4 ms·

This is absolute bullshit. The problem is that we need a military that is actually going to man the fuck up when an O-5+ decides to push some unconstitutional p

This is absolute bullshit. The problem is that we need a military that is actually going to man the fuck up when an O-5+ decides to push some unconstitutional program on the people. What has happened isnt that hippy academia is jacking up the military, but rather that the military has been kicking out the kind of people who arent afraid to tell truth to power, and are increasingly making choices and then only hiring people who tell them those choices are good and what they want to hear. I have spent the majority of my free time since I got out trying to understand what the fuck is going on here, and the reality is that our generals failed our military by allowing the neocons to push us into wars for dubious reasons. Thats even counting the real reasons no one talks about, such as upcoming resource wars and a return to a tripolar world. No, the real problem is that we have barely had a real president since the new world order bunch assassinated JFK (and RFK), because that was a very clear message to any POTUS willing to actually stand up. (Dont get me wrong, JFK was far from perfect...) We now have institutional corruption from the top down in every single branch of government, including the famed fourth estate which has been turned into stenographers weekly. Corruption and incompetence are running rampant, and are acting as a cover for the malicious string pullers (Hanlons razor is a logical fallacy!) So no, its not that the goddamn hippies have fucked up the military, its much closer to the military and its propoganda programs have so far infiltrated academia that its a lifeless shell of what it could and should be in this internet age. Keep in mind though, its the military who has pushed this though. While the three letters have carried out operations similar to mockingbird (thank you church comittee), its the globalist new world order group who have pushed it on their controlled government puppets. (Read up on what Norman Dodd found during the Reese Committee for more info) Yes, you are correct we need a smarter military, but just having "smart people" join up wont do it. You need change from the POTUS down, because beleive you me, we have turned mental deconstruction and reconstruction into an art form.

Karunamon 11y ago
New world order conspiracies? On HN? Please don't.
- arca_vorago 11y ago
  I understand this response but I think it is the wrong one. Yes, there are many crazy and outlandish conspiracy theories out there that make it easy for the intellectually lazy to dismiss all theories out of hand, but the globalist conspiracy is one that is less and less hidden to the point that you aren't really paying attention if you don't see it. Now, thats not to say there is a single, grand, overarching conspiracy (a common fallacy in the realm), but rather there are many different parties all with their own self interests, sometimes aligned, sometimes not. The conspiratorial view of the world is the correct one. Your attitude is one of sticking ones head in the sand and pretending these things don't exist.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    The conspiratorial view of the world is the correct one. Not when said conspiracies are dumped, explanation-free, into the middle of a post without any backing what so ever. Buzzwords like "new world order" are both loaded and uninteresting, and that goes double when most people who've have examined the "evidence" have found it wanting. If globalization is meant, say "globalization".
    - arca_vorago 11y ago
      Deapite the most strong public sentiment connotations, the phrase correctly distinguishes a sect of the globalist group, and is just used as such by me. Hence the phrase was "new world order globalists". Its a loaded term, granted and I could probably find a more descriptive way to articulate it, but focusing on that as criticism is nothing more than grammatical group think as a strawman for the much more importance issues being put forward. Its the lazy way out, eg, "that dude said "nwo", all his point are moot and hes a crazy conspiracy theorist." That essentially the position you took. Also, are you even in the same thread as me? Theres plenty of context, within my comment and out, thats gives an indicator about why such a comment is relevant to the discussion. What you have done is perform a knee jerk reaction and now you are backpedalling.
      - 11y ago
merpnderp 11y ago
New world order? The Democrat establishment is doing everything it can to keep the primary from being taken from their anointed disciple. And the Republican primary barely even contains an establishment runner. The GOP power brokers can't decide if they should spend more effort attacking Trump or Cruz, but their man Rubio is trailing a distant third, and their real choice, Bush, is lost in the noise. If there is a world order, it was never very powerful or orderly.
- arca_vorago 11y ago
  Don't be fooled by the circus. The string pullers have had a plan the whole time. While Trump and Sanders have slightly thrown a wrench in my predictions, they still factor in to the plan. First, you have to look at who the original runners were: Jeb and Hillary. Jeb is connected to the action arm of the dark arts, through his father, brother, and his time in Florida, and Hillary is connected to the Rhodesian group for Anglo-Saxon dominance through her Oxford husband. My prediction was that they would drop the dirt on Hillary mid-late cycle, while dropping the GOP forerunner (right now Trump) and suddenly shifting his votes into Bush. Suddenly we have a potential Bush vs Sanders/Hillary election, and the reason the world order group are fighting so hard to get Hillary the nomination is because Sanders is a wildcard in their plans. If they keep Hillary in, it's a globalist in office either way. Incompetence is rampant, it's true, but don't let it smokescreen the hidden machinations, or else you will never be able to grasp the bigger geopolitical picture.
CWuestefeld 11y ago
allowing the neocons to push us into wars for dubious reasons It seems to me that it was some group other than neocons that got us inveigled in war in Libya and Syria - thereby creating the fertile spawning ground for ISIS.
- tremon 11y ago
  Not sure what you're getting at, but ISIS command consists mostly of former Iraqi officials that were sidelined after Saddam Hussein was ousted. The soil was initially fertilized by burning down Iraq. The "fertile ground" that allows moderates to become radicalized eventually boils down to polarization. It doesn't really matter whether the rhetoric is coming from Somalia, Nigeria, Mali, Turkey, Indonesia, Libya, Israel, Europe or the US; as long as the discourse goes in terms of "us vs them", many people will identify (and act) as victims.
  - CWuestefeld 11y ago
    I was careful in my wording. I do grant that the initial war in Iraq catalyzed the creation of ISIS. What I was saying here is that the power vacuum we caused in Syria and especially Libya created a place where that seed could grow and thrive. But anyway, that wasn't the main point. The real point was to show that it wasn't a neocon that started our wars in Libya and Syria - it was today's iconic Progressive who did that, and without any sort of Congressional approval at all. Those wars can't be attributed to neocons, they are the Progressives' to own.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- arca_vorago 11y ago
  Neocons are just a front for the Leo Straussian Chicago school of globalism, with players like Kissinger and Brezenski. note: too late to edit original comment, but I meant to say "it's not the military", eg the military is being played in this global chessboard by other entities.
- 11y ago

Karunamon 11y ago

New world order conspiracies? On HN? Please don't.

arca_vorago 11y ago
I understand this response but I think it is the wrong one. Yes, there are many crazy and outlandish conspiracy theories out there that make it easy for the intellectually lazy to dismiss all theories out of hand, but the globalist conspiracy is one that is less and less hidden to the point that you aren't really paying attention if you don't see it. Now, thats not to say there is a single, grand, overarching conspiracy (a common fallacy in the realm), but rather there are many different parties all with their own self interests, sometimes aligned, sometimes not. The conspiratorial view of the world is the correct one. Your attitude is one of sticking ones head in the sand and pretending these things don't exist.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  The conspiratorial view of the world is the correct one. Not when said conspiracies are dumped, explanation-free, into the middle of a post without any backing what so ever. Buzzwords like "new world order" are both loaded and uninteresting, and that goes double when most people who've have examined the "evidence" have found it wanting. If globalization is meant, say "globalization".
  - arca_vorago 11y ago
    Deapite the most strong public sentiment connotations, the phrase correctly distinguishes a sect of the globalist group, and is just used as such by me. Hence the phrase was "new world order globalists". Its a loaded term, granted and I could probably find a more descriptive way to articulate it, but focusing on that as criticism is nothing more than grammatical group think as a strawman for the much more importance issues being put forward. Its the lazy way out, eg, "that dude said "nwo", all his point are moot and hes a crazy conspiracy theorist." That essentially the position you took. Also, are you even in the same thread as me? Theres plenty of context, within my comment and out, thats gives an indicator about why such a comment is relevant to the discussion. What you have done is perform a knee jerk reaction and now you are backpedalling.
    - 11y ago

merpnderp 11y ago

New world order? The Democrat establishment is doing everything it can to keep the primary from being taken from their anointed disciple. And the Republican primary barely even contains an establishment runner. The GOP power brokers can't decide if they should spend more effort attacking Trump or Cruz, but their man Rubio is trailing a distant third, and their real choice, Bush, is lost in the noise. If there is a world order, it was never very powerful or orderly.

arca_vorago 11y ago
Don't be fooled by the circus. The string pullers have had a plan the whole time. While Trump and Sanders have slightly thrown a wrench in my predictions, they still factor in to the plan. First, you have to look at who the original runners were: Jeb and Hillary. Jeb is connected to the action arm of the dark arts, through his father, brother, and his time in Florida, and Hillary is connected to the Rhodesian group for Anglo-Saxon dominance through her Oxford husband. My prediction was that they would drop the dirt on Hillary mid-late cycle, while dropping the GOP forerunner (right now Trump) and suddenly shifting his votes into Bush. Suddenly we have a potential Bush vs Sanders/Hillary election, and the reason the world order group are fighting so hard to get Hillary the nomination is because Sanders is a wildcard in their plans. If they keep Hillary in, it's a globalist in office either way. Incompetence is rampant, it's true, but don't let it smokescreen the hidden machinations, or else you will never be able to grasp the bigger geopolitical picture.

CWuestefeld 11y ago

allowing the neocons to push us into wars for dubious reasons It seems to me that it was some group other than neocons that got us inveigled in war in Libya and Syria - thereby creating the fertile spawning ground for ISIS.

tremon 11y ago
Not sure what you're getting at, but ISIS command consists mostly of former Iraqi officials that were sidelined after Saddam Hussein was ousted. The soil was initially fertilized by burning down Iraq. The "fertile ground" that allows moderates to become radicalized eventually boils down to polarization. It doesn't really matter whether the rhetoric is coming from Somalia, Nigeria, Mali, Turkey, Indonesia, Libya, Israel, Europe or the US; as long as the discourse goes in terms of "us vs them", many people will identify (and act) as victims.
- CWuestefeld 11y ago
  I was careful in my wording. I do grant that the initial war in Iraq catalyzed the creation of ISIS. What I was saying here is that the power vacuum we caused in Syria and especially Libya created a place where that seed could grow and thrive. But anyway, that wasn't the main point. The real point was to show that it wasn't a neocon that started our wars in Libya and Syria - it was today's iconic Progressive who did that, and without any sort of Congressional approval at all. Those wars can't be attributed to neocons, they are the Progressives' to own.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
arca_vorago 11y ago
Neocons are just a front for the Leo Straussian Chicago school of globalism, with players like Kissinger and Brezenski. note: too late to edit original comment, but I meant to say "it's not the military", eg the military is being played in this global chessboard by other entities.
11y ago