gearhog

I've been making my way through this page. Fascinating debates by our founding fathers about their concerns when writing the Constitution. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp I found this passage pertaining to John Madison's speech to be particularly relevant today. It's from June 29th. "His great fear was that their Governments would then have too much energy, that these might not only be formidable in the large to the small States, but fatal to the internal liberty of all. The same causes which have rendered the old world the Theatre of incessant wars, & have banished liberty from the face of it, would soon produce the same effects here. The weakness & jealousy of the small States would quickly introduce some regular military force against sudden danger from their powerful neighbours. The example would be followed by others, and would soon become universal. In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of war, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. It is perhaps questionable, whether the best concerted system of absolute power in Europe could maintain itself, in a situation, where no alarms of external danger could tame the people to the domestic yoke. The insular situation of G. Britain was the principal cause of her being an exception to the general fate of Europe. It has rendered less defence necessary, and admitted a kind of defence which could not be used for the purpose of oppression. -These consequences he conceived ought to be apprehended whether the States should run into a total separation from each other, or shd. enter into partial confederacies. Either event wd. be truly deplorable; & those who might be accessary to either, could never be forgiven by their Country, nor by themselves."

The only person who has mentioned or linked to RT is you. Am I wrong? Quote the post. The best you can do is... stil... a random unsourced screenshot of an unknown person claiming the podcast is linked, but by multiple layers of separation. This is called the "straw man argument" and you can add it to your growing list of dubious debate tactics. It would be so cool if you would just acknowledge, address, and debate the actual specific pieces of information you disagree with. You'll also find it's much easier than using your repertoire of tactics to do anything but. Yes, RT is an outlet for state propaganda. This is not new information and I thought it was so obvious that I didn't need to make a confession to you. We in the US, also have dozens of media outlets coordinating with government officials to censor dissenting information and distribute approved information. That shouldn't be new information, either. Do you not know this? It's just a fact of life that both sides carry water for both governments. Objectively, usable information can still be gleaned. There is virtually no unbiased information floating around out there. All of it has to be taken with a grain of salt, deconstructed, and it's parts evaluated. Not only do you refuse to do any of this, but admit that you don't even know who has deemed that info as false. And then you wave it around to everyone shouting "PROOF!" It's mind-bending. I'm not here just to be contrarian. My motivations are not a problem for me or anyone else. I'm not being creative here. Lying takes effort and this is effortless. These things are as apparent to me as going inside, pointing up and saying "Hey, the sky is blue" and being met with a chorus of angry people saying "Why did you go outside? WTF? Putin also thinks the sky is blue you Russian shill! It's not always blue, sometimes it's gray, liar! Whatabout the clouds? They're white, moron!" I only want people to consider than they're being manipulated. What is the alternative to Bashi or me or anyone else posting here with a different perspective? Would you rather have a little circle jerk with only the people who wear the same blinders you do? That's what it seems like. You're actually arguing that you don't have first hand knowledge or critical thinking skills. You just let other strange people on the internet tell you what info you should and should not look at. I find it fascinating anyone operates like that.

If it weren't for the US, wouldn't Russia win? Virtually all of our leadership has been saying this. There's countless examples of Ukrainian corruption. It's been over two years. I've lost count of the funding, but I think we're closing in on $200 Billion, yet the front lines haven't moved much at all. What are we going to get for another $200 Billion? Who exactly is bleeding whom dry? It's not apparent. I don't want to believe that maybe we're the ones being played, but I have to wonder. Just a mention of the players involved elicits an overwhelming bias. If we were somehow able to examine this exact same battlefield scenario while replacing the names of the states involved with Moravia, Tiberistan, etc.. I think many people would feel differently. One of us may post a vid of a Russian plane crash, and another responds with Ukr tank on fire. No one knows what's going on. It's all third hand information. The only thing that can be known is that the war is still raging.. when it shouldn't be. If winning this war was as important as they'd like you to believe - it'd have already been over. As I've said before: there's no money in the cure. I'd think by now people would understand the playbook. It's just routine now. 1. Find a crisis and exacerbate it. If one doesn't exist, create it. 2. Full-court press on the propaganda front to appeal to public fear and garner support. 3. Transfer hundreds of billions of dollars from the public sector to the private sector. It's like taking candy from a baby and everyone's falling for it. Every. Single. Time. Let's just admit we're completely lost in apathy and gullibility.

That restaurant metaphor wasn't mine. You seem to have this blind implicit trust in anyone that happens to be in a position of authority. Wouldn't you want to know why something was deemed unsafe rather than just accept anything someone says at face value just because they happen to be aligned with your beliefs? It's easy to fool someone, but it takes 10x the effort to convince most people that they've been fooled. You're so deep into the approved narrative that you're unwilling to even listen. In this case, the link/play button for the podcast in question was directly in front of your face, one click away. But you chose to navigate away/open up another page, do a google search, screenshot a random claim of that podcast being Russian propaganda, which was substantiated only by other media outlets making baseless claims. Then you had to copy/save/upload/post it, and act all condescending like it was the gospel, while not one step in your entire process contained an original thought of your own, a source, or specific point. It's bewildering that you, a self-proclaimed professional military officer, would try to pass this off as some sort of astute deductive reasoning. It's so glaringly intellectually dishonest, it's insulting that you would expect anyone to even consider that you might have a valid position. It seems crazy to me that you somehow thought that was the best/most honest COA. If you were correct in your assessment, it would have been far easier for you, and more difficult for me to refute, if you'd have listened to 5-10 minutes and said "Here are some of the claims being made... and they're false Russia propaganda because here are the facts..." I could respect that. But we both know why that didn't happen: When you know your position can't be adequately defended or finding a flaw in the opposing argument proves too difficult... name-calling, hyperbole, and ad hominem are the preferred tactics. Not one person on this website has ever, ever, been a cheerleader for Russia as much as you would like to paint them as such. Many of us here have, however, reasonably argued that our US leadership shares some (not all) amount of the blame for the origination of the chaos and conflict we are experiencing, as well as the continuous funding and intensification of multiple conflicts on multiple fronts. No one here hates America, and no one wants America to fail. But it's easy for our obviously corrupt leadership to lead us further into trouble when they have people like you willing to do these ridiculous logical gymnastics to justify their actions and cock block dissident voices because you don't want to be proven wrong.

Uh… yeah? I do around 8 overnights a month, and I make it a point to explore new places, look at the menu, and experience things for myself. I don’t understand how you mean that as a criticism. What would you suggest? Read a single review and repeat it to everyone I know without any first hand knowledge? This is what I meant when I asked if you read your posts from the perspective of others. I’m sure it sounded like a zinger in your own head, but….??

That's a lot of typing to say you don't know what info you're labeling as Russian propaganda, but it isn't going to stop you.

I noticed you never addressed any specific claims in the podcast. If you are an honest person, what specific claims or false information were in that podcast that you feel were dangerous and subversive? You didn't listen to it. You just googled it and the proof you provided was a screenshot of an unknown website that actually uses the word "accuses" in reference to other media outlets making claims about the podcast being Russian propaganda. How is that any more substantive than you simply making those claims without any proof and no screenshot. Again, I find it difficult to believe you, a professional military officer, is posting these things without pausing, stepping back, and seeing how little sense it makes. I don't know anything about that podcast and my schedule is full, so I probably won't listen... but why should anyone trust you for slapping RP labels on something, only because it was posted by BC? I read one of your earlier posts on population or whatever earlier and it actually made sense, but what if I were to dismiss it because I automatically label everything you say as BS? You're not being honest.

Curious, do you ever read what you write from the perspective of someone else? You often make some good points, yet sometimes post things that are bizarre. These things jump off the page when I read them as glaringly obvious. Perhaps you don't realize name-calling and hyperbole in the first sentence makes your position seem weaker. You seem to be affirming that "Yes, we do have PsyOp programs" and "the ends justifies the means", which is a widely accepted Machiavellian principle. That those means won't also be used against you should your interests diverge seems incredibly naive. And lastly, you seem to be calling the people on your side A-holes while simultaneously expressing faith that those same assholes have you and your children's best interests in mind. It seems completely inverted because you're the one defending them for foreign policy decisions that will result in conflict for you and your family. You care about them more than they care about you. I'm not trying to attack you, but it does seem crazy to me.

Something something liberty and safety.

I thought you were talking about a Russian podcast since that was the example you provided. I just wondered if we had an equivalent state funded controlled media foreign propaganda outlet. ...And apparently we do, although they may not have the power and reach of the 250th ranked podcast in the US. Thanks, I was completely unaware that these existed. I am happy to know they aren't dangerous or subversive, because I wouldn't want to know that we were being hypocritical.

This made me wonder if we also have any Psyop outlets. If so, what would they be?

If the equation is simplified as: scale * consumption = global warming, does it make any logical sense whatsoever that those who are imposing climate change policies would only treat scale as a constant, and consumption as a variable? They're both variable. And as was said above, those advocating for the policies to stop global warming are saying they're for reducing consumption, but their actions indicate they'd like that to be the constant. I don't think they're stupid.

Perhaps you're right, the war will be fought economically. If one wanted to slowly weaken, bleed, and defeat Russia, here's how we should go about it: Economically: First, we get Russia to spend themselves into oblivion. Interfere in their elections by funding Communists and leftists. That's assuming they have free and fair elections. Once their domestic spending outpaces their GDP by a substantial amount, we compel them to send hundreds of billions of dollars more to foreign governments. They'll be forced to further into debt, using creative tools to sustain their economy. Soon, they won't be able to maintain an infrastructure, the Russian standard of living declines, and social unrest ensues. I also see other strategic opportunities to weaken Russia: Socially: Using technology and social media, we inundate it's population with propaganda. We flood them with polarizing ideas and political ideologies. We create organizations that fund the migration of millions of poverty level people, particularly military age young men, from a vast array of cultural, religious backgrounds, creating a further strain on resources and social cohesion. Sponsor protests. Encourage violence. Militarily: Focus on making Russian military service an undesirable career choice. Create a recruiting crisis that shrinks the size of their military. Make them reliant on complex technologies with multiple single points of failure and insanely expensive acquisitions processes instead of mass and production. Create cognitive dissonance by telling Russians they're fighting for the nobel principles Russia was founded on while simultaneously incentivizing Russian politicians to destroy those principles. Energy: Make them deplete their energy reserves and hamstring domestic production by making them adhere to global climate change policies. Make them reliant on foreign cheap oil. I could go on, but I see plenty of opportunities to weaken Russia over the long term. The key is, it takes time. We can't allow ourselves to be provoked into an overreaction, massive escalation, or direct military conflict. If we're patient, Russia will eventually collapse from within.

I just learned today that our President's uncle was a pilot. And he was eaten by cannibals. Yuck! And it reminds him of Trump. Double Yuck! https://x.com/Breaking911/status/1780666424513470596

It's been decided. Ukraine is failing. We're going to war. General Christopher G. Cavoli is the CC of the European Command and the NATO Supreme Allied Commander. Here are some of his remarks at the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing. Tuberbille: "It's obvious to me just being in all these meetings uh and hearings not just you of other people we're getting ready to go to war with Russia uh have we got a game plan for that for how many people we're going to need on the ground young men and women from uh United States when this war starts?" Cavoli: "Sir, we have standing operational plans um around the globe for a variety of problems." Tuberbille: "How many do you think it's going to take for us to beat Russia? Because Ukraine can't beat Russia." Cavoli: "Sir, can I take that in close session please, sir?" Tuberville: "Okay, uh what about the budget? 60 billion is going to be a drop in the bucket to the American taxpayer we're 35 trillion in debt what is this going to cost us I know y'all surely put the numbers to that uh of of our conflict versus uh Russia when this all starts have we done that?" Cavoli: "Sir, um the number I would have to talk in close session about also um but I agree if we were to go to war with Russia in uh um it would the the money we're spending in Ukraine would be a drop in the bucket." Tuberville: "Yeah, where where are we going to get our energy from uh when this starts because they don't have any in Europe uh uh the Saudis I don't know where they're going to help us out uh we're going to have to buy it from Ukraine I guess I mean Iran CU we're not pumping the oil and gas that we need where we going to get our fuel for a war like this." Cavoli: "Sir, that that's outside of my area of expertise but I'm sure I can get you the answer." Tuberville: "Do we have enough right now uh you know to get a war started uh on the ground there for our troops?" ... Cavoli "I would agree with that for instance the US Army is now 450,000 when I joined it it was 785,000. Tuberville: "With Ukraine um fighting right now as they are uh do we have any count of numbers of how many soldiers that they have actually fighting uh that they have in their military against Russia?" Cavoli: "It's between 900,000 and a million right now" Tuberville: "How about Russia? How many they have uh deployed uh within Ukraine not not on the borders but how many do they have deployed in Ukraine?" Cavoli: "Inside the country 470,000 outside the country more and then they have the rest of their military" Tuberville: "Yeah my understanding is after the uh Massacre they have been growing at 40,000 uh soldiers a month that are volunteering for the military.is is that pretty good Intel or not?" Cavoli: "I'm tracking 30,000 but yes, the size of the Russian military is bigger today than it was when the war started and it's bigger today than when the massacre started."

The cycle does repeat, and Strauss and Howe do a great job illustrating that what we're going through today isn't new, but the circumstances and concerns of a vastly different population with vastly different technologies are. Never before have this many people been lifted this far out of poverty. A reversion to the mean would be a disaster unlike any previous cycle. Never before have this many people believed that not only will we suffer at the hands of human governance in the crisis phase, but that we are also now approaching planetary constraints in terms of environment/resources. No one can say how true it is at this moment in time, but unlimited consumption in a finite system isn't sustainable. People are compelled to take extreme actions on that belief now, and I don't think that can be said of any previous saeculum. I know it's cliche, but the closet example in history to the American empire is the Roman empire. As it endured through many cycles, it ultimately fell completely, and for many of the same reasons we're experiencing today. During this saeculum, America has dominated the world in nearly every aspect of civilization: Technology, Innovation, Production, Society, Freedom, Humanitarianism, but those things did come at a cost. We may have begun self-reliant, but we currently draw upon human resources around the world to sustain our advancement, e.g. Iphone. It's subjective, but I think one could argue that we've been operating under the law of diminishing marginal returns for a while, and may be entering an era of negative returns. America no longer exists to provide you, me, our grandkids, friends, and neighbors with the highest levels of safety, security and standard of living in history. It is a means to provide the corporatists you mentioned earlier with those things. Now that we are reaching a sufficient level of advancement where they may not require the productive efforts of many Americans, or even other populations to ensure their security, they must address the issue of "useless eaters". America, Western nations, and their ideologies are being dismantled. Immigration, reduction of freedoms, destruction of culture, civil unrest, inflation, taxation, household and national debts, sustainability efforts, and engagement in conflict are the attempts and methods being used to level the playing field. Perhaps our grandkids would stand on a holodeck one day, but it won't be as Americans, it'll be as members of the United Citizen Federation. lol.

100%. But the thing that troubles me is, if I want to be consistent in my thinking, I have to consider the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed as a result of our response to a terrorist attack. How does one reconcile their opinion of those two operations without being hypocritical?

Just some thoughts on your post: If there was a corporatist takeover of the US government, then by definition, it would have been in the interests of financial gain. Have significant gains been realized by these stakeholders? I think we can say "Yes"... owning and controlling the US government to the extent that they do has vastly increased their position. So much so, that they now have even greater power and resources to replicate those gains if the processes and methods were applied on a larger scale. When you, as an individual, are worth billions and the institutions that you control are worth trillions, where do your loyalties lie and why would you have any? When you have effectively unlimited wealth, you might begin to look outside the US and have ideas about the state of the world as a whole (as we all do), but then begin thinking that you or your institution has the resources and power to manifest the direction you think it should take. Climate change, economics and disparities, sustainability, rogue governments, population, whatever, all become issues that you may find yourself within reach of affecting change in. However, if you're controlling the most powerful nation in the history of the planet, and you begin to see retards elected as a voice for the population, you may perceive a threat. If those retards begin to adversely affect your global ambitions, you may begin to see Democracy as a threat. What are you gonna do? NOT make an attempt to manipulate the process? Say Trump is poised to become elected in spite of your attempts to put your thumb on the scale and affect the outcome. Would you go so far as to intentionally and fundamentally weaken the USA, which you no longer have a loyalty to, economically and societally so they pose less of a threat even if the retards take over? How would you do it? Crisis? They occur naturally, so why not make hay each and every time one occurs? When a crisis occurs, exacerbate it. Chaos yields opportunity and we can see that in each and every crisis that has unfolded in recent memory, wealth and power has become more concentrated. War has always been a fantastic excuse and I'll agree, we're going to see bloodshed. A lot of it, because it solves lots of (their) problems. The US is being indebted, wealth is transferred to the profiteers, and the enemy is not being defeated. We do not defeat enemies because there is more money in the treatment than the cure. However, I will say there will never be a "reinvigoration" of American desire for competent leadership because there won't be an America as we have always thought of it. American ideals and values are diverging and there is no way it's going back to the way any of us here think of it. There is no putting this back together. Something new may emerge and it may be called America, but it won't bear any resemblance to the country that was established according to our founding documents.

Congrats, brother. Seriously. The Air Force itself is struggling to navigate a rapidly changing world and it doesn't appear to be doing a very good job. It thinks it doesn't want you because you haven't performed all the ridiculous requirements to make rank. We have a failing foreign policy, and at some point in the near future, you're going to be caught up in it. If you were to make Maj, you'd be eligible for more non-flying BS with more responsibility and zero ability to affect any change. Happiness is a trajectory, not a position. Is making Maj really going to put you on an upward vector where you'll continuously find increasing satisfaction with your life? You may think so, because I did, but it's only because you've normalized and become accustomed to military life. You can now identify a point in the future where you will have near unlimited possibilities. You'll be young, have received millions of dollars in training in education, an outstanding resume, and the freedom to choose your own path. No one but you will care if you got passed over. I left AD AF as a Captain under a VSP program. One of my best decisions. I did go back to the Guard, which I enjoyed for a while, but then felt trapped to stay in because I was close to the retirement bennies. But having the ability to determine your own future outside the AF is a gift with a bow on it. Now you can just fly and give the finger to all the other AF careerist pressures. If you do go to the Guard/Reserve, they'll pick you up once passed over no problem. Twice passed over requires a big waiver (or at least it once did).

Good point. DoS officials should be checking with the Twitter Feed Verification Department before making such wild claims.