re-Evolution

[devnull]

11 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

only a person who questioned the speed of sound in space could have come up with it. 

 

Good memories 

[snafu]

12 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

More on this: 

 

NIGEL FARAGE: I think what's going to happen now is there's going to be a battle for the soul of conservatism in this country, and I'll tell you why. Johnson was elected as a conservative but governed as a liberal. Massive commitments to net zero, raising taxes, increasing the size of the state... To many traditional conservatives, he was unrecognizable as a conservative, and so now he will have that wing of the conservative party who were effectively,... middle of the road Social Democrats against more traditional conservatives, and that's what the battle is going to be. I just don't know. All I do know is if I look across the Western world, whether it's America, Britain, Australia, wherever we go, when conservative parties stop being conservative, guess what? They lose elections. 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/boris-johnsons-resignation-nigel-farage-says-pm-elected-conservative-governed-liberal

 

Boris was playing a part in the big play. His interests were never in line with the populist movement. Call him a Trojan Horse (at worst), or just inept (at best), he is one side of the same WEF coin that owns liberals and tories alike - just as they own democrats and republics here at home. 

What Nigel Farage said has nothing to do with what you’re saying.  
Sorry for seeming to put words in your mouth, however I’m not going to go along with the assertion that UK conservatives were all fooled by Johnson and his Unipolar puppetmasters. That they were fooled when May resigned and he was elevated.  That they were even fooled though the resulting 2019 Parliament elections which were seen as a sweeping victory for Johnson and conservatives.  The conservatives didn’t have to keep Johnson at either of those times.  They could have chosen a different party leader.
 

The conservatives weren’t fooled.  They gave their guy a chance and he spit the bit.  Too bad we don’t have votes of no confidence here in the US because the Democrats would have used it on Biden by now.
 

I think what you posted shows that this is more a case that Johnson, the individual, almost got arrested for the parties he threw during lockdown.  If he had governed with any coherent economic plan, he’d still be there. The combination did him in.  
 

Your dichotomy between populists and uniparty-ists is not such an easy line to draw.  Just because someone is a populist doesn’t remove their nation or their people from foreign relations and international trade. Just because a populist makes concessions in those relationships doesn’t mean they’re co-opted Trojan horse double-crossers.

 

And one other point to make which speaks to this thread in general:  the overarching theme among these countries seeing mass protests has to do with inflation, economic strife and especially food insecurity. People can try to find other patterns but these are and have historically been the reasons why people take to the streets.  Doesn’t matter if there’s a populist government in control or there’s a uniparty cabal in control. 

 

 

 

[Fansince88]

11 hours ago, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

 

Coalition government formed by the Reform Party and Center Party.  They ended up disagreeing on policy, so Kallas kicked the Center Party ministers out of the government about a month ago.

Now she and the rest of the ministers have to resign, so she and the Reform Party can form a new coalition government - whatever that coalition is going to be (they must have one in mind, I have no idea what).

 

Basically, typical parliamentary practice, nothing particularly special about it.

Interesting. A prophesy I heard about Russia and Ukraine 8 years ago included Estonia.  I didnt even know where that was so had to look it up. The prophesy was that Estonia will be shown to be the little troublemaker.  Small instigator I believ the word was. I will go back and look at it. 

[Deranged Rhino]

5 hours ago, snafu said:

What Nigel Farage said has nothing to do with what you’re saying.  

 

My statement was that Boris Johnson was owned by interests not aligned with conservatism. It's a common phenomenon (hence the term RINO in our political discourse). How many politicians campaign on the stump one way, then govern completely differently once their seat of power is secured? 40%? 50%? More? It's really an inarguable point. Powerful interests all over the world play both sides of the political aisle with their donations in an attempt to rig the game in their favor. Some of it is legal, if icky. Some is not. I'm not saying Boris's connection to the WEF is illegal - it's not - but it is problematic.

 

Look at Bush (43) as a recent example - he spent his entire political career campaigning and stumping for overturning Roe - then when in power he did next to nothing to accomplish it, and when it was finally overturned, he's not said one word about it. 

 

Boris was on team "Brexit", but according to Farage (during the voting and after - he's spoken on it many times), Boris was all talk no action. Just like how he immediately turned into a neocon warmonger regarding Ukraine (a decidedly anti-populist stance), and pushed the green agenda harder than any conservative has a right to. He was a stooge in sheep's clothing, his connection to the WEF is real, their agenda is known (and collapsing all over the globe).

Edited July 15, 2022 by Deranged Rhino

[Deranged Rhino]

4 hours ago, snafu said:

 

 

And one other point to make which speaks to this thread in general:  the overarching theme among these countries seeing mass protests has to do with inflation, economic strife and especially food insecurity. People can try to find other patterns but these are and have historically been the reasons why people take to the streets.  Doesn’t matter if there’s a populist government in control or there’s a uniparty cabal in control. 

 

 

 

 

(meant to keep this in one post - apologies!)

 

Re the bolded: how much of that in the past 4 years has been intentionally triggered by politicians who are either members or benefactors of the WEF? At what point do you shift the suspicion from incompetence to a nefarious plot? Is it just an accident that all these things happened in a perfect sequence to get this exact outcome?

 

We've had: 

1) A genetically engineered virus unleashed on the world in order to force a power change in the west. 

2) This was immediately followed up with a re-engineering of the economy towards a "green agenda" which gutted US energy, and in combination with the printing of trillions in new spending, directly caused the strongest economy on record to crumble in less than 2.5 years. 

3) A new endless war in the breadbasket of the EU. 

4) A push against farmers to have them stop growing food for the green agenda.

5) All the while 1 through 4 were going on, the same people were pushing candidates and leaders who spread hatred and division among engineered social fault lines like race, gender identity, and partisanship. 

 

We're at war. Whether you want to admit it or not, it's real and ongoing. 

Edited July 15, 2022 by Deranged Rhino

[snafu]

22 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

(meant to keep this in one post - apologies!)

 

Re the bolded: how much of that in the past 4 years has been intentionally triggered by politicians who are either members or benefactors of the WEF? At what point do you shift the suspicion from incompetence to a nefarious plot? Is it just an accident that all these things happened in a perfect sequence to get this exact outcome?

 

We've had: 

1) A genetically engineered virus unleashed on the world in order to force a power change in the west. 

2) This was immediately followed up with a re-engineering of the economy towards a "green agenda" which gutted US energy, and in combination with the printing of trillions in new spending, directly caused the strongest economy on record to crumble in less than 2.5 years. 

3) A new endless war in the breadbasket of the EU. 

4) A push against farmers to have them stop growing food for the green agenda.

5) All the while 1 through 4 were going on, the same people were pushing candidates and leaders who spread hatred and division among engineered social fault lines like race, gender identity, and partisanship. 

 

We're at war. Whether you want to admit it or not, it's real and ongoing. 

 

I gave this a "Cheers" comment.  I guess that's the most neutral of  the comments.  I mean, I read this and I understand what it says but I'm pretty neutral about it.  This list is your lens, your spin, your connections, your adjectives.

 

[Koko]

20 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It's not because you completely missed the point being made and tried to railroad it all back into your rubric of "American news vs international news" consumption which is a paradigm so dumb, only a person who questioned the speed of sound in space could have come up with it. 

 

Look, we all know that the speed of sound is approximately 761 mph. In a vacuum. Where there's no air to transmit said sound.

 

It works because &#%$ you, that's why.

 

Or something.

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

Actually, sound does travel in space.  "Sound" is nothing more than a shock wave traveling through a medium, and space is not a complete vacuum, so some shock waves can transmit through space.  Specifically, low-frequency sounds, with a wavelength greater than the mean free path between particles.  So interstellar space, with about one hydrogen molecule per cc, transmits sound at about 16 km/s.

 

But since "space" is not a uniform medium, the ability of "space" to transmit sound, and the speed of such, varies widely.  The speed of sound in a star-forming region, for example, may be much faster.  And "sound" (shock waves, really) in such molecular clouds plays a very important role in how such clouds collapse into stars, and potentially fragment in to multiple stars.

 

[Ann]

33 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

Actually, sound does travel in space.  "Sound" is nothing more than a shock wave traveling through a medium, and space is not a complete vacuum, so some shock waves can transmit through space.  Specifically, low-frequency sounds, with a wavelength greater than the mean free path between particles.  So interstellar space, with about one hydrogen molecule per cc, transmits sound at about 16 km/s.

 

But since "space" is not a uniform medium, the ability of "space" to transmit sound, and the speed of such, varies widely.  The speed of sound in a star-forming region, for example, may be much faster.  And "sound" (shock waves, really) in such molecular clouds plays a very important role in how such clouds collapse into stars, and potentially fragment in to multiple stars.

 

Cliff looked pretty old:
 

 

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

23 minutes ago, Ann said:

Cliff looked pretty old:
 

 

 

 

I never realized Nick Colasanto died that young.  He was only 61.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

On 7/15/2022 at 11:16 AM, snafu said:

 

I gave this a "Cheers" comment.  I guess that's the most neutral of  the comments.  I mean, I read this and I understand what it says but I'm pretty neutral about it.  This list is your lens, your spin, your connections, your adjectives.

 

 

You don't have to agree but are you really going to take the position that there aren't politicians who claim to be one thing while really serving another master? That's not even a controversial stance - it's backed by centuries worth of human nature and history. 

 

Boris always was a fake conservative who was owned and operated by globalists. Look at his education, his associations, and how he governed when in power. It's undeniable but also not unique. There are many politicians who claim to be one thing while operating as another. Like many US politicians. Like many EU ministers. Hell, look at the entire NeverTrump Neocon wing during 45's term. From Frum, to French, to Boot each one made their bones for years claiming to be "conservatives" - yet now their positions are about as far removed from "conservativism" as Pelosi's. And they claim they didn't change, conservatism did. 

Edited July 16, 2022 by Deranged Rhino

[snafu]

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

You don't have to agree but are you really going to take the position that there aren't politicians who claim to be one thing while really serving another master? That's not even a controversial stance - it's backed by centuries worth of human nature and history. 

 

Boris always was a fake conservative who was owned and operated by globalists. Like many US politicians. Like many EU ministers. Hell, look at the entire NeverTrump Neocon wing during 45's term. From Frum, to French, to Boot each one made their bones for years claiming to be "conservatives" - yet now their positions are about as far removed from "conservativism" as Pelosi's. And they claim they didn't change, conservatism did. 

I absolutely agree that there are politicians who campaign one way and govern another (Joe Biden is a great example).
 

There are others who campaign one way and are forced by circumstance or political pressure or international relations to make decisions against their true beliefs. Boris Johnson couldn’t just execute a full “pure” Brexit and isolate the UK economy from the rest of Europe. That would have been a disaster. That doesn’t necessarily make him “owned by globalists”. I’m sure you don’t discount pragmatism. 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Since this is the thread about revolution, a little life hack:

 

If you believe that the majority of the "mainstream" or establishment media interest lies not in reporting fact and truth, but creating beneficial narratives for the establishment itself - which, by this point is almost undeniable - then you cannot expect that same media to truthfully report on anything that threatens the power of the establishment itself. Instead what should be expected is for the media to lie, smear, and distract you from anything that runs counter to, or threatens the power of, the establishment itself. 

 

See: coverage of everything from Occupy Wall Street, to the TeaParty, to Trump and beyond. Rather than cover any of those groups, protests, or counterrevolutions honestly - the media went out of its way to lie, smear, and deceive the public. 

 

So, if that's the state of play when it comes to news - and you are willing to admit that there is indeed a global conflict happening right now between the establishment (globalists) and multiple other movements, then relying on the media to report on said conflict honestly and openly is a fool's errand. 

 

The LAST place you should turn to when looking for truth is the people who have knowingly and willingly deceived all of us for decades in the name of ratings, control, and money. 

 

You want to really understand what's going on in the world today? Then you don't just read what's being reported. You have to look at what they're dodging, ignoring, or going out of their way to deny and bury. 

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, snafu said:

I absolutely agree that there are politicians who campaign one way and govern another (Joe Biden is a great example).
 

There are others who campaign one way and are forced by circumstance or political pressure or international relations to make decisions against their true beliefs. Boris Johnson couldn’t just execute a full “pure” Brexit and isolate the UK economy from the rest of Europe. That would have been a disaster. That doesn’t necessarily make him “owned by globalists”. I’m sure you don’t discount pragmatism. 

 

 

 

Take Brexit off the table. Let's pretend it never happened for the sake of this discussion. 

 

What lead to Boris's decisions to double down on the green agenda at the expense of the people who put him in office, and to double down on endless war in Ukraine? Did that come from his core conservative principles? Or are those the major talking points and agendas of the globalist institutions and associations Boris has surrounded himself with his entire life - from University through his membership in the WEF?

[snafu]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Since this is the thread about revolution, a little life hack:

 

If you believe that the majority of the "mainstream" or establishment media interest lies not in reporting fact and truth, but creating beneficial narratives for the establishment itself - which, by this point is almost undeniable - then you cannot expect that same media to truthfully report on anything that threatens the power of the establishment itself. Instead what should be expected is for the media to lie, smear, and distract you from anything that runs counter to, or threatens the power of, the establishment itself. 

 

See: coverage of everything from Occupy Wall Street, to the TeaParty, to Trump and beyond. Rather than cover any of those groups, protests, or counterrevolutions honestly - the media went out of its way to lie, smear, and deceive the public. 

 

So, if that's the state of play when it comes to news - and you are willing to admit that there is indeed a global conflict happening right now between the establishment (globalists) and multiple other movements, then relying on the media to report on said conflict honestly and openly is a fool's errand. 

 

The LAST place you should turn to when looking for truth is the people who have knowingly and willingly deceived all of us for decades in the name of ratings, control, and money. 

 

You want to really understand what's going on in the world today? Then you don't just read what's being reported. You have to look at what they're dodging, ignoring, or going out of their way to deny and bury. 

Im not talking about what the press reports.  Perhaps we are talking past each other.

 

I’m talking about pragmatism when governing. I’m talking about making decisions that have to be made when life throws a curve. I’m talking about making decent governing decisions that may be a step back or a step sideways today, but don’t damage someone’s vision of the future. Decisions that have to take as many constituents into account as possible. 
 

 

[snafu]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Take Brexit off the table. Let's pretend it never happened for the sake of this discussion. 

 

What lead to Boris's decisions to double down on the green agenda at the expense of the people who put him in office, and to double down on endless war in Ukraine? Did that come from his core conservative principles? Or are those the major talking points and agendas of the globalist institutions and associations Boris has surrounded himself with his entire life - from University through his membership in the WEF?

You said that he was a “Trojan horse”.  Now you say that he was transparent enough to have seen these decisions. Why did the conservatives in the UK put him up as PM?  
 

And if I’m going to take Brexit off the table then I’d take Ukraine out of the equation. We’ve debated that in the Russia thread. I’m not rehashing that here. The UK is a NATO member. NATO acted primarily with one voice. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, snafu said:

Im not talking about what the press reports.  Perhaps we are talking past each other.

 

I’m talking about pragmatism when governing. I’m talking about making decisions that have to be made when life throws a curve. I’m talking about making decent governing decisions that may be a step back or a step sideways today, but don’t damage someone’s vision of the future. Decisions that have to take as many constituents into account as possible. 
 

 

 

 

 

That post you quoted truly wasn't aimed at you. That was sparked by a conversation I was having off the board. 

 

But to your point: I do not deny or downplay pragmatism. It's something that good leaders do. But pragmatism didn't make Boris double down on the green agenda, or on endless war in Ukraine. No one was pushing for that but the globalist institutions he associates with. He came to power on the backs of voters who wanted the exact opposite of those two agendas (though, I'll be fair and say Ukraine was 50/50 within the Tory party at the time). 

 

We both, I think, realize that there's something rotten in Denmark. The world has never been perfect, politics has always been divisive and sometimes explosively violent - neither of us would deny that. Yet, I think we both know deep down that what's been building over the past half decade or more is more than the usual tomfoolery. Something is broken. Something is off. 

 

We have a world that is smaller than ever - yet more divided than we've experienced in our short time on this planet. The question is why? 

[Deranged Rhino]

10 minutes ago, snafu said:

You said that he was a “Trojan horse”.  Now you say that he was transparent enough to have seen these decisions. Why did the conservatives in the UK put him up as PM?  
 

And if I’m going to take Brexit off the table then I’d take Ukraine out of the equation. We’ve debated that in the Russia thread. I’m not rehashing that here. The UK is a NATO member. NATO acted primarily with one voice. 

 

He absolutely was a Trojan Horse in the sense that his true allegiance isn't to conservatism, but to globalism and the associations he keeps and has kept his whole life. I stand by that point, and maintain it's not rare in the world of politics. In fact, it's likely the norm. A US example is Bush (43) who was blatantly used as a hat or Trojan Horse by Cheney (and his associations) to mask the true agenda of that time: endless war for profit. Or, as you stated above, Biden's role as an avatar for a 3rd Obama term. 

 

I don't know where I said he was transparent enough to have seen these decisions - whatever was said that's not my intent or what I meant. What I am trying to say is that Boris, like many others, was propped up by those who wanted him to play his role. Campaign one way, govern another. And he did. He's a WEF stooge, that's reality and his history from his education to his associations while in and out of power. If a voter dug deep enough into his history, it was easy to see - but the nature of the politics game itself is to confuse and hide true agendas from the voters who don't have the time or inclination to do that kind of deep dive - so, they outsourced to the media years ago. 

Edited July 16, 2022 by Deranged Rhino

[snafu]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

We have a world that is smaller than ever - yet more divided than we've experienced in our short time on this planet. The question is why? 

spitballing in the most general sense:  The world was marked by imperialism. That ended and was replaced by the Cold War (and a different brand of imperialism). That ended and globalists saw their opportunity to make the world “one”. There’s a lot of arm twisting and resistance to giving up autonomy, for sure. Now the world is heading back to a Cold War like state and countries are trying to re-align to where they were for the most part.  Sides are being chosen and the countries who were non-aligned then are going back to non-aligned positions. There’s a lot of movement. It is creating a bit of chaos.

 

where does “green” fit in?  It, to me, is the replacement of control and profiteering over energy policy. Some leaders see it as the future and want to be on the “winning” side — so they can gain/maintain control and profit. 
 

 

[Fansince88]

On 7/15/2022 at 4:59 PM, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

Actually, sound does travel in space.  "Sound" is nothing more than a shock wave traveling through a medium, and space is not a complete vacuum, so some shock waves can transmit through space.  Specifically, low-frequency sounds, with a wavelength greater than the mean free path between particles.  So interstellar space, with about one hydrogen molecule per cc, transmits sound at about 16 km/s.

 

But since "space" is not a uniform medium, the ability of "space" to transmit sound, and the speed of such, varies widely.  The speed of sound in a star-forming region, for example, may be much faster.  And "sound" (shock waves, really) in such molecular clouds plays a very important role in how such clouds collapse into stars, and potentially fragment in to multiple stars.

 

Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?