6 ms·

It's not a reaction. It's a well-planned mission to make hundreds of billions of dollars by scaring the population with relatively trivial terrorists acts into

by rorrr2 13y ago

It's not a reaction. It's a well-planned mission to make hundreds of billions of dollars by scaring the population with relatively trivial terrorists acts into spending said billions without much resistance on the weapons and programs nobody really needs.

samstave 13y ago
EXACTLY!!! People who are not truly paying attention are under the impression this is all a mistaken over-reaction and we have had "some bad apples" that have more-or-less accidentally brought us into this situation. Anyone who, in the past 40 years, has pointed out the concerted and deliberate efforts of the MIC to ring us here have been dismissed as "wild conspiracy theorists" -- now though, its just to difficult to keep people from the truth. This is why the distractions have been larger and larger -- but they are coming to a head. The problem is that the MIC is so extraordinarily well funded and well positioned - that now they are looking for the excuse to use their totalitarian machine against all Humanity. They want the next war. It plays into their next agenda: depopulation.
- sxtxixtxcxh 13y ago
  depopulation? who will pay the taxes?
  - samstave 13y ago
    There is no need for slaves to pay taxes.
- gaelian 13y ago
  I am generally reluctant to buy into theories about giant conspiracies, not because I think people in power aren't capable of desiring such things, but because I don't think they're capable of pulling it off. However, it doesn't have to be a conspiracy. All you need is a group of actors in a similar position/industry, each motivated by their own self-interest and following what is to them, the path of least resistance to their goal. From the outside then, it can look more or less like a big conspiracy and indeed I’d be willing to accept that there may be many minor conspiracies playing out (of the ‘you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours’ kind). I don't think anyone is wanting the next war, IMO more likely what has happened is around about the wrap up of Gulf War 2, people in relevant industries started to realise that there won't be that many more fortuitously sized 'sandboxable' (if I may coin a term) hot wars that profit can consistently be extracted from. So what do you do instead? Get on the surveillance gravy train. It certainly seems like a pretty good gig doesn't it? Huge amounts of government spending up for grabs, very little informed oversight or ability for anyone to argue that too much is being spent. It's a government contractor's (or a government offical taking the revolving door's) dream. I wouldn't credit them with enough foresight to be thinking about depopulation. It's all just about next quarter's profits.
  - mcantelon 13y ago
    >I don't think anyone is wanting the next war The US is directing significant resources towards war with China and China is responding in kind. It kind of makes sense given the amount of money the US owes China and given the "threat" of China's economic ascendence. http://yalejournal.org/2013/06/12/who-authorized-preparations-for-war-with-china/ http://yalejournal.org/2013/06/12/who-authorized-preparation...
    - gaelian 13y ago
      I probably should have qualified that a little better: I don't think anyone sane is wanting the next war - which I agree would most likely be US + allies vs. China + allies and would likely spell Armageddon. My earlier post was really concerned more with those actors within relevant industries whose motive is to maximise profit, not with those actors whose motive is to win a dick measuring competition between their country/empire and someone else’s. If the latter guys win out then yeah, all bets are off I'd say. Perhaps I'm overestimating their adherence to logic and reason, but I don't think those actors motivated primarily by greed want such a big, uncontrollable war, the outcome of which is not foregone. They want little controllable ones like Gulf War 1 and 2 (or failing this, the surveillance state).
    - venomsnake 13y ago
      Really? US owes China 1.3 trillion dollars. So the BIG BAD China debt is only 7-8% or less of a single year's GDP. In the grand schemes of things it is pocket change.
      - levosmetalo 13y ago
        Really? A pocket change? So why the US don't just, you know, pay the debt with the pocket change and regain its financial independence once again?
        awwaiid 13y ago
        Because nobody wins. Having the world dependent on US stability is a good thing.
- runn1ng 13y ago
  FEMA death camps!!!!!111
- mcantelon 13y ago
  Yup. The notion of full spectrum warfare goes beyond the paradigm of traditional war, or even non-traditional death-by-drone. The effort to dominate globally will employ finance (manufactured crises to bankrupt countries, speculation to drive up food prices, etc.), industry (embedded surveillance tech in consumer electronics), agriculture (making global crops dependent on pesticides controlled by allied corporations), the pharmaceutical industry (control what countries can get drugs, weaken populations with unneeded, addictive drugs), media (obvious) etc. This kind of skullduggery has been going on, conceptually, for a long time but technology now means it can scale.
- w_t_payne 13y ago
  I don't think depopulation is even on the agenda. More realistically: the next business opportunity, the next contract, the next sale, all of these things are very much on the agenda. Lots of short-term decisions leading to long term catastrophe. Then again, in the long term, we are all dead. Innit?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- rorrr2 13y ago
  You are very naive if you think journalists decide which stories get published/aired. Politicians are PERFECT for this kind of game. Think about it, fewer than a thousand people (congress + high-ranking judges) decide on EVERYTHING. It's trivial to bribe / blackmail them when you have billions and access to their emails and billions of dollars. Think of which major politicians were killed in the last 50 years.
sigil 13y ago
The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world ... and in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare. The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. -- Orwell, 1984
test-it 13y ago
Oh, you're just a conspiracy theorist. The commies, the arabs and the jews hate us for our freedom, thank God we have heroes like Dick Cheney, George W Bush and Barack Obama to protect us.

by rorrr2 13y ago

samstave 13y ago

EXACTLY!!! People who are not truly paying attention are under the impression this is all a mistaken over-reaction and we have had "some bad apples" that have more-or-less accidentally brought us into this situation. Anyone who, in the past 40 years, has pointed out the concerted and deliberate efforts of the MIC to ring us here have been dismissed as "wild conspiracy theorists" -- now though, its just to difficult to keep people from the truth. This is why the distractions have been larger and larger -- but they are coming to a head. The problem is that the MIC is so extraordinarily well funded and well positioned - that now they are looking for the excuse to use their totalitarian machine against all Humanity. They want the next war. It plays into their next agenda: depopulation.

sxtxixtxcxh 13y ago
depopulation? who will pay the taxes?
- samstave 13y ago
  There is no need for slaves to pay taxes.
gaelian 13y ago
I am generally reluctant to buy into theories about giant conspiracies, not because I think people in power aren't capable of desiring such things, but because I don't think they're capable of pulling it off. However, it doesn't have to be a conspiracy. All you need is a group of actors in a similar position/industry, each motivated by their own self-interest and following what is to them, the path of least resistance to their goal. From the outside then, it can look more or less like a big conspiracy and indeed I’d be willing to accept that there may be many minor conspiracies playing out (of the ‘you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours’ kind). I don't think anyone is wanting the next war, IMO more likely what has happened is around about the wrap up of Gulf War 2, people in relevant industries started to realise that there won't be that many more fortuitously sized 'sandboxable' (if I may coin a term) hot wars that profit can consistently be extracted from. So what do you do instead? Get on the surveillance gravy train. It certainly seems like a pretty good gig doesn't it? Huge amounts of government spending up for grabs, very little informed oversight or ability for anyone to argue that too much is being spent. It's a government contractor's (or a government offical taking the revolving door's) dream. I wouldn't credit them with enough foresight to be thinking about depopulation. It's all just about next quarter's profits.
- mcantelon 13y ago
  >I don't think anyone is wanting the next war The US is directing significant resources towards war with China and China is responding in kind. It kind of makes sense given the amount of money the US owes China and given the "threat" of China's economic ascendence. http://yalejournal.org/2013/06/12/who-authorized-preparations-for-war-with-china/ http://yalejournal.org/2013/06/12/who-authorized-preparation...
  - gaelian 13y ago
    I probably should have qualified that a little better: I don't think anyone sane is wanting the next war - which I agree would most likely be US + allies vs. China + allies and would likely spell Armageddon. My earlier post was really concerned more with those actors within relevant industries whose motive is to maximise profit, not with those actors whose motive is to win a dick measuring competition between their country/empire and someone else’s. If the latter guys win out then yeah, all bets are off I'd say. Perhaps I'm overestimating their adherence to logic and reason, but I don't think those actors motivated primarily by greed want such a big, uncontrollable war, the outcome of which is not foregone. They want little controllable ones like Gulf War 1 and 2 (or failing this, the surveillance state).
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    Really? US owes China 1.3 trillion dollars. So the BIG BAD China debt is only 7-8% or less of a single year's GDP. In the grand schemes of things it is pocket change.
    - levosmetalo 13y ago
      Really? A pocket change? So why the US don't just, you know, pay the debt with the pocket change and regain its financial independence once again?
      - awwaiid 13y ago
        Because nobody wins. Having the world dependent on US stability is a good thing.
runn1ng 13y ago
FEMA death camps!!!!!111
mcantelon 13y ago
Yup. The notion of full spectrum warfare goes beyond the paradigm of traditional war, or even non-traditional death-by-drone. The effort to dominate globally will employ finance (manufactured crises to bankrupt countries, speculation to drive up food prices, etc.), industry (embedded surveillance tech in consumer electronics), agriculture (making global crops dependent on pesticides controlled by allied corporations), the pharmaceutical industry (control what countries can get drugs, weaken populations with unneeded, addictive drugs), media (obvious) etc. This kind of skullduggery has been going on, conceptually, for a long time but technology now means it can scale.
w_t_payne 13y ago
I don't think depopulation is even on the agenda. More realistically: the next business opportunity, the next contract, the next sale, all of these things are very much on the agenda. Lots of short-term decisions leading to long term catastrophe. Then again, in the long term, we are all dead. Innit?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

rorrr2 13y ago
You are very naive if you think journalists decide which stories get published/aired. Politicians are PERFECT for this kind of game. Think about it, fewer than a thousand people (congress + high-ranking judges) decide on EVERYTHING. It's trivial to bribe / blackmail them when you have billions and access to their emails and billions of dollars. Think of which major politicians were killed in the last 50 years.

sigil 13y ago

The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world ... and in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare. The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. -- Orwell, 1984

test-it 13y ago

Oh, you're just a conspiracy theorist. The commies, the arabs and the jews hate us for our freedom, thank God we have heroes like Dick Cheney, George W Bush and Barack Obama to protect us.