Debt Rattle 9/11 2025
- This topic has 56 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 11 minutes ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Perhaps D and his miker can explain the following in non-overwrought, self-professed unemotional, mega-stoic but definitely not cold psychopathic Way:
Is this behavior by Jd Vance BLANTON Bowman Hamel standard protocol for Heads of State like Charlie Kirk?
-
vance-cancels-911-appearances-to-travel-to-salt-lake-city-and-escort-body-of-charlie-kirk-back-to-arizona-aboard-air-force-two
sooooo Vance should be honoring the Mossad/CIA psyop from 24 years ago that wasted trillions of dollars and millions of lives and put the USA into a perpetual quasi non constitutional state of emergency?
In preference to honoring a journalist murdered in cold blood for talking with people and having opinions? How heartless??? Honoring free speech and civil society over honoring the security state and a lie?
emmanuel goldstein alert!!!!!¡¡¡¡¡!!!!!!
[btw, i’m still not a socialist]
jb-hb said
“Activist” does NOT mean someone who wants to destroy things like free speech, free association, and is not open nor honest, is not a good faith actor, does not care to have a discussion, whose every “discussion” is for the purpose of NON discussion.
Kirk was wanting to destroy the Palestinians, he supported Israeli assassinations, he regularly lied about the starvation in Gaza and you pretend that he was a truth teller, all he wanted was to speak? Nonsense, you have lost your powers of critical thought. Posing the Kirks of this world as fighting leftists is nonsense, the Kirks of this world are religious zealots, they will lie and decive to get what they want. Your painting Kirk as someone who just wants to persue the truth is disingenuous or just more plain lies.
You are hung up on leftists, your arguments are mostly nonsense, even in your diatribe above you have to define “activist” in your own terms. The evangelicals are not activists in your terms, they are religious zealots, they are the same as the war hawks in government. They have abandoned the inconvenient parts of their religion and become fundementalists, just like the people who strap bombs to themselves and blow up others, except that US fundementalists support the IDF and the US military doing their version of religious mass murder.
Kirk’s god said “Do not kill”, he did not say it was okay sometimes, it was a direct order, but Kirk decided that he didn’t like that bit, so he hitched his donkey to the evangelical wagon, the people who’s self interest trumps everybody else’s self interest, this Kirk garbage was persuing evangelicalism through the genocide of the Palestinians and you mourn him as a truth teller? Give us a break.
They took over the $ in 1913. Told everyone who the new boss was in 1963. The coup de eta was 911. Any American reading this better begin to understand the enemy, Sun Tzu, rule number 1. They want you dead, after they steal everything you own.
Dude, there is a difference between stating your opinions and being a subversive acting in bad faith. Your entire post is with the intent to invert the definition as opposed to discuss.
I notice the latest Apsnaz is far, FAR more sensitive about criticism of socialism than previous ones.
And does different strategems – like the socialist thing of lecturing Christians about Christianity while not being one and despising them. The old windsufing Apsnaz never engaged in fuckery like this.
Your’e like a pod person, a space alien, who cannot understand a detailed post about bad faith subversives and feels little embarrassment (you just embarrassed yourself publicly quite a lot with this last post) when saying someone openly, forthrightly having different opinions than you and being willing to genuinely willing to discuss them is the same thing. That’s cluster-b talk, man.
religious mass murder.
actually, the religion is just a cover. the mass murder is about resources, and thus, power.
same as it ever was..
religion is a just one of the easiest to use cover stories.
jb-hb said
So the corporations, controlled by radical leftist trust fund babies that went to the right colleges, drift towards doing what Communists do when they gain power, and when we see the awfulness, we say “Woah, Lenin was right”???
The roots of the left are the working man, the man who goes to do a physically demanding job every day for a wage, who is totally replaceable and is the bottom of the economic ladder lacking any real individual power. Those people are the brothers that the communists go on about. These are the people that the communists traditionally want to protect by not, for example, supporting immigration; the workers of the world unite. The reason they do not support immigration is that they see it as a direct result of capitalism; the demand for more labour is due to the demand for growth and expansion resulting from capitalism. The communists see this as people having to migrate to get a job, taking the best away from another country in order to feed the destination country, the communists see this as a bad thing, the factories should go to the countries without jobs, not the workers travelling to the countries with jobs. Apologies to any real communists, but that is the gist of their thinking.
But the media left supports immigration, so how does that work? Because there are two sets of leftists, there are the ones who’s objectives are to defend the common man as the foundation for a healthy society, and there are the Tony Blair latte supping leftists who are middle class, read the Guardian and pretend that they are good people for supporting the common man, but in actuality are serving themselves and have captured the political movements of the common man. These people believe in immigration because it supports DEI, it supports equality blah blah. Basically it supports good causes, but these are also the NIMBY class, these people will support the down trodden but not in their area. The problem is that the real left does not support the “down trodden”, it supports workers and insists that they should not be turned into the downtrodden.
Capturing a political movement such as the left was effected by Margaret Thatcher in the UK. She was determined to make the workers middle class, so she sold government owned houses cheaply to the workers and in return they became Tory voters or faux leftists. This was a huge win for the employers as she destroyed the unions and had the support of all the new house owners. Sounds good, except that the result was the total destruction of all industry in the UK. Not so good. Something similar happened to the USA.
The middle class leftists have lost sight of the aims of the original left which was to support their country and to support their brothers at their home, not demanding that everybody emmigrate to the USA for a job.
You cannot conflate the leftists who have taken over a part of the leftist mantle with real leftists who are still wanting the workers of the world to unite. Most of the latte supping middle class leftists do not even know a working man, they are complete frauds, the closest they get to working men is their gardener.
They are all frauds, but not all leftists are frauds. The original leftists have a valid argument, even though I do not agree with all their methods; the latte supping leftists are just politically lost, they have no ideology, that is why they do not talk ideology. They abandoned their ideology and have been led by the nose to support any stupid cause that comes along, the virtue signalling train.
jb-hb said
Your’e like a pod person, a space alien, who cannot understand a detailed post about bad faith subversives and feels little embarrassment (you just embarrassed yourself publicly quite a lot with this last post) when saying someone openly, forthrightly having different opinions than you and being willing to genuinely willing to discuss them is the same thing. That’s cluster-b talk, man.
You are commenting about leftists in a dumb fashion, that is why I am responding to you. You are talking about Democrats and communists in the same sentence, you are accusing the Democrat voters of bringing communism to America. That is just plain dumb. The vast majority of Democrat voters have no real knowledge of communism.
Until you look into the left wing and understand the different groups involved, your comments don’t say very much and do not hang together. Just because Kirk is anti-left does not make him a good guy. You seems to have forgotten that “the enemy of my enemy is not my friend”.
You are talking about the left and right as if they were rooted in something other than a vacuum of ideology. The left does not follow communism or any recogniseable leftist agenda, the right does not follow conservatism or any recognisable rightist agenda. The lack of ideology opens the way for the religious fanatics, like Kirk, to start preaching to the desperate ears of the youth, misleading them into religious fanaticism instead of leading them into political ideology.
I don’t embarrass myself, your simplification of the world just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. If you were a learning person you would see that for yourself, but you have put learning to one side and picked up the mantle of “anti-left superman” when really you don’t even understand the left.
those darned kids said
actually, the religion is just a cover. the mass murder is about resources, and thus, power.
same as it ever was..
religion is a just one of the easiest to use cover stories.
I agree, but the fact is that they DO need a cover story and different groups have their stories. The evangelicals have their religious reasons to support Israel, the Jews have their reasons to support Israel and Greater Israel etc. Theft on a grand scale, as with war, needs a cover story that will draw in the masses and get them to support what should not be happening. As with all the morons putting Ukraine flags on the X posts back in 2022, now we have half of America supporting the Gaza genocide. It appears as if there is nothing the government cannot persuade a large chunk of the people to support.
Sun Tzu’s principles of war
emphasize strategic superiority over brute force,
with the highest form of victory being
the ability to subdue the enemy without direct conflict.The core rule is that
it is better to capture an enemy’s country, army, or unit intact
rather than destroy it, as destruction leads to
unnecessary loss and resource drain.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.