[HighSpeed_LowDrag]

(08-26-2015 03:33 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

I don't know what took place in Europe around the time of women's suffrage. My guess is the elite realized technology was freeing the peasant men and they needed another means of control over them.

It's far more simple than that - short-term thinking politicians who believe they can up their vote counts by inserting themselves at the head of the marching feminist parade.

eg. In Canada, women's suffrage only came about in 1918 because the Prime Minister at the time, Robert Borden, was having political difficulties due to the introduction of conscription to fight the First World War. The Wartime Elections Act 1917, which first extended the right of women (who were close relatives of soldiers serving overseas) to vote in federal elections, was instrumental in securing enough votes for Borden to win a majority government in the subsequent 1917 election. Women's votes got Borden he needed to feed more Canadian males into the slaughterhouse of the Western Front.

Which just goes to show again - things like feminism and multiculturalism and illegal immigration could easily be countered to a significant level - if The Powers That Be didn't find them politically useful.

[Sonsowey]

Why we always lose our wars when we clearly have the strongest military:

Quote:

The goal of all counterinsurgency warfare is to capture and retain the support of the population. Counterinsurgency warfare can be seen as a sort of sedentary slave raid on a Wagnerian scale. The normal relationship between sovereign and subject, which applies in every stable country regardless of its formalities of government, is that the latter complies with all demands of the former and does not support or condone violence against it. In other words, whatever nice words you want to cloak it in, the relationship between government and citizen is the relationship between master and slave. Again, this is just the definition of government.

When this relationship breaks down, there are only two approaches to restoring sovereignty: massacre or deport the population, or recapture it. Stalin was a big fan of the former, and carried it out with impressive effect. However, as a sovereign, your subjects are your capital, and abusing them wantonly is seldom the best way to generate positive return on investment.

So. as Trinquier puts it:
We know that the sine qua non of victory in modern [ie, guerrilla] warfare is the unconditional support of a population. According to Mao Tse-tung, it is as essential to the combatant as water to the fish.
If this sounds familiar, it should. Everyone believes this. In today's Pentagon circles, the task of gaining popular support is generally known as winning hearts and minds.

But look at what Trinquier says next:
Such support may be spontaneous, although that is quite rare and probably a temporary condition. If it doesn't exist, it must be secured by every possible means, the most effective of which is terrorism.
Yikes! Note, however, that Trinquier's definition of terrorism is a little different from 2007's. Please allow me to translate.

What Trinquier is saying is that winning hearts ("spontaneous" or emotional support) is really a secondary objective. The critical task of counterinsurgency is winning minds, ie, persuading the population that it is in their rational interest to support you, rather than the enemy. As in any war, any technique that will lead to victory is effective.

Since reading Trinquier, I have been noticing this little phrase, winning hearts and minds. Almost every time I hear it, it turns out to be in the context of winning hearts.

What a contemptuous view of the natives this implies! The winning-hearts approach treats them like six-year-olds, for whom affection is everything and rational decisions are impossible. Whereas if you or I were civilians caught in a war zone, who would we support? Whoever was most likely to win, and least likely to kill us in the process.

Now, you might think that the Trinquierian approach, while possibly more effective than "winning hearts," is less moral. Of course, we cannot derive "ought" from "is," and if you truly believe it is immoral for a government to handle its subjects using procedures that are not compatible with the US Bill of Rights, nothing I can say can change your mind.

When I think about morality, however, I think not about one alternative, but two. Suppose, for example, that the Pentagon had preemptively applied a Luttwakian or Trinquierian approach in Iraq, not in 2007 but in 2003. If Luttwak and Trinquier are right about their field of work - and I suspect few of my readers have the expertise to disagree - this would have saved thousands of lives and eliminated all kinds of mayhem. On the other hand, Iraqis would have been issued ID cards, organized in a pyramidal structure which reported to the Pentagon, and subjected in general to a system of fascist totalitarian control. And some, some of whom were probably innocent, would even have received electrical shocks to the nipples. Better, or worse, than massacre, mayhem and war? Only you, dear reader, can make the call.

But we have a further puzzle to unravel. After all, if I, whose closest connection to the Pentagon is that I get my car insurance from USAA, can understand these things, how can they be lost on the Pentagon itself? Wasn't that Trinquier book hosted on a Pentagon site?

The answer is that the Pentagon is tactically right to do everything it can to avoid collateral damage. Moreover, its enemies are tactically right to do everything they can to try to trick the Pentagon into causing collateral damage (ie, via the use of human shields).

But the reason that human shields work has nothing to do with winning hearts. In fact, the very existence of human shields completely negates the winning-hearts hypothesis, because it's obvious that anyone hurt while serving (by definition, involuntarily) as a human shield will blame whoever put him in the way of the bomb, not whoever dropped it.

In fact, winning hearts is crack, pure and simple. As Trinquier points out, every successful "liberation movement" in the 20th century has terrorized the population into submission. Even Pentagon attacks on civilians in South Vietnam - with far more liberal rules of engagement than apply today in Iraq - were generally accidental and uncoordinated, whereas massacring their civilian opponents was standard operating procedure for the VC.

Explaining that Americans need to win hearts because they are white imperialists, whereas Taliban or Viet Cong or FLN guerrillas can cut them out and eat them because they are swarthy indigenous peoples, requires falling back on hoary nationalist cliches that really shouldn't require an answer. I'm sorry, people - if you genuinely believe it is unnatural and impossible for a foreign military occupation to become a stable government and eventually an ethnically-distinct ruling caste, you know no more about human history than a cat knows about tennis. Go read about, say, India, sometime.

So the puzzle remains: why worry about civilian casualties? Isn't collateral damage just the Air Force's way of telling you not to hang out within the blast radius of insurgents? Didn't we do a lot of collateral damage to Germany and Japan? And where are their insurgents?

The answer, which Trinquier would certainly have understood, although it would have appalled him and struck him as disastrous, is that the Pentagon does suffer as a result of civilian casualties, because any such event strengthens the Pentagon's true enemies. Who tend to live not in Kabul, but in Bethesda or Silver Spring or maybe Manhattan.

Furthermore, all of the Pentagon's adversaries in recent years have understood that their most effective strategy is to defeat the Pentagon politically, not militarily. Clausewitz would be proud, because of course the two are the same thing.

And finally, the ugliest trope of all is that everyone on the battlefield - Pentagon soldiers, their native adversaries, journalists, and even the local civilians whose support is so crucial - understands this perfectly. It's war, after all. If you're involved in war, you understand it.

The result is that even local civilians see civilian casualties as a point scored for the insurgents. So human-shield tactics, which cannot possibly do anything to win hearts, are winners nonetheless. Every time a human shield gets fragged and the fact gets to the press, the Pentagon's chances of winning decrease. Every time the Pentagon's chances of winning decrease, the insurgents' chances of winning increase. Every time the insurgents' chances of winning increase, rational civilians have more motivation to join the insurgency.

I assure you that although this seems complicated to you, it is not at all complicated to those in a war zone. Moreover, human instincts for collective action are deeply rooted (even chimpanzees have tribes which fight wars), and the human ability to construct a moral rationale for the decision to side with the strong horse is always impressive. In other words, martyrs are martyrs, even if someone forced them to be martyrs. As long as martyrdom is a militarily effective strategy, we will continue to see more of it.

One way to see this is to look at insurgent or terrorist movements which have no possibility of gaining the support of Western human-rights activists. A good example is the OAS in Algeria, founded by colleagues of Trinquier who knew exactly how to run an insurgency, and had a substantial local support base. It went nowhere, because it only alienated its supporters in France. The fate of the AWB in South Africa is even more pathetic - it had no foreign sponsors at all. Insurgency simply does not work without political protection.

If this analysis is correct, these Third World insurgent wars exist only because of Western human-rights activism. So why don't Western human-rights activists recognize this? Why don't they notice that they are creating violence and destruction, rather than suppressing it?

A simple explanation of this phenomenon is that Western human-rights activists are in fact political activists, seeking power by the only means that are available to them. It is not that opposing the Pentagon is a necessary method of their human-rights activism. It is that their human-rights activism is a necessary method of their opposing the Pentagon. The US military is as necessary to these people as drugs are to anti-drug warriors.

Thus, it is inconceivable that they would conclude that the best way to end the war in Iraq is for the US to impose martial law, dismiss the Iraqi government and suspend all civil liberties. We saw exactly how much Western human-rights activists cared about their swarthy mascots in the '70s, when they finally managed to force South Vietnam to surrender to the North. As tens of thousands of Vietnamese were shot, hundreds of thousands imprisoned without trial, and millions fled on boats, these watchdogs of humanity uttered not even a meow. I'm sure most of the "peace" protesters of the '60s sincerely believed that they loved their little brown brothers, but the real political motor of their movement was their hatred of their American enemies, and their desire to achieve power by defeating them. Same old, same old.

No, what's truly amazing about these "liberations" is their assiduous avoidance of every technique for governing foreign populations that might, actually, possibly, work. This is because all of these techniques were practiced under "colonialism," and we know colonialism is bad. Because we heard it in school.

For example, the Pentagon may not dissolve the corrupt, murderous, and dangerously ineffective "democratic" government it has installed in Iraq. It may not declare that democracy has failed in Iraq, and hand the place over to a Hashemite, Saudi or other Gulf prince, or even better split it into UAE-like emirates. Because that would be just too British Empire.

For example, the Pentagon may not under any circumstances create hybrid organizations, military or political, in which the leaders are foreign and the front-line employees are native.

Britain governed half the world, at costs which are negligible compared to the Iraq bill, by creating military forces with British officers and native troops. To call this a no-brainer would be an insult to the brainless. Yet it has not been done, nor can anything like it be done. Similarly, it is absolutely verboten to create an Iraqi government run by foreign executives with Iraqi personnel. That would be colonialism, and colonialism is wrong.

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot...my-of.html

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(08-22-2015 04:32 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Saying WW1 was caused by the right is patently ridiculous when every nation eagerly jumped into the fight without a second thought. There was no left or right, everyone wanted in on the action and was looking for an excuse to fight. Even the Communists say WW1 as a chance to take over Russia, so they were agitating for a fight as well.

WW2 was a matter of Germany being raped (similar to how Europe is being raped right now) by elites for their own gain and Hitler being elected as a response by the people. It does seem Hitler used criminal tactics to take over the German government but blaming WW2 on him makes no sense in light of the available evidence. He spoke about living space but he it did not mean he was planning on invading Europe until he had a legit excuse to do so when the Poles were murdering German citizens, similar to the way illegal immigrants are murdering American citizens.

Please - all of this alternative history talk is completely empty without mentioning greats like Carroll Quigley (mentioned by Bill Clinton as a great mentor) or Antony Sutton. Both history professors give a completely different viewpoint on what has actually transpired.

The left has been financed by the same guys who financed the far right like Hitler. There was no systematic mass slaughter of Germans happening in Poland. Ukrainians were more discriminated against in the WWI Poland than any other nationality. Jews and Germans were left relatively at peace and were actually quite well-respected as both did well economically speaking.

Hitler and the Nazis did some good of course and plenty of crazy talk that only should justify his invasions of other countries. His goal was to take all of Europe from the beginning.

WWII was meant to fulfill the following goals:

1. Another disastrous war that should open the doors for a better League of Nations - UN. Slaughter lets the nations think more fondly of a ONE WORLD Government.

2. Destroy the German people completely - WWI was not sufficient. The Germans were too industrious, populous and highly educated for their own good. They had to be put under total money power control.

3. Motivate the European Jewry to leave Europe for Israel. They had tried to persuade German and Polish Jews to leave for Israel since the 1880s with little success. No one wanted to leave cities like Berlin or Warsaw for a rocky terrain surrounded by Arabs. It was absolutely essential for the long-term plan of the Middle Eastern region for Israel to be established there. Some Rabbis wrote even books about it together with facts uncovered by Antony Sutton that big Jewish capital co-financed the NSDAP and thus Hitler. They were willing to kill some "lesser brethren" as they called them in order for their goals to be reached.

4. War as a social engineering tool.

To be honest they might have actually expected a greater resolve by the world people to accept a One World Government.

That's why guys like Julian Huxley came out more openly with some statements: http://www.globalresearch.ca/world-evolu...nesco/9477

Since that did not happen, they moved into a long-term plan instead of a further war. Now the times have come for the left to be merged with capitalism with China being more or less a blueprint - only the population being more like feeble SJWs instead of traditionally minded Chinese.

[amity]

Posted a few days ago on social media by a colleague of mine (liberal, pro-Bernie, anti-capitalism, etc) as an indication that, in fact, society is moving more rightwards, thanks to both main establishment parties becoming more Right-Wing.
Yes, you read that correctly.
Despite the GOP(Trump excluded) capitulating completely to the Democrats narrative on immigration and going along and continuing the the Democrats' suicidal strategy of printing money to try and solve their subsidising of the welfare state and now Obamacare too, this apparently shows that Republicans are heading for far-right waters.
http://www.alternet.org/noam-chomsky-nai...n-deep-end
You can't make this stuff up!
This comes from people who are inhabiting a hermetically sealed echo chamber of Occupy-esque utopian liberalism propped up by mainstream media and university education where people get totally indoctrinated in Keynesian economics.

[Rush87]

If you use history as a guideline - Society will always trend towards the left peaking at the end of an empires life cycle. Traditionally after it's collapse it reverts back to more traditional values [albeit more left than empires gone by] because the traditional family unit has been proven as the driving factor in the rise of every single dominant global empire. The demise of traditional values is the common theme in the collapse of every empire.

See parallels of ancient Rome to current day America. The rise of females in traditionally male domains, a gay/LGBT movement and women's rights isn't new. This all happened during the fall of Rome and it all disappeared when the west needed to rebuild.

Currently in the west: We have double the work force, lower relative economic output and a population of jobs with zero purpose that could disappear tomorrow without any blip on the economic radar. Change won't happen in our lifetime but it will happen.

[ColSpanker]

(11-04-2015 07:51 PM)amity Wrote:  

Posted a few days ago on social media by a colleague of mine (liberal, pro-Bernie, anti-capitalism, etc) as an indication that, in fact, society is moving more rightwards, thanks to both main establishment parties becoming more Right-Wing.
Yes, you read that correctly.
Despite the GOP(Trump excluded) capitulating completely to the Democrats narrative on immigration and going along and continuing the the Democrats' suicidal strategy of printing money to try and solve their subsidising of the welfare state and now Obamacare too, this apparently shows that Republicans are heading for far-right waters.
http://www.alternet.org/noam-chomsky-nai...n-deep-end
You can't make this stuff up!
This comes from people who are inhabiting a hermetically sealed echo chamber of Occupy-esque utopian liberalism propped up by mainstream media and university education where people get totally indoctrinated in Keynesian economics.

You want to drive an SJW insane who brings up Chomsky? Remind him their hero wrote the introduction to a Holocaust denial book.

[Samseau]

(11-06-2015 10:09 PM)Rush87 Wrote:  

If you use history as a guideline - Society will always trend towards the left peaking at the end of an empires life cycle. Traditionally after it's collapse it reverts back to more traditional values [albeit more left than empires gone by] because the traditional family unit has been proven as the driving factor in the rise of every single dominant global empire. The demise of traditional values is the common theme in the collapse of every empire.

See parallels of ancient Rome to current day America. The rise of females in traditionally male domains, a gay/LGBT movement and women's rights isn't new. This all happened during the fall of Rome and it all disappeared when the west needed to rebuild.

Currently in the west: We have double the work force, lower relative economic output and a population of jobs with zero purpose that could disappear tomorrow without any blip on the economic radar. Change won't happen in our lifetime but it will happen.

It will happen in all of our lifetimes. The levels of degeneracy today are extremely unsustainable. You're already seeing it with the Migrant invasion. That is the tip of the iceberg of destruction that awaits.

[poutsara]

(11-04-2015 07:51 PM)amity Wrote:  

Posted a few days ago on social media by a colleague of mine (liberal, pro-Bernie, anti-capitalism, etc) as an indication that, in fact, society is moving more rightwards, thanks to both main establishment parties becoming more Right-Wing.
Yes, you read that correctly.

We are moving both Left and Right, in different ways. Both of which are bad.

We are moving Left in terms of open borders immigration, decline in personal morality (and abandonment of conventional morality and faith), feminism, multiculturalism, and globalism (more of it). The economic model of the Left these days is neo-liberalism.

We are moving Right largely in terms of an emphasis on the value of unearned income and wealth (financial sector) rather than labor and the coordination of capital (ie entrepreneurship, Finance is NOT entrepreneurial), open borders free-trade (more of it). The economic model of the Right these days is neo-liberalism. Note that this is the identical economic model of the Left.

The real dialectic is not Right vs Left, but local nationalism vs globalism, and economic growth due to industrial capital and labor productivity vs economic growth due to debt burden and asset inflation aided by complicity between governments, central banks, and the financial sector.

We do ourselves no service by focusing on small issues when Rome is burning.

[Rush87]

(11-09-2015 09:36 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(11-06-2015 10:09 PM)Rush87 Wrote:  

If you use history as a guideline - Society will always trend towards the left peaking at the end of an empires life cycle. Traditionally after it's collapse it reverts back to more traditional values [albeit more left than empires gone by] because the traditional family unit has been proven as the driving factor in the rise of every single dominant global empire. The demise of traditional values is the common theme in the collapse of every empire.

See parallels of ancient Rome to current day America. The rise of females in traditionally male domains, a gay/LGBT movement and women's rights isn't new. This all happened during the fall of Rome and it all disappeared when the west needed to rebuild.

Currently in the west: We have double the work force, lower relative economic output and a population of jobs with zero purpose that could disappear tomorrow without any blip on the economic radar. Change won't happen in our lifetime but it will happen.

It will happen in all of our lifetimes. The levels of degeneracy today are extremely unsustainable. You're already seeing it with the Migrant invasion. That is the tip of the iceberg of destruction that awaits.

I'm not sure technology has advanced far enough for it to happen in our lifetimes. We're talking 40 years here for most people on this website… That is a historical blip.

The only possible way a societal shift back to the family unit would happen in our lifetimes is if a war to the scale of WW2 was to occur… Otherwise history will run it's course which will definitely get worse before it gets better.

It's going to take more than 40 years for a true collapse and even then there is a transition period which will be slow barring any catastrophic event. I would estimate that we are still over 80 years away from reverting back to the family unit.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Saw this comment on Henry Makow and thought it would fit in here well:

Quote:

When media and the entertainment industry promotes the Androgyne as they already did with 'Glitter Rock' bands 45 years ago David Bowie, Freddie Mercury, and on into the 80's with Grace Jones and Annie Lennox and dozens of gender ambiguous bands and celebrities (like 'Boy George')

This pangender paradigm comes from someplace else. The hermaphroditic god concept is the most esoteric secret of the Gnostic mystery religions. In higher Freemasonry and Luciferian/Satanism it's the the Baphomet. In Mahayana Buddhism it's the Bodhisattva. In the Zohar, Adam and Eve came into being as one hermaphrodite. The Midrash Rabbah says, "When the Holy One created Adam [Ha-Rishon], it was androgynous. God created Adam Ha-Rishon double faced, and split him/her so there were two backs, one on this side and one on the other."
So you see how far down the rabbit hole this gender-bender 'trend' really goes.

Don't believe that's where the social engineers are going with all this? Today I saw this headline;
'After Removing Gendered Signs from Toys, Will Target Do the Same with Kids' Clothing?'


(Firestone who died in 2012 suffered from mental illness.)

Oh, you BET they will! Expect it. People who don't believe it should read the "Postgenderism" writings of feminists over the last fifty years. This is the stuff kabbalist witch [1] Shulamith Firestone advocated in her 1970 book 'The Dialectic of Sex'.

"To assure the elimination of sexual classes requires the revolt of the underclass (women) and seizure of control of reproduction:... so the end goal of the feminist revolution must be unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself; genital differences between human beings would no longer matter".

This will ring a bell for those familiar with Frederich Engels' analysis of class struggle. 'The Dialectic of Sex' is nothing but a change of terms from 'working class revolution' to a call for a sex-class revolution. Those who think this kabbalist witch Firestone was a loose cannon, just a schizophrenic lunatic, check out Clara Zetkin's 1920 interview, 'Lenin on the Women's Question'. "We must by all means set up a powerful international women's movement on a clear-cut theoretical basis." Lenin was talking about international Feminism.

Lenin and Trotsky's Communism was derived from esoteric revolutionary Freemasonry. Lenin's 31° membership in the Lodge Art et Travail in Switzerland is confirmed.[2] Trotsky and Lenin took part together in the International Masonic Conference in Copenhagen in 1910. In his autobiography 'My Life', Trotsky openly acknowledged that Weishaupt's Illuminati, and the murderous Italian Carbonari were extensions of international Freemasonry. He wrote of studying Freemasonry during his first imprisonment

Shulamith Firestone attended summer Yavneh at Rabbinical College of Telshe near Cleveland. Her older sister Tirzah went on to become a 'renewal movement' rabbi and Kabbalist. She is the author a CD entitled "The Woman's Kabbalah".

Of course the occult secret covens within Feminism recognize their counterparts in the Sisterhood within certain Roman Catholic women's orders and the Episcopalian Church, as well as Hollywood, news media, the music industry, politics, and of course - EDUCATION.


[1] Firestone was a co-founder of W.I.T.C.H. - "Women's International Terrorist Conspiracy from HELL" (1969)
This was a real feminist organization that spawned New York Radical Women and Redstockings. These were the foundational leaders of radical feminism during the 1970's.

[2] (Oleg Platonov, "Russia's Crown of Thorns: The Secret History of Freemasonry", Moscow, 2000, part II, p. 417.)
- See more at: http://henrymakow.com/2015/11/Gender-cha...zKoqj.dpuf

Look at the quote above from the book of a radical feminist who has founded organizations named WITCH.

This is truly amazing, because radical feminism has essentially become mainstream one!

In case anyone wonders where all the crazy ideas come from - they may partly evne have an esoteric old meaning - of course the practical implications of fucking up human society are not bad either.

[RexImperator]

"Lilith" Fair

"Jezebel"

Seems to be part of the pattern