O/T but interesting read on how Kissinger and the usual suspects sought to develop China and the rest of Asia to support their warped vision of a post-industrial world order divided along the lines of poor, have-not producers and first world consumers.
"The old idea that our nature was creative, and that our wealth was tied to producing, was assumed to be an obsolete thing of the past"
1982 Kissinger speech at Chatham House RE: philosophical rift between Churchill and FDR: "Many American leaders condemned Churchill as needlessly obsessed with power politics, too rigidly anti-Soviet, too colonialist [...] The dispute was resolved according to American preferences- in my view, to the detriment of postwar security."
1971, RE: creation of WEF: "Kissinger’s protégé Klaus Schwab was assigned to launch a new organization in Switzerland to coordinate the new managerial elite in the new 'post-industrial age' ..."
1970 book by Zbigniew Brzezinski, ‘Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era,’ considered the manifesto of the trilateral commission which he co-founded: “The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance..." (as an aside, gotta love those Ukrainians!)
The essay goes on from there to discuss western Malthusian population control initiatives (some juicy quotes, including Kissinger RE: how other countries' population sizes were to be construed as part of American national security interests.
From this foundation, the article goes on to describe how China participated in the western program, overcoming western attempts at misdirection and outright economic warfare. Unsurprisingly, they undermined the fundamental premise of third-world-producer-serving-first-world-consumer by seeking to use the western "investment" to develop and modernize their country. They "...laid out the concrete pathways for full spectrum economic sovereignty, with a focus on cultivating the cognitive creative powers of a new generation of scientists that would drive the non-linear breakthroughs needed for China to ultimately break free of the rules of closed-system economics, which technocrats like Kissinger wished the world adhere to."
Good read, and unlike other Badlands articles, offers links and citations for further study and fact-checking.
“The takeover was the payoff the Clintons made to the Jewish Americans of the Israel Lobby, who threw their influence and money behind the Clintons in 1992 to oust HWBush and, above all, their bête noire Jim Baker.
It was a strange election with Ross Perot that had a blood feud with the Bush’s. If not for Perot, I believe Bush would have won. Clinton also ran a better campaign, has amazing charisma, and had the huge aid of the media.
And the Clinton do track obsessively those whom helped them, and those that cross them.
I personally cannot understand if we went to war with Russia before the election how that possibly benefits Kamala Harris. While I understand, the built-in animosity against the Russians is going back 80 years. Would people really be on the forefront of supporting a war with Russia under the circumstances we were discussing? Would people really want to take the risk of a war going nuclear? I can certainly see Russia finally using tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine if that’s what it comes to. What will be the response? No one in this country is going to want to send their kids to war in Ukraine against Russia. The insanity of the neocons is beyond the pale there are no winners in any kind of nuclear war war. so somehow people are going to support Kamala Harris and the prospect of 100 million people being killed in this country due to the stupidity of our leaders. I don’t believe Trump under any circumstances with Support something like this. He’s not that stupid he would be looking for peace. Certainly not a duel with Vladimir Putin.
I, for one, can't see tactical nuclear weapons being used in Ukraine. If they'll be unleashed, it will happen in Poland, Romania and Baltics, over NATO forward bases, followed by quick deployment of strategic nukes and an ultimatum that if anything moves to evoke 5th article or any other means to retaliate, the world ends.
I wrote about McGovern's view previously--he and Larry Johnson differed on that during a Judge Nap show. Obviously Putin has been loath to escalate, but I believe he will do it if, for instance, there is a mass casualty incident. Granted there was already one such incident--the terror attack at Crocus ... The Russians clearly believed that ISIS-K was connected to MI6/CIA and the Ukrainians.
I agree with all you say (logically), even the how does it benefit Kamala? part (logically). But who knows how these people (Dem strategists and backers) think? They can try to pitch the "we can't change horses in the middle of the stream" during a war idea - a la FDR and Wilson. Or they can and have already tried the "Trump is a madman who will start WWIII" pitch, even though they are the people actually doing it. It comes down to how much the hoi polloi really know, what they believe about things, and how influenced they are by the MSM (propaganda agents). The MSM was effective in 2020. The strategists may be betting or at least hoping they will just as effective in their gaslighting in 2024.
"This is the man who today is lying through his teeth and who is being the good loyal servant of the Biden Administration at the expense of his own credibility and his own sense of honor." Yep. Burns HAD respect. I find it curious that the CIA Director seems to have no obligation to swear an oath of allegiance to the country. Please let me know if I am wrong. I find this telling, if true. If true, we are dependent on the "honor system" as to whether the agency is actually serving the best interests of the U.S. government which funds it. Pretty sad and maybe fatal.
One can assume, the missles, NATO / US personnel needed for Intel, coordinates as well as hands on operators of said long range missles are already in place and ready to go.
They should be very very concerned about their safety. Russia knows where all the NATO/ US players are.
So McGovern and G.Doctorow feel that President Putin would not respond to a long range missile attack before Nov 5th? How could he not?
Or do they mean Putin will not respond to this escalatory game of words and threats?
Where do you think China and Iran stand, if this really goes unthinkable? Strike one and the other two enter the fray?
For some reason they are under the popular guise that Russians would somehow prefer Trump over Harris - while also stating as a matter of fact just how impotent she is as a leader. That alone should've made them ponder the other possibility - that Putin was sincere all along and he actually prefers a Dem victory, because who wouldn't wish Harris as his adversary-in-chief. If I'm right, then nothing restricts Russia from retaliating once these missiles have a go, and to hell with November 5th.
O/T but interesting read on how Kissinger and the usual suspects sought to develop China and the rest of Asia to support their warped vision of a post-industrial world order divided along the lines of poor, have-not producers and first world consumers.
https://badlands.substack.com/p/how-china-broke-from-the-slave-labor
"The old idea that our nature was creative, and that our wealth was tied to producing, was assumed to be an obsolete thing of the past"
1982 Kissinger speech at Chatham House RE: philosophical rift between Churchill and FDR: "Many American leaders condemned Churchill as needlessly obsessed with power politics, too rigidly anti-Soviet, too colonialist [...] The dispute was resolved according to American preferences- in my view, to the detriment of postwar security."
1971, RE: creation of WEF: "Kissinger’s protégé Klaus Schwab was assigned to launch a new organization in Switzerland to coordinate the new managerial elite in the new 'post-industrial age' ..."
1970 book by Zbigniew Brzezinski, ‘Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era,’ considered the manifesto of the trilateral commission which he co-founded: “The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance..." (as an aside, gotta love those Ukrainians!)
The essay goes on from there to discuss western Malthusian population control initiatives (some juicy quotes, including Kissinger RE: how other countries' population sizes were to be construed as part of American national security interests.
From this foundation, the article goes on to describe how China participated in the western program, overcoming western attempts at misdirection and outright economic warfare. Unsurprisingly, they undermined the fundamental premise of third-world-producer-serving-first-world-consumer by seeking to use the western "investment" to develop and modernize their country. They "...laid out the concrete pathways for full spectrum economic sovereignty, with a focus on cultivating the cognitive creative powers of a new generation of scientists that would drive the non-linear breakthroughs needed for China to ultimately break free of the rules of closed-system economics, which technocrats like Kissinger wished the world adhere to."
Good read, and unlike other Badlands articles, offers links and citations for further study and fact-checking.
Sorry, nope, not OT. Very On Topic.
“Interesting”
“The takeover was the payoff the Clintons made to the Jewish Americans of the Israel Lobby, who threw their influence and money behind the Clintons in 1992 to oust HWBush and, above all, their bête noire Jim Baker.
It was a strange election with Ross Perot that had a blood feud with the Bush’s. If not for Perot, I believe Bush would have won. Clinton also ran a better campaign, has amazing charisma, and had the huge aid of the media.
And the Clinton do track obsessively those whom helped them, and those that cross them.
I personally cannot understand if we went to war with Russia before the election how that possibly benefits Kamala Harris. While I understand, the built-in animosity against the Russians is going back 80 years. Would people really be on the forefront of supporting a war with Russia under the circumstances we were discussing? Would people really want to take the risk of a war going nuclear? I can certainly see Russia finally using tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine if that’s what it comes to. What will be the response? No one in this country is going to want to send their kids to war in Ukraine against Russia. The insanity of the neocons is beyond the pale there are no winners in any kind of nuclear war war. so somehow people are going to support Kamala Harris and the prospect of 100 million people being killed in this country due to the stupidity of our leaders. I don’t believe Trump under any circumstances with Support something like this. He’s not that stupid he would be looking for peace. Certainly not a duel with Vladimir Putin.
I, for one, can't see tactical nuclear weapons being used in Ukraine. If they'll be unleashed, it will happen in Poland, Romania and Baltics, over NATO forward bases, followed by quick deployment of strategic nukes and an ultimatum that if anything moves to evoke 5th article or any other means to retaliate, the world ends.
I wrote about McGovern's view previously--he and Larry Johnson differed on that during a Judge Nap show. Obviously Putin has been loath to escalate, but I believe he will do it if, for instance, there is a mass casualty incident. Granted there was already one such incident--the terror attack at Crocus ... The Russians clearly believed that ISIS-K was connected to MI6/CIA and the Ukrainians.
I think the idea behind what McGovern/Doctorow are arguing is that the nation would rally to a wartime prez/candidate?
I agree with all you say (logically), even the how does it benefit Kamala? part (logically). But who knows how these people (Dem strategists and backers) think? They can try to pitch the "we can't change horses in the middle of the stream" during a war idea - a la FDR and Wilson. Or they can and have already tried the "Trump is a madman who will start WWIII" pitch, even though they are the people actually doing it. It comes down to how much the hoi polloi really know, what they believe about things, and how influenced they are by the MSM (propaganda agents). The MSM was effective in 2020. The strategists may be betting or at least hoping they will just as effective in their gaslighting in 2024.
My guess is they think the Russians are bluffing.
But I listen to them and I don't think Putin, Medvedev, Lavrov and Perskov are bluffing.
"This is the man who today is lying through his teeth and who is being the good loyal servant of the Biden Administration at the expense of his own credibility and his own sense of honor." Yep. Burns HAD respect. I find it curious that the CIA Director seems to have no obligation to swear an oath of allegiance to the country. Please let me know if I am wrong. I find this telling, if true. If true, we are dependent on the "honor system" as to whether the agency is actually serving the best interests of the U.S. government which funds it. Pretty sad and maybe fatal.
Ask yourself not what can the CIA do for this country, but what can this country do for the CIA.
Gee isn't that where Obama supposedly went?
Incredible. Thank you, Mark.
One can assume, the missles, NATO / US personnel needed for Intel, coordinates as well as hands on operators of said long range missles are already in place and ready to go.
They should be very very concerned about their safety. Russia knows where all the NATO/ US players are.
So McGovern and G.Doctorow feel that President Putin would not respond to a long range missile attack before Nov 5th? How could he not?
Or do they mean Putin will not respond to this escalatory game of words and threats?
Where do you think China and Iran stand, if this really goes unthinkable? Strike one and the other two enter the fray?
For some reason they are under the popular guise that Russians would somehow prefer Trump over Harris - while also stating as a matter of fact just how impotent she is as a leader. That alone should've made them ponder the other possibility - that Putin was sincere all along and he actually prefers a Dem victory, because who wouldn't wish Harris as his adversary-in-chief. If I'm right, then nothing restricts Russia from retaliating once these missiles have a go, and to hell with November 5th.