ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, December 20, 2014

The hope for world order

If you're having trouble seeing things from the globalist perspective and wondering how they can possibly justify their ruthless attacks on national and individual sovereignty, it can be helpful to read their doctrines. Henry Kissinger puts forth his global vision in World Order:
The issue of peace in the Middle East has, in recent years, focused on the highly technical subject of nuclear weapons in Iran. There is no shortcut around the imperative of preventing their appearance. But it is well to recall periods when other seemingly intractable crises in the Middle East were given a new dimension by fortitude and vision.

Between 1967 and 1973, there had been two Arab-Israeli wars, two American military alerts, an invasion of Jordan by Syria, a massive American airlift into a war zone, multiple hijackings of airliners, and the breaking of diplomatic relations with the United States by most Arab countries. Yet it was followed by a peace process that yielded three Egyptian-Israeli agreements (culminating in a peace treaty in 1979); a disengagement agreement with Syria in 1974 (which has lasted four decades, despite the Syrian civil war); the Madrid Conference in 1991, which restarted the peace process; the Oslo agreement between the PLO and Israel in 1993; and a peace treaty between Jordan and Israel in 1994.

These goals were reached because three conditions were met: an active American policy; the thwarting of designs seeking to establish a regional order by imposing universalist principles through violence; and the emergence of leaders with a vision of peace.... Once again, doctrines of violent intimidation challenge the hopes for world order. But when they are thwarted—and nothing less will do—there may come a moment similar to what led to the breakthroughs recounted here, when vision overcame reality.
Kissinger is a clear and lucid writer. His historical knowledge is deep and impressive. But he makes no case for his vision, he simply assumes the reader will share it; and it is easy to understand why America finds itself caught up in a convoluted web of international intrigue given the political influence of the author. The arrogance and hypocrisy in that open tacit claim that "nothing less will do" than the imposition of universalist principles through violence by leaders with a vision of peace is astonishing. And more than a little ironic in light of Kissinger's criticism of the "remarkable arrogance" of the European colonial powers.
The pamphlets and treatises of the colonial powers from the dawn of the twentieth century reveal a remarkable arrogance, to the effect that they were entitled to shape a world order by their maxims. Accounts of China or India condescendingly defined a European mission to educate traditional cultures to higher levels of civilization.
What is truly remarkable is the complete lack of self-awareness demonstrated here. The globalists are doing EXACTLY the same thing they complain about the colonial powers having done, and what Kissinger correctly observes the Iranians to be doing: asserting their entitlement to shape a world order by their maxims. But precisely how is Kissinger's "vision of peace" any more rationally justified or globally authoritative than Mahmound Ahmadinejad's publicly proclaimed "promise of God"?

And what is the globalist hope for world order if not a doctrine of violent intimidation?

Labels: ,

51 Comments:

Anonymous Bah December 20, 2014 6:33 AM  

"Kissinger is a clear and lucid writer. His historical knowledge is deep and impressive."

Unfortunately he is a liar and not a single word he has ever written can be trusted.

He played a leading role in precipitating the 1973 war -- but he has the immense chutzpah to argue that the crisis he created was only solved due to his fortitude and vision.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler December 20, 2014 6:43 AM  

He's a Jew.

Jew's have the right to dictate because they are the "Chosen".

Damn right it is hypocrisy. Jesus called them that. This is what Marxism is: spreading the Universalist maxims of peace according to the Jew. They have the right to do so--and no one else should. This is where the charge of "white priviledge" comes in. Europeans don't have the right to dictate anything--but the Jew does. This has been going on for the longest time.

Anonymous VD December 20, 2014 6:50 AM  

Unfortunately he is a liar and not a single word he has ever written can be trusted.

But even liars can provide highly useful information by virtue of observing what they choose to lie about.

Anonymous Giuseppe December 20, 2014 6:57 AM  

Vox,
you probably disagree, but I honestly think you will not be able to make real sense of the global agenda without accounting for antigravity technology. Anti-G tech is not a theory, it's been around since at least 1928 (Thomas Townsend Brown, I have patent numbers of his flying discs in my Face on Mars book) and the Nazis perfected that tech. We (mostly Americans, but not elected government, a sub-branch of the military really) already have ships and bases off-planet. I know at first it sounds tin-foil hat crazy, but if you look into it, it is the reality. Start from any point you like, economics, technology, historical evidence, it fits. Nor am I the only one to have connected the actual, factual dots. The Traveller idea of the Solomani is not so wrong...we're kind of a prison planet in a way. As for the aliens...I don't know, but anti-G tech would make the Galaxy a much smaller place and the possibility of aliens much more real, also, it would mean subterfuge becomes the new war, because no one can afford whole planets getting slagged every time anyone with an anti-g machine feels like getting upset.
If you get a chance to read that book I sent you over the Christmas break Vox, it might shed some light on Kissinger's propaganda a bit more.

Anonymous ODG December 20, 2014 7:15 AM  

I took his third paragraph differently. You can also read it as saying that there are those who want to use violence to "establish a regional order by imposing universalist principles" and he wants to thwart them. Then this sentence "doctrines of violent intimidation challenge the hopes for world order. But when they are thwarted..." makes more sense.

And you need to correct your sentence : "and what Kissinger correctly observes the Iranians be doing:"

Blogger Mr.MantraMan December 20, 2014 7:18 AM  

He views himself separately from "Europeans", I do not find that suprising. Basically him and others who share his outlook have taken his people's end times myths and shaped them for a secular world, him and others to create "peace" and then lecture the lesser humanoids into full humanity. A good shtick, and profitable to boot, and the clowns they prop up as "anti-something or anothers" are disreputable Nazi worshipping nutters who help to burnish the image as persecuted "world healers."

Blogger Mr.MantraMan December 20, 2014 7:27 AM  

From Henry K. to the father in the movie "Dirty Dancing" to Matt Drudge having a meltdown over marching Germans in Dresden, all the same mysticism, and they make a living at it, not a bad gig since we pay the commission both ways.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 20, 2014 7:50 AM  

Bah: "Unfortunately he is a liar and not a single word he has ever written can be trusted."

Yes; he's a diplomat.

He's also a Jew, and this has occasionally been relevant. He is not the sort of good and faithful servant who should have been trusted to represent America's interests rather than Israel's interests in private negotiations with the Russians.

But mainly he's a master diplomat. He doesn't just write about diplomacy; he has practiced it successfully at the highest level, and in every moment, live and in print, he continues to demonstrate the instincts and methods that made for success: the orientation on results (accompanied by high verbal skill) rather than verbal pyrotechnics, the patience and caution, the careful smoothness (not being too interesting), and above all the strategic sense which is always firmly grounded in his awareness of his own interests (and, when practical, the interests and strategic orientation of others).

He's a master of his game, and masters have the right to teach.

Anonymous Ain December 20, 2014 7:54 AM  

"..imposing universalist principles through violence" and "doctrines of violent intimidation" are indeed the same thing. The hypocrisy is risible.

Anonymous realmatt December 20, 2014 7:57 AM  

I hear Kissingers voice.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 20, 2014 8:07 AM  

I agree with ODG December 20, 2014 7:15 AM. The language is ambiguous.

Given that this is Henry the K, who doesn't usually write ambiguous fog and who is strategic as heck, I wonder if the ambiguity is deliberate. The language seems normal; it has nothing in it of the stilted formulations that people often use when they are trying to lie while protecting themselves. But if Henry ever needs an escape route, either in either direction, there it is. "Just a misunderstanding."

I don't think of this as dishonesty. I think of it as the master showing us how it's done.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge©2014 December 20, 2014 8:23 AM  

Giuseppe, if evolution could be demonstrated in one single species in one single generation you'd have 1 percent of a reason to suspect life from somewhere else might exist. Evolution/ spontaneous abiogenesis isn't within "this galaxy/ known existence" - so you can antigravity yourself to anywhere and it doesn't matter. The technology won't get you anywhere interesting short of worm holes - and bending space from within it seems the logical impossibility mere mortals face.

Preexistant hyperdimensional beings is another subject.

Kissinger is a sophisticated fool. Christianity is taking over China. And the elite are parasites that have killed the host. Something no symbiotic life form would consider. They've done themselves in. And Russia isn't playing their game.

The biggest news item on this planet: After fifty years the elite haven't built a temple. Hence, down they go.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus December 20, 2014 8:27 AM  

The globalists are doing EXACTLY the same thing they complain about the colonial powers having done, and what Kissinger correctly observes the Iranians be doing: asserting their entitlement to shape a world order by their maxims.

True.

But precisely how is Kissinger's "vision of peace" any more rationally justified or globally authoritative than Mahmound Ahmadinejad's publicly proclaimed "promise of God"?

We're on offense; they're on defense. Game on.

All that Henry really does is palm off on his reader the false sense that the "we" that's naturally on the attack and must act accordingly is the reader.

If he's a gentile, it's really not for him that these things happen. But Henry is so good that Richard Nixon -- who absolutely knew that the Jews were driving America down into its grave -- saw Henry Kissinger as a faithful servant of his (Nixon's) strategic visions.

Henry the K was an all-time great in his profession. Respect the power.

And what is the globalist hope for world order if not a doctrine of violent intimidation?

A doctrine of chicanery.

Anonymous VD December 20, 2014 8:33 AM  

You can also read it as saying that there are those who want to use violence to "establish a regional order by imposing universalist principles" and he wants to thwart them.

Sure. And I have no doubt that is how he would prefer people to read it, even if it doesn't make any sense given the "active American policy" in the Middle East being used to impose universalist principles.

Here is the point: what party involved had "universalist principles" that were applicable between 1967 and 1973? The Israelis? The Arabs? Or the USA? He might have had Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood in mind, but they weren't driving Arab nationalism back then, the secular Arabs were.

Anonymous Smokey December 20, 2014 8:46 AM  

Henry Kissinger is one crafty piece of shit.

So observe, and learn.

Anonymous Randall December 20, 2014 8:46 AM  

These goals were reached because three conditions were met: an active American policy; the thwarting of designs seeking to establish a regional order by imposing universalist principles through violence; and the emergence of leaders with a vision of peace...

VD,

I think you need to re-read what he wrote. I've had my fill of caffeine for the day, and I don't see Kissinger calling for imposing universalist principles through violence.

Anonymous zen0 December 20, 2014 8:58 AM  

Golly. With all those peace agreements he mentioned, you would think there would actually be, you know, peace. Maybe it is similar to Keynsianism. There just needs to be moar peace agreements. This, of course, requires more war, in order to have something more to have a peace agreement about.

"For from the least of them even to the greatest of them, Everyone is greedy for gain, And from the prophet even to the priest Everyone deals falsely. "They have healed the brokenness of My people superficially, Saying, 'Peace, peace,' But there is no peace. "Were they ashamed because of the abomination they have done? They were not even ashamed at all; They did not even know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; At the time that I punish them, They shall be cast down," says the LORD.

Anonymous Rothbardian4Ever December 20, 2014 9:01 AM  

Kissinger is a neocon
Anyone who admires him is a neocon
His book should be burned

Anonymous PA December 20, 2014 9:01 AM  

Pax Americana, of course, has been a disaster. Murka has sewn chaos wherever it went, not in the least within its own borders.

Anonymous VD December 20, 2014 9:05 AM  

I don't see Kissinger calling for imposing universalist principles through violence.

If I run across Kissinger disavowing either universalist principles or violence in his book, I shall be sure to retract the assertion that he supports the imposition of universalist principles through violence.

Anonymous Salt December 20, 2014 9:05 AM  

These goals were reached because three conditions were met: an active American policy; the thwarting of designs seeking to establish a regional order by imposing universalist principles through violence; and the emergence of leaders with a vision of peace.... Once again, doctrines of violent intimidation challenge the hopes for world order.

1) an active American policy

He cites no one else actively acting.

2) a regional order

Kissinger is a Globalist. The Order he subscribes to is not regional.

3) leaders with a vision of peace

Just what vision would that be? And whose? The whole concept of universalist principles, universal being the root, is Global.

Vision > Universal-Global; not regional > imposed violently if necessary.

Kissinger is not saying anything new.


Anonymous KJL December 20, 2014 9:06 AM  

Clear and lucid perhaps, but not the line you used for the main thrust of your post, "the thwarting of designs seeking to establish a regional order by imposing universalist principles through violence".

Given the context, I believe he's saying "the thwarting of designs [ ] through violence" and not how you had it quoted. Which changes just about everything.

Anonymous VD December 20, 2014 9:09 AM  

To be clear, I don't think Kissinger meant to be so open about his true purposes. I think he meant to take a cheap shot at either the Muslim Brotherhood or Iran and inadvertently opened himself up to a rhetorical counterattack. I'll readdress this when I finish the book and the section on his policy recommendations.

In the meantime, if you disagree with me, you must answer the question: to whom is he referring? Nasser? Assad? Who was thwarted and what universalist principles did they express.

Anonymous Salt December 20, 2014 9:14 AM  

Kissinger is not opposed to imposing Global designs through violence, but opposes regional as such is in opposition to the Globalists.

Kissinger is all for a Global World Order.

Anonymous duh December 20, 2014 9:15 AM  

"what party involved had "universalist principles" that were applicable between 1967 and 1973? The Israelis? The Arabs? Or the USA?"

The USSR of course!

Anonymous Sarcophilus December 20, 2014 9:22 AM  

Hope, world peace... The vision was articulated and it will come.
Next week we celebrate the birthday of the prince of peace.
It is easy to be the military equivalent of Scrooge even then, focusing on the wrong things. But the spirit of Christmas and the person of Christ is for every day.

But his battle is not against flesh and blood. Guns and martial arts, Carriers and bombers won't prevail and are the enemy's choice. Spiritual battle has its own weapons and tactics, but today most are spiritually unarmed. So they find temporal means of violence hoping what they can see will make them feel safe. But morality is spiritual and 4gw is fought on both fields.

Anonymous Salt December 20, 2014 9:29 AM  

I don't think Kissinger meant to be so open about his true purposes

I doubt that, Vox. Carrol Quigley admitted, in Tragedy & Hope, that the Globalists no longer fear the light and that he writes with permission. I see Kissinger doing no less. His words, not a slip of speech, are orchestrated.

Anonymous bw December 20, 2014 9:29 AM  

even liars can provide highly useful information by virtue of observing what they choose to lie about.

Exactly this. It is the inconsistencies we are looking for, and their "tell" concerning history, nature, and their stated vs unstated goals.

It should also be noted that, after the Elites and their Govt tried to pretend 911 didn't actually happen, and thus needed no investigation whatsoever for several years following, it was Kissinger who was tapped as the one who should head the Investigation initially but "resigned" his position. Why? You will never in fact know for sure one way or the other, nor do you have the ability to access that certain information, and that is a bullsh*t. Don't forget about Brzezinski either.

We are left to observe what they choose to lie about and try to decipher if they actually ever really speak truth at all. It is an information war to determine who is doing what to whom and why.
Curiosity and Information are the end all.


Anonymous Rusty Fife December 20, 2014 9:58 AM  

Completely OT: Why does everyone solipsistically assume that an, arguably Chinese supported, North Korean attack on a Japanese company (Sony) have anything to do with the US? Don't they read any China Sea news? As 4G operations go, this one has some nice moral high ground amongst non-Anglos.

Anonymous Northern Observer December 20, 2014 10:14 AM  

VD: "The arrogance and hypocrisy in that open tacit claim that "nothing less will do" than the imposition of universalist principles through violence by leaders with a vision of peace is astonishing."

Did any else read the Kissinger quote differently?

HK "the thwarting of designs seeking to establish a regional order by imposing universalist principles through violence"

Isn't he saying that the "designs seeking to establish a regional order by imposing universalist principles through violence" is what was thwarted?

Anonymous VD December 20, 2014 10:16 AM  

Did any else read the Kissinger quote differently?

This is why it helps to read the comments before leaping in to comment yourself.

Anonymous Northern Observer December 20, 2014 10:19 AM  

aaaaaaand, now that I've reloaded the page I see that the ambiguous Kissinger quote been addressed a number times.

OpenID mattse001 December 20, 2014 10:42 AM  

The question of "by what right" is a non-starter. You are discussing metaphysical rationales for national/international action, while we know that Kissinger is THE practitioner of Realpolitik. Metaphysical rationales are what motivate the sheep.
One can say either that all sides have a right, or that no one has a right greater than any other's. But in the end, it is immaterial.
Everything is competition. If the New World Order proves more useful than other doctrines, it will succeed. If not, it will fail.
Personally, I believe it will fail because each culture/people have their own priorities, many of which do not align with the NWO agenda. You can suppress these tendencies for a while, but you cannot get rid of them. The local agendas then resurface.
E.g. Democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents December 20, 2014 12:49 PM  

Wait, wait, Kissinger is on the one hand slamming politicians of 100 years ago for their arrogance in taking up the White Man's Burden, and on the other hand is proud of the US for it's actions in the Middle Esat, which amount to -- picking up the White Man's Burden with a different wrapper on it? Is that correct? Am I confused? Did I misread?

When the globalist elite finally wakes up to the reality Nick Wade writes about in his book, that 40% or more of human behavior is due to genetics, what will they do? Will they stop trying to bring Vermont town meetings to Iraq, or will they double down in some kind of pseudo-Lysenkoist "the environment has not been changed radically enough!" fit of insanity?

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents December 20, 2014 12:51 PM  

Personally, I believe it will fail because each culture/people have their own priorities, many of which do not align with the NWO agenda. You can suppress these tendencies for a while, but you cannot get rid of them. The local agendas then resurface.
E.g. Democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan.


This is true due to a troublesome inheritance in their genetic code.

Perhaps the US elites have figured that out, and that's why they want to replace stubborn Northwest European stock with easier to manage Latin genes? They don't really know what they are doing either way, of course.

Anonymous Bah December 20, 2014 1:06 PM  

you must answer the question: to whom is he referring? Nasser? Assad? Who was thwarted and what universalist principles did they express.

"designs seeking to establish a regional order by imposing universalist principles through violence"

The design he is talking about the Soviet effort to dominate the Middle East from 1967 to 1973 (the effort lasted longer than that but that's what he's specifically referring to here). The design was thwarted by American military power and policy. The universalist principles were those of Marxism-Leninism.

Not saying I agree with K's assessment, only that that's what he's saying.

Anonymous Giuseppe December 20, 2014 1:07 PM  

Umm, I don't think it's ambiguous at all. VD reads it right. And although I have a cellular aversion to Creatures like Henry Kissinger (because even listening to the shit he spouts can affect your sanity rolls ability later) I also think that at various times he has espoused exactly this principle, i.e. we are borg, resistance is futile. You will be ass-in-me-lated. And other words to that effect.

PhilpGeorge,
I have no idea what you are trying to say, nor how it relates at all to what I said. I clearly stated that aliens being real is a possibility, but not a necessity to explain the globalist agenda better than mere earth-based policies. Regardless of alien involvement or not, antigravity technology IS a factor, and ignoring it leads you invariably to a myopic view of world events. Russia is the interesting factor here because they are going off the reservation with respect to the game-plan laid out for us all since at least the close of WW2.
I am not speculating here, I am merely basing my thoughts on little known, but quite well-documented facts.

Without wishing to cast aspersions, Philip, it seems to me you might be one of those religious people who would (for reasons unclear at all to me) be made very uncomfortable if little green men just happened to be real. I have no clue why the existence of aliens all over the Galaxy would in any way affect your religious beliefs. Unless such a fact tended to prove your religious beliefs absurd that is. Personally I don't see that such a fact would affect any true religion one way or the other.

Anonymous Bah December 20, 2014 1:11 PM  

Henry the K, who doesn't usually write ambiguous fog and who is strategic as heck

Kissinger is THE practitioner of Realpolitik.


Henry was neither a strategist nor a practitioner of realpolitik. He was the point man for detente - the on-going and ever-failing effort of the Eastern Establishment to reach an understanding with the Soviets. This effort reflected ideology, not realpolitik, and was strategically senseless... but the Eastern Establishment pursued it consistently both before and after Henry.

Anonymous Bah December 20, 2014 1:12 PM  

Yes; he's a diplomat.

The point is that his assessments of "history" - not diplomacy - are utterly mendacious.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 20, 2014 1:28 PM  

Kissinger is not opposed to imposing Global designs through violence, but opposes regional as such is in opposition to the Globalists.

Kissinger is all for a Global World Order.


Agreed, but only because he's had a hand on the controls of the (for the time-being at least) Global power, and been able to help direct it towards his goals. If a Global World Order began to arise that was anti-Israel, I suspect he would be all in favor of regional powers.

He's the sort of person who shapes his philosophy to meet his goals.

Anonymous Axe Head December 20, 2014 1:41 PM  

Just ask, "What's best for the Jews?" and you have Kissinger.

Anonymous Porky December 20, 2014 1:46 PM  

Kissinger didn't have a problem with Beijing asserting regional control through violence.

But then, he had just set up an investment firm in China.

He has no principles. No values. No morals. He's just another really smart, greedy asshole who will be dead in ten years time.

Anonymous PA December 20, 2014 1:48 PM  

Perhaps the US elites have figured that out, and that's why they want to replace stubborn Northwest European stock with easier to manage [Indio-Mestizo and other brown] genes?

White men hang tyrants. Muds shoot each other over sneakers.

Anonymous Shibes Meadow December 20, 2014 2:01 PM  

Giuseppi: I, too, have perceived the vague outlines of the Something Beneath The Surface that unifies the various aspects of the current world condition. I don't know that "antigravity" per se is the Something; it would at most be a means to an end. But this much I do know: the global political, military, and economic circus we see on the news, is, while real, not the ultimate Reality of life on Earth. I suspect that the real power players are almost certainly people who are seldom seen and are more or less unknown to those outside of their own small circle. I further suspect that this clique that directs human affairs does so using the established power structure as its instrumentality

There was a Japanese animated TV series some years ago called Neon Genesis Evangelion that has come to seem (to me, at least) more and more reflective of this deeper reality. In it, the creators posit the existence of a circle of powerful men, some of whom are artificially augmented, who use both the United Nations and the services of a technological elite to bend the world towards what they perceive to be its fated telos. The technological elite, in turn, has achieved control of both physical and metaphysical matter; that is, they have acquired the ability to not only bend matter and energy for practical purposes, but to engineer Reality itself. These two elites operate behind the scenes to guide the world (both the physical environment and the human population) down a path foretold from the very beginning, a path leading to the salvation of the human race via extinction and apotheosis.

[SPOILERS BELOW]

4

3

2

1


They begin the End by creating a disaster that disrupts the physical environment of the Earth. This act kills 90% of the human species and unites the rest under a single government. They call it the Second Impact. (First Impact was the event that killed off the dinosaurs and most other life on Earth.)

Their second act is to engineer the human body and soul to create a sort of superman which, under their control, will alter the physical and metaphysical nature of the universe and the human species until each reaches its ultimate form -- that is, perfection. The DNA of extant human beings (the offspring of Lilith) is combined with that of the "sons of God" (angels) to create a race of androgynous giants ("Evas"). These, when united with the substance of the Primordial Man ("Adam"), create the metaphysical conditions necessary to bring about the end of the world. This is Third Impact: the reunion of Adam and Eve into the New Adam, who will wrench open the gates of Paradise by his own hand, and achieve godhood.

Of course, the New Adam cannot arise until the Old Adam is gone. Permanently. Down to the last individual.

Evangelion was, of course, a television cartoon meant to entertain imaginative youngsters, not a guide to the real-life immanentizing of the eschaton. It's important not to read too much into such things. Still, given the huge popularity of End-of-the-World themes in the entertainment media over the past two decades, you have to wonder if there isn't some underlying, subconscious perception of the Something Beneath the Surface among those who produce the sounds and images that colonize our minds.

Anonymous Bah December 20, 2014 2:35 PM  

Just ask, "What's best for the Jews?" and you have Kissinger.

Not at all. He screwed them in 1973. He not only encouraged Egypt to attack, but refused to permit Israel to preempt.

Blogger CubuCoko December 20, 2014 2:53 PM  

It speaks volumes that people can't even parse Kissinger's sentence, even though it's quite obvious. Just keep this assumption in mind: "It's different when we do it."
Now, you may define "we" as you see fit (I see some people have jumped into the "Jewbicon") but I think by that he means the (post-)American Empire, which has spent the past 25 years *dismantling* any semblance of order in the world, and replacing it with its own wanton violence - think the Feminine Imperative writ global. Those who resist are being branded as "outlaws" and "rogues" - but they are the ones seeking order, while the self-appointed "world police" wreaks chaos.
The only way this cognitive dissonance even begins to make the slightest bit of sense is that the raging hypocrites embodying the contradiction from the quote Vox mentions start from the premise "It's different when we do it."

Anonymous Anubis December 20, 2014 3:41 PM  

"Not at all. He screwed them in 1973. He not only encouraged Egypt to attack, but refused to permit Israel to preempt."

By having Egypt attack first they self defensed to gain more land. Don't forget about Jewish lightning, the twin towers had a negative value but where bought 3 months before and heavily insured, no one in their right mind would have bought the twin towers as a sound investment.

Blogger macengr December 20, 2014 5:06 PM  

Kissinger elucidates his foreign policy in his book, Diplomacy. Basically, he thinks American policy should be to set up regional balance of powers all around the globe. (I don't agree with him, BTW)

Anonymous Dr. Doom December 20, 2014 5:32 PM  

Vox, you're missing the seminal point of the exercise. The Globalist jews do the same thing in theory, but in practice it never works. Colonialism and Empires work in that the Central Republic gains resources and the natives receive law and order they cannot in a Million Years generate or maintain themselves.
Globalism is just Another Big Lie. The claims of World Peace ring hollow with the endless genocides and wars due to the ridiculous lack of morality and principles. The only ones who gain are the globalist jews, but they get paid in play money that has little value.
Even Gold is worthless unless it can buy food, clothing and shelter. Its Bullshit- all of it. This isn't a plan for World Domination, its a ponzi scheme for a quick buck where the con men have to pack a bag and flee every generation.

Anonymous Bah December 20, 2014 5:43 PM  

By having Egypt attack first they self defensed to gain more land.

No. The war, as intended, led to an Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai after Camp David.

Anonymous Giuseppe December 20, 2014 9:53 PM  

@shibes meadow,
If you think for a bit about the applications of that technology it becomes obvious. As for the existence of aliens, that too is pretty much a given if by aliens you mean anything not originally Terran in origin, but as to active little green dudes (or greys or whatever) i don't know for sure. My guess would be yes because they are bound to exist somewhere and if they do, some of them will have achieved anti-g. Once you have that, the concept of war has to change radically. You might call it 5th generation war, and it becomes much more a war of the minds. A car-sized antigravity capable ship could reduce Earth to rubble in a few hours, so violent aggression becomes unviable once everyone is armed with planet-killing capacity. In fact, brainwashing and total reality manipulation in order to keep the sheeple from getting their hands (and thoughts) on that anti-g tech, becomes the order of the day. My firs non fiction book dealt with the reality and origins of this stuff. My fiction books take a more cinematic (and hopeful) look at where and how it may all play out.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts