"Not My President"

[Lerxst]

This is funny in a tragic sort of way:

After Four Years of High-Profile Anti-Obama Rallies, an Inauguration-Day Counter-Ball Was Kind of a Bust

What really irks me about people in these groups can be summed up with this excerpt from the middle: Kokesh is a former marine who served in Fallujah in 2004. When he got back from Iraq, he says he woke up to the deception around him and to the true, tyrannical nature of government.

I read this article right after this one: Green Party of the US opposes military intervention in Mali, urges withdrawal of AFRICOM

On both sides you have deep-rooted anger and disgust for the government but why do people always fall into the Libertarian end of the spectrum when they get upset about their government instead of the Green end of the spectrum? Both sides are equally disgusted by the government and apparently, it's for the same reasons.

Is it because it's just easier to feed anger with more anger and look for others who are just as angry to display the anger, than it is to take a step back and look for a more diplomatic approach? Is that anarchistic Scorched Earth, Libertarian approach really any different or going to solve the problems they complain about to begin with?

It's easy to sit there and simply react with a knee jerk reaction to a political situation that gets you upset. It's a lot more difficult to hold that anger back and take a more thought out approach though; think Black Panthers vs Martin Luther King Jr.

Libertarians like this guy only want to seem to protest what they, personally get upset about and what they, personally experience. They seem to lack the ability to empathize with people or a situation on a more general scope, if it doesn't affect them directly.

 

[Apone]

Well, why doesn't the Green party join with the Libertarians?

Anyways, sounds like a second scramble for Africa is taking place here… it kind of makes sense, since the last one was sort of abandoned and the result was a total mess. It was inevitable that it would happen again.

As harsh/evil as it might sound, I don't think it's an altogether bad thing… colonialism might have fucked them up, but if there's one continent that could actually benefit from intervention, it's Africa. One of the reasons that they don't have industry is because they're so unstable, and the corporations are afraid to go there… but if the US/NATO intervenes, it would probably be a lot of horrible fighting but eventually things would settle down and I'd imagine that there would be a lot of opportunities suddenly being made available to local businesses… or at least, domestic labor.

I seem to remember that during the start of the 2003 Iraq war (which a lot of Iraqis actually think improved conditions for them, btw), some people were complaining that the US wasn't intervening to prevent 'actual' tragedies like the situation in Sudan… if the US is planning on stabilizing Africa (which makes sense), it could actually be good for them (if they do it right).

On the other hand, I really don't like the idea of it sparking a cold war with China… that could be very very bad for all kinds of reasons. But then again, if that does happen and there are proxy wars like there were during the cold war with the Soviets, the African economies could also benefit from war profiteering (it worked for Japan and Korea). The problem here being that very few African countries are actually industrialized in any way, so there would be a lot of work to do-- I still think it's possible, though, because the opportunity would be there.

You might think I'm a horrible person for actually supporting US expansion and taking over the world and stuff, but I honestly do think that there are countries that have definitely benefited from the US presence in the past and that the same could happen to Africa.

 

[ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc]

 

[muir]

A libertarian is simply someone who believes that people should be free to do what they want to do as long as they are not hurting someone else

There are rightwing libertarians and there are left wing libertarians, but in the US the word has come to mean the rightwing variety; this has probably been done deliberatly by the media to hide from people the fact that there are left wing libertarians as well

There will be many libertarians within the green party

 

[muir]

Well, why doesn't the Green party join with the Libertarians?

The green party will be full of libertarians (not the type the corporate media call 'libertarians' but more people who fit the real meaning of the word libertarian which is someone who believes in a persons freedom to do what they want to do as long as they are not hurting others

Anyways, sounds like a second scramble for Africa is taking place here… it kind of makes sense, since the last one was sort of abandoned and the result was a total mess. It was inevitable that it would happen again.

These things don't need to be 'inevitable' they are simply the product of competition.

As harsh/evil as it might sound, I don't think it's an altogether bad thing… colonialism might have fucked them up, but if there's one continent that could actually benefit from intervention, it's Africa.

Thats a very misguided thing to say

Some people often say 'but we built roads, railways and shipping docks when we colonised those countries, so it wasn't all bad'.....but the truth about why we built that infrastructure was so we could move the resources of those countries out of those countries as efficiently as possible ie we were robbing them of their resources

Africa will not benefit from us stealing its resources, it would benefit from being able to use its own resources

One of the reasons that they don't have industry is because they're so unstable,

No its because they have been kept down by the IMF, World bank, trading restrictions, neoliberalism, poverty, disease and war which are all due to the influence of the neoliberal colonial (and now neo-colonial) countries

They are unstable because we flood the countries with guns and the neo-liberal countries fund and support dictators who then carry out their wishes in return for bribes

and the corporations are afraid to go there… but if the US/NATO intervenes, it would probably be a lot of horrible fighting but eventually things would settle down and I'd imagine that there would be a lot of opportunities suddenly being made available to local businesses… or at least, domestic labor.

The corporations are not there to benefit the countries they are there to exlpoit the resources

I seem to remember that during the start of the 2003 Iraq war (which a lot of Iraqis actually think improved conditions for them, btw), some people were complaining that the US wasn't intervening to prevent 'actual' tragedies like the situation in Sudan… if the US is planning on stabilizing Africa (which makes sense), it could actually be good for them (if they do it right).

This is not true there were sanctions imposed on the Iraqis by the neo-liberal countries that killed hundreds of thousands through malnutrition

The US is not interested in stablising Africa they are destablilisng it and have been flooding it with weapons for decades. Its the Chinese who have invested in the stability of Africa

On the other hand, I really don't like the idea of it sparking a cold war with China… that could be very very bad for all kinds of reasons. But then again, if that does happen and there are proxy wars like there were during the cold war with the Soviets, the African economies could also benefit from war profiteering (it worked for Japan and Korea).

japan hasn't profited its economy is stagnant and the koreans are kept in a state of antogonism with their fellow Koreans by an interfering US

The Africans will not benefit from war they will lose from it

The problem here being that very few African countries are actually industrialized in any way, so there would be a lot of work to do-- I still think it's possible, though, because the opportunity would be there.

No the problem is the interference of hostile and exploitative western countries ruled by a cabal of insatiable bankers and investors

You might think I'm a horrible person for actually supporting US expansion and taking over the world and stuff, but I honestly do think that there are countries that have definitely benefited from the US presence in the past and that the same could happen to Africa.

It seems to me that you are trying to invert the truth, or perhaps you are just buying into the corporate media lies

Just out of curiosity Apone, which corporation is it you work for?

 

[Apone]

A libertarian is simply someone who believes that people should be free to do what they want to do as long as they are not hurting someone else

There are rightwing libertarians and there are left wing libertarians, but in the US the word has come to mean the rightwing variety; this has probably been done deliberatly by the media to hide from people the fact that there are left wing libertarians as well

In North America, if you identify as a libertarian you want free market capitalism with minimal or no government interference- basically, survival of the fittest as long as you play fair, and fuck the losers because they deserved to lose.

If they leaned left, then they wouldn't be what we call libertarians.
It's not a plot to divide people, it's the definition of a word.

 

[muir]

In North America, if you identify as a libertarian you want free market capitalism with minimal or no government interference- basically, survival of the fittest as long as you play fair, and fuck the losers because they deserved to lose.

If they leaned left, then they wouldn't be what we call libertarians.
It's not a plot to divide people, it's the definition of a word.

No it isn't the definition of the word

Here is a professor of linguistics (an expert on language) explaining about the missuse of the word libertarianism (and it is done deliberately):

[video=youtube;RxPUvQZ3rcQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ[/video]

 

[the]

A libertarian is simply someone who believes that people should be free to do what they want to do as long as they are not hurting someone else

Thats how every party would self describe themself. Especially the Wiccan party. There is way more to politics than can be summed up in one little catch phrase.

 

[muir]

Thats how every party would self describe themself. There is way more to politics than can be summed up in one little catch phrase.

No not every party can truthfully say they abide by this principle

Orwell spoke about the missuse of language as a method of control in his novel 1984; he had this insight because he worked in the propaganda depeartment of the BBC during the war

As Chomsky says in the clip i've posted the meaning of many words have been twisted in the US. I have had to explain many times on this forum that anarchy does not mean chaos and that the USSR was not communist, but many people believe these things because the media in the US keeps missusing these words and they do it because it dissempowers people

It dissempowers people because language is a tool and if a tool doesn't work properly then you will struggle to carry out the job you are trying to carry out

What the coporate media do again and again is hide the existence of ideas such as anarchism and libertarian socialism by moving the political goal posts. for example they will call right wing political parties left wing so that people believe that what they are hearing in the media is 'left wing' when in fact it is right wing......this allows them to hide an entire field of thought, because they only show what they want to show on their corporate media whilst they tell everyone that what they are hearing is a full spectrum of opinion when it is only a small slice of opinion

What this does is limit peoples options. If people are only a aware of a few ways of doing things, all of which are crap, even if there is a great solution, if they are not aware of that solution they will do one of the crap ways of doing things

Here's a clip of some commentators talking about the myth that has been created by the corporations that the media is 'liberal' when in fact it is right wing (to hide from people what liberal really is):

[video=youtube;KYlyb1Bx9Ic]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYlyb1Bx9Ic[/video]

 

[Apone]

japan hasn't profited its economy is stagnant and the koreans are kept in a state of antogonism with their fellow Koreans by an interfering US

This is potentially one of the most clueless things that you have ever said.
Seriously.

Before WWII, Japan was a major player on the world stage because of imperialism… after WWII it was basically reeling from the bombings and could have easily collapsed into total poverty-- but the US completely rearranged the government, rebuilt the infrastructure, and changed it into a technology based industrial economy-- it struggled at first but eventually the Korean war happened and the economy kicked into overdrive until finally they were one of the world's richest countries in the 80s. This is oppression to you?
Not only did the US influence improve their standard of living, it also helped to turn Japan into a much more peaceful and much more productive society.

Before the US, Korea was annexed by Japan and was essentially a colony full of slaves and second-class citizens who were being assimilated and their culture destroyed. Now their culture is experiencing a massive comeback and they are free to express themselves and recover the identity that was stolen from them… because they followed the Japanese model which was handed down by the Americans.

If the South had fallen to the Chinese/Russian influence, then the entire country would now be like the North, united under the Kim dynasty. Maybe you think that living under a militaristic dictator is preferable to democratic elections? I've actually been to North Korea and I can tell you that it is not the kind of place that you would want to live in… you definitely wouldn't be able to have this conversation with me now and instead of fighting for a free internet you would be wearing a picture of Kim Il Sung on your chest, and suppressing your sense of being lied to at every turn.

Before the Japanese and before the US, Korea was an agrarian society that lived under a feudal system in which most of its people were slaves… never mind the fact that they've gone from absolute developing world poverty to an economic powerhouse with an incredible health care and education system in about 30 years, all thanks to capitalism.

The division was harmful but a civil war wasn't necessarily avoidable because this was an annexed country that had been living under a puppet government for decades… there was bound to be instability and various people competing for power-- the Russians backed their freedom fighter and turned him into Stalin part 2, and the Americans backed two dictators until eventually the fragile regime collapsed in a coup and the US co-operated with a new president and former general who essentially rebuilt the entire country from nothing… the Vietnam war happened, the economy surged through shipbuilding and plane-building, and eventually became an economic powerhouse through high-quality technology and automobile exports. The US was mostly hands-off throughout, and encouraged and supported the economic growth (the human rights issues at the time were sad but probably unavoidable, and ultimately things did improve and the country is on the verge of surpassing Canada in terms of economic power).

Seriously, it's like you can't admit that sometimes the US influence does make things better.

As for Africa-- it's ridiculous to blame the US government for supplying guns to rebels. Rebels will get guns however they can from wherever they can. The diamond trade does help to fund guerillas and nasty people, which is exactly why official US involvement could actually help them out-- what's dangerous is when you use guerrillas to fight your wars for you, not when you bring over your own troops and establish a foothold… that's when things at least have a chance of becoming stable and trade becomes possible and the corporations take an interest and people get jobs and use their salaries to open up their own businesses and the country as a whole benefits. Obviously, it's oppression when you compare it to the living standards that you and I enjoy, but when you compare it to being raped, getting AIDS, driving down godawful bumpy roads and living in garbage, it's almost definitely a step up.

You're buying into the myth that Africa was a peaceful place where no one ever died and no wars were ever fought, and then whitey came in and wrecked it for everyone. This is simply NOT TRUE. Even now there is tribal warfare going on-- this predates the European influence. The Tanzanian government has 'solved' the problem by breaking up the tribes by force and mixing them up by relocating members to different parts of the country… and as a result it is one of the safest countries in Africa (still not very safe, but relatively).
Colonialism was definitely a destructive force especially in the case of Belgium in the Congo… but industrialization was in its infancy at the time and there was also a completely different attitude towards poverty and human life in general. And you can't claim that existing tribal divisions didn't play a large part in the instability that exists there today. What does the US gain by destabilizing a nation with guerrilla warfare and constant coups and violence?? The MNCs are AFRAID of Africa… you can't exploit a country's resources if everyone you send into the region gets captured by pirates or raped or killed by guerrillas while the unstable government runs for its life. The MNCs WANT stability in Africa-- the thing is that the government is/was more interested in the Middle East… until now, apparently.

I don't work for a corporation at all, and I agree that in an ideal world we would probably all be working for the good of the human race together-- but there is nothing to suggest that this won't unfold naturally, that even something as apparently scary to you as a world government isn't going to be able to help everyone to reach that goal, or that the government isn't actually preventing even worse things from happening.

And it's just goofy to assume that it's all an evil conspiracy by the elites and the Americans are always the enemy and the Chinese are amazing people who only want to help and the Zionists and the Jews and the cabal and the shadowy evil alien reptile men, etc. Corporations are not amazing benevolent entities but they are NOT pure greed and hate and evil personified either-- there are positives AND negatives… you seem to have a pretty firm grasp on the negatives, but you completely ignore the positives.

 

[Apone]

No it isn't the definition of the word

Here is a professor of linguistics (an expert on language) explaining about the missuse of the word libertarianism (and it is done deliberately)

If American libertarians suddenly realized that what they called themselves was actually describing something completely different to what they believed in, do you seriously think that they would change their beliefs??

I highly highly highly doubt that they would all of a sudden say 'wow, I guess that since I've spent all of these years calling myself a libertarian, I never actually believed in pure free market capitalism'.

 

[muir]

This is potentially one of the most clueless things that you have ever said.
Seriously.

Before WWII, Japan was a major player on the world stage because of imperialism…

Japan and much of Asia was subdued by US (western) 'gunboat diplomacy' ie the US held a gun to their heads and forced them to yeild to their demands

Japan modernised its military and navy and then used this to attack its neighbours

I think you have a very narrow way of looking at things; you don't seem to judge progress in terms of human health and happiness

after WWII it was basically reeling from the bombings and could have easily collapsed into total poverty--

By the 'bombings' do you mean the vast amount of conventional bombs dropped on Japan or do you mean the two nuclear bombs dropped on japan when it was already defeated and looking to surrender?

So the west sold weapons to japan, big'd it up and then knocked it down

but the US completely rearranged the government, rebuilt the infrastructure, and changed it into a technology based industrial economy--

It brought it under the control of the international bankers

it struggled at first

No it is still struggling and the question to be asked is how happy are the people there?

but eventually the Korean war happened and the economy kicked into overdrive until finally they were one of the world's richest countries in the 80s. This is oppression to you?

Yes absolutely its oppression to make people into slaves of the international bankers; who cares about the 80's, things have gone down hill for Japan since then and for the US as well

Not only did the US influence improve their standard of living, it also helped to turn Japan into a much more peaceful and much more productive society.

You've just explained how Japan was involved in multiple wars since the US helped it 'develop' and yet now you are trying to say they are 'peaceful'...you seem a little confused....maybe you think the word 'peaceful' actually means the killing of millions

Before the US, Korea was annexed by Japan and was essentially a colony full of slaves and second-class citizens who were being assimilated and their culture destroyed.

After the US militarised Japan as part of its colonial program (more western interference)

Now their culture is experiencing a massive comeback

You mean they are americanised

and they are free to express themselves and recover the identity that was stolen from them… because they followed the Japanese model which was handed down by the Americans.

People in the west are only able to express themselves as far as they understand the real meaning of words...if that is denied them then they tend to get confused; but anything they say that is against the international bankers will not make it into the corporate dominated media

...a pretty poor form of freedom

If the South had fallen to the Chinese/Russian influence, then the entire country would now be like the North, united under the Kim dynasty.

The posture of the north can only be seen in relation to its treatment by the US hence the fact they are arming themselves to the teeth, because they have seen how the west treats countries and they are determined not to be raped themselves

Maybe you think that living under a militaristic dictator is preferable to democratic elections?

We don't choose our leaders....i know the corporate media say we do but we don't. The business party is the only party in the US

I've actually been to North Korea and I can tell you that it is not the kind of place that you would want to live in… you definitely wouldn't be able to have this conversation with me now and instead of fighting for a free internet you would be wearing a picture of Kim Il Sung on your chest, and suppressing your sense of being lied to at every turn.

Yes the fallout of US interference in asia is a terrible thing....which is exactly why they should stay out of Africa

Before the Japanese and before the US, Korea was an agrarian society that lived under a feudal system in which most of its people were slaves… never mind the fact that they've gone from absolute developing world poverty to an economic powerhouse with an incredible health care and education system in about 30 years, all thanks to capitalism.

Lol well lets see how capitalism does over the next few years ('capitalism' by your definition seems to be building houses of cards with debt and then just before the houses collapse saying to everyone 'look what pretty houses we've made!....just like Japan did in the 80's)

What is being created now is a neo-fuedal system with a two tier country where only the super rich will get the best education, healthcare, transport, housing, food etc....just like the fuedal times!

Seriously, it's like you can't admit that sometimes the US influence does make things better.

No it doesn't, it has polarised the world, brought it cataclysmic wars and global economic upheval and by 'it' i mean the international bankers who control the money supply of the US and the other neoliberal countries

As for Africa-- it's ridiculous to blame the US government for supplying guns to rebels. Rebels will get guns however they can from wherever they can. The diamond trade does help to fund guerillas and nasty people, which is exactly why official US involvement could actually help them out--

Who do you think buys the diamonds?

Look the de beers diamond company was financed by the Rothschilds (international bankers)

And yes i do think governments should take responsiblity for flooding resource rich areas with guns in order to destabilise them so that the resources can be stolen

what's dangerous is when you use guerrillas to fight your wars for you, not when you bring over your own troops and establish a foothold…

The US does use guerilla armies just look at the funding and arming of factions recently in Libya and Syria by the CIA. They also use private defence contractors which have been implicated in numerous murders. The international bankers often foment trouble within countries as a way to destabilise them for example the 'colour revolutions'

that's when things at least have a chance of becoming stable and trade becomes possible and the corporations take an interest and people get jobs and use their salaries to open up their own businesses and the country as a whole benefits. Obviously, it's oppression when you compare it to the living standards that you and I enjoy, but when you compare it to being raped, getting AIDS, driving down godawful bumpy roads and living in garbage, it's almost definitely a step up.

Neither of these options are the only option and that's what you can't seem to grasp. It doesn't have to be either corporate slave of the international bankers or victims of colonialism they also have the option of developing themselves

You're buying into the myth that Africa was a peaceful place where no one ever died and no wars were ever fought, and then whitey came in and wrecked it for everyone. This is simply NOT TRUE. Even now there is tribal warfare going on-- this predates the European influence.

I've never said that, you are doing your usual trick of trying to put words into my mouth. Are you an INTJ by any chance as the type that always seems to do this in debates is INTJ?

What the Europeans did was destroy social cohesion and identity and this leaves people floundering in all sorts of ways

They also commodified people with slavery on a scale never before seen and brought industrialised war and famine on a scale never seen before. Some people also believe that they introduced AIDs into Africa; here's an article voicing that view: http://www.illuminati-news.com/aids-is-man-made.htm

The Tanzanian government has 'solved' the problem by breaking up the tribes by force and mixing them up by relocating members to different parts of the country. Colonialism was definitely a destructive force especially in the case of Belgium in the Congo… but industrialization was in its infancy at the time and there was also a completely different attitude towards poverty and human life in general.

No that attitude is still held by the elites

I don't work for a corporation at all, and I agree that in an ideal world we would probably all be working for the good of the human race together-- but there is nothing to suggest that this won't unfold naturally, that even something as apparently scary to you as a world government isn't going to be able to help everyone to reach that goal, or that the government isn't actually preventing even worse things from happening.

Why it will struggle to unfold naturally is because the elites who control governments will always work against it

Do you work in the public sector or the private sector?

And it's just goofy to assume that it's all an evil conspiracy by the elites and the Americans are always the enemy and the Chinese are amazing people who only want to help and the Zionists and the Jews and the cabal and the shadowy evil alien reptile men, etc. Corporations are not amazing benevolent entities but they are NOT pure greed and hate and evil personified either-- there are positives AND negatives… you seem to have a pretty firm grasp on the negatives, but you completely ignore the positives.

I have not said the Chinese are 'amazing people' i have said they are investing in the stabilisation of Africa whislt the 'west' has invested in the destabilisation of Africa

 

[muir]

If American libertarians suddenly realized that what they called themselves was actually describing something completely different to what they believed in, do you seriously think that they would change their beliefs??

I highly highly highly doubt that they would all of a sudden say 'wow, I guess that since I've spent all of these years calling myself a libertarian, I never actually believed in pure free market capitalism'.

What i am saying to you is that there is a coherent policy in the upper echelons of society to distort language in order to deny people the proper use of language in political discourse

And yes people need to resist it if they want to be able to tell their arse from their elbow

 

[Apone]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]

I honestly don't think it's even possible to argue with you.

Everything I say is either completely ignored or you pick out a small bit of it and go off on a completely unrelated tangent involving conspiracy theorists, edited speeches, quotes taken out of context, quotes that aren't even relevant, and standup comedians.

I talk about modern Japan, you ignore me and start talking about 19th century Japan as if nothing has changed since that time. You ignore all of the ways in which both Japan and Korea have been made better by American involvement, and blame America for what is undoubtedly a product of Soviet influence.

You seem to think that people are happier in feudal states than living in relative prosperity and more equal distribution of wealth, even while your greatest fear is a return to feudal states. You seem to think that it's impossible for anyone who isn't a rich banker or whatever to be happy under a capitalist system. You seem to think that we're not even actually having this conversation right now because anyone who would disagree with you is brainwashed and dumb.

You seem to think that nothing is important unless it's a product of your personal vision of the world, and all things that come about through capitalism, no matter how much they actually help people, and no matter how much those people are happy that they have been helped, are still evil and wrong.

Lastly, I want to apologize to [MENTION=2890]Lerxst[/MENTION] for ruining his thread… sorry about that.

 

[muir]

The 'war on terror' is being used to justify all sorts of geo-political manouvering, but with governments unleashing wars on the globe that kill millions, who are the real 'terrorists'?

John Pilgers film ''Breaking the Silence: The truth and Lies in the war on terror'':

http://johnpilger.com/videos/breaking-the-silence-truth-and-lies-in-the-war-on-terror

Adam Curtis film ''The Power of Nightmares'' about the war on terror:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-power-of-nightmares/

 

[Apone]

What i am saying to you is that there is a coherent policy in the upper echelons of society to distort language in order to deny people the proper use of language in political discourse

And yes people need to resist it if they want to be able to tell their arse from their elbow

It really doesn't seem like such a massive obstacle to me.

Anyone who enters a conversation about the topic that extends beyond the most superficial level should be able to figure out that they're talking about completely different things.

 

[muir]

@muir

I honestly don't think it's even possible to argue with you.

Well you do a pretty good job of it; you seem pretty intent on defending the corporatocracy and my view of them is that their one goal is to enslave all peoples of the world

Everything I say is either completely ignored or you pick out a small bit of it and go off on a completely unrelated tangent involving conspiracy theorists, edited speeches, quotes taken out of context, quotes that aren't even relevant, and standup comedians.

I haven't ignored any of your points i have answered each and every one of them....once more you are trying to distort the truth

I am not going off on unrelated tangents we are talking about libertarianism, western interference in africa and the corporatocracy

I talk about modern Japan, you ignore me and start talking about 19th century Japan as if nothing has changed since that time.

That's not ignoring you that's pointing out to you that history doesn't begin in 1945

You ignore all of the ways in which both Japan and Korea have been made better by American involvement, and blame America for what is undoubtedly a product of Soviet influence.

No I don't think these countries have improved more under US (by 'US' here i mean the international bankers who control the US) influence then they would have under their own

You seem to think that people are happier in feudal states than living in relative prosperity and more equal distribution of wealth, even while your greatest fear is a return to feudal states.

No i don't i'm pointing out the role the international bankers have played in wreaking havoc across the globe whilst pointing towards their main project which is to create a world government that they will control (which would see the death of democracy)

You seem to think that it's impossible for anyone who isn't a rich banker or whatever to be happy under a capitalist system. You seem to think that we're not even actually having this conversation right now because anyone who would disagree with you is brainwashed and dumb.

Once again you are tryin to put words in my mouth...i have not said that, but you constantly try to distort things don't you?

You seem to think that nothing is important unless it's a product of your personal vision of the world, and all things that come about through capitalism, no matter how much they actually help people, and no matter how much those people are happy that they have been helped, are still evil and wrong.

No i don't but i know where it is headed, i also am not blind to the millions that (international banker dominated) capitalism has enslaved and killed through various means not least of which is war....misery on a grand scale

I think the good stuff has happened despite (international banker dominated) capitalism

Now you've posted a post initially in this thread which you clearly knew was controversial because you said that people might think you are 'horrible' for making the points you did, so don't be suprised when someone argues with your points

Lastly, I want to apologize to @Lerxst for ruining his thread… sorry about that.

Hi @Lerxst do you think your thread has been ruined?

 

[muir]

It really doesn't seem like such a massive obstacle to me.

Anyone who enters a conversation about the topic that extends beyond the most superficial level should be able to figure out that they're talking about completely different things.

If you are trying to have a conversation with someone about their elbow except they have been told by the corporate media that their elbow is called their 'arse' then you are going to have a tough time

I have also explained to you a number of times what the purpose of the abuse of language is which is to hide from people other ideas and viewpoints

 

[Apone]

If you are trying to have a conversation with someone about their elbow except they have been told by the corporate media that their elbow is called their 'arse' then you are going to have a tough time

What if you're trying to have a conversation about football, when you're actually talking about American football but then some people think you're talking about soccer?

The Rothschilds may be involved.

 

[Lerxst]

Well, why doesn't the Green party join with the Libertarians?

Anyways, sounds like a second scramble for Africa is taking place here… it kind of makes sense, since the last one was sort of abandoned and the result was a total mess. It was inevitable that it would happen again.

As harsh/evil as it might sound, I don't think it's an altogether bad thing… colonialism might have fucked them up, but if there's one continent that could actually benefit from intervention, it's Africa. One of the reasons that they don't have industry is because they're so unstable, and the corporations are afraid to go there… but if the US/NATO intervenes, it would probably be a lot of horrible fighting but eventually things would settle down and I'd imagine that there would be a lot of opportunities suddenly being made available to local businesses… or at least, domestic labor.

I seem to remember that during the start of the 2003 Iraq war (which a lot of Iraqis actually think improved conditions for them, btw), some people were complaining that the US wasn't intervening to prevent 'actual' tragedies like the situation in Sudan… if the US is planning on stabilizing Africa (which makes sense), it could actually be good for them (if they do it right).

On the other hand, I really don't like the idea of it sparking a cold war with China… that could be very very bad for all kinds of reasons. But then again, if that does happen and there are proxy wars like there were during the cold war with the Soviets, the African economies could also benefit from war profiteering (it worked for Japan and Korea). The problem here being that very few African countries are actually industrialized in any way, so there would be a lot of work to do-- I still think it's possible, though, because the opportunity would be there.

You might think I'm a horrible person for actually supporting US expansion and taking over the world and stuff, but I honestly do think that there are countries that have definitely benefited from the US presence in the past and that the same could happen to Africa.

Ask Native Americans how that land grab went for them 200 years ago... What turns out well of the grabbers, rarely ends well for the grab-ees.