Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum

[Iconoclast]

jesus fuck



... a psyhchological disorder is by definition so extreme it is significantly limiting your ability to function on a daily basis.

this whamon is mentally ill. the CIA is literally running a recruitment ad of a mentally ill person who is proud of her mental illness.
This whamon has multiple psychological disorders. having explicitly admitted to anxiety disorder and imposter syndrome. she is also clearly a narcissist egomaniac.
so that is three mental disorders.

Basically, it's like this:

 

[Vyor]

They need such people so they have a translator for the lefty chatrooms, obviously.

 

[Marduk]

It seems like you’re implying that they’ve attempted to infiltrate the foreign policy machine and only been partially successful. What I’m saying is that they’re already there. That ship has already sailed.



We don't have some kind of inviolate foreign policy machine fighting the Reds. The Reds are already here. The call is coming from inside the house.

Not any more than literally every government agency. But staffing of government agencies can be influenced by elections.

Yes, but I could scarcely imagine anyone who could deny the humanity in their pleas, or who could argue that they’re different enough from us that their descriptions of their own experiences should be treated as meaningless or irrelevant to us.

Do the migrants who show up to turn your cities into camping grounds give a fuck about your experiences while doing so?
This is not a time for empathy ethics, this is a time for shoving match ethics.

It's not like we're talking about little green men who stepped out of a UFO. These are human beings. Misguided, perhaps. Religious fanatics, quite possibly. But still, they are human.

100% of conquering and pillaging in history was done by human beings too.

Very often, they were deposed after a period of relative peace. Bush Junior went after Saddam long after he ceased to be a real threat. Sarkozy went after Gaddafi after a brief period in the 2000s where the two were basically in cahoots.

Why Did the U.S. and Its Allies Bomb Libya? Corruption Case Against Sarkozy Sheds New Light on Ousting of Gaddafi.

The former French president is accused of accepting campaign cash from the Libyan leader. The rush to bomb Gaddafi gets a necessary second look.

theintercept.com

This sounds less like Sarkozy deposing a tyrant to rescue people from his supposed tyranny and more like a corrupt clown cleaning the skeletons out of his closet.


Because the places we bombed were providing border security holding back the people from those other places. Gaddafi said it himself:

Is Gaddafi's gloom prophecy in regard to Europe bound to be fulfilled?

As Europe’s migrant crisis grows far and wide, many Russian media are recalling the late Libyan leader Muamar Gaddafi’s gloom prophecy made several months before his violent death

tass.com

It was exactly the sort of security Erdogan is "providing". AKA he was blackmailing much more powerful states with the threat of stopping doing so. He was even more open about it as Erdogan, who is widely considered as ambitious and scummy. But Erdogan is a bit smarter about it still, and knew when to be careful with his demands and shenanigans, so he survives so far.

Well, we can all see what happened. His prognostications came true.

Threats is the term.

The reason why they're all migrating to the West is not exactly because they're drawn here by our wealth and prestige like moths to a flame. The reason why they're all migrating to the West is because we have tons of taxpayer-funded NGOs that are practically dragging them here.

NGOs use American tax dollars to relocate migrants

Nongovernmental organizations, like charities or religiously affiliated nonprofits, are under scrutiny by DHS for misspent funds.

www.newsnationnow.com

Biden Admin. Sends Millions to Religious Nonprofits Facilitating Mass Illegal Migration

An examination of the more than 30 faith-based nonprofits among those UN NGO partners show taxpayer funds have been distributed to these groups.

cis.org

U.S. Resettlement Partners | UNHCR US

www.unhcr.org

The NGOs do have a place in that story, but you are really stretching reality with that claim. The place of NGOs answers the question of "how", not "why". If the NGOs were taking them to China or North Korea they would be having very few people willing to take their travel aiding services.

I'm not a practicing JW. Not since childhood, anyway. It's a very, very silly cult. Regardless, many of my foundational beliefs did come from the experience of being raised as one.

I cannot even begin to tell you how hurtful it is, to be told your entire young life that the world as we know it was due to end quite soon and be magically replaced by a better world with no death or misery, only to slowly realize that it was a hideous lie and that you're trapped in an engine of despair that will slowly grind your bones down to nothing without remorse.

There are no words to express precisely what that feels like. I would have vastly preferred being told the full, unvarnished truth from the start.

Cults do to not care about what those who are not their leaders would prefer to know, that's the idea. Plenty of cults out there, and unlike JW some are in the mainstream and have the mainstream media support them, like the one Greta Thunberg is a famous leader/victim of.

My point is that the West have never actually allowed the powers in that region to modernize and secularize without constant interference. Interference which, by the way, is leading to people in the region being more impoverished, more uneducated, and more likely to join terrorist organizations and sectarian militias out of sheer resentment or desperation.

That's not how global politics work. World powers fight and compete, not "allow" their declared enemies a breather to fight them better. And if they get one, it still is not a guarantee of success (see India who is practically begged to fix its shit up to be a bulwark against China).
Let's leave the idea of giving a fuck about the well being of the Islamic world *after* they start giving a fuck about ours, because so far they explicitly never did.

Did you know that ISIS paid their troops, and that the main reason why people joined them, in many instances, was because the money was better than many alternative and legal forms of employment?

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/terror/R43980.pdf

"Got laid off of your gubmint job? Come to ISIS! We'll pay you sex-tuple!"

Of course, even North Koreans pay their troops. Not much, but still better than those who aren't their troops.

Fair enough. I've never had anyone try and convert me, but then again, I mostly hang out in nerd circles, and the nerds of all cultures tend to be more similar than we are different.

In which case you may have also noticed - a lot more nerds come from some cultures and societies than from some others, compared to world demographics the differences can be quite stark.

Yes, but the Overclass are not as divided as people think.

It is also more divided than some people think - see world conflicts. Divided enough to send armies at each other.

But does it really need to be so distasteful?

De gustibus non est disputandum.

Well, if that is the case, and if people really do wish for segregation, then wouldn't the logical course of action be to leave these MENA countries undisturbed rather than running up and vigorously rattling a tree with a wasp's nest in it and getting stung by waves of refugees?

These are mutually contradictory positions. On the one hand, you want military interventionism to keep the rest of the non-NATO world in line through fear. On the other, you want the survivors of these conflicts to never reach our shores.

This is how it was until 1960's, and if you haven't noticed, there was absolutely no shortage of interventionism before the cultural revolution of 1960's. Hence my absolute conviction that refugee waves are not a matter of interventionism in itself, but *other changes* in the West, and West specifically.

Even the managerial-class center-left corruptocrats get this wrong. They like to pretend that refugees just kind of appear out of the ether. They don't talk about where they're coming from, or why. They're not Syrian Refugees, or Libyan Refugees, or Yemeni Refugees, or whatever. They're just "refugees", with no qualifier. It's absurd.

A surprising amount of them of them are not from the convenient for this lefty propaganda "muh interventionism" line locations, like Pakistan or Nigeria, who no one bombed.

https://www.sott.net/article/316647-Oligarchy-vs-the-public-NATO-war-racket-causes-refugee-crises-which-then-justify-more-invasions

Signs of the Times (magazine) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Signs of the Times is a monthly magazine originally published by Pacific Press, a Seventh-day Adventist publishing house

Sorry, i don't take world politics advice from some weirdo sectarians repeating leftist idiocy. I'd sooner talk down to them about geopolitics stuff than take their word for anything, they are worse than useless as a source of information.

If you don't want refugees, don't start wars. Very simple.

It's a story for lefty sheep.
If it's true, why didn't it work at all in the age of colonialism? Western interventionism was on steroids back then. No, this shit only became possible in 1960's. And more so, do not delude yourself that not starting wars won't get you refugees.
What wars did Canada, Sweden and Ireland start? They are some of the worst hit by third world migration.
It is tolerance of lefty pro migration bullshitting that begets refugees, not wars. If your country does not eat up such bullshit, you can be getting as many refugees as Japan, Israel or Saudi Arabia. In Poland we have a common saying that translates as "If you want to have a soft heart, you better have a tough ass, because you will be getting kicked in it often". It is the most soft hearted nations who get most refugees, not the most warmongering, though the oddity is that few are high on both, helping lefties push their lie. And it makes perfect sense - why would refugees prefer to go to any place where people are not soft hearted and has money to throw behind its sentiments?

What is more patriotic? Letting a fellow American go without a home, just because some Chinese fat cat absentee owner investment firm made a phone call and scooped it up from literally thousands of miles away, sight unseen, or that same American having access to affordable housing?

Leave off the lefty soundbites about affordable housing while not saying clearly what they mean.
Speaking of things unspoken, there are dirty secret over the nature of such social problems that make them less sympathetic on closer look than the lefty idealist media version.
Take this average homeless American who wants affordable housing. But there are unspoken qualifiers. A log cabin in midwestern farmland is not what he wants. If you sent him to one he would spend his last dollar to get back to the city to be homeless there. Even though it would be very affordable. He probably wants "affordable housing" in one of cities with most unaffordable land prices in the country. Why? Because that's where all the drug dealers and bleeding hearts who will give him drug money to bring to the former are. If you can't solve this conundrum, you can' solve this problem.

This is the central paradox of the neocons. You feel obligated to support capitalism in principle, of course. This stance is not at all unreasonable, given the wealth and prosperity it brings. However, the people currently engaged in capitalism do not feel obligated to reciprocally support you.

Then obviously the dividing line is not capitalism or opinions of it. There are others, like patriotism.

Don't take my word for it. Look at the causes they pour their money into and see for yourself:

The BIG list of woke companies you should boycott

Woke companies are a danger to our country, our freedoms, and our values. This is why we MUST stop feeding the beast that is using profits from our purchases to fuel the destruction of our country.

www.cancelthiscompany.com

People complain about the middle class in America eroding, but they don't understand why that's the case.

There isn't one America. There are two Americas. There is the Wealthy, Liberal, Urban America, and the Poorer, Conservative, Suburban-Rural America. These two main groups are locked in a huge class struggle.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/americas-asymmetric-civil-war

The urban centers of America consist largely of the professional-managerial class, researchers, designers, bureaucrats, and so on, and the service industry serfs (David Graeber's "dog-washers and all-night pizza deliverymen") who support them. This is a class of people who are paid very well to look very busy without actually accomplishing anything of any real substance.

This group stands in direct opposition to the interests of the suburban-rural tradesmen, farmers, and so on, who are a more egalitarian and liberty-minded demographic and less economically divided than the urbanites.

The suburban/rural American population have seen our fortunes decline specifically because the urbanites have deindustrialized America and shipped all our jobs overseas to line their own pockets. This process has dismantled America's industrial base and, ironically enough for the neocons, made America substantially weaker militarily and less capable of replenishing consumed war materiel.

GOP=/=neocons=/= right wing. There are very surprising and complicated overlaps between these groups. The attitude towards "free" trade with China is quite an indicator of who takes the economic security seriously and who's just pretending.

Rufus over on FiC (with whom I had a falling-out because of his center-left managerialist leanings) blurted out some hogwash about how liberal and enlightened American cities subsidize backward and bigoted rural areas with their taxes. He called rural/suburban Americans "leeches". He doesn't understand a goddamn thing about America. To the contrary, our urban centers are the piggy banks of disgusting gilded-age fat cats, professional-managerial class yuppies, and the horde of practical slaves who dust their mansions and apartments, make their lattes, launder their clothes, and walk their poodles. I can hardly stand to be in them, these places nauseate me so much.

In a different, better world, American cities could have been more egalitarian, with a smaller divide between the lowest-income and highest-income earners. Instead, they are hives of unfettered decadence and decay, practically owned by a small handful of monopolistic megacorps and greedy developers. These megacorps are remaking our cities in their own image, building giant corporate campuses, like Tim Cook's donut and Jeff Bezos's testicles, that look like public parks but are closed to the public, walled off from the depressing decay and encampments of homeless junkies around them. It's like something out of a dystopian cyberpunk novel.

Be careful of what you wish for, you may get it, not necessarily in the way you want. Egalitarianism doesn't work without either force or high level of sociocultural homogeneity. Communists have the former. Places like Japan have the latter. Putting one or another into action on current year US cities would go like a lead balloon politically, which hints at one of those options more than the other.

I've worked a job where much of the time spent on a shift is standing a fire watch, so I'm very much aware of the concept of 24/7 coverage. However, not all jobs need it, and even though I hate how Davos this sounds, a lot of things can be done with a paperless office and telecommuting, eschewing office buildings entirely. That's a large part of the city, right there, completely gone. Erased. The property developers won't be happy about that.

If people are opposed to urbanization, telecommuting is actually a great way to retard the growth of cities, or to increase the ratio of residential space to office space. The only reason why bosses are opposed to it is because they like having actual fiefdoms of people trapped in cubicles because it makes them look and feel important. It's kind of a weird exercise in mass sadomasochism.

That's only been "field tested" in the covid panic, and yes, there is some chance of massive fallout in next decade or three if this gets polished up more.
And yes, the economic shockwave it could hit major urban centers with may end up being devastating like a nuclear bomb (as in few years later some significant parts of many cities may well look as if one detonated nearby).

The idea that there is a great Soviet Bear or Chinese Dragon that we need to keep in check is outmoded. A Cold War relic. Behind closed doors, Putin, Xi, and the rest of the globalists are all part of the same coalition. The fight against BRICS is a mirage. A hallucination. Something to keep the minds of the little people occupied while we're robbed blind.

Have you looked at the news of what is happening in Eastern Europe? It's a leftist lie that cold war ended. Of course the same treasonous shitlibs who sold the idea that there is no problem with moving all the industry to China and the greens who helped by obsessing about energy/CO2 emissions locally also tend to support it or pretend it has nothing to do with the consequences of what they are pushing.

According to Denis Rancourt, COVID-19 vaccines have killed 1 in 470 people alive today, globally (approximately 1 death per 800 doses). His claim is that well over ten million people are dead from it so far. Another, recent study indicated that 1 in 35 people having a COVID-19 vaccine booster shot had elevated troponin levels (i.e. heart muscle dissolving into their bloodstreams).

COVID-19 vaccine-associated mortality in the Southern Hemisphere

CORRELATION has published a new report entitled “COVID-19 vaccine-associated mortality in the Southern Hemisphere” authored by Denis G. Rancourt, Marine Baudin, Joseph Hickey, and Jérém…

correlation-canada.org

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejhf.2978

Myocarditis has a five-year survival rate of 50%. We have no idea how many people are walking around right now with subclinical myocarditis whose hearts are ticking time bombs who will simply drop dead within the decade without a transplant.

If anything, the potential for mass casualties from this has been grossly understated.

0.2% is a territory where a lot of handwaving and error can happen, depending on how one measures, doubly so in the middle of actual covid spread.
Half of 3% of all age brackets dying of heart disease within 2-3 years we would easily notice, so we shall see.

The sixties were a tantalizing taste of the power and influence America could have had. Who sabotaged it, and for what purpose?

Leftist's social experiment projects.

This is yet another trap that neocons fall into. It is the assumption that everything that benefits America also, by extension, benefits you.

I don't see a monolithic "America" or a monolithic "West", like you do. I see multiple groups of people under the same banner competing viciously for resources. Our Elites are the primary beneficiaries of warfare, and they are clearly hostile toward the rest of us and trying to cut us off from wealth and health.

They said it themselves. They said it openly. They just don't need so many people anymore. They have AI and robots to take up the slack, and machines don't demand human rights, medical and dental plans, sick days, maternity leave, or any of that.



He says it himself. We're building minds. The trouble with this is that once you start building minds, you have to decide what sort of mind you want to populate the world with.

Do you trust the ruling class to populate the world with the right kind of mind? With your own sort of mind? Do you think the people doing this sort of thing can ever be trusted with that kind of power? Or are you one of the many who think it's all just smoke and mirrors, and that they can't actually do it for real?

If they can build minds, they will build compliant minds. Useful minds. Not dissident minds, and certainly not conservative ones.

He's a historian that's Schwab's hanger-on, there's a lot of "fake it till you make it" in this elite circle. Just because he wants something tech wise in no way means it can work.

No, of course I don't. It's everywhere. It's coming from the highest institutions throughout the West.

Curtis Yarvin calls it the "Cathedral".

A brief explanation of the cathedral

An oligarchy inherently converges on ideas that justify the use of power.

graymirror.substack.com

I'm familiar enough with the Dark Enlightenment stuff.

It's not an illusion. We have a problem with united elites who don't respect borders or sovereignty. That's a fact.

No one ever did, unless they were *made* to respect them, by force or threat of it.

 

[Scottty]

I feel a desire to try to sift through and find common elements here...

Marduk and THASF, I think you both agree that those in power in the West are not ruling in a way that is in line with the wellbeing of the majority of the population?
That they are messing things up, badly, and walling themselves off, both physically and mentally, from the bad consequences that their policies are imposing on everyone else?

And - Marduk this seems to be one of your concerns - this selfish ineptness on the part of the elite is bad also because it seriously weakens the West vs its global opponents.
Russia has factories that can churn out bullets, bombs, shells and missiles as if Siberia was one vast field of Tiberium ore, while the NATO countries... can't do that. Oooh look how high-tech that missile is! But don't ask for wholesale orders, sorry, we can only make a couple a month!
And this is bad.

THASF: do you really believe that Putin, Xi and the Bilderbergs are all one happy family? No bro... no. Why should Putin and Xi share power with the Western elites at all if they don't have to?

 

[Marduk]

I feel a desire to try to sift through and find common elements here...

Marduk and THASF, I think you both agree that those in power in the West are not ruling in a way that is in line with the wellbeing of the majority of the population?
That they are messing things up, badly, and walling themselves off, both physically and mentally, from the bad consequences that their policies are imposing on everyone else?

We roughly agree about how is it failing, but not why, the degree of it, and not what would not failing look like.

And - Marduk this seems to be one of your concerns - this selfish ineptness on the part of the elite is bad also because it seriously weakens the West vs its global opponents.
Russia has factories that can churn out bullets, bombs, shells and missiles as if Siberia was one vast field of Tiberium ore, while the NATO countries... can't do that. Oooh look how high-tech that missile is! But don't ask for wholesale orders, sorry, we can only make a couple a month!
And this is bad.

No, the West going rust belt (and more so in civilian industries than military ones) in no way implies that Russia is better in that regard (if it was it would not be dodging munition shortage with buying up the massive yet crappy stockpiles of Iran and NK especially for premium prices unjustified by the quality of the product). China is the true concern in that regard.
The military underspending of many western countries, especially the progressive idol ones, was a topic of discontent for several factions of the right since many years.
It's something that is a further limit beyond industrial shortcomings that leads to not using even what does exist fully, as there are no orders, because there is not enough funding given. Point in case, much desired since 2022 SAM production is still half slack:

 

[Lord Sovereign]

The military underspending of many western countries, especially the progressive idol ones, was a topic of discontent for several factions of the right since many years.

The liberal does not merely ignore the law of Blood and Iron, he actively eschews it. As a consequence the arms of Europe have suffered tremendously.

 

[Typhonis]

Anyone that thinks the middle ages was some kind of dark age is an uneducated moron that shouldn't be listened to and anyone that uses such a person as a source deserves the same level of derision.

Define Dark. As in was it actually dark because of a climatic disaster?

A comet impact in AD 536?

The article is on a possible meteor or asteroid strike around 536 AD.

 

[Vyor]

Define Dark. As in was it actually dark because of a climatic disaster?

A comet impact in AD 536?

The article is on a possible meteor or asteroid strike around 536 AD.

No, a Dark Age is an age where historical evidence for culture and people just stops being written down (including through pottery or art).

 

[Scottty]

We roughly agree about how is it failing, but not why, the degree of it, and not what would not failing look like.

No, the West going rust belt (and more so in civilian industries than military ones) in no way implies that Russia is better in that regard (if it was it would not be dodging munition shortage with buying up the massive yet crappy stockpiles of Iran and NK especially for premium prices unjustified by the quality of the product). China is the true concern in that regard.

This is not about Russia being better, beyond them not being insane enough to send all their production ability to other countries.
I agree that China is the greater evil - and the one the Western elites have done more to enable. For this alone it would please me to see a whole bunch of them not only forcibly removed from office, but executed for treason..

 

[Iconoclast]

Not any more than literally every government agency. But staffing of government agencies can be influenced by elections.

Elections do have some influence, but the real problem is our institutions of higher education, and the quality and type of individual that they are producing. If all the job candidates are fully brainwashed from the start, then that's all the CIA and the FBI and NSA will ever get.

Do the migrants who show up to turn your cities into camping grounds give a fuck about your experiences while doing so?
This is not a time for empathy ethics, this is a time for shoving match ethics.

100% of conquering and pillaging in history was done by human beings too.

Well, that's pretty bleak. I guess we're still far off from Gene Roddenberry's idea of a utopia, if it was ever attainable in the first place.

Wait, I know what you will say. In spite of the technologies we already have, it is a ridiculous idea to expect any part of Star Trek to become reality. Hopelessly naive. Even juvenile.

There was, however, a time where I really did hope to see post-scarcity tech, technological immortality, and other such wonders within my lifetime, no matter how much we had to bend the laws of physics to accomplish it. I figured, if most conflicts were over resources, and most of our fears and superstitions were based around the inevitability of death and the hope of an afterlife, then the best way to eliminate the worst aspects of the human condition would be to defeat scarcity and death in a single mighty blow.

The way I envisioned it, fusion reactors and massive desalination plants and indoor farms would be built in every country, practically eliminating energy and clean water scarcity for a good long while. Fusion torches would be used to recycle unused materials into their underlying elements. Robots would quickly and cheaply print people houses out of concrete. Medical science and regenerative medicine would advance to the point where things like Yamanaka factors could be used to reset people's cells to a more youthful state. AI would invent miraculous new metamaterials and healing nanotechnologies. In the grip of this wondrous revolution, all the old hates and fears would slip away into nothingness.

Now, I have many doubts. Humans are much too power-hungry, paranoid, and distrustful of each other for this to ever come about. And, even if any part of this were to come to pass, we would always find something new to argue about and kill each other over. The end of scarcity and death would not be the end of the fanatic, the cultist, the maniac. There is a sickness in our souls that is too deep for technology to ever excise so neatly.

As my perspective has shifted, all of the people I once regarded as my heroes have turned into villains overnight. There was a time, in the past, that I would have been on Klaus Schwab's side. However, upon realizing the technocrats' murderous intent, I now rebuke them. I cannot in good conscience share an ideology with ruthless killers such as these.

The way things are going right now, we're less likely to end up in Star Trek and way more likely to end up in some horrible mashup of Brave New World and Forever Peace, where people are split up into biological castes and vegetate behind monitors watching head cam vids from teleoperated killbots. By the 2050s, the top streaming channels will be guys piloting Boston Dynamics bots with helmet-mounted BCIs and mowing people down with miniguns. A streamer will get suspended after exclaiming "Watch me SLAY these poor sand-n*****s!" and people will be more upset over the slur than they are over the televised bloodshed.

I have grown very bitter over all this. This is not the future I wanted to live in.

It was exactly the sort of security Erdogan is "providing". AKA he was blackmailing much more powerful states with the threat of stopping doing so. He was even more open about it as Erdogan, who is widely considered as ambitious and scummy. But Erdogan is a bit smarter about it still, and knew when to be careful with his demands and shenanigans, so he survives so far.

Threats is the term.

But at least the service was real rather than imaginary, even if it was a racket.

The NGOs do have a place in that story, but you are really stretching reality with that claim. The place of NGOs answers the question of "how", not "why". If the NGOs were taking them to China or North Korea they would be having very few people willing to take their travel aiding services.

True. They do have preferred destinations, of course. Nevertheless, there is a rather disturbing amount of institutional support for basically importing people from third-world countries and conflict zones into Europe and North America by the boatload.

Cults do to not care about what those who are not their leaders would prefer to know, that's the idea. Plenty of cults out there, and unlike JW some are in the mainstream and have the mainstream media support them, like the one Greta Thunberg is a famous leader/victim of.

Well, I guess that's why I'm no longer in it. I had a little too much to think.

That's not how global politics work. World powers fight and compete, not "allow" their declared enemies a breather to fight them better. And if they get one, it still is not a guarantee of success (see India who is practically begged to fix its shit up to be a bulwark against China).
Let's leave the idea of giving a fuck about the well being of the Islamic world *after* they start giving a fuck about ours, because so far they explicitly never did.

In what way is the Islamic world our enemy?

*Cue Marduk saying they've been our enemy for a thousand years*

*Something, something, since the Crusades*

Okay, yes, I realize all of that. And I certainly do recognize their ongoing, centuries-long belligerence. However, all the Islamic nations that I've seen destroyed by the West in my own lifetime weren't actually doing anything. They were just kind of sitting there. And then we arbitrarily steamrolled them into dust.

The conflicts in the Middle East over the past 30 years have made about as much sense to me as a kid playing SimCity and then opening the disaster panel and sending meteors, tornadoes, earthquakes, and so on, to wipe the slate clean. It just seems like pointless sadism that accomplished nothing. And given that when we pull out of these regions, they revert right back to electing the sort of dictatorial strongmen and Islamic theocracies we often try to depose, they actually accomplish less than nothing.

For that matter, our enemies really, really suck at modern conflict. America invading Iraq was like watching an 800 pound gorilla jump into the ring with an armless toddler. It's not even an exciting, close-run contest of strength. Not at all. It's just kind of sad to watch.

Also, given that we have a lot of ally Islamic nations in the form of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and so on, and have Malaysia and Indonesia as trade partners, it just seems odd that the typical neocon reasoning for why we should go to war with Middle Eastern nations is because they are "Islamic savages" with a "culture fundamentally incompatible with ours". Clearly, we don't go after all Islamic nations just because they are Islamic. And the utterly dishonest and despicable shitlib explanation for going to war with them - civilizing them and bringing them the benefits of modernity and democracy - doesn't hold water either. We don't do that. We never do that.

So why the hell do we kill these people? What the hell for?

In which case you may have also noticed - a lot more nerds come from some cultures and societies than from some others, compared to world demographics the differences can be quite stark.

Yes. Primarily from the US, UK, Canada, Germany, France, Greece, Poland, Sweden, Finland, Japan, China, Russia, with enclaves in the Balkans, Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore. Not a comprehensive list, but just the most common ones off the top of my head. Mostly, the core techno-industrial nations with a lot of universities.

This is how it was until 1960's, and if you haven't noticed, there was absolutely no shortage of interventionism before the cultural revolution of 1960's. Hence my absolute conviction that refugee waves are not a matter of interventionism in itself, but *other changes* in the West, and West specifically.

Yes. Our oligarchs fund pro-immigration NGOs and import millions of people into our countries by the truckload who refuse to properly assimilate into our culture, creating an atmosphere of anarchy and chaos and dread that those oligarchs then exploit for sociopolitical advantage, just like ancient tyrants did.

To quote Aristotle:

It is also a habit of tyrants to prefer the company of aliens to that of citizens at table and in society; citizens, they feel, are enemies, but aliens will offer no opposition.

Tyrants preserve themselves by sowing fear and mistrust among the citizens by means of spies, by distracting them with foreign wars, by eliminating men of spirit who might lead a revolution, by humbling the people, and making them incapable of decisive action.

This all sounds very familiar, doesn't it?

If we recognize the signs of tyranny, why do we not act?

A surprising amount of them of them are not from the convenient for this lefty propaganda "muh interventionism" line locations, like Pakistan or Nigeria, who no one bombed.

Again, remove enough gatekeeper nations standing in their way, and they'll cross the Mediterranean in droves.

Signs of the Times (magazine) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sorry, i don't take world politics advice from some weirdo sectarians repeating leftist idiocy. I'd sooner talk down to them about geopolitics stuff than take their word for anything, they are worse than useless as a source of information.

That's not the same SOTT.

https://www.sott.net/page/1-About-Sott-net

Quantum Future Group - Start

It's a story for lefty sheep.
If it's true, why didn't it work at all in the age of colonialism? Western interventionism was on steroids back then. No, this shit only became possible in 1960's. And more so, do not delude yourself that not starting wars won't get you refugees.
What wars did Canada, Sweden and Ireland start? They are some of the worst hit by third world migration.
It is tolerance of lefty pro migration bullshitting that begets refugees, not wars. If your country does not eat up such bullshit, you can be getting as many refugees as Japan, Israel or Saudi Arabia. In Poland we have a common saying that translates as "If you want to have a soft heart, you better have a tough ass, because you will be getting kicked in it often". It is the most soft hearted nations who get most refugees, not the most warmongering, though the oddity is that few are high on both, helping lefties push their lie. And it makes perfect sense - why would refugees prefer to go to any place where people are not soft hearted and has money to throw behind its sentiments?

You and I have very different perspectives on warfare. Like many conservatives, you still see war as a contest of wills between men. While this may have been the case in the ancient past, it is no longer the case today. Today, what we have are human beings who are industrially processed like cattle in factory farms, and our leaders dare call it warfare. People are called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice, but it isn't actually in service of any creed. We visit countries where our presence isn't wanted, again and again, and we prune people like weeds.

It's basically an exercise in eugenics. Some rich oligarch bastards somewhere decide that some poor people we don't even know on the other side of the planet have to die, and then, a "modern army" - itself a historical aberration, a teeming horde of celibates wrapped in kevlar who fight not for honor or loot or land, but for realpolitik and intelligence chicanery too complex for them to understand - descends on them and efficiently processes them like meat, before disappearing and leaving behind nothing but rubble and abandoned vehicles.

We don't fight to colonize a people, or to steal from them, or to do anything rational to them. We don't take their territory for our own and fill it with our own people and our own culture. We didn't make Iraq and Afghanistan into the 51st and 52nd states. We just dispassionately pruned them back, like trimming an overgrown hedge, and then we left. And then our oligarchs enjoyed a windfall in currency arbitrage that produces no useful goods of any value to anyone. It's fucking repulsive to me.

At least Norsemen raiding in their longboats took things of value. They took slaves, they took gold. What trophies do we take from the countries we slaughter? Nothing. Not a damn thing at all. What strange sport. Like shooting a deer and leaving the whole thing to rot, antlers and all.

I don't like modern wars. Not because they are wars, and because they are violent, but because they are too organized, too whitewashed, directed by committees of these soft little mincing center-left dweebs who'd get asthma if they had to so much as lift a garden trowel, much less a rifle.

See, if we were to go full Senator-Armstrong-level Egoism and Social Darwinism, and wage war honestly, just to destroy people and take their stuff like proper cavemen, and if we just straight-up told people that was exactly what we were doing, I could at least respect the sincerity in that. But there is no honesty in these wars we fight. Only lie after lie after goddamn lie. One false pretense after another.

We are told that we're saving people from themselves, that we're deposing evil tyrants, that we're stepping in and delivering democracy and civilization to people, but we aren't. We're just crushing them to keep them from possibly becoming a threat in the future, while maintaining the power and wealth of an Elite who hate our guts and are trying to replace us with immigrants as fast as they can.

Leave off the lefty soundbites about affordable housing while not saying clearly what they mean.
Speaking of things unspoken, there are dirty secret over the nature of such social problems that make them less sympathetic on closer look than the lefty idealist media version.
Take this average homeless American who wants affordable housing. But there are unspoken qualifiers. A log cabin in midwestern farmland is not what he wants. If you sent him to one he would spend his last dollar to get back to the city to be homeless there. Even though it would be very affordable. He probably wants "affordable housing" in one of cities with most unaffordable land prices in the country. Why? Because that's where all the drug dealers and bleeding hearts who will give him drug money to bring to the former are. If you can't solve this conundrum, you can' solve this problem.

People do drugs when they're hopeless and down on their luck. As in, when they cannot find gainful employment or have a stable home life and a family, because they put in their resume at forty different places and still got tossed out on their ass because they didn't have any prior experience or enough education.

We would have less of a drug problem if we had more jobs for the uneducated, for the rejects. Not everyone can go to work for Apple designing the next iPhone. Not everyone can code apps from their basement in comfort. Some people are quite simply too stupid to be employable in a highly modernized, information-based, and deindustrialized society where all the menial jobs have dried up. It's not politically correct to say it, but I don't give a fuck. If you have a 90 IQ or less and a brain fit only for repetitive and simple tasks, society has abandoned you. It's just a fact.

It's no wonder these people turn to opioids. They're unemployed, unemployable, and miserable.





If we let the Overclass have their way, then anyone with less than 120 IQ will also become unemployable, because AIs will do all of the sub-120-IQ jobs. What kind of a society is that? Who the hell wants to live in a society where only a teeny, tiny minority of people - the cream of the crop of all thinkers - can still make a wage, and everyone else is left behind? That's not a society. It's madness.

Then obviously the dividing line is not capitalism or opinions of it. There are others, like patriotism.

GOP=/=neocons=/= right wing. There are very surprising and complicated overlaps between these groups. The attitude towards "free" trade with China is quite an indicator of who takes the economic security seriously and who's just pretending.

We are agreed on at least one thing, I would hope: we in the West absolutely need our own industrial base. We need coal mines and steel mills. We need it all to come back. Immediately.

We have outsourced too many things that are indeed security-critical. If you want to fight a modern war, you need metals. Lots of 'em. You need mile-long trains with sheets of steel and aluminum and titanium and great big spools of copper.

Be careful of what you wish for, you may get it, not necessarily in the way you want. Egalitarianism doesn't work without either force or high level of sociocultural homogeneity. Communists have the former. Places like Japan have the latter. Putting one or another into action on current year US cities would go like a lead balloon politically, which hints at one of those options more than the other.

That's only been "field tested" in the covid panic, and yes, there is some chance of massive fallout in next decade or three if this gets polished up more.
And yes, the economic shockwave it could hit major urban centers with may end up being devastating like a nuclear bomb (as in few years later some significant parts of many cities may well look as if one detonated nearby).

Cultural homogeneity it is, then.

Have you looked at the news of what is happening in Eastern Europe? It's a leftist lie that cold war ended. Of course the same treasonous shitlibs who sold the idea that there is no problem with moving all the industry to China and the greens who helped by obsessing about energy/CO2 emissions locally also tend to support it or pretend it has nothing to do with the consequences of what they are pushing.

Our elites love China. They love the cheap labor in the form of teeming masses of obedient and practically expendable slaves, the lack of environmental and occupational regulations, and the totalitarian and technocratic societal model advanced by the CCP. The last thing they actually want is war with China. It would mean a trade embargo and very, very costly reshoring for them. It would mean employing American workers that they can barely conceal their disdain for.



They want to export China's social model everywhere else. They want us all walking around with a chip in our hand and cashless transactions, so they can cut off our bank accounts if we exceed our meat quota for the month.



Who in their right mind would fight a war on behalf of an Elite who want to do this shit to us?

Our ancestors fought for freedom. We fight for the right to be enslaved by the guy with the biggest whip.

0.2% is a territory where a lot of handwaving and error can happen, depending on how one measures, doubly so in the middle of actual covid spread.
Half of 3% of all age brackets dying of heart disease within 2-3 years we would easily notice, so we shall see.

I sincerely hope that we don't see a death toll like that. The social fallout would be insane.

He's a historian that's Schwab's hanger-on, there's a lot of "fake it till you make it" in this elite circle. Just because he wants something tech wise in no way means it can work.

Unfortunately, there actually are armies of scientists working on highly questionable tech right now.

No one ever did, unless they were *made* to respect them, by force or threat of it.

There is purity in your perspective. You're not ashamed to say that might makes right. At the very least, I admire that.

THASF: do you really believe that Putin, Xi and the Bilderbergs are all one happy family? No bro... no. Why should Putin and Xi share power with the Western elites at all if they don't have to?

Putin and Xi work for them. You don't reach the highest levels of public office in any country unless you're "in". These people are following a script. Kabuki theater to keep the proles afraid and in line.

 

[Vyor]

if most conflicts were over resources,

This is not and has never been true.

 

[Iconoclast]

This is not and has never been true.

Okay, then. What do you think most wars are for?

 

[Scottty]

Putin and Xi work for them. You don't reach the highest levels of public office in any country unless you're "in". These people are following a script. Kabuki theater to keep the proles afraid and in line.

And how do you claim to know this?

 

[Vyor]

Okay, then. What do you think most wars are for?

Ideological, land grabs, and belief in some form of destiny.

 

[Marduk]

Elections do have some influence, but the real problem is our institutions of higher education, and the quality and type of individual that they are producing. If all the job candidates are fully brainwashed from the start, then that's all the CIA and the FBI and NSA will ever get.

There's many living examples of the brainwashing being far from reliable.

Well, that's pretty bleak. I guess we're still far off from Gene Roddenberry's idea of a utopia, if it was ever attainable in the first place.

Wait, I know what you will say. In spite of the technologies we already have, it is a ridiculous idea to expect any part of Star Trek to become reality. Hopelessly naive. Even juvenile.

It never was, that's why it is fictional utopia. Even then it's tricking you, it just requalifies all the normal human conflicts for rubber forehead alien factions which ST has plenty of. You could as well relabel ST humanity as "our country" and aliens as "foreign countries" and it would work the same.

There was, however, a time where I really did hope to see post-scarcity tech, technological immortality, and other such wonders within my lifetime, no matter how much we had to bend the laws of physics to accomplish it. I figured, if most conflicts were over resources, and most of our fears and superstitions were based around the inevitability of death and the hope of an afterlife, then the best way to eliminate the worst aspects of the human condition would be to defeat scarcity and death in a single mighty blow.

Technology, as many sci fi franchises teach us, makes even more, newer resources matter. "Soft" biological immortality is possible, but scarcity is never going away, or even further away, before well into solar system, if not interstellar colonization, ironically the former makes the latter less likely.

The way I envisioned it, fusion reactors and massive desalination plants and indoor farms would be built in every country, practically eliminating energy and clean water scarcity for a good long while. Fusion torches would be used to recycle unused materials into their underlying elements. Robots would quickly and cheaply print people houses out of concrete. Medical science and regenerative medicine would advance to the point where things like Yamanaka factors could be used to reset people's cells to a more youthful state. AI would invent miraculous new metamaterials and healing nanotechnologies. In the grip of this wondrous revolution, all the old hates and fears would slip away into nothingness.

So basically miracles. Incredible amounts of energy and complex machinery coming out of... where? What? It all takes resources, an unimaginable wealth of resources, and let's not forget the people, machines, and other resources, to process them in the right way that not everyone can get and do.

Now, I have many doubts. Humans are much too power-hungry, paranoid, and distrustful of each other for this to ever come about. And, even if any part of this were to come to pass, we would always find something new to argue about and kill each other over. The end of scarcity and death would not be the end of the fanatic, the cultist, the maniac. There is a sickness in our souls that is too deep for technology to ever excise so neatly.

If humans were no longer all that then they would no longer be humans, they would be something else. And we can hardly know what that something else would be and what would its downsides be.

As my perspective has shifted, all of the people I once regarded as my heroes have turned into villains overnight. There was a time, in the past, that I would have been on Klaus Schwab's side. However, upon realizing the technocrats' murderous intent, I now rebuke them. I cannot in good conscience share an ideology with ruthless killers such as these.

They are a bunch of clowns also naive over some things, that will sooner or later get them whacked by the more classic murderous rulers of the world like Xi. The only question is whether they take the western countries with them or not.

The way things are going right now, we're less likely to end up in Star Trek and way more likely to end up in some horrible mashup of Brave New World and Forever Peace, where people are split up into biological castes and vegetate behind monitors watching head cam vids from teleoperated killbots. By the 2050s, the top streaming channels will be guys piloting Boston Dynamics bots with helmet-mounted BCIs and mowing people down with miniguns. A streamer will get suspended after exclaiming "Watch me SLAY these poor sand-n*****s!" and people will be more upset over the slur than they are over the televised bloodshed.

I have grown very bitter over all this. This is not the future I wanted to live in.

2050? Already happening, there are reddits with combat FPV drone videos.

But at least the service was real rather than imaginary, even if it was a racket.

Hence, why cry over a dead racketeer.

True. They do have preferred destinations, of course. Nevertheless, there is a rather disturbing amount of institutional support for basically importing people from third-world countries and conflict zones into Europe and North America by the boatload.

It's a local kind of criminal opportunists finding a business opportunity with another, foreign kind of criminal opportunists.
One get to live in a country they normally would not be allowed to, with access to socialist welfare that normally would not be for them.
The other get a convenient in the divide et impera sense minority for their politics.
Both win, everyone else loses.

Well, I guess that's why I'm no longer in it. I had a little too much to think.

View attachment 1925

Yup. Yet some baggage remains.

In what way is the Islamic world our enemy?

*Cue Marduk saying they've been our enemy for a thousand years*

*Something, something, since the Crusades*

Dunno, ask them why so many of them want the whole world to follow or at least bow to their total belief system whether they like it or not. As long as it is the case, they have to be our enemies.
It's not about meme Crusades, it is however related to why there had to be Crusades.

Okay, yes, I realize all of that. And I certainly do recognize their ongoing, centuries-long belligerence. However, all the Islamic nations that I've seen destroyed by the West in my own lifetime weren't actually doing anything. They were just kind of sitting there. And then we arbitrarily steamrolled them into dust.

Welp, guess you were never interested in international politicking, terrorism etc. That's the kind of stuff they were doing, of course without advertising it enough for uninterested people to know.

The conflicts in the Middle East over the past 30 years have made about as much sense to me as a kid playing SimCity and then opening the disaster panel and sending meteors, tornadoes, earthquakes, and so on, to wipe the slate clean. It just seems like pointless sadism that accomplished nothing. And given that when we pull out of these regions, they revert right back to electing the sort of dictatorial strongmen and Islamic theocracies we often try to depose, they actually accomplish less than nothing.

For that matter, our enemies really, really suck at modern conflict. America invading Iraq was like watching an 800 pound gorilla jump into the ring with an armless toddler. It's not even an exciting, close-run contest of strength. Not at all. It's just kind of sad to watch.

The rule of thumb is that nations that suck at modern technology and industry also suck at modern war, as some of the traits deciding both are the same.

Also, given that we have a lot of ally Islamic nations in the form of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and so on, and have Malaysia and Indonesia as trade partners, it just seems odd that the typical neocon reasoning for why we should go to war with Middle Eastern nations is because they are "Islamic savages" with a "culture fundamentally incompatible with ours". Clearly, we don't go after all Islamic nations just because they are Islamic. And the utterly dishonest and despicable shitlib explanation for going to war with them - civilizing them and bringing them the benefits of modernity and democracy - doesn't hold water either. We don't do that. We never do that.

So why the hell do we kill these people? What the hell for?

Less ally, more frenemy. Some sects of Islam are more belligerent than others, and it is reflected in the wars or lack of them.
And then there are of course oil, trade routes, all the other stuff that is in the news that Islam or not we cannot afford to be doormats on to the first strongman who sees weakness and acts on it.

Yes. Primarily from the US, UK, Canada, Germany, France, Greece, Poland, Sweden, Finland, Japan, China, Russia, with enclaves in the Balkans, Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore. Not a comprehensive list, but just the most common ones off the top of my head. Mostly, the core techno-industrial nations with a lot of universities.

Yup. All either high or mid developed countries aspiring to head high. Adding up to maybe half the world population.
Guess the other half had to be different somehow though.

Yes. Our oligarchs fund pro-immigration NGOs and import millions of people into our countries by the truckload who refuse to properly assimilate into our culture, creating an atmosphere of anarchy and chaos and dread that those oligarchs then exploit for sociopolitical advantage, just like ancient tyrants did.

To quote Aristotle:





This all sounds very familiar, doesn't it?

If we recognize the signs of tyranny, why do we not act?

NGOs aka charities have an infamous "halo effect" around them, and so do people who support this "charitable" initiative, making gathering public support for acting against it harder than it should be.

Again, remove enough gatekeeper nations standing in their way, and they'll cross the Mediterranean in droves.

Only an already sick nation would need another to be its gatekeeper, and have to hope desperately that the gatekeeper doesn't start to make unreasonable demands for his "service" once he realizes what leverage he has. Don't we have barbed wire and people with guns of our own? We do, the problem is we lack the will to use them.

That's not the same SOTT.

https://www.sott.net/page/1-About-Sott-net

Quantum Future Group - Start

You and I have very different perspectives on warfare. Like many conservatives, you still see war as a contest of wills between men. While this may have been the case in the ancient past, it is no longer the case today. Today, what we have are human beings who are industrially processed like cattle in factory farms, and our leaders dare call it warfare. People are called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice, but it isn't actually in service of any creed. We visit countries where our presence isn't wanted, again and again, and we prune people like weeds.

It is a difference of organization of men, but it's still all people behind it.

It's basically an exercise in eugenics. Some rich oligarch bastards somewhere decide that some poor people we don't even know on the other side of the planet have to die, and then, a "modern army" - itself a historical aberration, a teeming horde of celibates wrapped in kevlar who fight not for honor or loot or land, but for realpolitik and intelligence chicanery too complex for them to understand - descends on them and efficiently processes them like meat, before disappearing and leaving behind nothing but rubble and abandoned vehicles.

We don't fight to colonize a people, or to steal from them, or to do anything rational to them. We don't take their territory for our own and fill it with our own people and our own culture. We didn't make Iraq and Afghanistan into the 51st and 52nd states. We just dispassionately pruned them back, like trimming an overgrown hedge, and then we left. And then our oligarchs enjoyed a windfall in currency arbitrage that produces no useful goods of any value to anyone. It's fucking repulsive to me.

At least Norsemen raiding in their longboats took things of value. They took slaves, they took gold. What trophies do we take from the countries we slaughter? Nothing. Not a damn thing at all. What strange sport. Like shooting a deer and leaving the whole thing to rot, antlers and all.

On the contrary, warriors for hire are something even the ancients knew, this sort of organization of violence had its periods of popularity or lack of it, but as technology changes, so does the optimal one.
TBH many on the right would prefer actual colonialism instead of the "light", failed, and pathetic attempt that's limited by shitlib sensibilities, but it was a dirty compromise.

It's closer to the Barbary War. Suppression of the other side's raiders.

I don't like modern wars. Not because they are wars, and because they are violent, but because they are too organized, too whitewashed, directed by committees of these soft little mincing center-left dweebs who'd get asthma if they had to so much as lift a garden trowel, much less a rifle.

On the conservative side we curse those committees and dweebs for being bad at it every day, going half the way and double the cost for 5% of the desired result.

See, if we were to go full Senator-Armstrong-level Egoism and Social Darwinism, and wage war honestly, just to destroy people and take their stuff like proper cavemen, and if we just straight-up told people that was exactly what we were doing, I could at least respect the sincerity in that. But there is no honesty in these wars we fight. Only lie after lie after goddamn lie. One false pretense after another.

*Insert random maxim involving war, Sun Tzu and deception.*
Always was, that is a vital part of war.

We are told that we're saving people from themselves, that we're deposing evil tyrants, that we're stepping in and delivering democracy and civilization to people, but we aren't. We're just crushing them to keep them from possibly becoming a threat in the future, while maintaining the power and wealth of an Elite who hate our guts and are trying to replace us with immigrants as fast as they can.

The problem "nation builders" got destroyed by is that democracy has no political alignment. You can't make people to practice liberal democracy if they don't want to. What if they have a honest democratic vote, and... vote for jihad against heretics and infidels?
Then we have to crush them, and if we don't want to rule them by iron fist, which is kinda expensive and not worth the effort, we just have to leave them to their own devices and tell them to keep in mind what happened last time when choosing their next government.

People do drugs when they're hopeless and down on their luck. As in, when they cannot find gainful employment or have a stable home life and a family, because they put in their resume at forty different places and still got tossed out on their ass because they didn't have any prior experience or enough education.

We would have less of a drug problem if we had more jobs for the uneducated, for the rejects. Not everyone can go to work for Apple designing the next iPhone. Not everyone can code apps from their basement in comfort. Some people are quite simply too stupid to be employable in a highly modernized, information-based, and deindustrialized society where all the menial jobs have dried up. It's not politically correct to say it, but I don't give a fuck. If you have a 90 IQ or less and a brain fit only for repetitive and simple tasks, society has abandoned you. It's just a fact.

It's no wonder these people turn to opioids. They're unemployed, unemployable, and miserable.





If we let the Overclass have their way, then anyone with less than 120 IQ will also become unemployable, because AIs will do all of the sub-120-IQ jobs. What kind of a society is that? Who the hell wants to live in a society where only a teeny, tiny minority of people - the cream of the crop of all thinkers - can still make a wage, and everyone else is left behind? That's not a society. It's madness.

This is nothing comapred to what the average North Korean lives through. Yet they don't have an opoid crisis...
There are plenty of jobs for people like that, it's just that there is a supply and demand problem there, excerebrated by migration schemes.
If the overclass expected those AI developments to deliver soon, why the fuck do they ramble on about the need for menial migrant workers all the time? A lot of deception there too, thinking about wars past and present, real and fictional, helps spot that stuff.

We are agreed on at least one thing, I would hope: we in the West absolutely need our own industrial base. We need coal mines and steel mills. We need it all to come back. Immediately.

We have outsourced too many things that are indeed security-critical. If you want to fight a modern war, you need metals. Lots of 'em. You need mile-long trains with sheets of steel and aluminum and titanium and great big spools of copper.

It would be better if we did, as much as possible, and when not, at least have them "friendshored", relying on geopolitical rivals to keep our industry for us is ass backwards retarded, and so are all policies encouraging it.

Cultural homogeneity it is, then.

So you have to stop migration ASAP and then drag the leftist culture warriors kicking and screaming out of every position of influence because they want to make an absolute mess out of the culture to build their perfect soviet man out of the parts.

Our elites love China. They love the cheap labor in the form of teeming masses of obedient and practically expendable slaves, the lack of environmental and occupational regulations, and the totalitarian and technocratic societal model advanced by the CCP. The last thing they actually want is war with China. It would mean a trade embargo and very, very costly reshoring for them. It would mean employing American workers that they can barely conceal their disdain for.



They want to export China's social model everywhere else. They want us all walking around with a chip in our hand and cashless transactions, so they can cut off our bank accounts if we exceed our meat quota for the month.



Who in their right mind would fight a war on behalf of an Elite who want to do this shit to us?

Our ancestors fought for freedom. We fight for the right to be enslaved by the guy with the biggest whip.

The right term is that they are jealous of China and its leaders, not that they love it.
And so are many other leaders, also looking at China as the most optimized for leadership's convenience authority model out there for modern technological paradigm that in turn many others aspire to copying with varying degrees of success.

I sincerely hope that we don't see a death toll like that. The social fallout would be insane.


Unfortunately, there actually are armies of scientists working on highly questionable tech right now.

Again, just because the rich yet clueless ordered them to work on it, doesn't mean it has good chances of working, nevermind working exactly as expected.
Communists had armies of scientists working on communist economic theory and lysenkoist biology, and the ideologues of course expected great things, yet look what is there to show for decades of their work.

There is purity in your perspective. You're not ashamed to say that might makes right. At the very least, I admire that.

Right or not, might makes fact. You either contest it with own might, or else it no longer matters whether the other side was right or not because it no longer exists.
The reverse - right makes might, funny enough, should be less controversial though.