Any of this Sound Familiar?
- This topic has 10 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Ramón Casas Decadence 1899 Reading up on the Syria ‘chemical attack’ issue (is that the right term to use?). The headlines are entirely predict
[See the full post at: Any of this Sound Familiar?]About Syria, it is obviously the on-going civil war between different factions of the US government and Deep State.Every time Trump tries to do something, they sabotage it.
IMHO, these are the preliminaries to a proper civil war or even a war with Russia.
Falling Sea Level: The Critical Factor in 2016 Great Barrier Reef Bleaching!
Well, it seems that this article lays to rest two items of news that are very popular in the MSM – rising sea levels and coral bleaching due to Global Warming. A “Two for One”
What can we say, but,,,,,,,
https://www.antiwar.com/bourne.phpI have to admit that I have been disturbed all day by the reports of the supposed gas attack in Syria. I’ve said that it is easy for the media to pass off propaganda from war-ravaged foreign areas, because we have little ability to go into those areas to discern the truth.
I tend to believe that the Syrian military hit some storehouse of chemicals that the rebels controlled, or it was a staged false flag operation by the same said rebels, ISIS, not the least of which.
I was disgusted that Hugh Hewitt, who has an early talk radio show in the United States and who can be frequently seen giving commentary on NBC, was already, this morning, calling on Trump to punish Assad by bombing some of his palaces, or something that is dear to Assad. Hugh Hewitt calls himself center-right. But I can’t help but thinking who in the world does he work for? Start bombing an ally of Putin? Seriously?
As Mr. Meijer said, this just looks all too familiar in terms of what happened with Hussein and Gaddafi.
Nassim,
Very interesting on the sea level there. I look forward to your hard hitting link that shows sea level is falling everywhere, especially Miami, FLA.As the Democratic side doubles down and refuses to adjust at all — Bigly — (as shown by pointedly paying to sabotage very normal and popular choice Ellison for DNC head and force artificial installation of Hillary-wing Perez) we have one half of the nation sort of in the mainstream narrative and half who doesn’t believe anything.
That’s well-known, but there’s an interesting consequence unfolding, illustrated by the recent advertiser’s boycott of Youtube: with the nation running 50-50, publishers, advertisers, corporations, are now speaking to only HALF of U.S. consumers, only half of the public. Everything else aside, boycotting half your customers is not good for business. So let’s see: half of YouTube is made of Alt-somebodies, and they are the very reason YouTube exists at all: if I wanted to listen to the unexamined mainstream perspective, I would just open my gullet and turn on MSNBC/CNN/FOX on TV. Therefore, not only are the advertisers boycotting half their customers, and further exacerbating the feeling that Flyoverlanders are the Deplorable Unwashed, they-who-are-too-stupid-to-name and must-be-told-what-it-good-for-them but YouTube itself will cease to be as it only exists as an outlet for things, videos, opinions, that weren’t allowed in the mainstream to begin with.
So aside from politics, we are now moving to have two countries economically. One who deals with cities and acceptable events and narratives, the sales of new the new i-7, Teslas, $1M+ houses, and self-driving autonomous car/drone/housebots, and another nation of the forgotten who deals with food, water, and not dying. Your Hunger Games universe, if you will. Companies and advertisers who are willing to deal with one, the Alex Jones-ville as it were, will refuse to deal with the other, and vice-versa. Two populations, two corporation sets, two media sets, two realities. But when you take the whole wealth of the nation and send it to powdered-wig parties in Paris, 1788, that’s what happens.
Still, it’s an incredibly interesting development, and not one I have the intricate language to tease out yet. Just know that, as easily proven by viewership numbers, the core cities/media are talking to literally no one, and yet it’s impossible for shutting down the alternative discussions to work, as it only alerts, antagonizes, and alienates more people, (lookin’ at you, Pewtie-Pie) affirming the popular suspicion that’s the center is all a rigged, dishonest and extractive game, and we the people are the target of its violence. Tune in next week, more to come…
“It’s where the money is.”
Yes, and that’s not going to change until we choose to change it, specifically, to end it.
The profit incentive, based on our exchange-based belief system, has resulted in a distrust-based economy, rather than the purported trust-based one. Whether people see and understand that or not doesn’t change the situation relative to our viable options for putting an end to the societal dysfunction. Either we end this belief system or we go down with it.
Anyone care to dispute that?
I’ll dispute it. Mikey will dispute anything.
Profit motive would innately require a trust-based cooperative economy. Why? Because you can’t/won’t do business with people you don’t trust. Can I buy a car from someone I don’t trust? Get a furnace that might be used/broken/empty box? No. Can I show up to buy something if like war zones, they will just shoot me and take the money back? No. Further, there literally is and can be no capitalism whatsoever without trust. The entire wholesale system, end to end, requires the trust of delivering goods more or less as contracted, with payments more or less released as contracted, with banks that behave to move the marker chits around as contracted. If there is any wobble in the trust system, as in ’08, commerce halts. Banks don’t trust each other, container ships don’t move, factories halt.
What we have is not a trust-based system but one based on violence and coercion, and increasingly have for decades. I don’t buy insurance, I’m legally force by law, as a living being, to pay a corporation money. If I don’t, I will be sent to prison. I am legally required, by law, to purchase electricity and running water. If I don’t, my children will be removed and sent to prison. The same at different levels for pretty much the whole remaining economy: cable, phone, health, cars, mortgages, etc. If I don’t like it, I have the “freedom” to live in a cave whereupon the sheriff will forcibly remove me to an institution for my own good…and the taxpayers will be legally required, by law, to pay for it.
Needless to say, that’s neither freedom nor capitalism. It’s the merger of government and corporate power, centrally planned and controlled. What part of this has to do with me making things and trading them with you? And why would it be bad if we both voluntarily do that? We think we both came out ahead or we wouldn’t trade to begin with. And that I want something you have, and we make a free cooperative trade that we’re both happy about is the “profit motive” that is wrecking everything and what you so oppose. So should we only do trades if we are both UNhappy with them? If we both lose? Or we should not be allowed to fairly share amongst ourselves without permission? If some middle man approves and gets paid too? How exactly does this work?
Yes, profit is not the ONLY thing that should be calculated: society, community, environment, religion, future generations, should all be considered. But profit motive IS a thing that MUST work within its appropriate sphere. If you don’t believe me, look at Venezuela or any other place it’s been tried. There’s nothing worse than Capitalism, except every other system that’s been tried.
Please grant me the permission to be left alone and trade my wood, my time, for my neighbor’s tractor, his time, and try not to prevent me from trying to live, okay? Try not to tell us both what to do and accidentally kill us with good intentions. Life is hard enough already and hardly anybody’s working as it is.
This post is what you get when you go off the rails of healthy skepticism and crash into a fever swamp of paranoia.
Is it really so hard to imagine that the MSM might all report the same thing because, objectively, that is the fact of the matter? Indeed, isn’t the more logical conclusion that, if all of the MSM is reporting the same thing, it probably is true? And if an outsider (e.g., Ron Paul or Alex Jones) provides a counter narrative, isn’t it logical to question whether what they are offering is opinion, not facts?
It is nonsense to question the “logic” of a vulgar display of power. Power is not fettered by logic, and Assad’s power does not come from how the world views him but from his control of Syria and his alliance with Russia. Fuck the rest of the world. What are they going to do about it? Start a war with Russia? Yeah, right. (There’s your logic, Ron Paul. The world has seen that Trump speaks loudly and carries a wet noodle. This Republican Congress will not give Trump the sanction to attack Syria that they refused Obama, so don’t sweat it.)
It is also ridiculous that you insist on judging the likelihood of Assad being behind the Syrian gas attack by applying logic while ignoring the utter lack of logic behind the accusation that Susan Rice had members of the Trump transition team unmasked for political reasons. If Susan Rice knew the individuals she was asking to be unmasked were members of the Trump transition team and wanted to use that information for political reasons, she would not have asked for them to be unmasked because doing so would leave an audit trail that could completely undermine her nefarious political machinations. The more logical explanation for her request that certain individuals be unmasked is that she did not know who they were. Pretty simple, and sometimes the simple explanation is the best one.
Whether or not Susan Rice leaked classified information is a different question that should be answered. I just think the unmasking accusation is plain silly because it assumes she knew who she was asking to be unmasked, which completely obviates any need to request unmasking. Right?
Logic.
Tao Jonesing is my new hero! The power of the simple explanation is termed, “Occam’s Razor”. I don’t know who Occam was, or whether his razor was particularly sharp. But I do believe those poor Syrians are dead as hell, and their president/dictator did not bother to keep them safe from whichever American news organization or American political actor actually poisoned them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.