Thursday, April 28, 2016

War and the Sheeple

"Society is, always has been and always will be a structure for the exploitation and oppression of the majority through systems of political force dictated by an élite, enforced by thugs, uniformed or not, and upheld by a willful ignorance and stupidity on the part of the very majority whom the system oppresses." - Richard K. Morgan

I try to keep things simple. When it comes to war:

War is a racket (as Smedley Butler noticed).

Soldiers are pawns (the booger-eating Jew war criminal Henry Kissinger called them “stupid animals”).

The rich get richer and everyone else else gets poorer.

The rich and politically connected start the wars; the poor fight them (“Rich man’s war, poor man’s fight”).

Patriotism is not the last refuge of scoundrels but the first.

There are not separate wars but one war with breathers in between (WWI led to WWII; WII lead to Korea, then Vietnam…).

Rulers are an odd sort - cowardly wolves.The masses are sheeple.

In war there is no murder (“collateral damage”).

Countries have no friends, just shifting alliances.

The sheeple are hypnotized, otherwise they would not continually get led to their slaughter.

The excuse for every war is that we are under attack by insane, bloodthirsty monsters. It's amazing the number of people who fall for it.


Anonymous said...

The Germans and their descendants have given and contributed so much to what makes up our modern world and civilization, yet they have been cast as the bad guys throughout history, when they are in fact quite the opposite, and unfairly maligned, and mistreated (read the book: "The German Genius" by Peter Watson if you don't believe this and come to your own honest, objective conclusions).

I wish more people cared.

Anonymous said...

Historian David Irving debunks holocaust in 3 min:

Glen Filthie said...

Clap. Clap. Clap.

Bravo, Uncle Bob! You know - I think I had one of your star pupils over at my blog the other day and you must have taught him well indeed - he pontificates just like you!


Boys - ALL wars are about two things, sometimes three: money, power...and sometimes sex - but very seldom. Contrary to Unca Bob, war is very much a rich man's sport! George Bush (who is going to look like a visionary 10 years from now) - flew fighter jets. Prince Harry served in Afghanistan. Only recently has America been electing poxy peaceniks and cowardly draft dodgers like Blowjob Bill Clinton and his shrew of a wife. In Gulf War 1 and 2 US combatants were all volunteers. They came from middle and upper class families. In case ya hadn't noticed - modern armies can't run on low skill/low IQ draftees - else all our wars would be fought by drafted negroes.

And - hell's bells, Bob! Are are you seriously going to sit there and defend the reputation of men like Saddam Hussein? How many mass graves do ya gotta see? Good grief, the atrocities and crimes against humanity are a matter of public record. Yes, the man and his machine state WERE monsters.

And finally to correct our trolling host - yes it matters very much who controls that money and power as China found out when Imperial Japan rolled in and ethnically cleansed entire CITIES. It might be a prudent and mature decision on your part to familiarize yourself with who the power players and brokers are these days - and pick your side accordingly.

Monsters and heroes exist. Refusing to acknowledge them is an insult to one and a potentially fatal mistake with the other.

sth_txs said...

Glen, only human garbage could have supported removing Saddam Hussein from power given that the CIA put him there. Not a great guy to be sure, but as they, 'he was an SOB, but he was our SOB.' What was gained in Iraq? Not a damn thing! And let us not forget the couple dozen suicides each day from veterans in the Iraq and Afghanistan.

Funny that these sorry pieces of crap can talk about human rights yet the federal government has used people as human guinea pigs and burned up women and children. Don't forget the deadly no knock raids killing the innocent because Mr. Fed Agent was too lazy to do his homework.

If the reason was 9/11, Saudia Arabia should have been invaded.

Anonymous said...

Har, har, har, Glen. Your favorite president Ronald Reagan was a card carrying Communist as a hollywood actor before he became governor of California. Anybody who knows anything about hollywood knows the only thing that thrives in hollywood is faggots and whores. Says alot about you for admiring such a man. Shove that up your fat fucking ass you retard.

Mike said...

Glen Filthie said...

ALL wars are about two things, sometimes three: money, power...and sometimes sex - but very seldom

So what was the Nagorno-Karabakh war about then? Power? No, there was none to be had. Money? Definitely no. Sex, again no. It was a war about self-determination fought between two ethnic groups (the Armenians and Azerbaijanis).

And that's just one example.

You really do need to read your history books Glen.

Glen Filthie said...

Iraq was liberated and set free. And of course, liberals being liberals - as soon as they had their trained baboon in the Oval Office - they pissed away all the gains made. Had America stayed and invested and rebuilt Iraq the returns on investment would have been huge. You can thank the Buckwheat Administration for your losses in Iraq, and you can thank him for all the losses you will incur in Iran next. The rest of that is moral relativism which is the hallmark of a weak mind.

As for you, Anon - RUDE! I have NEVER been so insulted in my life!!! Why, I am strongly tempted to write a scathing letter to the management of this blog to have your CENSORED!!!! What next, with you, you uncultured slanderous swine? I suppose you're going to tell us Reagan used Grecian Formula??? Gotta love Ronnie - at the height of the Cold War he was meeting with Gorbachev and giving the secret service boys a pep talk - as he filled the chambers of his .45 Colt and slipped it into his brief case!

You wouldn't happen to live in Hollywood, would ya, Anon? HAR HAR HAR!

As for you, Bob - I can hear you smirking over the internet as your horrible readers abuse your star poster here! It's a sad day when a scholarly intellectual like Yours Truly can't present an educated point of view without getting pelted with rotten vegetables, mud and feces!!!

Good DAY, sir!!!!

Glen Filthie said...

PS - What was that war about then - in your opinion?

To me, the second I saw that it was a war of secession - and to me that implies a loss or gain of power for one side or the other...

Mike said...

From what I've read, it was about self-determination. The disintegration of the USSR caused people to form new countries around ethnic blocs (the Ukranians, the Estonians, the Kazakhs etc), the Azeris and Armenians were doing the same: forming a new country based around a single ethnically homogenous group. And also remember that the Armenians haven't really had a proper home of their own for over a thousand years, they were under the thumb of the Turks, so they have extra reason for wanting a homeland of their own. That's what the war was about. If either side were interested in power then they would have fought for the enslavement or destruction of the other side, but that didn't happen.

Not all wars are about power, money/wealth or sex. And some that are about power can only vaguely be labelled as such. Like the Falklands War, which was more about Maggie gaining political points with the electorate at home (wars are usually good for those in power) than it was about besting the Argentinians.

Glen Filthie said...

But that's my point Mike. When those countries secede they take their taxes and markets with them. They also pose a threat to their former overlords as they are then free to act in their own self interests - which may not coincide with their former masters. To me this looks like a classical power struggle...

But - what do I know? Bob's star pupils may be entirely right and I am full of chit.

Mike said...

But taxes & markets were not their motivation for going to war. That's purely incidental. It's like saying they went to war over Farmer Johns flock of sheep, or Joe Blows corner shop. So what if they got a flock of sheep and a convenience store, it's not the reason they went to war. They went to war for self-determination, regardless of money. The fact that they get taxes & markets is a bi-product of going to war, it's not the motivation for it. It's like a bunch of barbarians going to steal some women from a neighbouring tribe: if the barbarians get some booty on the way 'in addition to' the women then that's just an added bonus, not their original intention.

And saying that a war for self-determination is a power struggle is pushing it a bit mate. If the struggle for self-determination is classed as war then all thing are at war with all other things they encounter: the an acorn are at war with the soil which is trying to oppress it; bird poop falling to the ground is at war with air which is trying to obstruct it; the miner is at war with the rock face as he tries to pulverise it to extract its ore; teenagers are at war with their parents when they try to assert themselves. And if all things are at war with all other things then the definition of war, and power struggle, kind of loses its meaning. Not to mention that the terms like rebellion, insurrection, disobedience, discord, and other related terms become redundant.

What's more is that the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan has not perpetuated, which it would have done were it a true power struggle. If it were a power struggle then the two neighbours would have kept warring in one form or another like the USA and USSR did during the cold war, ya know, in economic and political terms.