ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, May 01, 2014

The wider context

On Zerohedge, a Russian academic explains the roots of the conflict in Ukraine in terms of the long term objectives of the rival global elites:
Let's look at the situation in and around Ukraine in a wider, global context, considering the role which the West collectively, by their various games, has assigned to Ukraine.
  •     Firstly - the battle against Russia.
  •     secondly - the clash with China, and
  •     thirdly - concerning the unleashing of war in the Middle East.
Let me repeat, By no means is it all groups in the West who want to unleash war in the Middle East. But quite a few of them are interested in it. Likewise Saudi Arabia and Israel are interested, for a whole series of reasons. And these three vectors converge in Ukraine - all three plans unite into one.

That is, the global geo-economic and geo-political re-distribution of assets in the course of the global economic crisis.

The "Yellowstone Threat"


Of course, there is this Yellowstone threat - I mean the super-volcano. That could completely change the rules of play at any time. The super-volcano could solve for the Western elite the very problems which they've been trying to solve for the last 50-60 years and have been unable to. An eruption of the volcano could solve those problems. But that's another subject.

The origin of the current situation

Let's look at how the situation came about that preceded the current situation, namely: It's 1991. The USSR has collapsed. After 10 years of robbery the Americans are wondering "should we go for more?" Evidently they decided not to, as it would have fallen to the Chinese. Besides, Yeltsin's team seemed to be running the country into the ground. Then suddenly in 2001 came the attacks in New York. The Americans' political vector shifted to the Middle East. They became occupied with the Middle East. i.e. they got distracted from the goals.

Then we had Iraq, Afghanistan. During this time the Russian Federation got room to breathe, rise onto its feet again. Then there was the war of 08.08.08, which showed the West they had somewhat let go of Russia.

After that the Medvedev episode, when we didn't react on Libya. Evidently, 08.08.08, Putin's coming to power, and our position on Syria, in spite of the West's pressure, changed the approach toward Russia of those who brought Obama to power.

Two points to note:
  •     Obama established his military doctrine during his address to the Australian parliament on 17 Nov 2011, and
  •     And a new military doctrine of the US, established by Obama on 05 Jan 2012.
In the new doctrine of 05 Jan 2012 is established that the US can wage one war and some other indirect actions in other parts of the world. Previously it said two wars - meaning they're not up to that any more. More interesting statements made by Obama in the Australian parliament 17 Nov 2011: This was said in Obama's vague style. But if we call a spade a spade, it means:

Firstly: in this doctrine: political-economic encirclement of China. Control over the flow of energy into China. That's why we have seen their naval power being moved to the straits between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. This is why land-based energy supply routes are so important for China. Sea-based supply routes can be easily interrupted by the Americans.

Secondly: applying pressure on the Russian Federation, as a partner of China, and as a country beginning to rise up.

Really, Obama didn't say anything new here.

There's an organization Stratfor -(Strategic Forecasting Inc), a kind of private CIA. Their founder and chairman, George Friedman, said openly that the primary task of the United States is the destabilization of Eurasia, in order that there could never be a state or group of states able to challenge the US.
I find the point about Yellowstone to be intriguing, especially considering the source.  What are "the very problems which they've been trying to solve for the last 50-60 years and have been unable to?" I imagine they are the limitations imposed by the remnants of the US Constitutional system and the fact that the traditional American population is armed and therefore must be deceived and persuaded and ruled indirectly rather than directly by dictate.

If you find it hard to understand why rich and intelligent men not only seek wars, but work very diligently to start them, you have to stop thinking of war as intrinsically bad and see it as a tool. It is like dynamite; if you want to move large quantities of earth, you are going to need a powerful destructive force.

Large-scale wars happen when multiple parties reach the conclusion that the only way they can obtain their objectives is through a war involving other parties that increase their leverage. World War I happened mostly because French politician Raymond Poincaré was obsessed with recovering Alsace-Lorraine, the Russians sought to regain their position on the Black Sea they had lost in the Crimean War, and the Serbs sought to reclaim Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Austro-Hungarian empire. As it happened, both the French and the Russians were successful in their objectives; despite being the ones to set the match for the winning side, the Serbs ended up losing everything.

Labels:

159 Comments:

Anonymous CK May 01, 2014 9:09 AM  

This Russia mess would be a good reason to start the draft back up. Our country is way too divided and universal conscription would be a great to close some of the sahmeful gaps.

Anonymous RedJack May 01, 2014 9:20 AM  

CK,
Or it might end up starting the break up. The USSR had universal conscription, and the various groups didn't see themselves as Soviets.

Anonymous Susan May 01, 2014 9:40 AM  

He is right about the Yellowstone threat. But he forgets that the New Madrid fault line could be even worse if it lets loose. The situation with the food supply that would result would allow Obama that big chance for martial law that he has been lusting after for years. And maybe even to release his brown shirts, armed with some of the millions of rounds Big Sis so kindly stockpiled.

Everybody talks San Andreas, but they either don't know about it or totally ignore New Madrid. A big volcano would do some damage, yes. But a fault line that runs from the northern border down to the southern border has the potential to damage even more population centers than a volcano.

Anonymous Shibes Meadow May 01, 2014 9:40 AM  

What are "the very problems which they've been trying to solve for the last 50-60 years and have been unable to?"

Briefly: to kill off the superfluous Christian, white, armed population of the heartland while leaving the technological infrastructure intact for use by the Coastal Elites. They (the Power Clique) have tried this several times. Their original idea was a global nuclear war. This idea was discarded when it became obvious that such a war would not only wreck the technological and natural resource bases upon which the Coastal Elites would found the postwar order, but that such a war would actually kill off the Coastal Elites much more readily than the hated heavily-armed white Christian population -- a group much more apt to survive a nuclear war than were the unarmed urban elites.

The second idea was global pandemic disease. The idea was to create a plague that was spread by some universal activity rather than by aerosols or vectors. This plague, for which the Clique alone would possess the cure, would then wipe out the Useless Eaters. This is why AIDS was invented. Unfortunately tor them, the Power Clique found that the plague spread much more readily among its own members than among the Heartlanders, and that the virus itself rapidly mutated beyond the ability of the cure to affect it.

The current strategy of the Power Clique is to destroy the Heartlanders onotologically: by subverting the genetic, cultural, spiritual and moral basis of white Christian America. To this end the immigration laws have been changed in order to flood the Heartland with non-whites; the culture has been subverted and transformed; the Christian Church has been splintered and its parts co-opted; and its morality redefined. This format has proved successful to the Power Clique; the majority of the Amerucan a People now love Big Brother and will actively and fiercely attack his enemies, which is why those of us who hold what were once Heartland values are now hunted, harassed, and forced to converse under assumed names on obscure web sites.

The Heartland population us still here, but we are on our way out. Abortion, contraception, divorce, and sodomy have destroyed our ability to maintain our numbers. The next move will be to establish a total surveillance state, by which any troublemakers who mat remain among us can be identified and neutralized. The greatest fear of the Coastal Elites is the rise of a genuine Leader among the white, Christian population if this country, for it us only by the inspiration of such a Leader that the Heartland could regain its will to live and thwart the plans of the Power Clique.

Anonymous RL May 01, 2014 9:40 AM  

I read the article this morning on Zero Hedge. I can't see how a large Yellowstone eruption would help the elite. It could kill enough people, by crop loss leading to mass starvation, that the USA would cease to exist as a superpower. The comment didn't make much sense to me.

The Federal government would impose martial law for sure, but if half the population starves, how do the elites benefit? Would they starve the unproductive poor and elderly but attempt to feed the children and productive adults? Would the US still be a superpower after such an event?

Blogger Jake May 01, 2014 9:40 AM  

Our country is way too divided and universal conscription would be a great to close some of the sahmeful gaps.

Yes, cause if we've learned anything over the last 50 years, it's that the way to create greater unity is taking all people who don't completely get along and forcing them into very close contact under miserable circumstances.

They might do it, but it won't be for the purpose of reducing division and strife... more likely it'd be seen as a way to pour some more gas on the already smoldering animosity among racial, economic, religious, and other lines.

Shouldn't reading an article like this be a strong reminder that NOTHING of what you hear on the news, what you're taught to believe about various government actions, etc. is real at all? Vox just pointed out that because we have guns the elites have to rule indirectly rather than directly, they can't force us to do their bidding, so they convince us they're doing our bidding while they manipulate events and media and education to ensure that we bid them do as they wish. And yet... "we should have a draft cause that'll make everyone get along better".

Anonymous Bah May 01, 2014 9:49 AM  

His "analysis" is laughably stupid when it is not actively insane.

Anonymous Bah May 01, 2014 9:51 AM  

Oh, and let's not forget he lies his ass off constantly.

Anonymous Salt May 01, 2014 9:51 AM  

The ebb and flows of the various possibilities are seemingly coming into closer proximity. The bandwidth is narrowing.

Anonymous Alexander May 01, 2014 9:53 AM  

Why would they care if "The United States" was a superpower? They care nothing for sovereign entities. In fact, the fall of a national superpower may be their greatest opportunity.

Supervolcano takes out a mass of predominantly red-state people; and red-state people who for the most part want to be left alone. It's also very, very white (but we're being redundant now...)

Those that remain are going to suddenly be the biggest fans of federal intervention, and a lot of people will find it very reasonable, or at least, fine it hard to attack as unreasonable, total government control over the food supply.

I think volcano has better potential than New Madrid, because of the demographic spread, and the political opportunity opened by the destruction (short or long term) of the breadbasket.

Blogger Jake May 01, 2014 9:54 AM  

Would they starve the unproductive poor and elderly but attempt to feed the children and productive adults? Would the US still be a superpower after such an event?

More likely they'd starve those not inclined to submit to their absolute rule and feed those who readily bow down. Consider Stalin's treatment of the Ukraine.

I'm also not sure that "they" have any desire or purpose for the US to remain a super power. The power and money is shifting to China and China is quietly bringing large portions of Africa under it's dominion. America is running out of booty that can be looted without direct and open violence against the people, which is not an option at this time, but they're obviously always looking for the opportunity to make that option viable, I suspect 95% of congress (D and R) would vote to ban all guns tomorrow if they thought they could.

Anonymous rho May 01, 2014 9:57 AM  

I read the article this morning on Zero Hedge. I can't see how a large Yellowstone eruption would help the elite. It could kill enough people, by crop loss leading to mass starvation, that the USA would cease to exist as a superpower. The comment didn't make much sense to me.

Agreed. We don't have many data points to go on, but the most recent example of a large-scale natural disaster would be Katrina. Martial law didn't happen, and the States most ignored by the Feds--Mississippi and Alabama--managed pretty well on their own.

Damage from Yellowstone would be significantly larger, more serious and likely last much longer. The domestic military is not big enough to control such a large area well, especially since Yellowstone would affect many sparsely populated States. State National Guards might be called upon, but in a situation like that, how many Guardsmen could you count on to not go AWOL to take care of their own families and communities?

Our modern military is very dependent on control of the airspace, which falls to zero with airborne ash clouds. You might see some martial law in densely populated cities like Chicago, but I wouldn't expect to see large-scale control effectively implemented. And poorly executed martial law will turn into no martial law in short order.

Anonymous onejohn512 May 01, 2014 9:58 AM  

Interesting post, thank you again. What I've been hearing are predictions Yellowstone is due to go soon. This based on the rise of the land mass in that area ~5" per year now. The ensuing chaos would ensure martial law, continuity of government plans with associated elimination of the constitution.

Anonymous Athor Pel May 01, 2014 10:00 AM  

"SusanMay 01, 2014 9:40 AM
...
Everybody talks San Andreas, but they either don't know about it or totally ignore New Madrid. A big volcano would do some damage, yes. But a fault line that runs from the northern border down to the southern border has the potential to damage even more population centers than a volcano."



You don't seem to understand the size of the Yellowstone threat. It would cover a majority of the US under several feet of ash. This includes all of the land currently being used to grow the grain much of the world eats.

The pyroclastic flow would kill all life over thousands of square miles. The earth's climate would be affected for years. There would be no summer that year or the next or the next or the next with a possibility of lasting a decade. It has the potential to kick start a new ice age.

Now, New Madrid, yeah, that's a bad one. It does have the potential to split this country in two, literally. But it really isn't in the same class as a full blown Yellowstone super volcano eruption as far as long term loss of life.

Last bit of trivia, Yellowstone isn't the largest super volcano on the planet.

Anonymous JRL May 01, 2014 10:04 AM  

One of the things I took away from this was that it is almost irrelevant as to how we are governed or "ruled". Whether Americans are armed or un-armed or under martial law doesn't matter. What matters is the agenda of the "elites".

Although it's not mentioned by name, the author refers to what we here call the Military-Industrial-Complex. He also used the term elites and North Atlantic alliance, and their primary goal of marginalizing Russia. The M-I-C couldn't care less about Ukraine or the people living there except that whatever their situation, it must be a thorn in Russia's side.

Ukraine's citizens are taken into consideration only so much as the competing oligarchies vie for supremacy there. Much like many of us feel here no doubt.

This was a sobering read as it shows, at least from the author's perspective, the West looks like it may be prepared to go to lengths unimaginable by most people in it's quest to destabilize Ukraine and put Russia on the ropes.

Anonymous onejohn512 May 01, 2014 10:06 AM  

Perhaps the angle is more toward the U.S. not contributing as much food to the worlds supply with a Yellowstone event. Having the effect of mass starvation which seems more in accord with the mattoids goals.

Anonymous Jerome Horowitz May 01, 2014 10:07 AM  

Context - The "Yellowstone Threat"..

Everything else he discusses is global, why would the Yellowstone threat be limited to the US only? A Super volcano like Yellowstone would have effects on the whole earth at that latitude. Thereby reducing population around the globe, Global warming supersized.

Anonymous Jerome Horowitz May 01, 2014 10:10 AM  

Actually Global cooling. but the end result is less population.

Anonymous bw May 01, 2014 10:12 AM  

Report from Iron Mountain explains what warfare does for the State and those behind it, as well as noting that environmentalism can act just like war.
It is an all-out blitz over the last several decades. As for energy resources, remember Russia has been pointing out for decades that oil is abiotic.
The Natural Disaster as takeover tool makes sense. The SecDef was mentioning weather warfare 20 yrs ago.
Bosnia was actually the beginning of what many falsely believe just started recently with Ukraine - Russia falls, is looted, and then the games begin immediately for territory (intel assets) / energy. Simply looking at a map one can see the obvious -The ME has been about Russia/
China all along (and Rothschilds Israel of course).

As always, it should be noted that "Obama policies and doctrine" are nothing of the sort - nor have been any president's since 1913/WWI/Wilson most certainly.

Blogger CubuCoko May 01, 2014 10:14 AM  

Vox, a quibble with your WW1 argument. While the French certainly wanted revenge for 1871, Russia had recovered from the Crimean War by the 1870s. It was Germany that wanted to strike at Russia because Russia was becoming too strong (and their war plans called for crushing France first, so that's what they went with, hoping Austria would hold their rear), and Austria that wanted to crush Serbia for much the same reason - Serbia stopped being an Austrian vassal in 1903 and had just triumphed in a war against the Ottomans (along with Montenegro, Greece and Bulgaria).

Serbia, for its part, absolutely did not want a war *right then*, and tried everything it could to get out of it, until it was obvious the Austrians would invade no matter what. And while the Serbs did lose everything during the war, their recovery and return in 1918 was nothing short of miraculous - until their leaders decided to create Yugoslavia in the name of "strength through diversity". But that's another, and far more tragic, story.

As the centenary of the Great War approaches, more and more "scholars" in the West are trying to shift the blame for the war onto the Serbs and the Russians, as all the other participants are now on the same side - that of the American Empire. This is as much a part of the New Cold War as the current ongoings in Ukraine.

Anonymous Salt May 01, 2014 10:21 AM  

Yellowstone would play right into UN Agenda 21.

Anonymous Rothschild May 01, 2014 10:23 AM  

""the very problems which they've been trying to solve for the last 50-60 years and have been unable to"

You didn't get this one right Vox. The problem they have been trying to solve for the last 50-60 years is how to finally implement their NWO. America is just one part of the equation.

Anonymous Rothschild May 01, 2014 10:26 AM  

"The domestic military is not big enough to control such a large area well, especially since Yellowstone would affect many sparsely populated States. State National Guards might be called upon, but in a situation like that, how many Guardsmen could you count on to not go AWOL to take care of their own families and communities?"

America will 'appeal' to the UN for help and UN troops who hate Americans, particularly white Americans, will 'help' the nation cope. We have left nothing to chance you naïve goyim.

Anonymous onejohn512 May 01, 2014 10:29 AM  

Yellowstone Supervolcano - Potential Impact
#1 A full-scale eruption of Yellowstone could be up to 1,000 time more powerful than the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980.
#2 A full-scale eruption of Yellowstone would spew volcanic ash 25 miles up into the air.
#3 The next eruption of Yellowstone seems to be getting closer with each passing year. Since 2004, some areas of Yellowstone National Park have risen by as much as 10 inches.
#4 There are approximately 3,000 earthquakes in the Yellowstone area every single year.
#5 In the event of a full-scale eruption of Yellowstone, virtually the entire northwest United States will be completely destroyed.
#6 A massive eruption of Yellowstone would mean that just about everything within a 100 mile radius of Yellowstone would be immediately killed.
#7 A full-scale eruption of Yellowstone could also potentially dump a layer of volcanic ash that is at least 10 feet deep up to 1,000 miles away.
#8 A full-scale eruption of Yellowstone would cover virtually the entire midwest United States with volcanic ash. Food production in America would be almost totally wiped out.
#9 The “volcanic winter” that a massive Yellowstone eruption would cause would radically cool the planet. Some scientists believe that global temperatures would decline by up to 20 degrees.
#10 America would never be the same again after a massive Yellowstone eruption. Some scientists believe that a full eruption by Yellowstone would render two-thirds of the United States completely uninhabitable.
#11 Scientists tell us that it is not a matter of “if” Yellowstone will erupt but rather “when” the next inevitable eruption will take place.
What makes all of this even more alarming is that a number of other very prominent volcanoes around the world are starting to roar back to life right now as well.

Anonymous CK May 01, 2014 10:29 AM  

Elites are just that-elite.

Blogger tz May 01, 2014 10:30 AM  

Then there is Football, or.Soccer If you don't like the sport, the police will make sure you have something to do.

Anonymous Dr Luv May 01, 2014 10:34 AM  

Is it possible the Russians have technology that could "help" Yellowstone move into apocalypse mode and that its mention is a subtle reminder to Western regime that if they shit in Russia's back yard, Russia is going to let "nature take its course"? Is this weather weapon geopolitics?

Regarding some event to get Americans to join together, that's not going to happen minus an invasion from space. We have been balkanized to the point that a police state is necessary to maintain the illusion of one nation. The cataclysm has already occurred in the West. It was called diversity and multiculturalism.

Anonymous Orville May 01, 2014 10:43 AM  

Read the Fursov article yesterday and it was very illuminating to see all the clans and factions, at least from the Russian perspective.

Regarding the Yellowstone Threat, I think the operative word here is threat.If the PTB wanted to gin up a non-military false flag, then just suborn some pointy headed intellectuals to fake peer review articles on how Yellowstone is in immediate jeopardy. This would give FedGov an actionable reason to proactively go to martial law to prepare for the upcoming disaster. They could even use that as an attempt to clean out the northwest stronghold with forced relocation for the safety of those people. By the time everyone figures out there is no danger, the damage has been done.

Anonymous bw May 01, 2014 10:46 AM  

I failed to mention the $USD as world reserve currency (to buy energy etc). At its most important, It is a currency (system) war over current/future world currency system and the IMF and SDR's, PM's etc.

Through Deception, Make War - Mossad

Blogger John Rampton May 01, 2014 10:47 AM  

The Yellowstone Threat is a curious mention, indeed. Because that is not the one we should have our eye on. The San Madrid Faultline in New Madrid, MO is the one we should be worrying about. The last set of earthquakes was 1811-12, and geograpical scientist have determined that seismic activity occurs every 200 years. Which puts its next volatility roughly 2 years ago. We have scant historical documentation as to how much damage it has caused in the past, but it was reported to have taken china off of the shelves in a mercantile store in Canada, put cracks in the sidewalks of Washington D.C., made hundreds of new lakes, and set the Mississippi River flowing in the opposite direction for several days. Ergographical estimates are that it will cause over 55 trillion in infrastructural damage alone, not including taftereffects we will inevitably see from gas leak explosions, or the fallout fron the 15 nuclear powerplants which are close the the faultlines. Not sure what percent chance of this, but it may very well set off Yellowstone as a result. We may very well see very shortly the great earthquake mentioned in Revelations, which leaves the great whore desolate.

Anonymous David May 01, 2014 10:53 AM  

Put me in the camp that a Yellowstone eruption(which is pretty unlikely in the short-term but theoretically possible) is a disaster for the elites. They would be lucky if they still have power over the east coast and the USA will effectively cease to exist.

Typical if they are so stupid as to think they can benefit from that.

Anonymous Sensei May 01, 2014 10:53 AM  

No matter how I look at the rest of the 21st Century, I get the same feeling I get looking across the fields at an incoming black thunderhead, right about that time when the sun is still shining overhead but the wind starts to rise, and you start being able to see the wall cloud underneath it with some suspicious swirling activity.

"Time to get under cover, it's going to be rough for a while before it calms down again"

Anonymous bob k. mando May 01, 2014 10:53 AM  

Susan May 01, 2014 9:40 AM
But he forgets that the New Madrid fault line could be even worse if it lets loose.



you have no conception of how large an event the next Yellowstone blow-off could be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supereruption

and that's completely ignoring the fact that Yellowstone going up likely WOULD set off New Madrid ... and San Andreas ... and a bunch of other faults.


people delusionally think that the Earth is a 'water planet'. it's not. Earth is a magma planet that happens to have a crust on it.

consider this: by volume and mass, a large majority of the Earth is molten or ductile rock. and we know practically NOTHING about that or about what sort of dynamo exists at the core that generates so much energy that it can keep that much rock that hot.

for reference, the bottom of the Asthenosphere is ~1300 C @ 700km depth. everything below that is hotter ... and the Earth has a radius of ~6,371 km.

so you have a volume of ~76 billion km^3 of solids
vs
~182 billion km^3 of superhot ductile and fluid ( ignoring that the very core is also supposed to be 'solid' due to pressurization ... although it's a very strange solid ) rock.

Anonymous VD May 01, 2014 10:58 AM  

It was Germany that wanted to strike at Russia because Russia was becoming too strong (and their war plans called for crushing France first, so that's what they went with, hoping Austria would hold their rear), and Austria that wanted to crush Serbia for much the same reason - Serbia stopped being an Austrian vassal in 1903 and had just triumphed in a war against the Ottomans (along with Montenegro, Greece and Bulgaria).

Not true. Read the relevant documents.

Serbia, for its part, absolutely did not want a war *right then*, and tried everything it could to get out of it, until it was obvious the Austrians would invade no matter what.

Not true. Read the relevant documents. The Serbian government knew about the assassination attempt and arranged for the travel of the assassins. Their goal was to provoke Austria-Hungary into invading, thus bringing Russia into the war.

There is no question about any of this. The French and Russian documents have all been released. I've read enough of them to know that Germany did not want WWI and was not responsible for it.

Hell, they were even right about the Lusitania, as per the headlines today.

Anonymous jack May 01, 2014 10:59 AM  

This is a most interesting post topic. I hope Kratman weighs in later. When I have more time today I want to give it the intense consideration it deserves. Though, at first thoughts I suspect the goads of some of the elites are population reduction.

Blogger Bard May 01, 2014 11:00 AM  

I too thought the mention of Yellowstone by a Russian academic was very peculiar. Things that make you go "hmmmm".

Anonymous VD May 01, 2014 11:02 AM  

As the centenary of the Great War approaches, more and more "scholars" in the West are trying to shift the blame for the war onto the Serbs and the Russians, as all the other participants are now on the same side - that of the American Empire. This is as much a part of the New Cold War as the current ongoings in Ukraine.

My position is based on books written before WWII. It is clear that France was the most responsible party, followed by the Serbs, then the Russians. The Serbs got in over their heads because they didn't realize they would be betrayed by their allies. But I've read the notes of the pre-war meeting between the Serbian ambassador and the Russian foreign minister that was supplying the Serbs with rifles and ammunition in preparation for the war with Austria.

Let me dig up the book and you can read it for yourself. It's far from a hit piece; it reviews the arguments for the conventional anti-German perspective as well. The author places most of the blame on Poincare and a specific Russian diplomat, can't recall the name.

Anonymous Dr. J May 01, 2014 11:03 AM  

That's a great read. Thanks for ruining my morning productivity.

It was interesting that he brought up the Spanish language angle towards the end, pointing out the large Spanish speaking slice of the US as a potential disruptive element. This while our elites are looking towards "immigration reform." It will be fairly amusing if the Dem's and RINOs get amnesty through only to see a 20 million-strong fifth column with plans to dismember the union, starting with the Southwest. On the bright side, the Mexican drug cartels might put Juan McAmnesty in a soup, so there's that.

Anonymous onejohn512 May 01, 2014 11:14 AM  

Preparations underway:
Bush Family Evil Empire join the rush to privatize the world's water supplies
Bush Family Paraguay Hideaway
Paraguay in a spin about Bush's alleged 100,000 acre hideaway

OpenID cailcorishev May 01, 2014 11:17 AM  

I hear a lot about how the elites want to reduce the population, and that makes sense: more goodies for them. For the most part, it does seem that way, since they push abortion, birth control, sterilization, feminism, homosexuality, war, a grain/soy diet, and so on.

On the other hand, they push for mass immigration, which adds people to countries where the population has stabilized, while making more room in countries with a high birth rate, so those countries are less likely to slow down. More immigration clearly means more people. That doesn't fit with the rest, but maybe the benefits (to the elites) of mass immigration outweigh their desire for a smaller population in that one respect.

Anonymous truth May 01, 2014 11:20 AM  

What planet are you people from?

Anonymous Salt May 01, 2014 11:26 AM  

I hear a lot about how the elites want to reduce the population

If it weren't so then why UN Agenda 21 which discusses sustainablity as to world population (needs reduction) to resources (elite management)?

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 May 01, 2014 11:27 AM  

On the other hand, they push for mass immigration, which adds people to countries where the population has stabilized, while making more room in countries with a high birth rate, so those countries are less likely to slow down.

The push for mass immigration is about creating dissent among the populace and filling in the labor gaps with cheap labor until they can find suitable replacements for blue-collar workers.

Blogger John Rampton May 01, 2014 11:27 AM  

food storage calculator
http://lds.about.com/library/bl/faq/blcalculator.htm

It caculates the basics you'll need to get by. You can actually get food storage rather cheap, if you're serious enough. You don't have to be wealthy. And regardless of how you feel about Mormons, you can go to the LDS storehouse and buy basics at cost, without being a member. Unless of course you know some way to get it cheaper. Prices change all the time, so you should call the storehouse while they are open, and ask them to fax a price list (the workforce is all-volunteer, so hours are limited; set your schedule to call them during their hours of operation) You may be pleasantly surprised.

Anonymous zen0 May 01, 2014 11:33 AM  

This is almost like an addendum to the article:

Russian Church only one decrying genocide against Christians

Anonymous Nah May 01, 2014 11:35 AM  

It is clear that France was the most responsible party, followed by the Serbs, then the Russians.

Fritz Fischer and more recently, David Fromkin, make an excellent case that Germany and Austria were most responsible.

Anonymous Shutup, tuth May 01, 2014 11:35 AM  

tuth wonders What planet are you people from?

The planet were people read the articles referred to in the posts

Anonymous Athor Pel May 01, 2014 11:43 AM  

" truthMay 01, 2014 11:20 AM
What planet are you people from? "



A lot of this conversation sounds pretty crazy doesn't it?

The thing is, most of it is backed up by documentary evidence. Documents written and published by the people responsible for the conspiracies being discussed here.

Agenda 21, use that as a search term. You'll find the documents, they're published by the UN or one of the UN affiliated agencies. You will see with your own eyes what the powers that be plan for the population of this planet. They really do want to reduce the planet's human residents to around 500 million and are not shy about advocating any method to get there.

Remember, just because you wouldn't do it doesn't mean someone else won't either.

They will and they are. In fact, looking at history they always have.

Blogger Matamoros May 01, 2014 11:44 AM  

the traditional American population is armed and therefore must be deceived and persuaded and ruled indirectly rather than directly by dictate.

A friend says that European systems require heavy handed concentration camp schemes, while the U.S. elite has traditionally used psychological means to maintain cohesion and lockstep.

The FEMA camps Jesse Ventura spoke about may be the backup plan.

As for the Russians, they are pushing their narrative in an attempt to reconquer Ukraine and restart the soviet empire.

Btw, May 1st is International Victims of Communism Day. Remember the millions of dead.

As bleedingheartlibertarian says: "I emphatically reject the notion that Ukraine “is none of our business.” Freedom outside the United States matters, folks. Freedom-lovers must side with Ukraine against Russia, for several reasons." http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2014/04/on-ukraine/

Meanwhile the Russians are busing in provocateurs into Eastern and Southern Ukraine, and paying about $100 per day to those interested in "protesting" for Russian protection.

A good article today: "RUSSIA: THE WHITE PEOPLE WHO FAILED" http://romaninukraine.com/russia-the-white-people-who-failed/

Anonymous Alexander May 01, 2014 11:45 AM  

Around 1800, France had more people than Russia.

By 1900, France had less people than Germany and was on track to be overtaken by the UK.

We can look at any other numbers or incidents, but I suspect that there pins down the blame: France needed to regain Alsace-Lorraine before it was filled with more Germans that France could ever hope to counter, and ideally needed a way to knock off a few Englishmen in the process.

Anonymous Toddy Cat May 01, 2014 11:49 AM  

Generally speaking, I am sympathetic to Russia in the current Ukranian dispute, but I can't help but note that the word "Communism" hardly occurs in the analysis cited above. You would never know that the USSR was the focal point of an ideology that killed somewhere between 75 and 125 million people. Also, is it my imagination, or is "Zerohedge" gradually becoming a mouthpiece for the Russian Government?

Anonymous Alexander May 01, 2014 11:50 AM  

1) We can be the friends of liberty anywhere, but we are the guardians of our own.

2) The fact that the anti-Russians in the Ukraine are pro-EU is reason enough to pause and question their demands for 'freedom'. If the Ukranians insist on being serfs, and the argument is merely between who the master is, I don't see how that's our business.

Blogger IM2L844 May 01, 2014 11:56 AM  

That doesn't fit with the rest, but maybe the benefits (to the elites) of mass immigration outweigh their desire for a smaller population in that one respect.

You have to remember that the segment of the population that creates and enforces the rules is increasingly populated by people inclined toward short time preferences. A concomitant disproportional rate of social demographic change should be expected. Unforeseen consequences are, by necessity, an intrinsic outcome of resolute short time preference conclusions.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben May 01, 2014 11:58 AM  

Putin's mentality is that more land a country has taken, the more prestige it has acquired.

Anonymous BoysMom May 01, 2014 12:00 PM  

Here's the ashfall map from previous eruptions: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vsc/images/image_mngr/0-99/img6_636w_500h.jpg Also shows the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption for comparison. Mostly it'll not be great to live in flyover country, as far as ashfall goes. The lava won't go nearly as far, but the ash is deadly enough.
You can read about The Year Without a Summer (1816). That was Mt. Tambora's doing. That eruption is classified as about one-tenth as damaging as Yellowstone's Huckleberry Ridge.
However, geologists say the eruption at Yellowstone will happen soon, but you have to remember that really, only astrophysicists think of 'soon' in longer terms than geologists. In the next few hundred-thousand years is soon to a geologist. Could be, well, not tomorrow--takes a little longer than that to ramp up, but sometime in the next year--or in three hundred-thousand years.
I doubt very much that martial law would last more than a short time. After a year or two of no harvests, I suspect there'd be very little left in the way of order beyond what surviving family groups existed. The Huckleberry Ridge eruption is thought to have brought humanity's numbers down to 1000 or fewer individuals worldwide based on DNA analyses. Don't think I particularly like the elite's odds in such an event, either.

Anonymous bob k. mando May 01, 2014 12:05 PM  

truth May 01, 2014 11:20 AM
What planet are you people from?



we're from the planet that examines primary evidence in order to establish what has and is happening.

as opposed to the planet where people establish a consensus view of reality and 'truth' via a baroque game of 'Telephone'.

and you should be terrified of us.

Blogger Bruce Lewis May 01, 2014 12:06 PM  

How can a person with the honorable title "Matamoros" support the atheistic, anti-Christian, cosmopolitan EU in any contest with a Christian nation (Russia). I'm not saying Mr. Putin is a paragon of Christian virtue ( nor do I myself claim to be such), but his actions to date have been contrary to the aims if the Global Secular Order, which is a good thing. "The enemy of my enemy", etc.

Anonymous JI May 01, 2014 12:08 PM  

Dr. Friedman wrote a series on the strategic interests of nations, mostly based on geographic principles, and yes, one of the top strategic goals of the United States, in his opinion, is to never allow any single power to control the Eurasian continent. That would include the USSR, China, an Islamic super-state, etc... This means that peace in the middle-east, to the extent that said peace could lead to the formation of an Islamic super-state, would be against the interests of the US. Dr. Friedman also pointed out during the post-911 years that the preoccupation of the US with the GWOT was giving "bandwidth", as he put it, to the Russians to reclaim a strategic buffer around their nation.

This Russian academic isn't really adding anything new that Dr. Friedman hasn't already explained (I've been subscribing to Stratfor since about 2000), except for the Yellowstone volcano (that hits home since I live not far from there :-)).

Anonymous civilServant May 01, 2014 12:09 PM  

you have to stop thinking of war as intrinsically bad and see it as a tool. It is like dynamite; if you want to move large quantities of earth, you are going to need a powerful destructive force.

Even if one blows up one's own house?

This russian analyst seems very russian-centric. Who are these elites of which you and he speak? Are there any "elites" in the world who cannot buy what they wish and go where they wish and live where they wish? Nations and nation-locked nationals may have interests but what elite capable of manipulating war could find any gain in any war?

Anonymous Feelings, Nothing More Than Feelings May 01, 2014 12:12 PM  

For the most part, it does seem that way, since they push abortion, birth control, sterilization, feminism, homosexuality, war, a grain/soy diet, and so on.

Yes, but applied to what populations?

On the other hand, they push for mass immigration, which adds people to countries where the population has stabilized, while making more room in countries with a high birth rate,

Your data is out of date. Mexico is approaching ZPG with a birth rate of around 2.3 children / woman / lifetime. North Africa, from Morocco to Egypt, is heading the same way.

Only Africa and parts of the ME / SW Asia still have population growth via birth rates.

The policy in North America and Europe strongly appears to be one of population replacement. One population has been encouraged to die out for the last 50 years, while another, different population has been encouraged to immigrate during that time.

It appears that the social elites have decided to elect a new people, at least in Western Europe and North America above the Rio Grande, while encouraging other areas to drop to and below ZPG. Iran is there already.

What they expect to do with countries such as Nigeria that are still growing I do not know. I can guess, but don't want to.

Anonymous Don May 01, 2014 12:12 PM  

Truth - I guess the country where a tiny county with no borders with a foreign nation has a DHS center larger than the county jail with a detention capability greater than all the jails in the county combined. A place with a layered steel fence defense system with 'sally ports' for the vehicles to come in and out. We used to have four (4) workers at our tiny port of entry from Canada. Now there are over fifty armed people. Even the workers question why they have so many deployed here when there is no need.

Why in the name of Thomas Jefferson do we have a quasi-military force squatting in the middle of a county literally at the ass-end of the country? Why do we have billions of rounds of sub-machine gun or pistol ammo, enough for years of war fighting in the hands of a civilian agency? If they have a force this big including armored vehicles here where there is no need for them, what do they have elsewhere? Who are they planning on fighting? Al-Qaeda? Canadian coast guard? Tlinkit canoes? Greenpeace?

To people wondering about Yellowstone, I don't think even the worst American globalist wants that to happen but I do believe they would not let a crisis go to waste. Katrina? Not in the same league not even the same ballgame. Nothing not even the eruption of Santorini comes close. It would destroy the reliably 'Red' portion of the United States leaving the coasts relatively 'untouched'. Every state that provides the pointy end of the spear would be completely crushed. Surviving refugees (the few left) would be spread throughout the rest of the nation where the culture of independence, loyalty to America, and Christian family life would simply fade into the background.

It would be the end of America as America but the playgrounds of the elites (outside the mountain west and the Midwest would be untouched. New York, Los Angeles, (probably) Seattle, Florida, etc would all be colder for a few years but still be there.

Nothing exists East of the Cascades or West of the Appalachians except for a couple of crumbling cities on the Great Lakes or the Mississippi anyway. It's just farms, families, and factories, nothing that matters.

Anonymous JI May 01, 2014 12:14 PM  

Toddy Cat: Love your comment that Zerohedge overlooks the historical horrors or communism and seems to be highly sympathetic to the Russian government. I've noticed the same thing, but it might not be so much sympathy for the Russians as a visceral, knee-jerk anti-American gov't feeling. We've all met, or read, people who passionately hate American and especially it's government, and who often back themselves into logical contradictions because absolutely everything America does must, by definition, be "bad", and their cannot be any evil greater. I think a lot of these folks are people who are very disappointed in how America has evolved (as are most of us who read this blog), and who allow that disappointment to turn into a blinding anger that skews their thinking.

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis May 01, 2014 12:16 PM  

I also don't buy his comment about war in the middle east, granted I tread it as the US trying to fight another new conflict. I cant see how the US gains geo-politically from starting another war in the region given it's current status. Afghanistan is still a shit hole, but it's a non-entity geopolitically. Iraq, admittedly huge needless boondoggle, didn't end up firmly in the US camp but it isn't firmly in the Iranian camp either due to the sectarian divisions, with the added benefit that it increases the Kurd issue with future regional rival Turkey. The big kicker is that you have an ally to both Russia and Iran, Syria, is out of the picture due to the civil war. The US literally doesn't have to do anything.

The yellow stone threat...I'll just say I am EXTREMELY skeptical that the elites of the US have every seriously created any sort of plans revolving around those events.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 01, 2014 12:17 PM  

As it happened, both the French and the Russians were successful in their objectives

Technically true, though it was a completely different set of Russians who got the prize from those who started the war, what with two revolutions and all that. And as for the French, WWI effectively ended them as a first-rank world power. A generation later they, like the Serbs, lost everything, and only American generosity (or foolishness) gave it back to them.

Elites do tend to make mistakes like that, possibly because the ones in positions to scheme have been luckier than most and thus underestimate the chance or cost of failure.

As to the blame for the war, everybody gets a share of it. I'd adjust Vox's ranking slightly.

1. Russia is most to blame. Not only were they encouraging the Serbs, but it was their mobilization that triggered the Schlieffen Plan. Their elites lost everything in the following war.

2. Austria is second in the blame game as they used the assassination as a pretext to go to war against Serbia. The Serbian government tried to back down after the assassination, but Austria, including Conrad von Hotzendorf (who probably takes the prize for most incompetent General of a war known for the incompetence of it's generals) refused to accept any diplomatic resolutions and thus bear responsibility for turning a throwing the match Serbia struck straight into the powder room. Austria's elite lost their centuries-old empire in the war.

Between France and Germany, I don't know who I put 3 and who I put at 4. Both were essentially guilty of giving their allies (Russia and Austria respectively) support in their reckless behavior and allowing a regional conflict to be blown up into a continental one.

I think ultimately I have to blame France more, as Vox is correct about Poincare. Additionally, his ambassador to Russia, Maurice Paléologue, is perhaps the individual with the greatest personal responsibility for the war, as he lied, intentionally delayed messages, and concealed facts in a deliberate effort to bring on war between Russia and Germany.

3. France ended up winning the war and making territorial gains, but it was very much a pyrrhic victory.

4. Germany's rulers lost their empire.

Serbia I put near the bottom not because they were blameless (they weren't, though it's worth noting that the Black Hand was a faction within the government that had assassinated the previous Serbian King and Queen and the rest of the Serbian government wasn't quite as insane), but because they were small. They could strike matches, but it was the Great Powers that had to provide a fuse. Serbia did lose everything as Vox said, and the leader of the Black Hand - Dragutin Dimitrijević - was executed by the Serbian government before the war was even over.

Nobody won in that mess. But even if I shuffle the blame around a bit from what Vox assigned, I completely agree with him on making the analogy between then and now. The elite that galloped off to war in 1914 did see it as a tool, and they were astonishingly incompetent. Our own elite obviously see violent conflict as a tool too, and they are at least as incompetent as the fools from a century ago.

Anonymous VD May 01, 2014 12:18 PM  

As bleedingheartlibertarian says: "I emphatically reject the notion that Ukraine “is none of our business.” Freedom outside the United States matters, folks.

It's not freedom that is at stake in the Ukraine. Stop drooling every time your masters ring the bell.

Even if one blows up one's own house?

They have no allegiance to any "house".

Who are these elites of which you and he speak?

Read Tragedy and Hope. It's mostly the international financial elite.

Anonymous q May 01, 2014 12:20 PM  

Russian "communism" was not communism.

Anonymous VD May 01, 2014 12:20 PM  

Russia is most to blame. Not only were they encouraging the Serbs, but it was their mobilization that triggered the Schlieffen Plan. Their elites lost everything in the following war.

You have it backwards with regards to France and Russia. France was using Russia more than Russia was using France.

Blogger JartStar May 01, 2014 12:25 PM  

Obama being re-elected may be one of the best things to happen to Russia in recent memory.

Anonymous Don May 01, 2014 12:30 PM  

Ukraine is not our business. We were stupid to guarantee their 'sovereign borders' then deliberately make Russia our enemies. Trying to punish Russia over 'World War G' and 'World War T' (as Sailer calls it) is the height of idiocy. Actively fomenting unrest in Ukraine, trying to poke Russia in the eye, obvious and clumsy false flag actions, saber rattling in the Black Sea? That is pure stupidity. We cannot project enough power to Ukraine to beat Russia. Europe would run from a fight like that like a house on fire. Border nations to Russia would probably not allow overflight to keep somewhat neutral. The 'Stans would kick out every last one of our bases over night. China? If we were to actually get tangled up with Russia? China would snaffle up Taiwan so fast we'd barely have time to wave a white flag.

And the worst part we'd kill the petro-dollar. Russia would be free to trade its gas and oil for anything it wanted and Europe would have to pay it. The US currency would tank overnight US economy right into the toilet.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 01, 2014 12:31 PM  


I hear a lot about how the elites want to reduce the population...they push abortion, birth control, sterilization, feminism, homosexuality, war, a grain/soy diet, and so on.

On the other hand, they push for mass immigration...


They don't want fewer people. They want fewer rivals. Fewer rivals, more subjects.

IM2L844 also has a good point. Their fools, so of course they will undermine their own plans.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 01, 2014 12:39 PM  

You have it backwards with regards to France and Russia. France was using Russia more than Russia was using France.

Possibly we're just using different definitions of blame. From a strategic standpoint, yes, France was pushing harder (and that rat Paléologue deserves more widely known condemnation). And they were damned fools about that too, as Russia was getting stronger and would have been a more formidable ally five or ten years down the road.

But if the French were using the Russians, the Russians were the ones who actually did the deed. Deeds, as it turned out, since even after encouraging Serbia, if they hadn't mobilized against Austria...

Well, if Russia hadn't done that in 1914, the war probably would have happened anyway, just a few years later. It's not like Sarajevo was the first spark. There had been so many, one was bound to set off the explosion sooner or later.

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis May 01, 2014 12:44 PM  

If we were to actually get tangled up with Russia? China would snaffle up Taiwan so fast we'd barely have time to wave a white flag.

I do think the US could fight Russia to a standstill in Ukraine, there are European nations such as Poland that remember the Soviet era very well and would most likely enter the fight, but it would require so much effort and so much time that it isn't worth it because we would lose a ton of ground in Asia and right now Asia matters far more than Europe. Russia controlling Crimea doesn't change anything.

The real question in all of this is do the Russians think whatever gains of controlling either part or all of Ukraine out weights the many, many downsides that I can see.

Anonymous Toddy Cat May 01, 2014 12:51 PM  

"Russian "communism" was not communism."

Somehow, it never is. Russian Communism wasn't real communism, Chinese Communism wasn't real communism, Cambodian Communism wasn't real communism, no actual communism that has ever existed is "real" communism. Communists never have to face up to their responsibility for the horrors their ideology wreaks, because no actual communism that ever takes power is "real". So the dark, evil dream stays alive. If "real" communism never comes into being, if it always devolves into a bloody nightmare, that's telling you something. It's like dogmatic free trade; any country that adopts it sees its economy destroyed, but it looks so good on paper, economists can't leave it alone.

As noted above, I say this as someone who wishes Russia nothing but the best, and generally takes their side in the current dispute. It's very telling that a lot of people in the U.S. who are demonizing Russia right now were utterly silent when the USSR was grinding Ukraine into the mud. That should tell us how much they actually care about Ukraine.

Anonymous ? May 01, 2014 1:00 PM  

You have it backwards with regards to France and Russia. France was using Russia more than Russia was using France.

How so? Russia's goals were more far-reaching, and Russia had less power to achieve them.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 01, 2014 1:23 PM  

How so? Russia's goals were more far-reaching, and Russia had less power to achieve them.

Russia wanted a big share of the rapidly disintegrating Footstool Empire. France wanted to reclaim land directly from Germany itself. France's goal was less amenable to a political compromise. Both nations feared Germany and knew they would lose a one-on-one conflict with the Prussians. They clung to each other out of fear, but the Russian objectives did not require war with Germany. The only reason Russia and Germany came into conflict is because of Austria. France's objectives on the other hand directly required conflict with Germany.

Germany, for all the blame they get, was really the only one of the four continental powers that didn't have any territorial goals in Europe. They wanted colonies around the world, their "place in the sun." They'd already obtained everything in Europe they wanted. But France and Russia together posed an existential threat. Hell, Germany's support of Austria was in large part driven by fear of losing their one remaining ally against the Franco-Russian entent.

Blogger ScuzzaMan May 01, 2014 1:31 PM  

"and you should be terrified of us."

He is.

That is why he started with reflexive disdain instead of presenting even an attempt at an argument.

Anonymous Susan May 01, 2014 1:34 PM  

Fascinating comments about Yellowstone. Yes I am aware how big a threat Yellowstone is. But I have to wonder how many so called experts out there really understand about New Madrid.
I might have missed it in one of the comments, but how badly would Yellowstone hurt the Western part of Canada should it blow its top?

Anonymous civilServant May 01, 2014 1:36 PM  

Even if one blows up one's own house?

They have no allegiance to any "house".


That is my point. More - financially and practically it is all the "elite's" house. Russian oligarchs buy billion dollar yachts to cruise the world and buy million dollar flats in London as third homes. Chinese communist party rulers buy gold everywhere and buy property in Australia and Canada (to store the gold). Etc. What would be the point of any war anywhere for any reason - for them? Is there someplace off to the side where they can stand and laugh while computer viruses bring down entire infrastructure systems and oil fields are taken off-line and someone somewhere contemplates deployment of nuclear weapons?

Read Tragedy and Hope.

I will.

Anonymous civilServant May 01, 2014 1:38 PM  

how badly would Yellowstone hurt the Western part of Canada should it blow its top?

I have read that the last time Yellowstone erupted it covered the entire western half of the United States in six feet of ash. I suppose western Canada received only a foot.

Anonymous Josh May 01, 2014 1:48 PM  

The monarchs of Germany, Russia, and England were cousins.

Thus the French bear the most blame.

Anonymous map May 01, 2014 1:53 PM  

I keep hearing these stories about the "elite" but I think there is a category problem of definitions.

An elite cannot separate itself from the national power base that it controls, even the so-called "financial" elite. Worldwide elitism is built on the American model. This means that elites everywhere parrot the values and ideology of the American elite, from speaking English to cultural and political tastes. And why is this international elitism built on the American model? Because America is the world hegemonic power, as represented by wealth, military production, and political stability. Most importantly, America is the nation that acts, instead of being acted upon. If something happens to the United States that knocks it off its perch, then American-modeled elitism will collapse, because the American elites are no longer elites and elitism will become a new paradigm.

Yellowstone going off would destroy the United States. What is New York without a food supply or a population to build and wield weapons? Do they think their lawyers and traders do something productive?

Anonymous rho May 01, 2014 1:53 PM  

America will 'appeal' to the UN for help and UN troops who hate Americans, particularly white Americans, will 'help' the nation cope. We have left nothing to chance you naïve goyim.

Interesting idea, but doubtful. The UN doesn't have anything like a sufficient force to mobilize without American military support.

Blogger Unknown May 01, 2014 1:53 PM  

Good luck, Putin!

OpenID artisanaltoadshall May 01, 2014 1:58 PM  

Yellowstone, the New Madrid fault and that handy piece of rock sitting on the edge of Cumbre Vieja. Game, set, match.

Think of it as a liquidation strategy. Yellowstone takes out the bread basket, New Madrid breaks the stuff in the middle, the tidal waves take out the east coast. Call it the Revelation 18 agenda if you lean that way.

No power, no fuel gets pumped and the trucks don’t roll in a JIT inventory world. People start starving within seventy two hours and it gets crazy, as in Bosnia style crazy. People don't store food but they damn sure have guns and ammo. There really isn’t much the regular armed forces, national guard and all available law enforcement could do except initiate a cleanup strategy afterward. The complexity of the structure and the fragility of the infrastructure guarantees a die-off on an epic scale. Between the civil war, starvation and disease, I doubt more than twenty percent of the US population would survive the winter.

To the skeptics and doubters, the question is why. That should be obvious.

In order to get global governance the US has to be taken off the map. In order to get to a cashless world monetary system, the world’s financial system has to be destroyed. In order for the cashless system to work and in order for facilitate ease of control you have to have a chip in everyone. With implanted chips there’s no way to falsify identity and with widespread readers that passively read the ID of everyone who walks or drives by, no way for anyone to hide, unless those in power want them hidden.

So, first you take the US off the map and with that you take the US Dollar off the map, which is the reserve currency of most of the world. That triggers a derivatives explosion that destroys the world’s financial system. With the world’s financial system destroyed there is a worldwide panic and a vacuum in the geopolitical power structure that has to be filled. It will be so bad that nobody knows who owns what, international trade will come to a screeching halt and a lot of people will die. Just having the flow of oil cut will be a death-blow to a lot of places. With the financial system destroyed plastic cards don’t work any more and nobody has the ability to buy or sell anything. That’s the magnitude of the crisis that we’re headed for.

The people with the ability to trigger earthquakes and make volcano's erupt will be ready to step into the vacuum that's created by taking down the US. Count on it. Agenda 21 is a fairy tale compared to what's coming to the US.

Blogger IM2L844 May 01, 2014 1:59 PM  

how badly would Yellowstone hurt the Western part of Canada should it blow its top

Depends largely on what time of year it happened. This time of year wouldn't be too bad for western Canada. Bookmark this.

Anonymous ? May 01, 2014 2:01 PM  

Russia wanted a big share of the rapidly disintegrating Footstool Empire. France wanted to reclaim land directly from Germany itself.

Nope.

Russia wanted part of Germany (East Prussia), Austria (Galicia), AND the Turkish Empire (including, of course, it's capital, Constantinople). Needless to say, all three goals required war with Germany.

France wanted part of its own country back (Alsace-Lorraine).

France's goal was less amenable to a political compromise.

Not really. France wanted something that had recently, and for a long time, been French.

Russia wanted things that had never been Russian.

Germany, for all the blame they get, was really the only one of the four continental powers that didn't have any territorial goals in Europe.

Sure they did - primarily in the East, but they understood that they'd also have to take more territory in France and Belgium in order to prevent future French resurgence.

Blogger JohnG May 01, 2014 2:04 PM  

taking too long for the plate to move westward... would be great if the caldera was sitting under DC...

Blogger JohnG May 01, 2014 2:06 PM  

However, don't see either of these as a threat in the near term. The economic disaster that is the US will probably have a greater global impact well before a volcano and, imo, screw up global elite plans... I think of robber barons plotting and scheming on the Titanic...

Anonymous Don May 01, 2014 2:11 PM  

Yellowstone has a long way to go before blowing it would make New Madrid look like a popcorn fart though. Yellowstone isn't what they think will happen or even what they wish for it's just the one thing that would complete their plans without any initial effort on their part.

Anonymous zen0 May 01, 2014 2:21 PM  

Depends largely on what time of year it happened. This time of year wouldn't be too bad for western Canada. Bookmark this.

don't forget the jetstream, 10 kilometres up. It too is west to east, but today, for instance, it is dipping straight south from Yellowstone into Mexico, and then back up.

Where I am, I should be able to watch the show without getting dirty.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 01, 2014 2:23 PM  

Not really. France wanted something that had recently, and for a long time, been French.

Russia wanted things that had never been Russian.


I think you overstate Russia's goals for eastern Europe. They may have "wanted" East Prussia and Galicia in the sense that it would be nicer to have those places than not, but what they actively worked for was control of the Balkans and the entrance/exit to the Black Sea. Giving Russia what it wanted didn't require any other Great Power to sacrifice it's own territory - they could sacrifice someone else's territory. That they didn't want to because they had their own designs on it (Austria) or else didn't want Russia to have easy access to the Med (Great Brittan) is another question.

France wanted territory that was part of Germany. Sure, it had recently been part of France, though France certainly had no better historical claim to it than Germany did. Alsace and Lorraine were the last remnants of Lothair's middle share of Charlemagne's kingdom (with brother Louis getting the part that became Germany and bother Charles getting the part that became France). Regardless of historical claims, for France to get Alsace and Lorraine in 1914 would require Germany to give up territory in the heart of Europe to its greatest rival.

What France wanted was less amenable to diplomatic resolution than what Russia wanted. Neither is excused for their stupidity though.

Anonymous Toddy Cat May 01, 2014 2:29 PM  

I'm probably being obtuse, but the connection between the Yellowstone volcano and the situation in Ukraine is not really obvious to me. Is this more of that famous Russian mysticism that I've heard about, or did Tunguska actually cause WWI?

Anonymous WaterBoy May 01, 2014 2:29 PM  

Vox: "I find the point about Yellowstone to be intriguing, especially considering the source. What are "the very problems which they've been trying to solve for the last 50-60 years and have been unable to?" I imagine they are the limitations imposed by the remnants of the US Constitutional system and the fact that the traditional American population is armed and therefore must be deceived and persuaded and ruled indirectly rather than directly by dictate."

Shot in the dark here, but I wonder if he's referring to oil extraction in that part of the country. There's a lot already being pumped out in places like Wyoming and the Dakotas, but there's a helluva lot more that could be taken out if not for the opposition of the Greens. Cf, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (although Alaska would not generally be in range of this, it's the principle I'm extrapolating to the areas that would).

A violent eruption with enough ash to wipe out the flora and fauna in these areas would tend to eliminate opposition to exploitation from Greens trying to protect the Great Horned Hopping Toad of Crymeariver County...you know, since they would already be extinct and stuff.

Anonymous WaterBoy May 01, 2014 2:33 PM  

Oh, I should have made the connection more obvious: the "problems which they've been trying to solve for the last 50-60 years and have been unable to?" would thence refer to sufficient domestic oil production to significantly scale back reliance on foreign oil imports.

Anonymous zen0 May 01, 2014 2:37 PM  

Toddy Cat is stumped:

I'm probably being obtuse, but the connection between the Yellowstone volcano and the situation in Ukraine is not really obvious to me.

Its like saying "God willin' and the creek don't rise".

Now everyone is focused on how high the crick will rise or not, and what about a tornado, and the origins of WW1.

You have to learn to be more flexible.

Blogger Joseph Dooley May 01, 2014 2:39 PM  

I remember reading an article a few years ago by a Russian academic about how the U.S. would split up into 8 or 9 states if and when Yellowstone blows up. It's the silliest idea I've heard, but the Russians seem keen on it.

Anonymous zen0 May 01, 2014 2:41 PM  

If anybody still does not think banksters like war, this latest from ZeroHedge should seal the deal:

IMF approved the $17bn tranched loan to Ukraine last night, Gazprom gets paid; Ukraine gets its cash; and the door's wide open for the US and EU to pour more 'controlling influence' into the divided nation... Except there's one thing:

IF UKRAINE GOVERNMENT LOSES EFFECTIVE CONTROL OVER EAST OF COUNTRY, $17 BLN IMF BAILOUT WOULD NEED TO BE REDESIGNED

Which, roughly translated, appears to mean go to war with pro-Russian forces (and thus Russia itself if Putin sees his apparent countrymen in trouble) or you don't get your money!

Anonymous WaterBoy May 01, 2014 2:44 PM  

Alternatively, that time range would cover the majority of the Baby Boom, so he could be referring to the Yellowstone eruption wiping out vast quantities of Boomers visiting the park and surrounding areas in retirement RVs.

I know that would bring tears of joy to many people.

Anonymous Athor Pel May 01, 2014 2:51 PM  

"civilServantMay 01, 2014 12:09 PM
...
Who are these elites of which you and he speak? Are there any "elites" in the world who cannot buy what they wish and go where they wish and live where they wish? Nations and nation-locked nationals may have interests but what elite capable of manipulating war could find any gain in any war?"



You've been reading here quite a while. I'm surprised you don't know the answer to this already.

To repeat,

There is the elite and then there are all the rest of us. Everybody not 'them' is by definition an enemy, at best we are merely resources to them. We that work, that build, that sow and reap, we create wealth. They are pure parasites, they need some of us to always be working. But they don't need all of us. Neither do they need the whole surface of the planet.

If the population of this planet went without a war or a crisis for too long they would start questioning their personal situation, they would wonder why Mr. Elite was in charge. They would wonder why they couldn't go their own way. This is a problem. This is why we have so many wars, why we have so many other kinds of conflicts when the average person just wants to be left alone to live their life in peace.

The elite want there to always be chaos, be conflict, be crisis. It's what keeps them in charge. And it makes them a lot of money, which is nice.

Chaos and conflict are management tools. They steer us where they want us to go by using those tools. If you mentally buy into the ideologies, the politics, the financial system, the -isms of the world, then they control you. Without the conflict then there would be no control.

In short, they create both sides of a conflict through proxies, they present the solution to the conflict they created, then direct the outcome through the implementation of their own solution. All sides to the conflict are thereby controlled, managed, kept under control and any other needed goals are reached as well. It's why abortion is legal in the US with about 50 million dead babies and counting just to cite one example.

Plainly stated, these f~~~~~s work for Satan. They like destruction for destruction's sake. They like to cause pain. They like sin, doing it and tempting others to do it. They are not like average people, they are bent, seriously bent.

If you take what Jesus said seriously then the siren songs of this world stop having the desired effect on you. Christianity is the most subversive set of ideas in this world and a direct threat to the power structures that run it. It's why Christianity is so threatening to them.

Anonymous Noah B. May 01, 2014 2:52 PM  

If the Yellowstone caldera destabilizes, and it resembles a projected worst case scenario, it would be a disaster for the entire northern hemisphere, not just for the US. Sure, the US would bear the brunt of it, but as Athor Pel pointed out, there wouldn't be summers for several years, which would be detrimental to all forms of food production. The entire northern hemisphere would be struggling to feed itself. But I would think the southern hemisphere should continue to have summers almost as usual.

Anonymous WaterBoy May 01, 2014 2:53 PM  

Could also refer to potentially disabling part of our nuclear forces (missiles on the plains, bombers on bases downwind). I suppose there probably are still enough missiles aboard ships and subs at sea, but would Russia be willing to take advantage of the situation and initiate a first strike?

Anonymous Noah B. May 01, 2014 2:58 PM  

"...but would Russia be willing to take advantage of the situation and initiate a first strike?"

I really don't think so. They just wouldn't need to. Their focus would be on watching those ships and subs at sea, and intercepting them when they inevitably dock to resupply.

Anonymous bw May 01, 2014 3:03 PM  

France was using Russia more than Russia was using France. VD

Indeed, that's what the Mystery Religion, Grand Orient de France Brotherhood does.


Anonymous bw May 01, 2014 3:08 PM  

what elite capable of manipulating war could find any gain in any war?" cs

You cannot be fuck*ng serious...but you may actually be sirius

Anonymous bob k. mando May 01, 2014 3:17 PM  

WaterBoy May 01, 2014 2:53 PM
but would Russia be willing to take advantage of the situation and initiate a first strike?



dude. they wouldn't need too.

Yellowstone goes up in a big way and whatever is left of both the US and Canada are going to be completely wrapped up in disaster recovery.

for decades. DECADES.

while all the rest of the northern hemisphere ( including Russia and China ) are going to be scrambling just to produce food.

keeping in mind that the climactic effects of a large eruption extend FAR BEYOND the areas of major ash fall, look at this map:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HuckleberryRidgeTuff.jpg

a BIG Yellowstone event *has been* a near extinction level in the past.

Anonymous Noah B. May 01, 2014 3:24 PM  

Splitting hairs here bob, but I think this one was the caldera that is thought to have almost wiped out humans.

Blogger CubuCoko May 01, 2014 3:44 PM  

Vox, I'm familiar both with the interbellum arguments, Fischer's self-hating thesis, Tuchman's stumbling theory, and Ferguson's alt-history. I still find Fromkin's 2005 argument most compelling: both Austria and Germany wanted a war while they were still strong, believing that Russia was getting stronger and time was not on their side. Of course the French (and let's not forget Britain) wanted a war as well.

Russia could have theoretically stayed out, but having stood by in 1908 while Austria annexed Bosnia, Nicholas II felt he had a debt of honor to repay. In retrospect that seems extremely unwise, but it's an aspect of Russian decision-making that simply had to be taken into consideration. Furthermore, Wilhelm had abandoned Bismarck's alliance with Russia in favor of having Austria treat him like a big brother, which contributed to the Franco-Russian entente.

As for Serbia... Yes, the government wanted to confront Austria, but not *at that time*. Serbia had just fought a war against the Turks in 1912 - and retreated from the Adriatic (a major strategic objective) when the Austrians threatened war. In 1913, Austria got Bulgaria to attack its former allies over the Macedonian Question, and though Bulgaria lost, the Serbs suffered casualties in manpower and materiel they could not easily replenish. The Bosnian revolutionaries may have had backing from Apis, but Belgrade actually WARNED Vienna something was afoot and the Archduke's visit would be risky. Meanwhile, von Berchtold and von Hoetzendorf were anxious for a war, while Franz Ferdinand wanted to wait. So by getting him killed, the hawks got their pretext. A little too convenient to be a coincidence.

Germany backed a quick Austrian invasion. When Vienna dragged its feet (it took a MONTH after the assassination to issue the infamous ultimatum to Serbia), and Russia started mobilizing, Berlin rolled the dice as well. France and Britain eagerly jumped in. The rest is history.

Now, you could dismiss my argument since I'm a Serb, but that's not your style.

Anonymous Don May 01, 2014 3:45 PM  

Yeah, I think humans were 'homo erectus' at the time. I haven't heard of any bottleneck then but I could be wrong.

Anonymous ? May 01, 2014 4:27 PM  

They may have "wanted" East Prussia and Galicia in the sense that it would be nicer to have those places than not, but what they actively worked for was control of the Balkans and the entrance/exit to the Black Sea.

I disagree. They "actively worked" to obtain East Prussia and Galicia. The Russian war plan was to capture those places.

Giving Russia what it wanted didn't require any other Great Power to sacrifice it's own territory - they could sacrifice someone else's territory.

Germany and Austria most certainly would have to sacrifice their own territory to give Russia what it wanted.

France wanted territory that was part of Germany. Sure, it had recently been part of France, though France certainly had no better historical claim to it than Germany did. Alsace and Lorraine were the last remnants of Lothair's middle share of Charlemagne's kingdom (with brother Louis getting the part that became Germany and bother Charles getting the part that became France).

Nonsense. Alsace-Lorraine had been French territory for many centuries before 1870. The French wanted it back because they rightly regarded it as their own home territory.

Regardless of historical claims, for France to get Alsace and Lorraine in 1914 would require Germany to give up territory in the heart of Europe to its greatest rival.

And for Germany to keep Alsace-Lorraine would require France to leave a strategically vital piece of its home territory in the hands of its greatest enemy. Nobody in France before or during the war (and none of France's allies during the war) regarded French reacquisition of Alsace-Lorraine as an unnecessary objective on which France should be open to compromise.

Anonymous WaterBoy May 01, 2014 4:49 PM  

bob k. mando: "dude. they wouldn't need too.

Yellowstone goes up in a big way and whatever is left of both the US and Canada are going to be completely wrapped up in disaster recovery.

for decades. DECADES.

while all the rest of the northern hemisphere ( including Russia and China ) are going to be scrambling just to produce food.
"


You are, of course, correct in your analysis.

I was merely speculating on what Mr. Fursov was implying with the 50-60 years phrase since that is roughly, though possibly only coincidentally, about how long the nuclear standoff has been going on.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 01, 2014 5:05 PM  

Belgrade actually WARNED Vienna something was afoot and the Archduke's visit would be risky

Well, the Serbian Prime Minister, Nikola Pašić, sent some cryptic warnings. He was probably afraid to do anything very obvious since the head of Serbian Intelligence (and the Black Hand) Dimitrijević had already assassinated the King so probably wouldn't hesitate to kill a Prime Minister.

Pašić did eventually get rid of Dimitrijević with a show trial and execution for treason. Unfortunately for Serbia and the rest of the world, it was about three years too late.

FWIW, I think Serbia before WWI was in about the same boat as Japan before WWII - addled by a murderously fanatic cabal within the government and military that took over through internal terror. That's not to excuse the populace, at least not to any greater degree than the average Joe's in any country who's government stampedes them to war.

Anonymous civilServant May 01, 2014 5:11 PM  

But they don't need all of us.

My conclusion as well. But sometimes it is better to ask a question that make a statement.

Blogger Marissa May 01, 2014 5:22 PM  

and we know practically NOTHING about that or about what sort of dynamo exists at the core that generates so much energy that it can keep that much rock that hot.

Sounds like hell.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 01, 2014 5:28 PM  

Nonsense. Alsace-Lorraine had been French territory for many centuries before 1870. The French wanted it back because they rightly regarded it as their own home territory.

That must be why the major cities in the region have such French-sounding names as Strasbourg, and Metz and why more of the inhabitants spoke German than French.

Again, the Treaty of Verdun divided Charlemagne's empire up into three parts. One part became France, one part became Germany, and the third part became a bunch of other things, including Alsace and Lorraine. That happened in 843 AD.

France annexed Alsace in 1639 and (most of) Lorraine in 1766. So if by "centuries" you mean one-and-a-half (Lorraine) and "not-quite-three" (Alsace), then sure, I guess Alsace-Lorraine had been administered by France for "centuries".

But they had been more culturally Germanic for a thousand years. France conquered them while Germany was divided and impotent. As soon as Germany was able to, it kicked France out.

Anonymous YIH May 01, 2014 5:36 PM  

Joseph Dooley:
I remember reading an article a few years ago by a Russian academic about how the U.S. would split up into 8 or 9 states if and when Yellowstone blows up. It's the silliest idea I've heard, but the Russians seem keen on it.
Sort of. Actually the Yellowstone part was not part of that idea. It's more like ''what might happen if the US 'broke up' the way the non-Warsaw pact Soviet Union did? Anything could be the 'trigger event': Collapse of the Dollar, de facto government bankruptcy, open race war or a Civil War in general. But the Yellowstone scenario would work just as well.

Anonymous ZhukovG May 01, 2014 5:58 PM  

An excellent article, though I think he underestimates the strength of Russia's position.

I believe that, for now, Russia can adopt a wait and see attitude. The Kiev regime is in a very tenuous position and it looks like that position is weakening. The current elections look a whole lot like the ones in Germany in the late 20's and early 30's. A Nazi takeover looks to be a real possibility at least in the West and Central parts of Ukraine.

If that happens, Russia could intervene in the East and South and if the US tries to oppose her it could completely strip Europe out of the US orbit.

As for Yellowstone....I put that down to academic rambling.

Anonymous VD May 01, 2014 6:02 PM  

Now, you could dismiss my argument since I'm a Serb, but that's not your style.

Of course not. I'll dig up the books and put a post together next week.

Anonymous bob k. mando May 01, 2014 6:06 PM  

Noah B. May 01, 2014 3:24 PM
Splitting hairs here bob, but I think this one was the caldera that is thought to have almost wiped out humans.



i said "near".

given that Toba is the only identified eruption in the last 7 million years that has ever been larger than Huckleberry, and even at that was only ~12% larger ...

yeah. also note that you have no reason to expect that the next time Yellowstone goes up that it can't be BIGGER than Huckleberry. all Huckleberry points out is past performance.

as they say, past performance is no guarantee of future return.

"The appearance of light magmas indicates that the uppermost portion of the continental crust has been consumed, exhausting the melting potential of the crust above the mantle plume."


that right there? that scares the bejeezus out of me. historically never before seen rates of uplift inside the caldera over the last ten years AND the magma outflows are getting lighter density?

the more i find out about Yellowstone the more it appears that only a retard would intentionally make his home in North America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano

the Russ are fascinated by Yellowstone because they're anticipating schadenfreude.

Americans don't know much about Yellowstone because ... it doesn't serve the purpose of anyone in power to have us getting concerned about it.

Anonymous A. Nonymous May 01, 2014 6:08 PM  

In order to get global governance the US has to be taken off the map.

It seems more reasonable to say that the US is the driving force of global governance.

Blogger Matamoros May 01, 2014 6:16 PM  

Bruce Lewis How can a person with the honorable title "Matamoros" support the atheistic, anti-Christian, cosmopolitan EU in any contest with a Christian nation (Russia). I'm not saying Mr. Putin is a paragon of Christian virtue ( nor do I myself claim to be such), but his actions to date have been contrary to the aims if the Global Secular Order, which is a good thing. "The enemy of my enemy", etc.

Why do you think Mr. Putin is a sincere Christian. You must remember that the Soviets used the Russian Church to keep the Russians from going over to the Germans in masse to fight the Bolsheviks.

The cynical use of the Russian Orthodox Church was a Soviet hallmark where the Clergy were KGB and real Orthodox and Catholics had to meet underground.

But this cynical use of the Church was also a mark of the Tsarist era as well. Caesaro-papism is alive and well in Russia.

I have spoken with priests in Russia who don't believe that Putin is sincere and that his actions are quite different than his words. Some claim he is still GRU. On the other hand a friend disagrees. A bit murky.

Nevertheless, the Ukrainians are Europeans, and having existed under the Soviet/Russian hand prefer the lighter hand of the EU to the heavy hand of the KGB/FSB.

Myself, I favor an independent Ukraine not beholden to either EU or Russia; but in the short term they are caught between the Bear and the EU. The Bear they know, the EU not so well.

Remember, religiously Ukraine is Catholic and Orthodox. Those of the Ukrainian Russian patriarchate lean somewhat more to Russia, while the Catholics and Ukrainian Orthodox, who were viciously persecuted by the Russian Orthodox & Soviets lean strongly to Western Civilization.

Toddy Cat: is it my imagination, or is "Zerohedge" gradually becoming a mouthpiece for the Russian Government?

I've noticed that as well. Same lines as RT, which in Russia is still called Russia Today.

Anonymous civilServant May 01, 2014 6:19 PM  

and we know practically NOTHING about that or about what sort of dynamo exists at the core that generates so much energy that it can keep that much rock that hot.

I asked a college geology department that question once. After two days they got back to me and said it was caused by the decay of radioactive elements.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 01, 2014 6:29 PM  

Now, you could dismiss my argument since I'm a Serb, but that's not your style.

Of course not. I'll dig up the books and put a post together next week.


And it probably shouldn't go unmentioned, the whole Balkan mess was the result of two dying multicultural empires putting different cultures cheek-by-jowl with each other.

Anonymous Noah B. May 01, 2014 6:33 PM  

"that right there? that scares the bejeezus out of me. historically never before seen rates of uplift inside the caldera over the last ten years AND the magma outflows are getting lighter density?"

Me too.

Anonymous Noah B. May 01, 2014 6:37 PM  

But I think they're probably going to kill most of us off with these compact fluorescent light bulbs long before the Yellowstone caldera blows. Saw one of those fail catastrophically the other day with lots of arcing, sizzling, and toxic fumes in just a few seconds. Avoid them if at all possible.

Anonymous YIH May 01, 2014 6:43 PM  

Matamoros:
Myself, I favor an independent Ukraine not beholden to either EU or Russia; but in the short term they are caught between the Bear and the EU. The Bear they know, the EU not so well.
Why should they trust the EU? From where I sit, it seems more fragile than Russia, nor as strong militarily. The US has been the de facto military of the EU since WWII. If the eagle falls from the sky everyone would see that the European emperor has no clothes.

OpenID simplytimothy May 01, 2014 6:45 PM  

"that right there? that scares the bejeezus out of me. historically never before seen rates of uplift inside the caldera over the last ten years AND the magma outflows are getting lighter density?"

What is the significance of lighter density magma outflows?


Anonymous Don May 01, 2014 6:50 PM  

What is the EU? A collection of bureaucrats. What is Russia? A nation that has lasted a thousand years or so in one form or another. Who would you cooperate with your neighbors who you are ethnically related to or a conglomeration of people who might or might not give too damns if you fall off the planet?

Ukraine has every reason to know that if push comes to shove Russia has way more interest than EU, US, or anyone else. They may not like Russia, they might hate Russia but they damn well have to live with Russia. They could no more divorce themselves from Russia than Canada could divorce itself from the US.

Anonymous bob k. mando May 01, 2014 7:04 PM  

i'm a dumbass.

molten / ductile volume is ~764 billion km³

solid crust volume is +319 billion km³

bottom of the Asthenosphere is 700km depth

deepest bore hole ever drilled anywhere? 12km.

reason why drilling was stopped? unexpectedly high mantle temps would have degraded the drill head too much to make further effort worthwhile.

expected temp? ~100 C.

actual temp? 180 C. remember, temp at the bottom of the Asthenosphere is ~1300 C.

our science is so good, we were only off by 20% ( if referenced to 0 K ). and our engineering is so good ... we can't approach the ductile transition if we tried.

what causes magma plumes? fuck if we know. we've got lots of conjecture. but we *know* nothing, Jon Snow.

Blogger Tommy Hass May 01, 2014 7:17 PM  

" They could no more divorce themselves from Russia than Canada could divorce itself from the US."

Canada is married to the US?

Somebody should make a list of countries married to each other.

Anonymous bob k. mando May 01, 2014 7:34 PM  

civilServant May 01, 2014 6:19 PM
After two days they got back to me and said it was caused by the decay of radioactive elements.



they THINK. they *know* nothing apart from projected densities and temps.

for all they know it could actually be ongoing fission reaction ( we've discovered natural fission reactors in mining depth, see Oklo ) or some sort of Electric Universe coupling with the sun.

they got surprised by methane clathrates at the bottom of the ( shallow ) Gulf of Mexico when the BP well blew off. why? because they don't have any experience with the relatively LOW pressures ( compared to the core ) at the bottom of the ocean.

our knowledge of high temp + high pressure physics is, practically speaking, non-existent.



simplytimothy May 01, 2014 6:45 PM
What is the significance of lighter density magma outflows?



i bolded the explanation in the quote.

if you need more exposition:
the only thing holding the top on any non-erupting volcano is the solid material ( crust, mantle, plug, etc ) that lays over the top of the magma chamber. you have to have sufficient weight and tensile strength ON TOP to keep the pressurized magma from coming up out of the chamber.

denser magma comes from deeper in the earth, from the rising plume. lighter magma is generated by CRUST AND MANTLE MELT. ie - the solid cap holding the top on the magma chamber is being MELTED AWAY by the plume heat.

worse, as magma rises it depressurizes. as it depressurizes, gases which were trapped in suspension in the magma can boil out ( somewhat like the Bends ).

what this results in is a sudden pressure transition where pressure on the magma reduces gradually as the floor of the caldera rises ...

until the pressure drops to the point that the magma no longer suspends gases ...

at which point there is a huge pressure spike from the additional volume now being occupied by super-heated gases which had formerly been sharing volume with the magma.

how bad can this get? it's the reason why some volcanos have those picturesque lava ejections like you get at Mauna Loa.

some eruptions are SUPERSONIC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_pipe

basically, it's God's own popgun.

now, large caldera volcanoes aren't likely to go supersonic, simply because the pressure blows off across too broad of an area.

but we just found out in Dec last year that the Yellowstone magma chamber was TWICE as big as previously estimated.

http://www.weather.com/news/science/yellowstones-molten-magma-chamber-double-previous-size-estimates-20131219

"“That means there is enough volcanic material below the surface to match the largest of the supervolcano’s three eruptions over the last 2.1 million years.”"

OpenID simplytimothy May 01, 2014 8:25 PM  

@bob k. mando

Thanks, it is clear now.

OpenID simplytimothy May 01, 2014 8:29 PM  

OT, but if you are following the AGW collapse, Steve Goddard at Real Science is fearless.

Blogger John Rampton May 01, 2014 8:53 PM  

Last I checked, the wind in Wyoming blows pretty consistently from the WNW. So much so, that trees are permanently shaped that way. Wouldn't that be a factor?

Blogger Matamoros May 01, 2014 9:31 PM  

YIH: Why should they trust the EU? From where I sit, it seems more fragile than Russia, nor as strong militarily. The US has been the de facto military of the EU since WWII. If the eagle falls from the sky everyone would see that the European emperor has no clothes.

Don't think I am anti-Russian, I am not. Putin has been very good for Russia. The country is in many ways freer than the U.S. People can pretty much do what they want as long as they don't get politically involved. Putin has repaired a lot of the country's infrastructure and given the Russians pride in Russia.

But their economy is very fragile. They don't produce a lot, food and clothing is imported. The Russian demographics are terrible, and there are only 140 million "Russians" (only a percentage of these are real Russians, the rest are different nationalities, including millions of Ukranians).

The military is not up to scratch, although they are rebuilding rapidly, and modernizing equipment using oil and gas revenues.

A lot of what you hear about Russia is not true. The populace is very diverse. Many Koreans, Central Asians , and Muslims have invaded Moscow and other large cities and are taking jobs from Russians.

The average Russian cannot afford to eat out. He lives better than under the Soviet, but not well. People in their 20s-30s still live with their parents, The divorce rate is over 50%, religion is on the cuff more than in the heart.

The Russian people are a great people. But there are many problems in Russia. That may be one reason why the foreign excursion into Ukraine, to solidify the country behind Putin. A conjecture. Plus Russia needs Ukraine's defense industry and population to counter the Chinese who are taking over Western Siberia.

So the EU may not be that great, but Russia has real problems as well. The EU does have good military, particularly the French, Brits and Germans who are under the U.S./NATO umbrella.

If Putin's gamble fails, and I think it will (following initial successes), then Russia may collapse until the Great Tsar arrives to rebuild again. The ruble already seems to be collapsing.

NATO and Ukraine have a military treaty stating that they do not have to tell Ukraine when they move troops and matériel into Ukraine. So we don't know what is sitting there waiting for Putin to invade.

Anonymous YIH May 01, 2014 10:06 PM  

Mataoros:
Don't think I am anti-Russian, I am not. Putin has been very good for Russia.
This may surprise you, but I agree. Yeltsin may have been ''a hero of the Russian revolution'', but as someone ''in charge of Russia'' he was a joke.
Was he ever sober? No wonder the jews (claiming to be ''american advisors'') pounced on them.
They saw a weakness and exploited it, TJB.

Anonymous Rothschild May 01, 2014 10:55 PM  

CivilServant: Who are these elites of which you and he speak?

You rang goyim

Blogger Outlaw X May 01, 2014 11:36 PM  

If you find it hard to understand why rich and intelligent men not only seek wars, but work very diligently to start them, you have to stop thinking of war as intrinsically bad and see it as a tool.

Change "intelligent" to "fucking scumbag of Satan's Minions" and I will agree with you.

These ignorant assholes aren't even intelligent. They can't get their stories right, their wars right or their cover-up's right. They are exposed. these dumbass 30 something's from Ivy league schools who couldn't wipe their ass in the woods without toilet paper.

These are the scum of scum while thinking themselves elite are no more than a handful of inbred trash with psychopathic tendencies. They are the horror of the world and real smart intelligent people see them for what they are.

For you to call them intelligent is a disgrace.

Any dumbass that see's war as a tool is a psychopathic Godless piece of shit who needs to be burned as they want to burn the average 8-5 worker. But I think we should burn them slow.

Anonymous wooderson May 01, 2014 11:46 PM  

Bob, you sure do know a lot about volcanoes. .. did you stay at a holiday Inn express last night

Anonymous dc red dogs May 02, 2014 12:05 AM  

praying for one's enemies, who often are broken and lesser beings than they should be, is a good step in these situations

Anonymous wEz May 02, 2014 12:16 AM  

C&C baby!

Blogger John Rampton May 02, 2014 12:44 AM  

I keep hearing Yellowstone being the larger potential disaster. This link makes me doubt that:

http://www.sott.net/article/225939-15-Nuclear-Reactors-on-New-Madrid-Fault-Line

Anonymous bob k. mando May 02, 2014 1:09 AM  

John Rampton May 01, 2014 8:53 PM
Wouldn't that be a factor?



not inconsiderable, but positioning of the jet stream when the volcano blows ( assuming a Mt St Helens type of eruption rather than a slow seep ) will be far more important.

remember, Mt Pinatubo put a column +20 miles into the air. the jets are ~
12 miles up. if the jet happens to be positioned near Yellowstone when that goes off, there's no telling how far east and north the ash might wind up.


http://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/pinatubo.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream


wooderson May 01, 2014 11:46 PM
Bob, you sure do know a lot about volcanoes. .. did you stay at a holiday Inn express last night



members card, baby.

also, i wear glasses.

and i'm 30% less genocidal than Hitler.

Anonymous bob k. mando May 02, 2014 1:26 AM  

John Rampton May 02, 2014 12:44 AM
This link makes me doubt that:



the critical failure mode at Fukushima was the backup generators getting swamped by the tsunami that came in AFTER the earthquake.

they weren't in much trouble until that happened and they didn't have any way to get coolant water pumped onto the reactor and spent fuel piles. that's when we got the BOHICA moment.

the Mississippi is big, but i don't foresee getting a large tsunami out of it.

i would agree that any reactor design which puts a spent fuel rod pool *4 stories up in the air* is criminally negligent. and any administrator who ordered that design choice ( or engineer who recommended this ) at GE should be court martialled and shot. unfortunately, that clown is certainly retired by now and probably dead of old age.

the idea that we've got this design of reactor built all over the planet is fucking terrifying in itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant


nuclear facilities are SUPPOSED to be designed to be hardened against attacks. but a wave took out Fukushima?

what happens if a jihadist decides to fly a 777 into one?

what happens if Russia decides to BOMB one?

jeezus christ, these things catastrophically fail if you dumb water on them ...

[ shakes head wearily ]

Anonymous Jack Amok May 02, 2014 2:21 AM  

For you to call them intelligent is a disgrace.

Maybe "intellectuals" is better. Yeah, they're not really all that bright but they sure do think they are.

Really they are pretty stupid though. Take WWI. Regardless of who's right about the blame, whether it's me, Vox, ? or CubuCoko (or even none of us), certainly somebody was to blame for that war and whoever it was lost their ass because everybody lost their ass in that war. Poincaré was the only leader at the beginning of the war who was still in power at the end, and he presided over a country so haunted by ghosts it became the butt of surrender jokes. Like I said before, I think the people in those position had a larger than average share of luck, and because of that dismiss the downside of their actions too easily.

But if it wasn't for stupid people, we'd have no liberals at all. And not many conservatives either.

Anonymous scoobius dubious May 02, 2014 2:53 AM  

"Regardless of who's right about the blame.... certainly somebody was to blame for that war [WW1]"

I had a friend who was fond of making the weird and interesting, and of course academically insupportable, but somehow poetically plausible argument that the blame for the Great War was really this: that the advent of the Machine Age CALLED the war into being, exploiting the political and diplomatic stupidity of the combatants so that the Machine Age could exist, and with it, its horrifying new Machine Age mil-tech. That's a little wacky, but it's probably true that all the combatants mobilized and marched forth expecting an old-fashioned European war, and boy were they surprised that the new technologies had made such wars obsolete, and that the whole thing was really beyond their understanding. The conventional thing is to call most of the generals incompetent, and maybe that's true; but maybe they just didn't understand the nature of the very new tiger they were trying to ride. Something similar went on with guys like Sherman in the American civil war, which in a way was the Overture or dress rehearsal to the Great War, and every bit as stupid and unnecessary.

Anonymous bob k. mando May 02, 2014 8:50 AM  

scoobius dubious May 02, 2014 2:53 AM
but maybe they just didn't understand the nature of the very new tiger they were trying to ride. Something similar went on with guys like Sherman in the American civil war



Sherman, perhaps the single most successful general in all the Civil War ... didn't understand combat at time of the Civil War?

that don't make no sense, scoobs.

Anonymous scoobius dubious May 02, 2014 10:49 AM  

"Sherman, perhaps the single most successful general in all the Civil War ... didn't understand combat at time of the Civil War? that don't make no sense, scoobs."

That's not really what I'm saying (and believe me, I've read a lot of Sherman). What I meant was, Sherman understood perfectly well what was going on in the field, and he had a pretty good grasp of politics in the conventional sense. But he couldn't (who could?) understand the meaning of what he was doing in the macro-context that would shape the future. In a crude way, Sherman reminds me of Caesar in terms of his endless readiness ("don't you know ole Sherman carries a tunnel WITH him?"), he was a brilliant guy, so it's not a slam on Sherman, it's an observation about something a lot larger and harder to describe. His cross-country marching tactics are sort of different from what we think of as the static entrenched bloodbaths of the Great War, but they are still Modern Warfare, which is what wrecked Europe in the Great War: they began fighting Modern Warfare, while still thinking they were fighting Old-Time Warfare, and the (understandable) inability to know the Machine Age context is sort of what turned a stupid dispute into the largest bloodbath to date (well, we'll leave out the Taipings for the moment).

Anonymous scoobius dubious May 02, 2014 11:03 AM  

As an aside, Bert Brecht's "Mother Courage and Her Children" is a bad, tedious play, but OTOH it certainly IS an interesting analysis of how war works. I'm not saying "correct" (all you veterans can disagree to your heart's content) I'm just saying "interesting" viz. worth thinking about. After all, he wrote it AFTER the Great War, and had had time to contemplate it. Doowhatchalike.

Anonymous bob k. mando May 02, 2014 1:18 PM  

just finished the whole video, couple of notes.

he quotes George Friedman of StratFor as saying:
"The primary task of the US is the destabilization of Eurasia, in order that there could never be a state or group of states able to challenge the US."

the only thing this quote can possibly demonstrate is that the US is either grossly incompetent ... or that this is NOT our strategy.

1 - why is China today a great power? Nixon liberalized trade with them in the 70s.
2 - Europe is part of Eurasia, and given that both World Wars were touched off against Germany, cannot be excluded from the strategy; we have been wholeheartedly supporting the formation and growth of the EU. the raison d'etre of the EU is to ... counterbalance the economic, political and military power of the US.


31:00 == Rohrbach psy-ops
interesting that the Russ openly think this way. because it demonstrates quite clearly that they consider psy-op manipulation *of foreign populations* to be a valid and common tool.

so, of course, this is tacit admission that they have done likewise in the US. cue Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School.

31:50 == ref-ing LotR
"Orcs at the service of the western Saruman"

too fricking cool. i would pay too study under this guy for that comment alone.

interesting that Tolkien has such cultural penetration that casual statements like this can be made and elicit no comments or questioning from the students at all.

42:00 ==
"Political Science is reduced to a model where people only know the theories of political science. But the theories of political science are very far from reality. Indeed, they exist to hide the thinking of the politicians. It's a misdirection."


note that well. note also that he says this directly adjacent to a just previous comment about economic theory.

carry over the principle:
"But the theories of economic science are very far from reality. Indeed, they exist to hide the thinking of the politicians and bankers. It's a misdirection."


it's also amusing that a pro-Soviet instructor would say this ... when the basis of the Soviet are the econo-political works of Marx and Engels ...

55:00 Kasparov
he spends time calling Garry an "idiot".

not credible. liar, maybe. fool, probably. ignorant, sure. stupid? world chess champion for 15 years and highest ranking ever achieved. not damn likely.

this is pure psy-op because the good professor thinks that Garry is one of the 5th column inside Russia and so Proff must disqualify, disqualify, disqualify a man who had been the pride of Russia.



the good prof likes to talk about western double standards but misses the most glaringly obvious one: Islamic terror and response too it.

Russia is not permitted to respond when Islamists blow up all kinds of shit and shoot lots of people, the US gallivants all over the planet over throwing entire governments and destabilizing entire regions.

if there ever was an opportunity for alliance with Russia, Bush threw that away when he shit on Putin about Russia's response to Chechnyan attacks.


the Proff is entirely too blase' about Russian corruption and mismanagement. say what you want about the Chinese, the Beijing games were a tour de force. the Sochi games were a humiliation in comparison. and that was a completely self inflicted wound on the part of the Russ.


also, entirely too blase' about the sins of the Soviet vs the sins of America. so we dropped two nukes on Japan, killing fewer than 300k? Comrade Stalin would like a word with you.

especially, Comrade Stalin would like a word with you about the millions of Ukrainians that he purposely starved to death.

Ukrainian antipathy for the Russ is NOT wholly a western psy-op.

who's "stupid" now, prof?

Anonymous A. Nonymous May 02, 2014 2:57 PM  

say what you want about the Chinese, the Beijing games were a tour de force. the Sochi games were a humiliation in comparison. and that was a completely self inflicted wound on the part of the Russ.

Meh.

so we dropped two nukes on Japan, killing fewer than 300k?

On a country that was apparently willing to capitulate given one caveat that ended up being observed in the terms of the "unconditional surrender" anyway, so, really, you murdered 300,000 people for no reason, or just to show off your shiny new atomic toys to the Soviets.

Anonymous ? May 02, 2014 3:02 PM  

@Jack Amok,

1. The large part of Lorraine was and is French-speaking, chief.

2. If the HRE made Alsace-Lorraine German territory, then Belgium, Holland, Switzerland and Northern Italy were also German territory. So that argument falls flat on its face. Moreover, the HRE was not a nation and its inhabitants did not consider themselves Germans (a nation that did not yet exist). If anything, the legatee of the HRE was Austria, so Alsace-Lorraine etc. were properly Austrian territory, not German, if the HRE argument holds water, which it doesn't.

3. The HRE ceded Metz to France in 1552. But even if you refuse any earlier date than 1639 and 1766, do you seriously contend that anyone alive in 1870 knew anyone who remembered the time that Alsace-Lorraine were NOT part of France? They thought of themselves as French and they were French. It is idiotic to claim that anyone in 1870 thought they were German subjects of the Holy Roman Empire (because 843 AD, yaay!).

4. You have a better argument that Alsatians were "culturally Germanic" - but the inhabitants of Lorraine most certainly were not. And in any event, the residents of Alsace-Lorraine did not consider themselves Germans, because that nation did not exist until 1870 invented it.

Germany did not annex Alsace-Lorraine because of language or the (defunct and irrelevant) Holy Roman Empire. They annexed it for military reasons (to cripple France, provide a defensive buffer for Germany, and a jumping-off point for future attacks on France) and to exploit its economic resources. The reasons you cite were simply self-serving justifications, and would have been set aside if the national interest demanded relinquishing Alsace-Lorraine.

Anonymous Rocket J. Squirrel Sr. May 02, 2014 4:52 PM  

There are times a blind squirrel finds his nuts. This could be one of them. Disseminate at your prerogative:

Stolen Nuclear Material Heading into US

Anonymous bob k. mando May 02, 2014 5:08 PM  

A. Nonymous May 02, 2014 2:57 PM
Meh.



so the Russ covered themselves in glory at Sochi? maybe you need to take a look at the numerous pics sent out by the athletes of the unfinished and just barely livable quarters supplied by the Russ as the 'Olympic village'?

http://thechive.com/2014/02/06/conditions-at-the-sochi-olympics-are-badhilarious-32-photos/

http://gizmodo.com/sochis-olympic-village-is-half-built-and-full-of-trash-1512657018

so, the most expensive Olympics in the history of the world gets you ... something that was surpassed by Yugoslavia.

fucking brilliant.

like i said, say what you want about China, as a presentation it was a tour de force that people still talk about.

Sochi was so bad, the Russians were making fun of themselves in the closing ceremonies, re-enacting the ring malfunction from the opening.




A. Nonymous May 02, 2014 2:57 PM
so, really, you murdered 300,000 people for no reason


killing citizens of a country with which you are at war is murder? especially when the other country attacked you first in one of the most notorious sneak attacks ever? that's a novel definition of 'murder'.

but ok, i'll stipulate to that.

so now, explain to us what exigent 'reason' friendly old Uncle Joe had for inflicting the Holodomor on the Ukraine and murdering some ~5 million people who were nominally HIS OWN CITIZENS.

you miserable little fuck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

the plain fact is that ETHNIC UKRAINIANS have every reason to hate Russia and those ( like Putin ) from the old Soviet regime.

which is precisely contra to what the good 'ol prof was trying to assert in his lecture.

you can see why there wouldn't be much purpose in me paying college tuition.

Anonymous A. Nonymous May 02, 2014 8:37 PM  

so the Russ covered themselves in glory at Sochi?

Pretty much. They did win the most medals, after all. I don't think it really matters one way or the other, though. The Olympics are a circus, and if Russia wasn't able to quite match the show put on by a state which was last looted by Western speculators back in the 20s/30s as opposed to the 90s, it's not worth making a fuss over.

Sochi was so bad, the Russians were making fun of themselves in the closing ceremonies, re-enacting the ring malfunction from the opening.

Yes, that was the best part.

killing citizens of a country with which you are at war is murder? especially when the other country attacked you first in one of the most notorious sneak attacks ever? that's a novel definition of 'murder'.

You'll have to explain to me where/how the post-Westphalian customs of war condone the mass slaughter of civilian populations in response to an attack on a military installation.

so now, explain to us what exigent 'reason' friendly old Uncle Joe had for inflicting the Holodomor on the Ukraine and murdering some ~5 million people who were nominally HIS OWN CITIZENS.

Oh, and why should I do that, exactly? Where in my previous post did I assert that there was an "exigent reason" for the Soviet-engineered Ukrainian famine?

you miserable little fuck.

You foolish, unhappy American.

the plain fact is that ETHNIC UKRAINIANS have every reason to hate Russia and those ( like Putin ) from the old Soviet regime.

No doubt, but with what we've seen of the EU, it seems possible that they might end up being the lesser of two evils for the Ukrainians.

Anonymous bob k. mando May 03, 2014 2:01 AM  

A. Nonymous May 02, 2014 8:37 PM
You'll have to explain to me where/how the post-Westphalian customs of war condone



i never tried to 'condone' anything.

i even explicitly said that i would stipulate to your absurd point for the purpose of discussion.



A. Nonymous May 02, 2014 8:37 PM
Oh, and why should I do that, exactly?



*shrugs*

your only purpose in this whole discussion has been to try to guilt trip me about an act of war against a belligerent power ...

which you have necessarily had to attempt to portray as, or more, evil than Stalin's genocide against his own civilians.

so, you're either trolling or you're just the typical lying sack of shit.



A. Nonymous May 02, 2014 8:37 PM
No doubt, but with what we've seen of the EU, it seems possible that they might end up being the lesser of two evils for the Ukrainians.


a - not even close to a point i've argued against.
b - of COURSE it would be preferable for the ethnic RUSSIANS. so that's eastern Ukraine and Crimea, right there. Transnistria looks too landlocked and cut off unless Putin just decides to take all the Ukraine.
c - that's a decision for the Ukrainian people to make, isn't it?

i still don't think Obamalama has the balls to actually put boots on the ground. he certainly doesn't have the nutsack to start lobbing ICBMs ... he's too afraid of *your* opinion. you'll start mincing around, squealing about 'ebil nukular wepons' and he'll start crying and ... probably get awarded another Peace Prize.

the STRATEGIC argument against US involvement is that we have no effectual line of supply AND Ukraine is necessarily in the natural Russian area of influence. the prof was correct to compare the Russia:Ukraine situation to US:Cuba.

so far as i can tell, even the EU isn't providing any significant munitions or weaponry. and i don't think Ukraine has a chance if Putin decides to do the full Hokey Pokey unless they get some massive backup.

at which point the 'democratic opinion' of the Ukrainian people becomes moot.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/05/Ukraine%20troop%20map.jpg

Blogger John Rampton May 03, 2014 3:04 AM  

Well thanks for your keen insight, Bob. But I suppose it comes to the argument of which actually comes first, I.e. causation. I'm pretty worried about the New Madrid fault line primarily because its time is pretty near, according to what has been happening with it in the past, but also the consequences. Yellowstone may make the land fairly uninhabitable, but New Madrid will make new coastlines, and we stand to lose a good portion of the west coast, midwest, and east/southeast coastline to the ocean. When Mississippi becomes a gulf, we stand to lose a lot more than just land. Economic infrastructure is going to be obliterated, either by the quake and its aftershocks, or as a result of consequences from nuclear power plants, oil/gas lines and water lines, and transportation lines. Those who survive it will pretty much be on their own. And it may set off Yellowstone as a result. I certainly hope we as individuals are getting prepared for this, because our government isn't.

Anonymous A. Nonymous May 03, 2014 3:42 AM  

i never tried to 'condone' anything.

i even explicitly said that i would stipulate to your absurd point for the purpose of discussion.


I took issue with you in the first place because you attempted to dismiss the significance of the United States killing 300,000 civilians for no reason by snidely referencing the more magnitudinous crimes of the USSR; "so we dropped two nukes on Japan, killing fewer than 300k? Comrade Stalin would like a word with you," remember that? Certainly, Stalin killed more people than Paul Tibbets and Charles Sweeney by an order of magnitude, but just blowing off criticism of the atomic bombing of Japan, especially given America's tendency to posture as a sort of moral paragon amongst the nations, is just stupid.

your only purpose in this whole discussion has been to try to guilt trip me about an act of war against a belligerent power...

...'s civilian population, and you say that as though the legitimacy of the actions was some sort of indisputable article of secular faith.

which you have necessarily had to attempt to portray as, or more, evil than Stalin's genocide against his own civilians.

Right, because to your mind, there's apparently no functional distinction between pointing out that slaughtering 300,000 civilians is still bad regardless of what the other guys were doing and making excuses for Josef Stalin.

so, you're either trolling or you're just the typical lying sack of shit.

You're hilarious. One of us is trying to sweep his country's acts of non-combatant mass-murder under the rug, and it sure as hell ain't me...

not even close to a point i've argued against.

Then we have nothing to argue over on that score.

Blogger Matamoros May 03, 2014 11:56 PM  

As regards Ukraine, Russia and Europe, here is an excellent article entitled "Look to Ukraine".

http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/04/look-to-ukraine/#more-46568

He gives cogent reasons why it is Ukraine that we need to look to and not Russia for the future.

Anonymous A. Nonymous May 04, 2014 12:27 AM  

He gives cogent reasons why it is Ukraine that we need to look to and not Russia for the future.

Anything that Counter Currents sees fit to post must be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts