2019 Nov 26, 8:36am
836 views 38 comments
The ironic thing is that Glenn Beck wishes he could do (and is trying) exactly what he is accusing Soros of doing.
No, trying to foment revolution or at least a change in government using social media among other things.
The Facts don't lie
He even financed the Caravans from South America to destroy our immigration system and to foment civil upheaval in the US to stop it.
Obama's partisan satanic communist Judges were all in place to thwart anything Trump did on the border. Soros and the Demcoms wanted, needed and fully expected the Trump supporters to storm the border with Shotguns and pistols so the UN could swoop in.
The Truth will set you free, it will all come out. It's complicated business
every fucking time
I would love to hear an honest discussion of all this, but then it's so complicated, with so many moving parts with implications strategically that make public involvement at the detail level impossible.
:No, trying to foment revolution or at least a change in government using social media among other things. Although in Soros' case, I don't know that it was based on lies. THe lie in Beck's case being that isolation is the answer.
It's hard to see that Trump or today's republican party should be the ones shaping how exactly that should be done.
Hmm, didn't the world get by just fine for thousands of years before ocean/air travel? Wasn't that isolationism?
But somehow, an elite group of people will be trustworthy
WineHorror1 saysBut somehow, an elite group of people will be trustworthyNOt an elite group. Elected officials and also those public service people that are overseen by elected officials. That's how a republic is meant to work.
Another assumption is that these strategic moves are necessary as the world moves ever closer to the day that there is some sort of overseeing world entity, that actually includes a fair dealing "global policeman," something like a UN that works. That is it's necessary but certainly could be improved on. I certainly would like the so called "doomsday clock" pushed back.
Secretary of War Henry Stimson informed Dwight D. Eisenhower, general of the armies, that the bomb would be dropped on Japan. In “Mandate for Change,” Eisenhower’s autobiography, Ike related this exchange: “I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face.’”There are many more such testimonials, if someone takes the time to look:--“When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the Emperor.” That’s from “The Pathology of Power,” by Norman Cousins.-- “We didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.” That’s Brig. Gen. Carter Clarke, quoted in “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb,” by Gar Alperovitz.--“The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.”-- Henry H. Arnold, commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces, Pacific Fleet.--“The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part from a purely military point of view in the defeat of Japan. The use of atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.” - - Fleet Adm. Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. --“Certainly, prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability, prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if atomic bombs had not been dropped.” -- Adm. William D. Leahy, chief of staff to President Truman, in the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey.--“The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.” --Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay.
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. A universal empire can only be all the more corrupt.
So I will assume this means that you believe that the united states can never work ? It's just too big. Too centralized ?
Maybe you will say it works becasue it's not too centralized, or as long as it's not too centralized. Then do the same for the united nations ( a real united nations).
I'm not saying we are ready for it now. But from my perspective it's clearly inevitable, if we are to survive as a species. I'm not stepping out on a limb here. Seems so incredibly obvious to me. But that doesn't mean that I think getting there is easy or guaranteed, or that it couldn't happen in a way that worked out wrong.
Progressivism is a death cult based on ignorance.
I will grant you that it would be very difficult to achieve a proper level of cooperation (not unification) and international law without it turning into something abusive. But I would also argue that sometimes "this time it's different" applies when history is laid out in the service of something almost resembling a coherent argument. Although I don't think we disagree as much as you might think. You're just more cynical than I am.
The world has progressed a lot and the world is now smaller than ever in terms of travel and even more so with respect to communications and transactions. The risk that "bad actors" pose to the rest of the world (i.e. by pollution with highly toxic waste or over fishing oceans, terrorism, proliferation of nuclear weapons) is unprecedented. Also the degree to which a lot of human work can be automated is also unprecedented.
There are questions, such as how does natural selection work for humans if the nanny state makes life to easy for us. What's the upper limit on population growth. Why do the owners need human workers anymore.
So you say we're over educated and destined to mostly be peasants or slaves again or perhaps be replaced by robots, and the most hopeful thing you believe one can do is try to get rich enough before the tide turns so that you or your heirs can be part of the future aristocracy ?