It is my hypothesis that #9/11, #Brussels, #London, #Munich, #Paris (i.e. the islamic terrorist attacks there) were not terrorism, but rather counterterrorism.
Anyone who disagrees with me is free to get in front of a live TV camera and proclaim that:
#Saddam #Hussayn was a darling of a man! His regime fully deserved all the financial and operational support that #DC gave it.
It is the unending interference in foreign (Arabic, Persian, Latin American, Asian, even Russian) affairs (which I term “#theFourthReich”) that gets countless citizens killed (if one includes the citizens who got drafted or sign up, the numbers get much higher)
Therefore the original terrorism is Christian, not #Islamic. And that possibly inflaming statement is justified by the fact that it is a practical impossibilllity to get elected to any US government office, unless one is a #Christian.
At first I thought Barack #Obama was a rabid, bloodthirsty vampire (8 years as prez, 7 wars, 1 peace-Nobel, also 2.5mln deported)
But I’ve become more lenient toward him: I now consider him to be an incompetent, useless weakling. Who was unable/unwilling to defend the interests of the hundreds of millions of people he lorded over, and instead let the powers tat be waltz over the people’s interests.
Otoh, though: knowing that much of himself, he did run for re-election after the first 4 years. Instead of letting someone else, who may have been stronger than Barry, try his hand. That is a strike against him, toward the vampire-thing.
…when #muslims do it, but when western regimes initiate activities against hapless Arabs it’s #terrorism (#imperialism, #colonialism, whichever). Unless anyone would care to argue that Saddam Hussayn was really an OK kind of guy and deserving of the US’s support (both #financial and #military (their #WMDs (yes, those!) were fired at #Iran, with the help of #American satellite data)), then really my position will go uncontested, and even if someone would like to try, it will…
#Rumsfeld (the war-hawk), shook hands with Hussayn when meeting to hand over a pile of US tax-victim dollars.
“But if Rumsfeld had met him, he’s the one to know first-hand that Saddam, was dangerous and he’d be right to want to eliminate him.” The statist position becomes more and more desperate.
GWB’s attacks on iraq and Afghanistan are worse than anything in the bad old days (and this time, those days may be here to stay).
Think: the hippie-generation got riled up about Kennedy’s brutal slaughter of #Vietnam, and they’ve come of age in the Reagan-era, then they became a force to be reckoned with. The brutality of US terrorism against the Vietnamese even went so far, that one of their own helicopter crews opened fire at the US soldiers. That isn’t counting the countless rapings of young girls.
So this generation caused #Reagan to have to go underground, and perform his terror by way of other countries (ever wondered why #Israel gets its top of the line war jets for free? They don’t: they had to perform democide in Guatemala & elsewhere in South America with them, but there are no up-front costs).
Anoter terrorist nation supported (operationally & financially) by the US, was Hussain’s #Iraq, iirc it was Rumsfeld who was caught on tape, shaking the violent bastard’s hand when telling him that the American people have gone round with the collection tin, to support your regime, and here are the millions of dollars you need to continue killing people. It was the same Donald #Rumsfeld who was among the aggressive war-hawks, aching to invade Iraq after #9/11 (which it has been sufficiently demonstrated, they had nothing to do with.).
The regime also unashamedly invaded Afganistan, because Bin Laden had moved into a cave there.
A transparant excuse to grow the empire by violent means (how else?), at the expense of countless lives – on both(!) sides. If it were really about acquiring or killing Bin Laden, thry could have sent in a small #CIA-team, sure, it would have killed a lot fewer people and it would not have raised the government debt by as much as it did, both key objectives for modern governments, but it would have gotten the job done, and the people didn’t give a peep when the Dubbya-clan undid it all the gains at keeping government in check. Not helped in the least by the communist tendencies of the former protesters (now in more influential positions, in the MSM, in government), that only want to keep government in power using any violence necessary.
So all that was good (the only thing) that came out of the #Vietnam war has been undone, aided by a lazy, complicit MainStream Media (#MSM), that refused to do its job of keeping the government in check, but instead chose to go along with all the propaganda. Not only did they get away with a bunch of wars, they actually drummed up support for them, helped to a quite distressing degree by popular entertainment that glorifies gullible teenage-assassins from poor families as “real American heroes”. Instead people are now glorifying the flag (the political institution), in fact, they can get quite angry when you’re deservedly critical of the political institution, somehow they take that personally.
I feel that the #leftists (in the msm) dropped the ball on purpose, because, well, a big government that can get away with stuff, is a powerful government. Therefore an ideal government.
Friedrich #Engels was able to finance Karl #Marx, because Engels was the son of a wealthy entrepreneur. Engels and Marx both famously opposed entrepreneurship. Marxism inspired communist dictatorship, which as we know was a disaster for the esstern-European people (proletariat), unlike #capitalism, which had lifted the western worker up to great affluence, even the poorest households tended to be able to acquire toothpaste, unlike even the elite in the #communist block.
So, basically, #capitalism made possible the ideology that spent 3/4 of a decade fighting it (and didn’t really stop with the collapse of the USSR; there are so many communist activists in the west that try to overthrow the free-market-way of life – Al #Gore, Naomi #Klein, …) So did capitalism carry the seeds of its own destruction?
I tend to disagree. Capitalism (I use that as “free-market”) simply means that people are free to make their own choices, unlike communism/socialism, which is all about the state imposing its will upon others. Since capitalism is a different kind of ideology (Strictly speaking it’s not about #politics), unlike #communism which is about how many roles the evil institution should play) it is not an ideology that fights other ideologies. I know, the cold war between #communist east and capitalist west disproves that, except it wasn’t really between communism and capitalism, now, was it? It was about control of the earth by one nation or by another nation (#4thReich), it just so happened that the west, in spite of all its socialist faults (and there were so many: starting with Central Banking, over-regulation of markets and more) tended to be a bit freer & wealthier than the east. So socialism, with its more violent nature, tends to destroy anything it gets in contact with, and is the side most likely to pick a fight and attempt to impose itself anywhere it can, because socialism is all about politics, and politicians desire power for (abuse of) power’s sake. Businessmen desire a comfortable life, so wealth for comfort’s sake. Hence proper capitalism is not about abuse of power, so proper capitalists don’t really care if the state is governed one way or another: of course, the presence of a state tends to diminish the virtues of capitalism, states automatically lean more toward socialism (totalitarianism).
As I started saying, decadence is sometimes blamed for #Rome’s downfall. There is possibly some truth to that: (corrollary to the roaring 1920s) the perceived, fleeting wealth of an,inflated currency (denarius) which was debased to 5% (the denarius was reduced from a silver coin, to a silver plated brass coin) temporarily made Rome’s citizens feel a sense of economic relief: the face value of the denarius remained unchanged, but there were more of them, meaning people were richer, right?
Much like the #euro: that hated currency still has the value of one euro, but it keeps getting inflated by that evil bastard #Draghi, so it’s real value is now much less than one euro (using the introductory coin’s value)
This sense of economic relief promoted a mentality of Carpe Diem, instead of the more gloomy memento mori, the imminence of death, people were reminded of before, when there was doubt about the chances of individual survival. This seizing of the days became a sort of decadence, which the people then could not afford to keep up.
So, all in all, the downfall of Rome had multiple causes, all #political: military conquest, monetary malfeasance.
Following up on https://ludwigvanel.wordpress.com/2017/07/11/currency-debasement-and-social-collapse/
It is sometimes popular to blame Rome’s downfall on Roman decadence. There may be some truth to that: http://money.visualcapitalist.com/currency-and-the-collapse-of-the-roman-empire/ inflation, just like fiat currencies (the euro, the $, etc.), contributed heavily to the downfall. More coins were needed to pay for goods & services. Combined with reduced income from “foreign plunder”, the taxes were raised to the seats of the gods (aka sky-high) which became unaffordable for the 1,000,000 people in the city of #Rome.