There Will Be Blood

The metaphorical black eye that the worldwide military industrial complex has received in Afghanistan will lead to war. 

Expect more anti-Chinese propaganda. While I do not think the blood will be in the straits of Taiwan, there will be constant pressure in the area. Ships will provocatively sail between Taiwan and China.  More stories about concentration camps in China will surface. 

Expect more stories about N. Korea and an expanded nuclear program there.  But they have nuclear weapons, so I don't expect blood there. 

Expect more sanctions against Russia.  Ukraine, with the support of the West, just shut down all opposition media. The main opposition leader is under house arrest. The US equivalent would be to arrest Trump and shut down Fox News. But blood here is unlikely as the US does not want to lose all thier dinosaurs called aircraft carriers. 

That leaves Iran as no one likes them anyway. They have kept the agreement they made with the world. The US broke the agreement. 

it is always possible a new theatre will be selected. Africa immediately comes to mind.

So who knows where the crisis will appear. All this pressure will be placed against all these artificial foes. (We have always been at war with Eurasia.) Any of these hot spots could flare up. Whoever is in charge of the US, and it is not Biden, is incompetent. We have not seen such incompetence since the USSR in the 80's and 90's.

But there will be blood. The US needs a short victorious war. 

A Reminder

I thought I would repost this video so we can all remember why we do not want neocons in the government. 

Megacities

This is a rather disturbing video produced by the Pentagon. If you have 5 minutes you should watch it. Is this the future our government expects? If so, the preppers are right. 

Pogo Revisited: We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us

In an interesting article about modern and earlier responses to Fascism, John Pilger said this: 

According to a Council on Foreign Relations survey, in 2016 alone Obama dropped 26,171 bombs. That is 72 bombs every day.  He bombed the poorest people on earth, in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan.

Every Tuesday — reported the New York Times — he personally selected those who would be murdered by mostly hellfire missiles fired from drones. Weddings, funerals, shepherds were attacked, along with those attempting to collect the body parts festooning the “terrorist target”. A leading Republican senator, Lindsey Graham, estimated, approvingly, that Obama’s drones killed 4,700 people. “Sometimes you hit innocent people and I hate that,” he said, "but we’ve taken out some very senior members of Al Qaeda.”

Like the fascism of the 1930s, big lies are delivered with the precision of a metronome: thanks to an omnipresent media whose description now fits that of the Nuremberg prosecutor: “Before each major aggression, with some few exceptions based on expediency, they initiated a press campaign calculated to weaken their victims and to prepare the German people psychologically … In the propaganda system … it was the daily press and the radio that were the most important weapons.

Pilger's point is that Obama, and Clinton too, are not liberals. I suppose it depends on what your definition of is is. 

This argument also risks committing the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.  

The use of the term was advanced by British philosopher Antony Flew:

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again". Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing". The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, " No true Scotsman would do such a thing".^[2]

When the statement "all A are B" is qualified like this to exclude those A which are not B, this is a form of begging the question; the conclusion is assumed by the definition of "true A".

So I would disagree with my friends who think Obama is a conservative. It is instead that liberals have adopted the conservative view of Foreign Policy, and the conservatives have adopted the liberal view of Foreign Policy—at least Trump has. So it is that conservatives who have not made the switch will say that Trump is not a "true" conservative, and liberals who have not switched either will say that Obama is not a "true" liberal. This is actually a return to the traditional views of liberals and conservatives from the 30's. 

So we live in a weird world where Obama is more "conservative" than Trump. Or as Weird Al said in song, "Everything You Know Is Wrong." 

No Joke: The United States Just Committed an Act of War Against Russia

I am not sure what Obama is thinking, but the US has committed an Act of War against the Russian Federation. Is he preparing for President Clinton's planned war? Is Obama trying to force a future President Trump into a war? When someone does something catastrophically dumb, it is hard to piece together the motivation. 

The US Government, in a planned leak to NBC, said that they have ALREADY accessed Russian military and domestic systems. 

U.S. military hackers have penetrated Russia's electric grid, telecommunications networks and the Kremlin's command systems, making them vulnerable to attack by secret American cyber weapons should the U.S. deem it necessary, according to a senior intelligence official and top-secret documents reviewed by NBC News.

I know when I said that a war was planned the response of many was "yeah, right."  The war has already started. Hopefully it won't escalate. 

Here is the official Russian response:

Question: How would you comment on the reports that US military hackers have penetrated Russia’s telecommunications networks and electric grid?

Maria Zakharova: Regarding the recent media reports that US military hackers have penetrated Russian’s telecommunications networks and electric grid, as well as “the Kremlin’s command systems”, we expect a response from the US authorities, including the White House and the Department of State with a legal assessment of the reports.

The absence of an official reaction from the US Administration will signify the existence of state cyberterrorism in the United States, and in case the threats related via the US media are executed, Moscow will have full authority to bring charges against Washington.

The US has sponsored terrorism directly and indirectly though Saudi Arabia for years. Now they have decided to cut out the middle man and become terrorists themselves. 

Here is Stefan Molyneux's explanation: 

Molyneux exagerates the Soros connection to the voting machine company. It is a Soros ally that owns it, and for whatever reason these machines are supposedly not being use in this election.