian society was infiltrated by Christianity. After that what amounted to the fiercest pagan resistance to the Holy Roman Empire, tranformed into the pacofost farmers you'll find today (surfs).
A thought that dates back to the start of the country isn't exactly new.
Name one time in US history where when the peoiple said, "wait, no, we're not going to war" and it worked. It don't - the concept of you not having as many rights as you think is ages old.
People have been directed in everyday life for decades, centuries.
The question that arises is that if the electorate thru the WH and thru both houses of congress cannot change US military policy, who, exactly, is directing the US military? Who is in charge of what the US military and the rest of the infrastructure, ie the CIA?
The US is the global leader and a massive resource in terms of money (taxes), troops, armaments, etc. Large enough to dominate the globe.
But the US people do not control it. What is preventing this massive military capability from being turned onto itself?
Basically, yes. People voted for Trump because they didn't want to be involved in the Middle East's affairs anymore. What did they get? More involvement in the Middle East's affairs.
That's your biggest takeaway? What about how in the era with the easiest access to information Americans are still so ignorant that they thought a fear mongering narcissistic demagogue who can barely string a thought together, would care about them.
I truly think this is just a ratings grab. Trumps been seen as insensitive and conscious-less. The narrative is that Assad murdered innocent children with gas. If he goes on the offensive to protect innocent children, he's seen as having a conscious by the left which will certainly boost his record low ratings. At the same time, he's rallying up the right by doing what he said and "going after ISIS." Now he's trying to have us all rally around the flag in order to boost his ratings to try and secure a second term. He had nothing to lose in fear of impeachment.
114 comments
n/a WarSanchez 2017-04-24
We have no control of our government.
We can't even get them to listen to us about simple things.
n/a sudo-tleilaxu 2017-04-24
Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness; only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that.
– Obrien, ”1984”: part 3, chapter 3
n/a benedictFocker 2017-04-24
THE power of 1984 lies in its raw abstraction of what the state ultimately is. No one, yet, seems to take the point very well. Other than us.
n/a kybarnet 2017-04-24
Back to the topic, there are certain things that are can never be under national control. And those are:
Offensive Military (defensive and offensive are totally separate).
Espionage Organizations (by their nature, they are intended to subvert the elective process)
World Economics (Economics is a series of agreements between nations)
Pharmaceuticals and Health (One nation can not tolerate another possessing ownership over life and death)
Multinational Corporations (A nation can not own a corporation that is inherently stateless)
Religious Institutions (the primary concept of religion is that it supersedes all outside allegiance)
Patents and Technology (one nation can not bare to suffer knowing of a better solution, by enforcing another nations patents)
Forms of Political Unity (one nation can not separate and excel without causing unrest with its primitive neighbors)
News (one nation can not allow indecent information to reach it's populace, which it is attempting to censor)
There is essentially one exception to this, and that is Switzerland. They operate under a completely unique, and vastly superior government, with enormously higher standards of living, without inciting unrest with it's neighbors. Likewise, they contribute nothing to the world military, while setting the standards for world economics, pharmacuetical patents, espionage, news, corporate secrecy, and are the guardians of the Vatican.
All the same, offensive military is just a population tax. True conquest is done through improving organization, bettering the minds, and bettering the living conditions. The military stick is only there to 'genocide' conceptions of rebellion. The nations that are least able to defend themselves pay the cost of the military, but the bomb, tank, and weapons dealers are international in nature. No one nation would allow another to become the sole possessor of nuclear power, not for long, and never will a Tank win the hearts and minds of a people, or turn them into profitable subjects.
I won't go too far off on a tangent here, but just realize no one nation would EVER, be allowed the sole right to assassinate, sabotage, or bomb a nation. If you suspect 'cave dwelling Muslims' are even the smallest bit of the problem, imagine what an organization as powerful as the EU could do to the US, if assassination and sabotage was permitted internationally on an ad hoc basis?
No, no. All these issues are decided internationally, along with deciding which nations will pay for them, and how much. Does the US not agree with contributing $4 Trillion toward a international bombing campaign against the Iraqis? How about we kill all your bankers, steal the banking industry, and blow up a couple towers... would you pay then, or like another reminder or your true role in the world of politics?
How about we kill your President? Would you pay our tax then?
n/a liverpoolwin 2017-04-24
By the look of it the president has no control either, just has to go alone with them
n/a Xerider 2017-04-24
I would hope they did listen but know that's not apart of the current democracy where lobbying for economic growth is the biggest leverage. Just like the news about this potential Saudi nuclear deal, the money it brings in will outweigh the risk of adding more nuclear options to this region. I would hope that deal is fake as it may eventually create a war no one wants to see.
n/a TrowwayFiggenstein 2017-04-24
They only have power from the consent of the governed.
Stop giving over consent.
n/a Parrhesia1984 2017-04-24
Oh they're listening to all of us
n/a Freqwaves 2017-04-24
That is true, and it was true of Obama's election as well.
n/a EyesClosedInMirror 2017-04-24
Didn't outcry stop the wardrums the last time they wanted Syria?
n/a Romek_himself 2017-04-24
and still fought it with backdoors ... aka suppourting terrorists with money, weapons and throwing bombs
n/a Todos1881 2017-04-24
And they just dusted themselves off and are starting it back up now. They'll succeed to.
n/a privatelameass 2017-04-24
yeah hence isis
n/a NEJATI11 2017-04-24
Not really a new thing.
n/a magnora7 2017-04-24
It is for some people. Don't speak to normalize awfulness just because you're jaded. It's someone's first time realizing this
n/a soullessgeth 2017-04-24
the military industrial complex are all traitorous, globalist scum and we are their slaves. though they are losing control of the world right now, thank god
n/a joshua_ray 2017-04-24
They are losing control? Really?
Beware times when the beast merely transforms to stay relevant and survive.
n/a soullessgeth 2017-04-24
no they are definitely losing control. if the EU dies they have officially totally lost control
n/a Zerwe 2017-04-24
why do you think that?? you really think they are based in the EU or something lol. If the Union fails that is totally by design imo.
n/a soullessgeth 2017-04-24
that is totally by design uh no.
that goes for nato too. they are nato, the EU, and IMF more or less. they are based in new york and london
n/a Zerwe 2017-04-24
i am sorry i am not sure i understand i am not a native english speaker.
in my opinion it is pretty obvious that all this new right faction movement is being pushed by TPTB
n/a soullessgeth 2017-04-24
good warrantless assertion but no
n/a joshua_ray 2017-04-24
TBTB don't need the EU anymore. They can trim the fat and increase power.
The UN will chip every person in the world by 2030. This is official not just talk!
"They" are only gaining traction in many ways, and will soon finalize their deceit and their control.
Your insistance of the opposite is, deeply troubling.
n/a soullessgeth 2017-04-24
the UN is nothing...it is meaningless. the EU and NATO are the anglo establishmetn and they are basically dead. viva la france!
n/a joshua_ray 2017-04-24
The EU is a liberal pipedream, for sure, but it may have only been intended as a phase.
I refuse to make sweeping assrrtions without the proper information. Feel free, though.
n/a soullessgeth 2017-04-24
i don't really see how it was a "phase."
the return of nationalism means the end of them by the way. good riddance
n/a joshua_ray 2017-04-24
It has been a long time since I read the document entitled, "A World Effectively Controlled By The United Nations," but to my mempry, it seems that the UN was needed until such a time as it can be reformed and radically redesigned, resulting in the appearance of something more or less, a global tyranny.
What we are witnessing now, is the way in which countries will increase their own power by uniting their people against external threats. What's different is that, while people certainly ARE becoming Nationalistic, the enemy riled against is the same for everyone- Terrorism.
So the world seems to be drifting apart, but each part is heading in the same direction. I foresee another Great War, looming on the horizon. What form the world takes after the fact, is not immediately obvious.
On the other hand, as Lincoln P Bloomfield suggested in 1961, a war or brink of war,-like scenario could be envisioned, to push reforms that would tighten control over time. Disarmament comes in three phases. We are in the second phase. I believe a fear of a global war will push people to accept the third phase of disarmament, and if that happens, the people behind the EU will have won.
In a world controlled by a central authority, nations will be able to retain their own identity. They won't be any less slaves.
The UN wants to chip the entire planet with biometric computer chips. Somehow I doubt they would just let everyone go now that they have them right where they want them.
n/a soullessgeth 2017-04-24
this is complete nonsense dude. the UN has zero power. what is the UN going to do?
the people obsessed with pushing the narrative and chipping people are the anglo establishment by the way...and they are getting annihilated
n/a joshua_ray 2017-04-24
No power vs. Little power are two different things, especially when the UN Charter can and has been radically redesigned, to apportion more power.
The UN is 75 percent funded by the USA and it's constitution was penned by 13 US Senators in San Francisco in 1963. It seems fair to presume that the UN is just an extention of the will of the United States, which itself is an extention of the will of European elites who run the EU.
So there is a lot of power there, if you aren't willing to ignore the rest of the picture.
My main point is that A) It's power may make a quantum leap soon, or
B) The USA may do away with the UN as it is no longer useful as a means t the end which is global domination.
How is this nonsense?
Please be clear.
n/a soullessgeth 2017-04-24
because western military industrial and banking establishment is clearly the enemy of the entire world, most clearly it's own citizens. look at the economic policies and pointless wars they have involved the west in for profit, not to mention supporting nazism back in the day which was basically funded by East Coast industiralists and bankers.
the UN is irrelevant because it is in some ways an extension of western establishment power but has no military power.
n/a joshua_ray 2017-04-24
It seems to me that the UN is more key than you think. It may be this or that, but one thing it is not, is irrelevant.
It's vision is the reason for the world going the direction it goes. Incrementally implimenting the UN's policies, is well underway, and led to developments such as the African Union, which started out with 75000 troops trained over ten years prior, by none other than the USA. Coincidence?
The powers behind the UN are very relevant, and their ambition is clear- global domination.
They have resources to make this happen, and are well into the progress of their plans.
What makes you think they are A)only Anglo, and B)Losing power?
n/a soullessgeth 2017-04-24
they are only anglo. the entire EU disaster and UN disaster were design by the Wilsonian Idealist morons in the US and UK. as is the whole IMF disaster and all the financial capitalist bullshit.
they funded nazism to create the EU etc...
the UN right now as it exists is just a way for them to shame China and Russia on the world stage seemingly. it's not really working though.
there have been many articles written on the death of US military and political dominance and hegemony. the whole "american century" bullshit thing was just propaganda written by cheney among others.
the dominance of russia and china in the future was even spoken about by US intelligence analysts in the 60s by the way.
it is due to their geographical advantage in Asia, the most plentiful source of untapped resources on the planet
n/a joshua_ray 2017-04-24
I agree that the last century is behind us, and a new century, with new potential lay ahead. China is certainly becoming a big deal. Russia too, but they could both be history depending on how the tides turn. America hasn't really lost military hegemony. In fact, they have made astounsing gains and anticipate (it seems), making further gains. We will really just have to wait and see.
I'm still unclear why you think everyone behind the EU is Anglo. Can you name some names?
It seems to me that anyone from that area, by now would be Anglo-Saxon, if not a mix with other types. I have a hard time believing anyone on earth is only Anglo.
I myself am from a Frisian family that stretches back over a thousand years at least, but I am 6 other things also, including Ukrainian, French (pff), and possibly Israelite (it's a rumour; a rumour I started).
n/a soullessgeth 2017-04-24
consider the whole history of the EU and the corporations that supported nazism (and banks) and make the connections.
n/a joshua_ray 2017-04-24
Nice escape move.
If you don't know or don't have time to comment, then say so.
Looking up all that stuff won't help me understand why you think Anglo men exist.
n/a soullessgeth 2017-04-24
TRIGGERED
n/a joshua_ray 2017-04-24
That doesn't really make sense. How am I triggered? I didn't even get mad lol.
Are you just saying random things so that you don't have to admit Anglo-only people likely don't exist?
Honestly that isn't even our main disagreement, so I don't know why you'd try so hard to avoid it.
n/a soullessgeth 2017-04-24
lawyer-speak won't save your argument
n/a joshua_ray 2017-04-24
Wow. Ok big guy. Nice talking to you...
...actually I'd have preferred to have never looked your way. You have nothing interesting to say, it seems.
n/a soullessgeth 2017-04-24
you have nothing but vague hypocritical progressive platitudes and zero substance. you're a paper tiger whose perspective folds in a light breeze
n/a joshua_ray 2017-04-24
You make claims without providing evidence.
You had a couple of things to say at first, but after that seemed to have gone drinking or something. Now you are just heaving insults. You haven't made sense for several comments!
I believe that my original argument was that the UN is relevant. I don't believe you have sufficiently rebutted. If I were you, I'd start there rather than proclaiming yourself the winner of Reddit and prancing around like you are..
n/a soullessgeth 2017-04-24
no that was my argument. you were the one arguing that the establishment isn't dead or dying. which it is
n/a joshua_ray 2017-04-24
Yes you keep saying that, but when I ask why you think that you had very little, to nothing, to offer as an explanation.
I am genuinely curious why you think this.
n/a soullessgeth 2017-04-24
just do some research into the Anglo Establishment and the history of wilsonian idealism. hint: making arguments about genetics or whatever nonsense you were talking about is irrelevant
n/a joshua_ray 2017-04-24
Haha you have missed my point entirely! My point is that, at some point in history, the Anglo and the Saxon tribes mixed so much, that people began to call them Anglo-Saxons. This is actually, extremely relevant.
There is no such thing anymore, as an Anglo person.
Now obviously this is splitting hairs, but it is so funny how you are defending this point to the death, even though you don't have to.
I just want you to call them Anglo-Saxons. Is that so terrible?
Wilsonian Idealism is an interesting topic, sure, but how will looking it up help me? Why can't you just write a couple more sentances expoinding upon your point? Why do you just say two words and then run away? Like I said, if you don't have the time just say so, but I would prefer to have an actual conversation, rather than to have some rude person tell me what I do and don't know.
n/a soullessgeth 2017-04-24
do you realize there is a thing as cultural difference rather than just racial differences right?
i know american stuggle with this due to american being a brain dead monoculture...but jesus
n/a joshua_ray 2017-04-24
If you were worried about speaking in Cultural terms, you should just call them Brittish.
Funny how you think you know me. Honestly, it's offensive.
I'm Candian, isn't that vierd?
n/a soullessgeth 2017-04-24
Anglo is a culture. It more or less refers to the English speaking world. and yes there absolutely is.
the only way you could say there isn't is if you are some isolated deluded american who has no idea about the outside world. which you clearly are
n/a joshua_ray 2017-04-24
It's funny that you use the word "clearly", when actually who I am is far from clear to you.
I admitted that I have never heard of Anglo culture, and I invited you to prove me wrong. That is hardly a closed-minded sentiment.
Well you have officially made yourself an impossible person to talk to. I have no need for anymore of your bullish remarks. Good day.
n/a soullessgeth 2017-04-24
yeah keep making a bunch of pedantic arguments and somehow believing that cultural norms or differences don't exist.
you are probably some lunatic sjw at heart. sjw hate facts and hate acknowledging ACTUAL cultural differences. we are all neoliberal capitalist globalists at heart or whatever (hint: we aren't)
n/a joshua_ray 2017-04-24
How is what I said, amounting to me A)Hating facts and, B)Not believing that cultural differences exist?
Neither of those things are true. I love facts, actually, which is why I would make a pedantic argument!
It is interesting that i actually have tried to make other arguments, but you insist on only talking about this one, because you don't want to go back and fix what you said initially, which I admit I didn't have much problem with!
Now can we get back to the actual conversation, which is regarding the relevancy of the UN and America's vision for the world?
You seem to just want so badly to stay on this topic. You don't seem to have an interest in actually conversing with someone fairly.
n/a soullessgeth 2017-04-24
you don't even acknowledge cultural differences exist, therefore you are incapable of understanding what wilsonian idealism (the anglo establishment plan for the world) and what the UN stands for-and what it is opposed to ie real world cultural diversity.
so no you are not capable of understanding this topic
n/a joshua_ray 2017-04-24
I have not said anything, which might lead one to believe, that I do not acknowledge or believe in, cultural differences. That is plainly absurd.
Seeing as you are the kind of person to make snap judgements, based on logical fallacies, I feel as if you are almost entirely a waste of time to talk to.
I did some reading about Wilsonian Idealism yesterday, and I already admitted that i find it interesting, so how can you go ahead and say what you just said? It seems as if you are actively trying your hardest, to not have a conversation.
I warn you now, if you say just one more thing about who I am, and call me names or say something bad about me, I will report you for it. I am not against wading through the IRE, to find interesting things, but you're not seeming to be offering anymore. Just non-stop spewing of toxic hate. Why do you hate so much?
n/a soullessgeth 2017-04-24
you literally said anglo culture isn't a culture...and it is defined by genetics...which don't exist so therefore the culture doesn't exist.
yeah that's a pretty ignorant, moronic thing to say
n/a joshua_ray 2017-04-24
But you are twisting my words. I didn't mean to say that anglo culture doesn't exist. I pointed out that the Wiki cites Anglo culture to be either Anglo-American or aome part of the Eastern UK. So if you use the word, at least use it properly and not as a general term for all white people.
I meant that Anglo is an old word, and modern times doesn't see a lot of Anglo-only culture.
Even just reading the wiki, makes it clear that Wilson would be considered an Anglo-American, which is not the same as calling him Anglo.
I admitted this is splitting hairs, which means I don't consider it to be a very important point. I really didn't want to spend so much time talking about it.
I'm not sure why you refuse to just let it go..
n/a soullessgeth 2017-04-24
you didn't say anything about culture. you made a bunch of genetic statements.
just look up wilsonian idealism and you will get what i mean by the anglo establishment.
like i said they are the ones behind the league of nations, the UN, IMF, EU etc.
n/a onetimerone 2017-04-24
You refuse to make sweeping assertions then say something like the EU is a LIBERAL pipe dream. Apparently you forgot about the Bush family pushing for the NWO.
n/a joshua_ray 2017-04-24
Please take the time to make a whole, cohesive point. I am unsure what you are getting at.
Was it truly, not fair for me to say, the EU is a Liberal Pipedream? It surely is Liberal in nature. Yes people who pretend to be Conservatives advocate for the NWO, but the EU and the NWO are not the same thing. They do seem to have similar goals, but I'm not sure why you've made a direct connection.
I am not saying you are wrong, because I do not yet understand your point.
n/a onetimerone 2017-04-24
The EU may not be the NWO but it's a stair step on the way. As for fairness you are free to use your own compass. I was merely pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of the juxtaposition of "liberal pipedream" and a caution about sweeping generalities.
n/a joshua_ray 2017-04-24
So you are here to offer basically nothing. Ok.
n/a Hambone_Malone 2017-04-24
They are stronger than ever. Have you been paying attention?
n/a soullessgeth 2017-04-24
uh no not at all...you haven't been though...all their anti russia hysteria is hilarious but extremely impotent
n/a Hambone_Malone 2017-04-24
Bombs are falling as we speak.
n/a soullessgeth 2017-04-24
they are still losing dude...clearly...they are literally losing control of europe and the states right now...
hence all the handwringing and DEMANDS...yet they are losing
n/a talented 2017-04-24
That's all financial politics. The military is more engaged than ever before and are getting a budget boost with Trump.
n/a soullessgeth 2017-04-24
it's more like he's bribing the military industrial complex war profiteers to to shut up. so he can pursue a less interventionist foreign policy
n/a Hambone_Malone 2017-04-24
Where are you getting this from?
n/a illithid_business 2017-04-24
Really?
n/a magnora7 2017-04-24
The public is awakening and the media is scrambling to control the damage
n/a FUCK_TPTB 2017-04-24
Trump and Obama are history's biggest conmen
n/a Tunderbar1 2017-04-24
I think that they both ran into the same problem.
n/a talented 2017-04-24
At least Obama cut the military budget...
n/a Smoothtank 2017-04-24
But bombed more than anyone.
n/a talented 2017-04-24
Comparing shit to shit. We aren't in full engagement with ground troops. We don't have as many American soldiers dying as under Bush. Arguably, we have to do something about ISIS. Unfortunately, were in more military engagements than ever before. Supposedly we run more precision operations all over the world. But the troops are safer and we spent less money... 😐
n/a libbylibertarian 2017-04-24
It's almost like you didn't include our ground troops in Afghanistan. Obama had chance to wind that one down...especially after we caught "Bin Laden" but he decided to commit us for another 20 yrs. Obama is part of the same problem, and your partisanship will never solve it.
n/a talented 2017-04-24
I'm pragmatic with politicians. You get idealistic during the primaries and pick what you want. But when it comes to the final election I compare policies and likelihood of getting what I can need. There is no partisanship here. I vote for what I think is best for this country and for me. If a Republican/Democrat most likely represents what I need in a botched system of pick 2 then I pick the better option. I don't vote just for platitudes but actual plans and direction.
The important thing is we're always fighting to move forward.
n/a megalodon90 2017-04-24
Gotta keep the poppy fields producing somehow.
n/a dutsi 2017-04-24
I have this feeling that whoever is elected president, no matter what you promise on the campaign trail – blah, blah, blah – when you win, you go into this smoke-filled room with the twelve industrialist capitalist scum-fucks who got you in there. And you're in this smoky room, and this little film screen comes down … and a big guy with a cigar goes, "Roll the film." And it's a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before … that looks suspiciously like it's from the grassy knoll. And then the screen goes up and the lights come up, and they go to the new president, "Any questions?" "Er, just what my agenda is." "First we bomb Muslims." "You got it ."
n/a YaBoyVolke 2017-04-24
You should include his name in this quote you copy&pasted.
n/a dutsi 2017-04-24
did you need his name to recognize it?
n/a ronintetsuro 2017-04-24
Others might, and attribution is good manners.
Bill Hicks, by the way.
n/a dutsi 2017-04-24
for most of us in this sub the obviousness of this quote makes the attribution quite unnecessary. this specific quote is arguably the most conspiracy relevant comedian quote of all time outside of the equally obvious George Carlin material.
inserting a painfully obvious quote into the rare situation where if fits perfectly into an unrelated comment thread is a kind of inside joke on reddit.... using a Bill Hicks quote (especially that one) in this sub is obviously a joke to anyone who has spent any time around conspiracy material, or comedy, or music, or popular culture ffs. can you understand how attribution kind of ruins the inside joke? anyone who is unseasoned enough to have not yet encountered the original bill hick's routine (or the hundreds of times it has been sampled into songs, memes, etc) will get in on the joke when they eventually do.
your righteous ignition and 'good manners' are terribly cute, keep up the good work!
n/a ronintetsuro 2017-04-24
I've insinuated no such thing. It's just good manners to attribute quotes to those they belong to. Quotes are not painfully obvious to everyone, new people come here all the time.
I do not understand how this was a "joke", and clearly I'm not the only one?
n/a Surfdetective 2017-04-24
Melania did the same thing to Michelle Obama.
n/a elnegroik 2017-04-24
Do you think they make the cigar smoke extra voluminous - to really shit you up good & proper yknow?
n/a Marionumber1 2017-04-24
According to Cliff Arnebeck (an election fraud attorney), a high-level CIA agent boasted "All it took to get Obama to stay in line was to show him the Zapruder film".
n/a BobNoel 2017-04-24
A lot of people think candidates lie during their campaigns, but I think it's more likely that it isn't until they get into office that they realize how far down the food chain the President really is. The exceptions to this of course would have been the Clintons, Bush sr, etc
n/a BraveNeocon 2017-04-24
Barack Hussein Obama is a crypto Muslim, he had to cut deals with the jews to be President, like they all do; but as a Muslim, his price to pay must have been unfathomably great. He visibly chaffed under the commands of Netanyahu sometimes, you can tell he's not okay with it, but he is the epitome of a self obsessed person who HAD to have his name in history books, no matter the cost
Donald "one term Trump" on the other hand, has been making deals with jews his entire life. It's second nature to him. He was the rigged election winner from the start. Hillary was paid to be the patsy
n/a neighborhoodsniper 2017-04-24
I don't even know what to think about him anymore. At first I was all for the "4d chess" and thought "hmm maybe he is playing them and then he will pull a trick out of his sleeve". Now every day, more and more, I slowly doubt that. Im not giving up hope just yet, but im also not too optimistic of any significant change.
n/a skoalbrother 2017-04-24
I heard an interview trump gave where he said that he's giving the pentagon full control over the military. He doesn't want to know what they are doing, they have the authority to do what they need to...
n/a neighborhoodsniper 2017-04-24
If that is the case then he lied in his campaign about keeping us out of conflict. If he hands the reigns over then whatever he promised goes out the window I guess.
n/a skoalbrother 2017-04-24
Here is a source I found but I heard him say that the generals know what they are doing and are he would just slow them down. When he was eating that chocolate cake with the president of China, he found out that the military launched those 69 missile at Syria.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/15/trump-gives-generals-more-freedom-to-make-decisions-in-isis-fight.html
n/a ShelSilverstain 2017-04-24
But he called them "my military"
n/a ronintetsuro 2017-04-24
Easily the most terrifying knowledge to come out of the Trump admin so far.
n/a aal04 2017-04-24
Hitler had the right motives to go to war. He just went overboard after he cleansed his country.
n/a Ealthina 2017-04-24
We have not for a long long time.
n/a logga 2017-04-24
How did this election prove it ? We're you that naive to think the American public had any control whatsoever over the military 😂 the party system is an illusion . You have no choice , you're all slaves . Also I don't actually see how Trump has suddenly changed your mind on this.. What war is the US fighting ? There were some bombs dropped on an insignificant Syrian air base , which was most likely agreed upon in advance, certainly Russia knew. Either way the gen pop had no control over it.
n/a OB1_kenobi 2017-04-24
When is the last time any country actually attacked the US?
When is the last time anyone made a formal declaration of war before using military force?
When is the last time the media pointed this out?
n/a AgentOrange1659 2017-04-24
Only the American people can make America th greatest country on earth. Ain't no chump in the White House can do that for us. They're there to oppress the people. Fuck them. Y'all need to clean your motherfucking house homies.
n/a shortadamlewis 2017-04-24
Our system (The United States') isn't perfect, but it is the best the world has ever known.
n/a joshua_ray 2017-04-24
The Frisians had the most egalitarian society ever on this planet (if you value that sort of thing). Imo, that makes them the best in history. Of course being Frisian, I would say that.
n/a shortadamlewis 2017-04-24
Had...
How'd that work out for you?
n/a joshua_ray 2017-04-24
Frisian society was infiltrated by Christianity. After that what amounted to the fiercest pagan resistance to the Holy Roman Empire, tranformed into the pacofost farmers you'll find today (surfs).
n/a agentfaux 2017-04-24
Something that's been going on since the 50's is the biggest takeaway from the 2016 election for you? Gee, welcome i guess.
n/a TheDaisyCutter 2017-04-24
i seriously hop you don't think this is something new
n/a Tunderbar1 2017-04-24
No. But to some people it is new.
n/a TheDaisyCutter 2017-04-24
A thought that dates back to the start of the country isn't exactly new.
Name one time in US history where when the peoiple said, "wait, no, we're not going to war" and it worked. It don't - the concept of you not having as many rights as you think is ages old.
People have been directed in everyday life for decades, centuries.
n/a Tunderbar1 2017-04-24
The question that arises is that if the electorate thru the WH and thru both houses of congress cannot change US military policy, who, exactly, is directing the US military? Who is in charge of what the US military and the rest of the infrastructure, ie the CIA?
The US is the global leader and a massive resource in terms of money (taxes), troops, armaments, etc. Large enough to dominate the globe.
But the US people do not control it. What is preventing this massive military capability from being turned onto itself?
n/a BraveNeocon 2017-04-24
And Americans won't care, because Americans literally worship muh troops
n/a TrowwayFiggenstein 2017-04-24
Obama made this clear in 2008.
n/a butteredfingernails 2017-04-24
Basically, yes. People voted for Trump because they didn't want to be involved in the Middle East's affairs anymore. What did they get? More involvement in the Middle East's affairs.
n/a yourmomslefthand 2017-04-24
Well dah... we never had control-
n/a TotesMessenger 2017-04-24
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
n/a ginger_fuck 2017-04-24
That's your biggest takeaway? What about how in the era with the easiest access to information Americans are still so ignorant that they thought a fear mongering narcissistic demagogue who can barely string a thought together, would care about them.
n/a Tunderbar1 2017-04-24
Compared to Hillary, he's a fucking genius of a saint.
But yeah, it doesn't matter what the electorate does. Americans do not control their govt and their govt does not control their military resources.
n/a qoloku 2017-04-24
I truly think this is just a ratings grab. Trumps been seen as insensitive and conscious-less. The narrative is that Assad murdered innocent children with gas. If he goes on the offensive to protect innocent children, he's seen as having a conscious by the left which will certainly boost his record low ratings. At the same time, he's rallying up the right by doing what he said and "going after ISIS." Now he's trying to have us all rally around the flag in order to boost his ratings to try and secure a second term. He had nothing to lose in fear of impeachment.
n/a Tunderbar1 2017-04-24
His independence has been compromised.
n/a qoloku 2017-04-24
okay