World War Three

[Dreamtimer]

So for the metaphor. Goats clearing a field.

Settlers, explorers, colonists came here and cleared the land. But not of weeds. Of a good portion of the people who were already here.

Did those in power know that people were here? They may have.

So the goats did their job and now we have America. The nation we broke from is our close ally.

And, as Sid has described, the military power is here. It's a big piece of land and separated from enemies.

So what's the pyramid? People at the bottom, leaders and businesses in the middle, and a secret group at the top?


It's in the news now that the CIA has been collecting all kinds of information about Americans, much more specific than previously admitted. Gotta love that Patriot Act.

[Wind]

It's mildly entertaining to think about the likes of Illuminati, but I doubt there is just one group pulling all the strings behind the curtains. There are too many variables, too many players and pieces on the chessboard. I think it's a certain kind of competition for power and dominance and on some level it is spiritual too if you want to go that far, but mostly it's about the usual stuff meaning power, control and resources. Normal people are pawns which are moved on the chessboard. These days the ones who control the flow of information control many things. Of course there are secret societies too, some are "good" and some are the opposite and many of them trace their origins back to Egypt and from there to Atlantis. The question is that how much power would such societies yield? I think that militaries such as the US army with it's secret branches pretty well influences the world. Not fully of course, but to a very great degree for sure.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrvgl2PsW-4

[Chris]

It's mildly entertaining to think about the likes of Illuminati, but I doubt there is just one group pulling all the strings behind the curtains. There are too many variables, too many players and pieces on the chessboard. I think it's a certain kind of competition for power and dominance and on some level it is spiritual too if you want to go that far, but mostly it's about the usual stuff meaning power, control and resources. Normal people are pawns which are moved on the chessboard. These days the ones who control the flow of information control many things. Of course there are secret societies too, some are "good" and some are the opposite and many of them trace their origins back to Egypt and from there to Atlantis. The question is that how much power would such societies yield? I think that militaries such as the US army with it's secret branches pretty well influences the world. Not fully of course, but to a very great degree for sure.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrvgl2PsW-4

I really don't think it's that complicated. Wars are always fought for national or imperial interests.

The first two world wars were really about the German people (and later the Japanese) being unhappy about their lack of Lebensraum. Germans (and later the Japanese) were emigrating by their millions to the Americas and neither Germany, nor Austria had suitable colonies to settle them (up to WW1 Austrians were also considered Germans from an ethnic standpoint). It was also about natural resources, especially oil, which Germany didn't have, but its rivals did.

The current Ukraine crisis is actually very similar to the Czechoslovakia crisis in 1938, which is why a lot of parallels are being drawn to Munich and Chamberlain. Like Czechoslovakia back then, Ukraine is being abandoned to a rabid nationalist who justifies his invasion by using the ethnic minority card, as he has in Crimea or North Ossetia. Russian nationalists would want the more developed Southern and Eastern parts of Ukraine (known by them as Novorossiya or "New Russia") to be integrated into Russia and they would leave the remaining central and western parts of the Ukraine for the West to clean up, or perhaps as a Russian-backed puppet state, like Belarus.

[Lord Sidious]

I really don't think it's that complicated. Wars are always fought for national or imperial interests.

The first two world wars were really about the German people (and later the Japanese) being unhappy about their lack of Lebensraum. Germans (and later the Japanese) were emigrating by their millions to the Americas and neither Germany, nor Austria had suitable colonies to settle them (up to WW1 Austrians were also considered Germans from an ethnic standpoint). It was also about natural resources, especially oil, which Germany didn't have, but its rivals did.

The current Ukraine crisis is actually very similar to the Czechoslovakia crisis in 1938, which is why a lot of parallels are being drawn to Munich and Chamberlain. Like Czechoslovakia back then, Ukraine is being abandoned to a rabid nationalist who justifies his invasion by using the ethnic minority card, as he has in Crimea or North Ossetia. Russian nationalists would want the more developed Southern and Eastern parts of Ukraine (known by them as Novorossiya or "New Russia") to be integrated into Russia and they would leave the remaining central and western parts of the Ukraine for the West to clean up, or perhaps as a Russian-backed puppet state, like Belarus.

So if you're going to just believe all the history books, why do you read posts here?

[Fred Steeves]

Normal people are pawns which are moved on the chessboard. These days the ones who control the flow of information control many things.

Now we're talking, except it's not just these days. Edward Bernays (nephew of Sigmond Freud) was considered the master of propaganda in early 20th century America, although few common folk in those times would have had a clue about such things. Consider how he opened his book "Propaganda, released in 1928:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.

Sounds rather "woo" doesn't it? But that's just psychology speaking, keeping it totally secular.

Of course control through the flow of information didn't start there, so if you can get the masses to start eating bacon for breakfast, or women to start smoking in public as Bernays did both through his advertising for clients, what's so unthinkable about the ability to influence the masses to put on their adventure shoes and start trekking westward toward the promised land?

Of course there are secret societies too, some are "good" and some are the opposite and many of them trace their origins back to Egypt and from there to Atlantis. The question is that how much power would such societies yield?

Well this one didn't trace its roots back to anything, but they were instrumental in firing off the chain of events that directly led to the outbreak of the first World War, by assassinating Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand:

Black Hand, byname of Ujedinjenje Ili Smrt (Serbo-Croation: Union or Death), secret Serbian society of the early 20th century that used terrorist methods to promote the liberation of Serbs outside Serbia from Habsburg or Ottoman rule and was instrumental in planning the assassination of the Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand (1914), precipitating the outbreak of World War I. The society was formed (1911) and led by Col. Dragutin Dimitrijević; its members were primarily army officers with some government officials. Operating from Belgrade, it conducted propaganda campaigns, organized armed bands in Macedonia (before the Balkan Wars, 1912–13), and established a network of revolutionary cells throughout Bosnia. Within Serbia it dominated the army and wielded tremendous influence over the government by terrorizing officials; it became so powerful that its authority challenged that of the government.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bla...erbian-society

And to this day, American propaganda is still quite successful in convincing people that it was the evil Germans who started that war, always being the aggressors (a common theme). Interestingly enough, not dissimilar to how we're conditioned to view Russia and China in similar fashion.

As Orwell put it:

Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.

I think that militaries such as the US army with it's secret branches pretty well influences the world. Not fully of course, but to a very great degree for sure.

Certainly chessboard players need the pieces to play with. They need the tools, no different than me if I want to build a room addition, I can't just walk over there expecting something to be accomplished without even strapping on the tool belt.

The first two world wars were really about the German people (and later the Japanese) being unhappy about their lack of Lebensraum.

Not both wars, just the second one after losing it all through the Treaty of Versailles. Yes a lot of Germans were coming over here pre WW1, some of my ancestors included, but so were a lot of other nationalities. Interesting sidenote that the German migrants had fit in quite well here, they were very proud of their heritage and no one had a problem with it, but after the first war public sentiment switched on a dime and my ancestors were compelled to start identifying as Austrian. That wasn't a problem, but German was.

The power of propaganda.

It was also about natural resources, especially oil, which Germany didn't have, but its rivals did.

I find it fascinating how radical was the change in Japanese culture and ways of looking at the world, after Western influence had finally broken through their well fortified walls of "Leave Us Alone And We'll Leave You Alone". Before you know it there's no more content in sitting around any more, let's adopt the imperialist way and see about grab some land and resources from Korea. And the rest is history.

Ukraine is being abandoned to a rabid nationalist who justifies his invasion by using the ethnic minority card

Well that's one way to look at it. The CIA would certainly approve.

As a side note, I find it quite noteworthy now that up until recently anyway, I've never heard US officials and secret unnamed agents talking about false flag operations. For damn good reasons too! Why put this notion forward for the average American to consider when you yourselves are the master of this fine art, and as of now anyway the Americal people generally think of "false flag" as nothing but conspiracy theory.

Yet here we are, something has changed, and suddenly the trumpets are blaring all over the place about RUSSIAN FALSE FLAG! Obviously it's a change in strategy, and seen as a useful propaganda tool, but once the idea is out there for all to see quite blaringly, I don't see how that loose genie gets put back in the bottle when Western Intelligence is done with him. The notion of "False Flag" has now been officially legitimized by the US government itself. Going forward they can scoff at the notion of committing a false flag themselves ("no we're honorable we'd never do such a thing"), but they'll never again have a leg to stand on in scoffing at the notion itself.

I'm really surprised they're trying it, reeks of desperation to me as in this piece of stenography from CBS repeaters:

New granular detail about the planning of a false flag attack in Ukraine by Russia was among the intelligence items discussed in the Situation Room on Thursday night in an emergency meeting, U.S. officials confirmed to CBS News

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...?ocid=msedgntp

It's also always interesting to note the age old strategy of the needed message in screaming headlines, because most people don't read far below them. They're usually just skimming and this is well known. Hell, Edward Bernays would have been well aware of this. He would also have been well aware that if it's felt a bit of the truth needs to be in there somewhere, you stick it in at the very end where the fewest eyes make it to. That's exactly what was done with this piece and multiple others.

You have the screaming and dire headline, but at the end the reader would this this:

Privately, U.S. and Western officials say it is entirely possible that this could be an incredibly dangerous and expensive bluff on Putin's part, but they argue that it is the responsibility of their leaders to weigh the risk.

Wait a minute here, the headline said this was imminent!

So if you're going to just believe all the history books, why do you read posts here?

Here's something I've long learned about the history books. Many of them will give the real story, but only to a point. Like Iran is the perfect example today. What happened in 1979 is jammed down our throats all the time, and it's always in great detail, yes that really happened pretty much just as they say. As you well know America's history with Iran goes farther back that 1979, but the general public doesn't need to know about 1953, do they?

And often they'll even tell a good bit of the real story, but twist around who's the heel and who's the babyface. Like the West's first military excursions into China. The story is told of any violent actions by the Chinese as them being the aggressors, not this foreign navy sailing right up their ass without invitation.

You know, come to think of it, history often repeats itself. This is precisely the tale being told of "Russian Aggression", in the face of a foreign military power being up close and personal right on their doorstep.

[Lord Sidious]

Here's something I've long learned about the history books. Many of them will give the real story, but only to a point. Like Iran is the perfect example today. What happened in 1979 is jammed down our throats all the time, and it's always in great detail, yes that really happened pretty much just as they say. As you well know America's history with Iran goes farther back that 1979, but the general public doesn't need to know about 1953, do they?

And often they'll even tell a good bit of the real story, but twist around who's the heel and who's the babyface. Like the West's first military excursions into China. The story is told of any violent actions by the Chinese as them being the aggressors, not this foreign navy sailing right up their ass without invitation.

You know, come to think of it, history often repeats itself. This is precisely the tale being told of "Russian Aggression", in the face of a foreign military power being up close and personal right on their doorstep.

And which terror group organised for Khomeini to return to Iran from exile?
The most dangerous one.
Al CIAda.
May piss be upon em............

[Wind]

Wars are always fought for national or imperial interests.

You think so? Often it's for profit and especially so with the US war machine. Why do you think US really invaded Middle-East? It was for oil and opium, also war is a damn good business for contractors. Dick Cheney and his cronies got a real good deal too when they decided to go into a pointless, destructive war. You can just google Halliburton and Exxon oil war, etc. This is really simple math. Do corporations serve the interests of the nations or empires? Then you can add the likes of Patriot Act and surveillance state to that mix too. It's about money and control for rogue elements in the government, even though the US government is greatly responsible for many atrocities too.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHOg-lMPuaM

[Aragorn]

Do corporations serve the interests of the nations or empires?

In the case of the USA, there is no difference. The US corporate world controls the US government, and therefore, the US's policy ─ especially internationally.

[Wind]

In the case of the USA, there is no difference. The US corporate world controls the US government, and therefore, the US's policy ─ especially internationally.

So you could say that USA is just one big corporation which tentacles reach far and wide.

[Aragorn]

In the case of the USA, there is no difference. The US corporate world controls the US government, and therefore, the US's policy ─ especially internationally.

So you could say that USA is just one big corporation which tentacles reach far and wide.

Yes, that is correct. It's a crypto-fascist nation.

[Lord Sidious]

It's not the united snakes.
It's the anglo saxon empire..............

[Chris]

In the case of the USA, there is no difference. The US corporate world controls the US government, and therefore, the US's policy ─ especially internationally.

I would second that.

It was also true of the British Empire at its peak. The British East India company, which believe it or not, is still around, is a prime example of that. Same with the Dutch.

However, these were protestant empires whose interest lay primarily in commerce and cornering the market for certain products, spices and tea first, opium, sugar and textiles later. Slavery was part of it, because somebody had to work the plantations in the new world. The whole colonial empire thing was a commercial enterprise, the first real example of multinational corporations.

The Spanish, Portuguese and to a lesser extent, French empires were somewhat different. The main driver was a thirst for natural resources, especially gold and silver, but what also drove them was Catholic religious fervour and what they saw as a civilising mission to convert the natives and integrate them into their own social structure as their inferiors.

It is interesting to read contemporary accounts from Asia for instance, as to how it was to deal with the Portuguese, who were primarily motivated by religion and whose colonial expansion was often driven by the Jesuits, versus the Dutch and English who didn't give a rat's ass about religion and just wanted to make money. Yankee traders of the era, who started showing up were also like that, they only cared about making money. Collectively these foreign traders were known as the Ferenghi or Farang, depending on the language, which has also made the jump into Star Trek with the hilariously greedy and avaricious Ferenghi.

One of their characteristics in ST is having overly large ears which they use to sense new business opportunities. As for the real Ferenghi, they were known for their larges noses,. unusual in East Asia, where it signifies wealth and the ability to "sniff out" money and new business opportunities.

It is interesting, how they based a number of different races and empires on earth history.

The Klingons were famously based on the Russian and Japanese empires. The Romulans, unsurpisingly, on the Roman Empire, the Cardassians on the Third Reich and so forth...

You think so? Often it's for profit and especially so with the US war machine. Why do you think US really invaded Middle-East? It was for oil and opium, also war is a damn good business for contractors. Dick Cheney and his cronies got a real good deal too when they decided to go into a pointless, destructive war. You can just google Halliburton and Exxon oil war, etc. This is really simple math. Do corporations serve the interests of the nations or empires? Then you can add the likes of Patriot Act and surveillance state to that mix too. It's about money and control for rogue elements in the government, even though the US government is greatly responsible for many atrocities too.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHOg-lMPuaM

I think that's all national interest, though of course the prime beneficaries these days are corporations. But corporations are also often an extension of the state, or as in the US, the state is an extension of corporations. But, they still represent the national interest of where they're based, their owners and bat for the home team.

So if you're going to just believe all the history books, why do you read posts here?

TOT stands for The One Truth not The One Theory.

Theories are interesting and fun to ponder, but not much use when dealing with the real world. At some point one has to stick to provable facts, however tempting it may be to entertain conspiracy theories. I personally try to stay away from them these days, precisely because they're generally unprovable and I've burnt myself many times falling for various versions of them, only to realise much later that they were complete rubbish. I'm a lot more careful now.

[Aragorn]

It is interesting, how they based a number of different races and empires on earth history.

The Klingons were famously based on the Russian and Japanese empires. The Romulans, unsurpisingly, on the Roman Empire, the Cardassians on the Third Reich and so forth...

Well, there were two sets of considerations with regard to the different species/cultures in Star Trek. The first was how Gene Roddenberry intended for them to be metaphors for the geopolitical situation here on Earth. The other was what cultural influences were going to be used for the different species.

In terms of the geopolitical metaphors, the Federation represented the USA, and by extension also other western countries ─ perhaps NATO. The Federation was founded by four different cultures ─ the humans from Earth, the Vulcans, the Andorians and the Tellarites ─ but has in the meantime been added with many more cultures.

The Klingon Empire was meant to represent the Soviet-Union, while the Romulan Empire was meant to represent the People's Republic of China, and just as with the Russians and the Chinese, there has in the past been a brief alliance^(*) between the Klingons and the Romulans ─ this was how the Klingons obtained cloaking technology and how the Romulans obtained Klingon D-7 battle cruisers. The Cardassians were indeed meant to represent the Nazis, and the Bajorans were meant to represent the Jewish Diaspora.

Culturally, the Klingons were primarily based off of the Mongolian Empire, and both the Vulcans and the Romulans were based off of Ancient Rome; the Romulans were an offshoot of the Vulcans who did not agree with the teachings of Surak and left Vulcan to start a new life elsewhere. In "Star Trek: Enterprise", it is also revealed that the Romulans were not the only Vulcans to reject the teachings of Surak, and that these other dissident Vulcans left their home world as well, albeit that they did not choose to settle down anywhere in particular, and that they still look indistinguishable from the original Vulcans.

Given that Romulus is much more Earth-like than Vulcan and that the exodus to the Romulan star system happened about 1'000 years ago, there are some minor genetic differences between Vulcans and Romulans, visible in ─ among other things ─ the fact that many (but not all) Romulans have ridges above their eyebrows, while Vulcans do not. Romulans are generally also not telepathic, while many (but not all) Vulcans are ─ something that was once considered a taboo on Vulcan and led to the stigmatizing of telepathic Vulcans.

The Remans however are truly indigenous to their planet, and the planet Remus was probably named such by the Romulans, who subjugated the Remans and treated them as second-rate citizens and cannon fodder at best, and as slaves at worst. This situation ended through the bloody rebellion of Shinzon, a clone of Jean-Luc Picard, once intended to be used for the infiltration of Starfleet, but then the plan was abandoned and Shinzon, still a young boy, was thrown into the dilithium mines on Remus, where he grew into a ruthless and manipulative man who would later lead an uprising, assassinate the entire Romulan Senate, and install himself as Praetor. When he then planned to annihilate all life on Earth, he was killed by Jean-Luc Picard ─ cfr. the "Star Trek: Nemesis" movie.

The Ferengi, lastly, were indeed based upon the old traders ─ they are also repeatedly stated to be politically neutral, their entire culture being based upon trade and the Rules of Acquisition ─ but they were primarily introduced into the series as a comic relief.

	(*) The short-lived Klingon-Romulan alliance was actually an unintended change in the narrative, brought about by an argue between the ship model maker and the producers, in which the model maker got so angry that he destroyed the model of the Romulan Bird Of Prey. Considering that a confrontation with the Romulans was scheduled to return to the series, the producers then used the Klingon D-7 model instead for that episode, but given that it was supposed to be a Romulan ship, it had cloaking abilities. This then lead to the Klingons also having cloaking technology later in the series, while initially they did not.

[Lord Sidious]

TOT stands for The One Truth not The One Theory.

Theories are interesting and fun to ponder, but not much use when dealing with the real world. At some point one has to stick to provable facts, however tempting it may be to entertain conspiracy theories. I personally try to stay away from them these days, precisely because they're generally unprovable and I've burnt myself many times falling for various versions of them, only to realise much later that they were complete rubbish. I'm a lot more careful now.

Well done for missing the entire point of the question.

[Chris]

Well done for missing the entire point of the question.

Then make it clear.