WE, THE MOST PROPAGANDIZED PEOPLE



“We are preparing for war… For peace.”



Because, “Warrior Ethos” and “Si vis pacem, para bellum” c*ck tattoos trumps (pun unintended) actual foundational knowledge on an area you want to stir up a conflict in.



ASEAN’s not biting…



…except, of course, for the Philippines.



Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea are all vassal territories of America - little discussion needed there if one’s familiar with their history.

The Philippines is an interesting outlier because they’re worse than that - they’re more closely comparable to a “Banana Republic.” They used to have pretty good relations with China over the disputed islands - there used to be an unwritten agreement between the Philippines (previous administrations) and China for joint development and “kicking the can down the road” as far as sovereignty was concerned (meaning, maybe we’ll be too prosperous from mutual trade to seriously care about these islands in the future). It’s difficult for them to substantiate any claims over the territory as they didn’t exist as a country and thus lacked any formalized written language documenting such until a few hundreds of years ago - whereas the Chinese predate them by thousands of years.

The Philippines’ largest trading partner is China. They are a country which is largely dependent on Xiaomi, OPPO, Vivo, Realme, and OnePlus phones for mobile connectivity and can barely afford Samsungs or iPhones. It was once the top exporter of Bananas, Mangoes, and Durians to SEAsia but lost out due to their inability to maintain a proper cold chain, much less appropriate quality control. Their higher - tier (manufacturing) exports are entirely foreign subsidiaries, and their private sector is trying to emulate the American “service - based” economy instead.

The Filipinos are under the impression that they’re in the middle of a great, patriotic struggle of sovereignty (the South China Sea is now the “West Philippine Sea,” from their rhetoric) when in fact they’re just another little Ukraine - the big difference is, they’re prostating themselves practically for free.

Indonesia has burned, blown up, or outright sunk 92 Filipino fishing vessels for illegal fishing in disputed waters since 2014 - but we don’t hear the Filipinos contesting any EEZ rules over such.

Among all of the ASEAN countries, that territory just fails to present itself as a serious argument.
 
Last edited:





Nothing’s worse than disgruntled employees…
 
Last edited:


1755499717431.png

1755499726268.png

1755499736422.png

1755499747073.png


Just Chinese Propaganda, honest
LAUGHTER_07.gif
 
Last edited:
1755570066465.png

1755570080359.png


President is elected by the Congress, which is a different position from the General Secretary which elected by the Central Committee. Sometimes these positions are shared by the same people, and sometimes they aren’t.

The Communist Party is based in the Leninist principle of “democratic centralism”. This means “debate within the party, unity in action”. It is meant to make the party more powerful by allowing dissent and debates within the party, but when it comes to taking action, all members are expected to follow the consensus even if they disagreed with it.

Since China’s Congress is primarily members of the Communist Party, this means that the decision of the president ultimately originates in the Communist Party itself. After they reach a consensus, the whole party will vote for that consensus in the Congress. While there technically are smaller parties in China’s Congress, they act more as advisors, since it is not practically possible for them to overturn the vote, since the CPC always votes in unity.

Formally, China’s president is elected by the Congress. But the decision of who to elect largely comes back to the CPC itself before they come to a consensus. So the final decision largely originates in the Politburo and the Central Committee.

The president in China is harder to shift on a dime than like in the US. The president is not elected by a nation-wide vote but by the Congress itself. To change who the Congress elects, you have to change the opinions of the largest party in that Congress, you have to change the opinions of the CPC.

To change the opinions of the CPC, you will need to change the make up of the Central Committee and the Politburo. To change their make up, you have to change the make up of the people below them. And to change the make up of the people below them, you have to change the make up of the people below them. So on and so forth.

It all comes back down to the very local and grassroots level. As an individual, you only have voting power to change the grassroots make up of your local area. You can nominate and vote in someone different at the base, but you can’t vote directly on the president.

This means for the president to change, there needs to be an overall shift in public opinion in the majority of the entire country, which would change the make up of the majority of the people at the bottom, which would then change the make up of the majority of people above those people, which would then change the make up of the majority of people above those people, so on and so forth, until it changes the Politburo and Central Committee.

At that point, the positions of the CPC would be changed and you could get a different president elected. Of course, that would take a long time. So changing the president is not something that can happen quickly.

China’s system really thrives off of stability, centrality, and consensus. It is meant to both democratically take into account general public opinion, but also to centralize those opinions into a particular decision and consensus. The entire political system is structured to encourage a greater and stronger consensus to form the more you “move up” the electoral system.

By the time you get to the Congress electing the president, the consensus is already largely formed. The Congress more-so acts as a way to formalize that consensus, but to also give some input from outsiders, such as the CPPCC acts as an advisory body to the Congress and has many representatives who are not members of the CPC. Advisory bodies still play an important role even if they don’t directly get to decide things.

Elections are anonymous so there are still sometimes people who vote against it, but this is mostly for symbolic reasons, since by the time the vote comes in front of Congress, the decision has largely already been made in the CPC, and this is just the way it is formalized.





"President Xi is a dictator."
LAUGHTER_12.gif
 
Last edited:
View attachment 8728682



Just some bros casually talking of how we’ve been led on all this time, mostly low - hanging fruit, just common - knowledge stuff.

Highly unlikely, knowing Carlson’s biases - but it’d be interesting if he’d do a deep dive on Chyyyyyynaaaaaa.

Doubtful it'll be objective, but it should be fun.

Imagine - twenty years from now, they’ll probably be saying the exact same thing about said country.

Like, “…damn, we were suckers.”

It’s not China that has the most influence and government officials on the payroll.

I bring receipts








IMG_7683.jpeg
IMG_7684.jpeg
IMG_7686.jpeg
IMG_7687.jpeg
IMG_7688.jpeg
IMG_7689.jpeg
IMG_7690.jpeg
IMG_7691.jpeg
IMG_7692.jpeg
IMG_7693.jpeg
IMG_7694.jpeg
IMG_7695.jpeg
IMG_7696.jpeg
IMG_7697.jpeg
IMG_7698.jpeg
IMG_7699.jpeg
IMG_7700.jpeg
IMG_7701.jpeg
IMG_7702.jpeg
IMG_7704.jpeg
IMG_7705.jpeg
IMG_7706.jpeg
IMG_7707.jpeg
IMG_7708.jpeg
IMG_7685.jpeg
 






So strange to see Slavs identifying with an ideology that designates them as Untermensch...



...kinda like Clayton Bigsby...



...and the Vende Patria Latin Americans you have here.
 
Last edited:
1756412387265.png


2014.

1756412044739.png


2017.

1756412203873.png


2019.

1756412261537.png


2023.

Just us Americans demonstrating over and over again what suckers we are for our own propaganda.

It is our culture to be so easily swayed by this insatiable appetite for a villain du jour that we never stop to ask why.

You might even say that we want and need our villains to facilitate our own virtue signaling.

Naturally, our government exploits our weak - mindedness to great effect.
 
Last edited:
Here’s a chronological timeline table of U.S. invasions, coups, or interventions where human rights / democracy was invoked as part of the justification (even if not the real motive):


Year(s)CountryActionJustification Cited (Human Rights / Democracy)Outcome
1846–1848MexicoMexican–American WarClaimed to bring liberty/democracy to annexed landsU.S. seized ~½ of Mexico’s territory
1898CubaSpanish–American WarStop Spanish human rights abuses in CubaSpain defeated, U.S. occupied Cuba
1899–1902PhilippinesPhilippine–American War“Civilizing mission,” liberating from SpainBrutal counterinsurgency, U.S. colonial rule
1953IranCIA coup (Operation Ajax)Deposed “authoritarian” MossadeghShah restored, repression worsened
1954GuatemalaCIA coupClaimed Árbenz was communist threat to democracyMilitary dictatorship installed
1960–65Congo (DRC)Interference in leadershipPrevent authoritarianism/communismLumumba killed, Mobutu installed
1965Dominican RepublicU.S. invasionClaimed to stop dictatorship, protect democracyU.S. occupation, conservative gov’t
1973ChileBacked coup against AllendePrevent authoritarianism, “save democracy”Pinochet dictatorship (mass repression)
1983GrenadaInvasionRestore democracy, protect U.S. medical studentsPro-U.S. gov’t installed
1989PanamaInvasionRemove Noriega, restore democracy, stop abusesNoriega ousted, heavy civilian casualties
1991Iraq (Kuwait War)Military campaignStop Saddam’s atrocities in KuwaitIraq expelled from Kuwait, Saddam remained
1992–93Somalia“Operation Restore Hope”Humanitarian famine relief, stop warlordsFailed; U.S. withdrew after Black Hawk Down
1994HaitiInvasionRestore elected President AristideAristide reinstated, instability continued
1995BosniaNATO/U.S. bombingStop ethnic cleansingDayton Peace Accords, fragile peace
1999Kosovo (Serbia)NATO bombingStop Serbian ethnic cleansing of AlbaniansKosovo autonomy under UN, eventual independence
2001–2021AfghanistanInvasion/occupationLater reframed as defending women’s rights/democracyTaliban overthrown, later returned to power
2003IraqInvasionClaimed WMDs + Saddam’s human rights abusesSaddam ousted, massive instability
2011LibyaNATO bombingResponsibility to Protect (R2P) vs GaddafiGaddafi killed, Libya fragmented
2011–presentSyriaSupport for rebels, strikesAssad’s human rights abuses citedWar continues, Assad remains



⚖️ Note: In nearly all cases, U.S. leaders blended humanitarian or democratic language with strategic or economic goals (oil, Cold War rivalry, military positioning, etc.).

Originally NoDopes' quote, from a thread probably nuked due to homoerotic perversions...

1757175482505.png

1757175611089.png

1757175727752.png

1757175746670.png

IMG_7785.gif


might as well throw the us military in there too.

1757204624589.png


These raids killed up to 150,000 people and paved the way for pol pot to do his thing.

I know its easy to blame the commies for everything. But our country is a glass house, watch out were you throw those stones.

We have a notable “kill count”

Oh, gosh.

You don't say.

And for some really bizarre reason, you're unable to wrap your head round the idea that we're the main provocateur in Southeast Asia, among other things.
 
Last edited:
1757176047761.png


“Numerous civilian casualties have been inflicted by Russian drones.”

1757176075793.png


“Russian drones are largely ineffective with the vast majority having been intercepted.”

Edsel said:
Just heard some very interesting narratives from the online punditry relating to Ukraine somewhat…

1. Russia is so crippled by sanctions and impoverished to the point that it’s stripping chips from Chinese washing machines to sustain its military equipment

2. Russia must be stopped because it’s an overwhelming, unstoppable behemoth with expansionist ambitions that will eventually be marching through Paris

Which one should we believe? :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
1757183255299.png


Gordon Chang.

The "China Expert" darling of Fox News.

A "weaponized minority" exploited to give "credence" to their narrative by virtue of his ethnicity.

Predicting the collapse of China since 2001.

Very credible source of information.
 
Last edited:
American Foreign Policy in a Nutshell*

Axioms:

1. Our mindset is based on zero - sum thinking; a state either dominates or is subjugated, in the context of finite resources.
2. Any state that is too large, technologically progressing, or getting too prosperous is a threat and must either:

a) fall in lockstep
b) rendered a nonfunctional state or Balkanized into bite - sized servings through
i) Economic (sanctions, weaponization of currency) or
ii) Military Interventions (Destabilization and Regime Changes through “Color Revolutions” included).
3. Incidental characteristics
a) American Exceptionalism on a background of Manifest Destiny

Short Outline for Focused Reading**

1757186802428.png


1991. Fall of the Soviet Union. Rise of what has been referred to as the "Unipolar Moment” (1991 to 2017). We can do whatever the f*ck we want, and nobody's going to stop us.

1757186109772.png


1993. No GPS for you! Well, they built their own. Not really relevant, included just because.

1757245207736.png


1997. Defines in text what our modus operandi is. Sometimes referred to as the "State Department's Bible."

1757186742117.png


2001. Founding of the Eurasian Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), rooted in both economic and security concerns.

1757186529198.png


2007. Wesley Clark's interview re: "seven countries in five years." Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. All but Iran are now failed states due to American interventions.

1757186663603.png


2008. Financial Crisis. China bails out America to the tune of ~ $800 billion. Gradual creep towards loss of trust in the stability of the U$D. Thought to be one of the larger catalysts prompting consideration of alternative currencies by non - Anglosphere nations, as well the State Department's consideration of China (they’re that rich?!) as a potential "adversary.”

1757186247948.png


2009. How do we screw over Iran? Incidentally, Iran is a major Belt and Road Initiative partner.





2010. "The Chinese Professor."

1757245420834.png


2011. Official announcement of "Pivot to Asia" policy. Accelerated increase in Chinese naval capacity.

1757186396355.png


2011. No International Space Station for you! Well, yet again they built their own.
 
Last edited:
1757186957200.png


2013. Start and formalization of the Belt and Road Initiative. Not a security, but rather an economic association. A global infrastructure development strategy wherein China probably comes out richest, but participants get rich in the process as well.

1757187771281.png


2015. Publication of presently most consistent outline towards weakening / containing China. Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), Philippines. American Bases previously absent after expulsion of Ferdinand Marcos Sr. reestablished in the Philippines.

1757187845280.png
1757187862199.png


2016. Start of Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration, with Tsai Ing - wen. Increased rhetoric with marked pro - independence stance. Acceleration of weapon sales to Taiwan. Decline in cordial China - Taiwan relations; coincident drop in cross - strait tourism traffic.

1757188681171.png

1757245687445.png

1757188822524.png



1757211922607.png


2017. Magical Year #1. End of the “Unipolar Moment,” coinciding with accelerated anti - China propaganda. Introduction of "Debt Trap Diplomacy" as a concept by an Indian version of what we call neoconservatives.

1757245914737.png





2018. Adrian Zenz starts publishing Uyghur Genocide propaganda.
 
Last edited:
1757189032607.png


2019. Let's get creative screwing Russia over! Stretch Russia thin using Ukraine, pull Syria out from under their feet.

2019. SARS - CoV-2 / COVID. China weathered the pandemic with more resilience than America. Realization of just how robust China’s supply chain is. Further affirmation that China must be knocked down a peg or two.

1757212315593.png


1757246157896.png






2019 - 2020. Hong Kong Riots. Public gaslighted by western media as "peaceful protests," incited by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and various other NGOs. Molotov cocktails, other flammable weapons, crude siege crossbows assembled at basement of CUHK. Foreign perpetrators outed by Hong Kong locals. Note white boy masquerading as a Hong Kong local online.

1757189048221.png


2020. No, your ideas will be abandoned. Too ambitious. See “Strategic Sequencing” below.



2020. Assault on TikTok! Fails, resumes in 2024 due to extensive broadcasting of Human Rights Violations in Gaza.

1757189098489.png


2021. A lot of smear and propaganda money.

1757189134842.png


1757189149000.png


2021. CEBR predicts China will surpass America as world's biggest economy by 2028 (Magical Year #2, since postponed to 2036 in the 2025 report, but the warmongers haven't received the memo). Similar fearmongering by ASPI (Compare: China against: USA in: All technologies). Metrics suggest overwhelming lead by China. Hence the mindset of "preparing for conflict with China by 2025 to 2028.” Think tanks repeatedly moving the goal post, the right hand has no idea what the left is doing.
 
Last edited:
1757190124394.png


2021. AUKUS nuclear submarine deal with Australia. Notable opposition from locals due to 1) China is Australia's biggest trading partner (like the Philippines) 2) They have no resources for or intentions of projecting power 3) The French Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A SSs would have been sufficient 4) Most optimistic estimate for SSN delivery is ~ 2040. In the meantime, sans Australian Virginia - class SSNs - Australia's ports will serve as free parking for American submarines. To further their goal of containing China.

1757206377259.png


2022. "Since 2013, China has been promoting its own version of Manifest Destiny." The sheer irony in this statement is incredible - attributing an American genocidal expansionist ideal upon someone so far removed. Yet another example of projection.

1757246587560.png



2022. Nancy Pelosi’s grandstanding in Taiwan. Tsai Ing - wen demonstrating total subservience.

1757189243147.png


2023. Not to be taken seriously, but the sentiment's there.

1757190545535.png


2023. Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise published. “Counter malign Chinese activity on the continent. This should include the development of powerful public diplomacy efforts to counter Chinese influence campaigns with commitments to freedom of speech and the free flow of information; the creation of a template “digital hygiene” program that African countries can access to sanitize and protect their sensitive communications networks from espionage by the PRC and other hostile actors; the recognition of Somaliland statehood as a hedge against the U.S.’s deteriorating position in Djibouti; and a focus on supporting American companies involved in industries important to U.S. national interests or that have a competitive advantage in Africa.

1757246748016.png


2024. Navigation Plan 2024. Unsure what the earlier plans called for, what projected year of conflict. Above edition calls for "preparedness for conflict by 2027." Thought 2028 was the Magic Year, perhaps they want to make sure by starting a year early.

1757189315761.png


2024. American goal of simultaneous weakening / containing Russia through Ukraine and China through Asian allies is unfeasible. Foist Ukraine onto Europe ("laundering escalation through Europe"), while focusing on the more imminent threat, China. Brzezinski's "Geostrategy for Eurasia" cannot be implemented en bloc.

1757189327835.png

1757189338067.png




1757190169083.png



2024. Even more smear and propaganda money.

1757205133787.png


2025. More aggressive attempts at de - dollarization by Global South / BRICS countries. Triggers: 1) A third of the world is under American sanctions 2) Russian assets were frozen in 2022 3) American debt is skyrocketing 4) America is simply not a reliable trading partner with all these (tariffs)

1757190362736.png


2025. Department of State drops wording "we do not support Taiwan independence" from webpage.

*reposted from elsewhere
**all accessible free of charge online
 
Last edited:
First off, they (the Chinese) don't invent or create anything.

You mean, like gunpowder and the magnetic compass?

Simply not true.



As you can clearly see from the video above, the current administration totally disagrees with you.

1757191553570.png

1757247083503.png


The second image is old, from 2018. The gap's much wider now.

1757191212957.png


1757191278857.png


1757191378931.png


The CEBR predicted that China would surpass America as world's biggest economy by 2028, but later revised the forecast to 2036 (in 2025). Concerns raised by ASPI (Compare: China against: USA in: All technologies) - see above - have largely been responsible for "think tanks" advocating for a full - spectrum conflict with China by 2025 to 2028.

Taking such an uninformed, jingoist stance conflicts with Washington's greatest concerns - unless we stop China no later than the timeframe as stated above, it would be too late as they would have surpassed us.
 
Last edited:
What most commentators do not make comparisons on is that between Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Hong Kong hasn’t been as glitzy or glamorous as it used to be, mainly because cities such as Shenzhen / Guangzhou / Shanghai have left it in the dust.

Hong Kong was, and continues to be, made irrelevant by rapid progress and development of the neighboring cities.







The first video is from 2012, and is the most fun to watch. The contrast in Jeremy Clarkson’s tone between the first and second videos is noticeable.

Technology isn’t magic.

Any group which has the talent, will, and money can plow ahead if they wanted to.

Along those lines and with present rates of development, Taiwan will have to innovate significantly faster to avoid being rendered irrelevant.

If you’d like it stated in simplistic terms, Taiwan is in the sixth grade while China’s in the fourth grade. There’s absolutely no question that China will eventually catch up with, and surpass Taiwan.

The question we should ask ourselves is, what plan of self - improvement should we undertake to match them and remain competitive.


Unfortunately, we still think it’s cute to posture like some drunk egging for a bar fight instead.

Go figure.
 
Last edited:
Freedom of navigation is why there is modern medicine and electricity in the third world. To understand what freedom of navigation means you only have to go back to early America to find examples of how eliminating piracy far away from our shores and establishing international rules on the high seas lifted humanity out of the mud. Great Brittan before us was the only territorial marshal in the no man's land, and their global trade and colonialism started it. It's probably the greatest gift the white man ever gave the world. Before that the only safe travel depended on how many shields and spear men were on board.

Simply not true.

US China war is not inevitable and China literally does nothing to make it happen , its more of a story of a waning super power trying to contain a rising super power,

Wiki on Rules based order is absolute BS , but wiki can and is written by interested parties ,and often not factual ,RBO is not post WW2 it emerged post end of Coldwar (first actual mention of RBO is in 2008),As its strictly part of Unipolar world order with one super power selectively dictating imaginary rules.

The chosen tribe is particularly active in editing Wikipedia,but there are shit load of others at work 24/7/365 fabricating the 'truth' as lies told often enough tend to become the truth.

1757193372210.png



Core tenent of Rules based order is there are no writen rules or much relevance to international law.

It's sufficient to observe here that international law requires universal application, while the Rules-Based International Order preserves American and allied Exceptionalism .This of course is not a system other powers can accept in perpetuity.And basicaly reasons for them to try and shake it of is overuse of sanctions and now tarrifs. Trump went about it in a very clumsy way attacking all not just china and latest attack on India actually pushed two mortal rivals like India and China together in cooperation.I dont know who is at the helm of US sanctions and tarrifs policies but he is an incompetent idiot. China could have been taken down much harder if the tarrifs would not be hitting all over the place against all sorts of countries for no good reason.

RBO For instance, while they have heralded the importance of human rights, self-determination, territorial integrity, economic co-operation, and such motherhood principles of international law, they have not considered the content of these principles by reference to multilateral treaties or customary rules or the mechanisms for their enforcement. They are satisfied with the exposition of values that are undefined with no regard to their binding force or enforceability. In short, they are not rules as they are understood by lawyers. To make matters worse, they have not considered the question whether the RBO and international law are compatible with each other or whether one order is superior to the other.

The indeterminate and undefined nature of the ‘rules’ of the RBO and the failure to consider their relationship with international law has led to the questioning of the reason for the resort to the RBO on the part of the United States. The manner in which the United States has justified apparent violations of international law by its own forces or those of it close friends has inevitably resulted in a cynical, albeit plausible, explanation for the US preference for the RBO.

According to this view, the rules-based international order may be seen as the United States’ alternative to international law, an order that encapsulates international law as interpreted by the United States to accord with its national interests, ‘a chimera, meaning whatever the US and its followers want it to mean at any given time Premised on ‘the United States’ own willingness to ignore, evade or rewrite the rules whenever they seem inconvenientthe RBO is seen to be broad, open to political manipulation and double standards.

First, the United States is not a party to a number of important multilateral treaties that constitute an essential feature of international law. It is not a party to the Law of the Sea Convention which means that it is compelled to reprimand China for threatening the ‘rules-based international order’ in the South China Sea rather than international lawIt is not party to a number of fundamental treaties governing international humanitarian law, including the 1977 Protocols to the Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Convention on Cluster Munitions, and the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention. Nor is it a party to the Rights of the Child Convention or the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Inevitably this makes it difficult for the United States to hold states accountable for violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law to the extent that these rules are not considered by the United States to be part of customary international law.

Second, the United States has placed interpretations on international law justifying the use of force and the violation of international humanitarian law that are controversial and contested. Its interpretation of the right of self-defence to allow pre-emptive strikes and the use of force against insurgents/militants characterized as terrorists are widely disputed. The resort to the use of force as a species of humanitarian intervention in the 1999 bombing of Belgrade, conducted under the auspices of NATO, is likewise disputed. The interpretations placed on Security Council resolutions by the United States and the United Kingdom, to authorize the use of force in Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011have been much criticized as unlawful pretexts for regime change. The denial of prisoner-of-war status to Taliban soldiers detained at Guantanamo Bay following the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2002 has been questioned on the ground that it violates Article 4 of the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. The use of drones in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen to kill hostile militants/terrorists, which the United States has justified as permissible self-defence, has been criticized as a violation of international humanitarian law and human rights law. It seems that the United States finds it more convenient – and possible – to uphold contested interpretations of international law of this kind under the broad ‘rules’ of the RBO than to justify them under the stricter rules of international law.

Third, the United States is unwilling to hold some states, such as Israel, accountable for violations of international law. They are treated as sui generis cases in which the national interest precludes accountability. This exceptionalism in respect of Israel was spelled out by the United States in its joint declaration with Israel on the occasion of President Biden’s visit to Israel in July 2022, which reaffirms ‘the unbreakable bonds between our two countries and the enduring commitment of the United States to Israel’s security’ and the determination of the two states ‘to combat all efforts to boycott or de-legitimize Israel, to deny its right to self-defence, or to single it out in any forum, including at the United Nations or the International Criminal Court’. This commitment explains the consistent refusal of the United States to hold Israel accountable for its repeated violations of humanitarian law, support the prosecution of perpetrators of international crimes before the International Criminal Court, condemn its assaults on Gaza (best portrayed as excessive enforcement of the occupation of Gaza and not self-defence as the United States argues, insist that Israel prosecute killers of a US national (Shireen Abu Akleh), criticize its violation of human rights as established by both the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, accept that Israel applies a policy of apartheid in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and oppose its annexation of East Jerusalem. And, of course, there is the refusal of the United States to acknowledge the existence of Israel’s nuclear arsenal or allow any discussion of it in the context of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.Such measures on the part of Israel are possibly seen as consistent with the ‘rules-based international order’ even if they violate basic rules of international law.

Of course, double standards, exceptionalism, and hypocrisy are a feature of the foreign policies of states that accept international law and do not favour the RBO. Such conduct must be condemned as it undermines the notion of accountability for all states, irrespective of their position and friends in the international community. The amorphous ‘rules’ of the RBO, however, make it easier for a state to provide special treatment to another state and to condone its violations of international law.

Pretty much.

It's quite concerning as to who gets to edit articles in Wikipedia, and thusly sway public "knowledge" and opinion.

1757192584988.png


"Freedom of Navigation" is a nebulous catch phrase used in lieu of the codified UNCLOS, of which America is very surprisingly not a signatory. Real maritime laws actually do exist. UNCLOS, flawed as it is in the way it was set up, has discrete, defined, codified rules.

Along the same lines, the "Rules Based International Order" is a blank check for us to say (and do) whatever we want. Frequently applied as "Rules for thee, not for me."
 
Last edited:
I've said it many times. Let China invest in Africa. It's a fucking waste of money and they will end up fleeing.

1757192968366.png




To cite an example - the region is strategically important for France's geopolitical interests and energy resources, such as Uranium from Niger, which are vital for France's nuclear energy sector. France SELLS electricity to the EU thanks to Uranium from the Sahel.

Apologies for the Google AI post, couldn’t find the article wherein France selling 1/3 of its electricity to the EU is mentioned.

2023. Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise.

1757192957059.png


Sub-Saharan Africa. Africa’s importance to U.S. foreign policy and strategic interests is rising and will only continue to grow. Its explosive population growth, large reserves of industry-dependent minerals, proximity to key maritime shipping routes, and its collective diplomatic power ensure the continent’s global importance. Yet as Afri- ca’s strategic significance has grown, the U.S.’s relative influence there has declined. Terrorist activity on the continent has increased, while America’s competitors are making significant gains for their own national interests. The PRC’s companies dominate the African supply chain for certain minerals critical to emerging tech- nologies. African nations comprise major country-bloc elements that shield the PRC and Russia from international isolation for their human rights abuses—and African nations staunchly support PRC foreign policy goals on issues such as Hong Kong occupation, South China Seas dispute arbitration, and Taiwan.

Counter malign Chinese activity on the continent. This should include the development of powerful public diplomacy efforts to counter Chinese influence campaigns with commitments to freedom of speech and the free flow of information; the creation of a template “digital hygiene” program that African countries can access to sanitize and protect their sensitive communications networks from espionage by the PRC and other hostile actors; the recognition of Somaliland statehood as a hedge against the U.S.’s deteriorating position in Djibouti; and a focus on supporting American companies involved in industries important to U.S. national interests or that have a competitive advantage in Africa.



Our present administration seems to disagree with your views - it would appear that they smell gold.

Cobalt is another hot topic located elsewhere.

South Africa has all fifteen of the Rare Earth Elements.

Knowing that, discounting Africa would seem ignorant.

The Chinese are way too racist and supremacist to operate in Africa anyway. The Africans fucking hate them from what I understand.

Honestly, that sounds like quite a bit of projection.

Racist, supremacist ideologies have largely been a feature of Western Imperial Colonialism (much like how you unknowingly stated the Monroe Doctrine, see below). It would be very hard to argue against that.

The Chinese do tend to be somewhat clannish. While you may be a foreign gweilo that’s never fully “accepted,” in no way would they ever exclude you from opportunities; it may be difficult for you to relate with given your mentality, but that's simply not how they roll.



This video's more of clickbait, but the Namibian president's choice of words - never mind his thick accent - is perfect.

I'm certain there are Africans who hate the Chinese. The world isn't perfect.



Try this one, "Empire of Dust."

It's grittier and more adherent to harsh realities.

Keep them the fuck out of South America. That's where our interests lie. Africa can go fuck itself for all I care. I am never going back there.

1757193066850.png


re: what you said about South America - that sounds exactly like the Monroe Doctrine. It's deeply rooted in the Colonial Imperialism mindset. While it isn’t Colonial Imperialism per se in the traditional sense, it is certainly about asserting dominance and control over the western hemisphere, our so - called "back yard."

It's a big planet, there's lots of places for everybody to go - Africa won't miss any of us.

With the way you refer to Africa - I'm curious - did the Africans do something to you while you were there? Did the Africa s ask you to perform, or were you subjected to, any acts - perhaps even BBCs - against your will?

So, you think we're a hegemony, and you have no problem with China supplanting us, because we're no better than they are?



I most certainly have some reservations, but I find it difficult saying no to that...

It isn't so much what I think - but there is absolutely no question whatsoever that we are a hegemony.



Look, even BoJo has no trouble saying the quiet part out loud.

I'm very surprised you're unaware of this.

The concept has been widely discussed since 2001, perhaps even earlier, and remains part of regular collegiate discourse to this day.

Please also note Jeffrey Sachs’ opinion on the British Empire, regarding your prior comment on the British being the "best colonial masters."

The great thing about being a cynical conspiracy theorist is never having to say you are sorry or wrong, because every piece of information that does not conform to your preconceptions is dismissed as propaganda.

Oh, far from it.

Most of the tidbits I mentioned have likewise been discussed extensively in decades past by John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs, the very same voices calling for an end to the Ukraine conflict.

You might even say that I haven't really brought anything new to the table, and I won't deny it.

For the most part, it's now open knowledge...

The foreign policy papers are pretty much cookbooks detailing how we attempt to destabilize countries.

The steps are spelled out in amazing detail.

Try reading them.
 
Last edited:

The Real History of the War in Ukraine

A Chronology of Events and Case for Diplomacy


JEFFREY D. SACHS
JUL 17, 2023


By Jeffrey D. Sachs, Special to The Kennedy Beacon

The American people urgently need to know the true history of the war in Ukraine and its current prospects. Unfortunately, the mainstream media—The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, MSNBC, and CNN—have become mere mouthpieces of the government, repeating US President Joe Biden’s lies and hiding history from the public.

Biden is again denigrating Russian President Vladimir Putin, this time accusing Putin of a “craven lust for land and power,” after declaring last year that “For God’s sake, that man [Putin] cannot stay in power.” Yet Biden is the one who is trapping Ukraine in an open-ended war by continuing to push NATO enlargement to Ukraine. He is afraid to tell the truth to the American and Ukrainian people, rejecting diplomacy, and opting instead for perpetual war.

Expanding NATO to Ukraine, which Biden has long promoted, is a U.S. gambit that has failed. The neocons, including Biden, thought from the late 1990s onward that the US could expand NATO to Ukraine (and Georgia) despite Russia’s vociferous and long-standing opposition. They didn’t believe that Putin would actually go to war over NATO expansion.

Yet for Russia, NATO enlargement to Ukraine (and Georgia) is viewed as an existential threat to Russia’s national security, notably given Russia’s 2,000-km border with Ukraine, and Georgia’s strategic position on the eastern edge of the Black Sea. U.S. diplomats have explained this basic reality to U.S. politicians and generals for decades, but the politicians and generals have arrogantly and crudely persisted in pushing NATO enlargement nonetheless.

At this point, Biden knows full well that NATO enlargement to Ukraine would trigger World War III. That’s why behind the scenes Biden put NATO enlargement into low gear at the Vilnius NATO Summit. Yet rather than admit the truth – that Ukraine will not be part of NATO – Biden prevaricates, promising Ukraine’s eventual membership. In reality, he is committing Ukraine to ongoing bloodletting for no reason other than U.S. domestic politics, specifically Biden’s fear of looking weak to his political foes. (A half-century ago, Presidents Johnson and Nixon sustained the Vietnam War for essentially the same pathetic reason, and with the same lying, as the late Daniel Ellsberg brilliantly explained.)

Ukraine can’t win. Russia is more likely than not to prevail on the battlefield, as it seems now to be doing. Yet even if Ukraine were to break through with conventional forces and NATO weaponry, Russia would escalate to nuclear war if necessary to prevent NATO in Ukraine.

Throughout his entire career, Biden has served the military-industrial complex. He has relentlessly promoted NATO enlargement and supported America’s deeply destabilizing wars of choice in Afghanistan, Serbia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and now Ukraine. He defers to generals who want more war and more “surges,” and who predict imminent victory just ahead to keep the gullible public onside.

Moreover, Biden and his team (Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, Victoria Nuland) seem to have believed their own propaganda that Western sanctions would strangle the Russian economy, while miracle weapons such as HIMARS would defeat Russia. And all the while, they have been telling Americans to pay no attention to Russia’s 6,000 nuclear weapons.

Ukrainian leaders have gone along with the US deception for reasons that are hard to fathom. Perhaps they believe the US, or are afraid of the US, or fear their own extremists, or simply are extremists, ready to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians to death and injury in the naïve belief that Ukraine can defeat a nuclear superpower that regards the war as existential. Or possibly some of the Ukrainian leaders are making fortunes by skimming from the tens of billions of dollars of Western aid and arms.

The only way to save Ukraine is a negotiated peace. In a negotiated settlement, the US would agree that NATO will not enlarge to Ukraine while Russia would agree to withdraw its troops. Remaining issues – Crimea, the Donbas, US and European sanctions, the future of European security arrangements – would be handled politically, not by endless war.

Russia has repeatedly tried negotiations: to try to forestall the eastward enlargement of NATO; to try to find suitable security arrangements with the US and Europe; to try to settle inter-ethnic issues in Ukraine after 2014 (the Minsk I and Minsk II agreements); to try to sustain limits on anti-ballistic missiles; and to try to end the Ukraine war in 2022 via direct negotiations with Ukraine. In all cases, the US government disdained, ignored, or blocked these attempts, often putting forward the big lie that Russia rather than the US rejects negotiations. JFK said it exactly right in 1961: “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.” If only Biden would heed JFK’s enduring wisdom.

To help the public move beyond the simplistic narrative of Biden and the mainstream media, I offer a brief chronology of some key events leading to the ongoing war.

January 31, 1990. German Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich-Genscher pledges to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that in the context of German reunification and disbanding of the Soviet Warsaw Pact military alliance, NATO will rule out an “expansion of its territory to the East, i.e., moving it closer to the Soviet borders.”

February 9, 1990. U.S. Secretary of State James Baker III agrees with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.”

June 29 – July 2, 1990. NATO Secretary-General Manfred Woerner tells a high-level Russian delegation that “the NATO Council and he [Woerner] are against the expansion of NATO.”

July 1, 1990. Ukrainian Rada (parliament) adopts the Declaration of State Sovereignty, in which “The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three nuclear free principles: to accept, to produce and to purchase no nuclear weapons.”

August 24, 1991. Ukraine declares independence on the basis of the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty, which includes the pledge of neutrality.

Mid-1992. Bush Administration policymakers reach a secret internal consensus to expand NATO, contrary to commitments recently made to the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation.

July 8, 1997. At the Madrid NATO Summit, Poland, Hungary, and Czech Republic are invited to begin NATO accession talks.

September-October, 1997. In Foreign Affairs (Sept/Oct, 1997) former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski details the timeline for NATO enlargement, with Ukraine’s negotiations provisionally to begin during 2005-2010.

March 24 – June 10, 1999. NATO bombs Serbia. Russia terms the NATO bombing “a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter."

March 2000. Ukrainian President Kuchma declares that "there is no question of Ukraine joining NATO today since this issue is extremely complex and has many angles to it.”

June 13, 2002. The US unilaterally withdraws from the Anti-Ballistic Weapons Treaty, an action which the Vice-Chair of the Russian Duma Defense Committee characterizes as an “extremely negative event of historical scale.”

November-December 2004. The “Orange Revolution” occurs in Ukraine, events that the West characterizes as a democratic revolution and the Russian government characterizes as a Western-manufactured grab for power with overt and covert US support.

February 10, 2007. Putin strongly criticizes the U.S. attempt to create a unipolar world, backed by NATO enlargement, in a speech to the Munich Security Conference, declaring: “I think it is obvious that NATO expansion … represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?”

February 1, 2008. US Ambassador to Russia William Burns sends a confidential cableto U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, entitled “Nyet means Nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines,” emphasizing that “Ukraine and Georgia's NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region.”

February 18, 2008. The US recognizes Kosovo independence over heated Russian objections. The Russian Government declares that Kosovo independence violates “the sovereignty of the Republic of Serbia, the Charter of the United Nations, UNSCR 1244, the principles of the Helsinki Final Act, Kosovo’s Constitutional Framework and the high-level Contact Group accords."

April 3, 2008. NATO declares that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members of NATO.” Russia declares that “Georgia’s and Ukraine’s membership in the alliance is a huge strategic mistake which would have most serious consequences for pan-European security.”

August 20, 2008. The US announces that it will deploy ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems in Poland, to be followed later by Romania. Russia expresses strenuous opposition to the BMD systems.

January 28, 2014. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt plot regime change in Ukraine in a call that is intercepted and posted on YouTube on February 7, in which Nuland notes that “[Vice President] Biden’s willing” to help close the deal.

February 21, 2014. Governments of Ukraine, Poland, France, and Germany reach an Agreement on settlement of political crisis in Ukraine, calling for new elections later in the year. The far-right Right Sector and other armed groups instead demand Yanukovych’s immediate resignation, and take over government buildings. Yanukovych flees. The Parliament immediately strips the President of his powers without an impeachment process.

February 22, 2014. The US immediately endorses the regime change.

March 16, 2014. Russia holds a referendum in Crimea that according to the Russian Government results in a large majority vote for Russian rule. On March 21, the Russian Duma votes to admit Crimea to the Russian Federation. The Russian Government draws the analogy to the Kosovo referendum. The US rejects the Crimea referendum as illegitimate.

March 18, 2014. President Putin characterizes the regime change as a coup, stating: “those who stood behind the latest events in Ukraine had a different agenda: they were preparing yet another government takeover; they wanted to seize power and would stop short of nothing. They resorted to terror, murder and riots.”

March 25, 2014. President Barack Obama mocks Russia “as a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors — not out of strength but out of weakness,”

February 12, 2015. Signing of Minsk II agreement. The agreement is unanimously backed by the UN Security Council Resolution 2202 on February 17, 2015. Former Chancellor Angela Merkel later acknowledges that the Minsk II agreement was designed to give time for Ukraine to strengthen its military. It was not implemented by Ukraine, and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy acknowledged that he had no intention to implement the agreement.

February 1, 2019. The U.S. unilaterally withdraws from the Intermediate Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty. Russia harshly criticizes the INF withdrawal as a “destructive” act that stoked security risks.

June 14, 2021. At the 2021 NATO Summit in Brussels, NATO reconfirms NATO’s intention to enlarge and include Ukraine: “We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance.”

September 1, 2021. The US reiterates support for Ukraine’s NATO aspirations in the “Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership.”

December 17, 2021. Putin puts forward a draft “Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Security Guarantees,” based on non-enlargement of NATO and limitations on the deployment of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles.

January 26, 2022. The U.S. formally replies to Russia that the US and NATO will not negotiate with Russia over issues of NATO enlargement, slamming the door on a negotiated path to avoid an expansion of the war in Ukraine. The U.S. invokes NATO policy that “Any decision to invite a country to join the Alliance is taken by the North Atlantic Council on the basis of consensus among all Allies. No third country has a say in such deliberations.” In short, the US asserts that NATO enlargement to Ukraine is none of Russia’s business.

February 21, 2022. At a meeting of the Russian Security Council, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov details the U.S. refusal to negotiate: “We received their response in late January. The assessment of this response shows that our Western colleagues are not prepared to take up our major proposals, primarily those on NATO’s eastward non-expansion. This demand was rejected with reference to the bloc’s so-called open-door policy and the freedom of each state to choose its own way of ensuring security. Neither the United States, nor the North Atlantic Alliance proposed an alternative to this key provision.” The United States is doing everything it can to avoid the principle of indivisibility of security that we consider of fundamental importance and to which we have made many references. Deriving from it the only element that suits them – the freedom to choose alliances – they completely ignore everything else, including the key condition that reads that nobody – either in choosing alliances or regardless of them – is allowed to enhance their security at the expense of the security of others.”

February 24, 2022. In an address to the nation, President Putin declares: “It is a fact that over the past 30 years we have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns. Its military machine is moving and, as I said, is approaching our very border.”

March 16, 2022. Russia and Ukraine announce significant progress towards a peace agreement mediated by Turkey and Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett. As reported in the press, the basis of the agreement includes: “a ceasefire and Russian withdrawal if Kyiv declares neutrality and accepts limits on its armed forces.”

March 28, 2022. President Zelenskyy publicly declares that Ukraine is ready for neutrality combined with security guarantees as part of a peace agreement with Russia. “Security guarantees and neutrality, the non-nuclear status of our state — we’re ready to do that. That’s the most important point ... they started the war because of it.”

April 7, 2022. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov accuses the West of trying to derail the peace talks, claiming that Ukraine had gone back on previously agreed proposals. Prime Minister Naftali Bennett later states (on February 5, 2023) that the U.S. had blocked the pending Russia-Ukraine peace agreement. When asked if the Western powers blocked the agreement, Bennett answered: “Basically, yes. They blocked it, and I thought they were wrong.” At some point, says Bennett, the West decided “to crush Putin rather than to negotiate.”

June 4, 2023. Ukraine launches a major counter-offensive, without achieving any major success as of mid-July 2023.

July 7, 2023. Biden acknowledges that Ukraine is “running out” of 155mm artillery shells, and that the US is “running low.”

July 11, 2023. At the NATO Summit in Vilnius, the final communique reaffirms Ukraine’s future in NATO: “We fully support Ukraine’s right to choose its own security arrangements. Ukraine’s future is in NATO … Ukraine has become increasingly interoperable and politically integrated with the Alliance, and has made substantial progress on its reform path.”

July 13, 2023. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin reiterates that Ukraine will “no doubt” join NATO when the war ends.

July 13, 2023. Putin reiterates that “As for Ukraine’s NATO membership, as we have said many times, this obviously creates a threat to Russia’s security. In fact, the threat of Ukraine’s accession to NATO is the reason, or rather one of the reasons for the special military operation. I am certain that this would not enhance Ukraine’s security in any way either. In general, it will make the world much more vulnerable and lead to more tensions in the international arena. So, I don’t see anything good in this. Our position is well known and has long been formulated.”
 
1757300540616.png

1757300548815.png

1757300557579.png

1757316023513.png

IMG_8630.jpeg

1757300569425.png

1757300584237.png

1757300632158.png

1757300642508.png








So y dis?

Rhetorical question.

We all know it's about liberating the local population, as well as ensuring freedom and democracy.

1757300684840.png


Well, shoot.

Now they're getting all provocative after we blew their boat out of the water.

What is wrong with these pesky Venezuelans?!



Could all of this have been about Maduro's Huawei phone?!
LAUGHTER_10.gif


re: Ecuador and its current president:

1. Daniel Noboa was born in Miami, Florida and has dual Ecuadorean and American citizenship​
2. His father is a billionaire who is thought to have shipped cocaine to America in banana crates through his business.​
3. Needs to be verified: Ecuador either has or is in the process of passing legislation that allows the U.S. military to come and go without permission​

Colombia was highlighted previously, doesn't sound like a happy place, and I need better references (for all these Latin American countries).

Long story short, the known and most active drug traffickers are

1. American Client States following the mold of “Banana Republics”​
2. Have a well - documented drug productivity and market history in papers from our very own DoS, DEA​
3. Entities are very analogous to American allies in Afghanistan and SEAsia (major Opium / Heroin producers)​
4. Said “narco - states” are presently not being targeted, much like the Northern Alliance wasn't​
5. Venezuela simply isn’t one of these “narco - states,” but their land does have a lot of interesting, extractable goodies​

It would appear that the pretext for the present military intervention in Venezuela is rooted in ulterior motives...

< sarcasm >



Well, well…

Oooh, that video is around half a decade old.

Time to cue in the "Monroe Doctrine" nevertheless.

Present events would probably make for some interesting further reading.
 
Last edited:

So trump is saving us money by having unjust wars closer to home?
Seems to me, w/o demand, there would be no supply need. Why do we always wage war on the effect instead of the root issue, all the while blaming others for our own personal weakness? Could it be the leadership here in the past 60-70+ years has sucked so bad that people have to take drugs to cope with their pathetic lives? Seems like breeding weak people is now job one,...
 
So trump is saving us money by having unjust wars closer to home?
Seems to me, w/o demand, there would be no supply need. Why do we always wage war on the effect instead of the root issue, all the while blaming others for our own personal weakness? Could it be the leadership here in the past 60-70+ years has sucked so bad that people have to take drugs to cope with their pathetic lives? Seems like breeding weak people is now job one,...

Who knows, honestly.

There seems to be no rhyme nor reason, and it gets worse with each passing day.

I made a mistake regarding that video - that event was six years ago.
 
Who knows, honestly.

There seems to be no rhyme nor reason, and it gets worse with each passing day.

I made a mistake regarding that video - that event was six years ago.
The TU 160's showing up, seems to have changed the game somewhat. What a bunch of dumb fucks, going to war to support the MIC over an effect, that the weakest people in this country caused & demand just to get through each day,...

edit to add;