[FirstClassSkeptic]

I don't think people can get up off of their lard bottom long enough to have a war. If what has been done to them so far hasn't provoked then into a fight, I don't think anything will.

it would have to be an extreme condition of total economic and system breakdown, to the point of causing a mass social upheaval. That would be, no gasoline for their cars, nothing on the shelves at walmart, electricity off. Cold, wet and hungry, and maybe then they still wouldn't revolt.

[rerevisionist]

UN no longer Zionist, says mooninquirer - I added this post here as it is relevant to the world situation

@ Jesse --- The UN was Zionist when it gave its approval for the state of Israel to be formed, but it has since 1967 acknowledged that Israel is illegally occupying the areas it stole. Israel receives MANY UN condemnations, often with the US as the only dissenting member. The UN is hated by the neo-cons, and note that the UN did NOT support war with Iraq. The UN DID give a very face saving consensus vote by all 15 members of the UN security council that Iraq should comply with UN mandates that it allow weapons inspectors, in the months before the war. This made Ariel Sharon and the Likudniks furious, and made the case for war with Iraq much more difficult. In the end, the only member of the UN security council supporting war was Britain. It certainly was an indication of something very surreal going on, because although Saddam was completely on his back, and totally humiliated and powerless before the whole world, there was a war anyway.

In Mearsheimer & Walt's "The Israel Lobby," it is revealed how angry were Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres, and all the Likudniks and neo-cons that Tony Blair was able to convince GW Bush that he should seek UN approval before going to war with Iraq.

Importantly, with respect to this issue, the IAEA of the UN has repeatedly, and RECENTLY stated that Iran is NOT developing nuclear weapons. That is the complete opposite of what Benjamin Netanyahu is saying, as well as every Jewish neo-con voice in the media.

All of this talk about the UN taking our guns is a bogus scare tactic, to get people to vote for a Republican presidential candidate who will much more likely than the Democrat, engage in a full scale war with Iran, Pakistan, Syria, etc. and approve of what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. It IS true that we have to worry about a Democratic politicians taking our guns, but the UN has no jurisdiction whatsoever on this matter. The US is obligated to honor foreign treaties that the US Senate ratifies, but they are to refer to how the US deals with other countries, not about what is the law within the US. The minor exceptions are possibly with FOREIGN nationals, but even in that case, the UN has little say, and what is relevant is America's treaty with that foreign country.

Some scare mongering White nationalists, who I even think are really Jewish agents ( because scare tactics benefit the Jews in power ) are even suggesting that any time soon, there is going to be warfare in America, with UN troops dispatched, to "exterminate the White race." Examples are Scott Roberts of www.theforbiddentruth.net ( who also removed my comments and eventually kicked me off his site for suggesting that nuke bombs are a scare tactic that benefits Israel ).

If anything, the common Jew is fearful of what is going to happen in America if there is a war with Iran, and rioting, because they know that Jews in general will be blamed ( but this should be another thread of discussion ).

[rerevisionist]

Can I make an important point here. History has been taught - mainly [sigh] under Jewish influence - that revolutions are the motive force for change. Or civil wars. (Or capitalism etc). Let me draw your attention to the possibility that history has been misdescribed by these people. Many people now know (I hope) that the 'Russian Revolution' was a Jewish coup, and the subsequent industrialisation and militarisation of Russia, as the 'Soviet Union', was carried out with secrecy, western technology, Jewish paper money, and Russian blood. However this whole scenario may go back to the START of the First World War - not just the Balfour Declaration around 1917 - and maybe before that, to the American Civil War and the murder of Lincoln over his greenbacks. And furthermore, it may well go back to the French Revolution in 1789, and even to the English Civil War, where Cromwell was funded by Dutch Jews.

Jesse, as 'NukelIes', pointed out that the whole 20th century - First World War, so-called 'Communism', anti-Germanism, alleged freedom and democracy, Second World War, nuclear weapons, Cold War, free enterprise - is largely or wholly a fantasy construction. And of course the Rothschilds' actions in Libya now (to replace sharia banking with their own sand god fraud) continues the series.

What I'm saying is that for a few centuries 'revolution' has been misrepresented as a more or less progressive action. The 'people' must 'revolt'! We must fight the oppressors. This may in fact be fantasy, part of the nonsense of messianic belief - after the revolution, we have the millennium!

I'd suggest we need a rational historical and logical examination of the way regimes fall. This may be far less dramatic than revolution - as indeed the change in the USSR when the Jewish oligarchs did a smash and grab of the assets suggests. Maybe a change just needs a relatively small number of patriots or humanists deposing dishonest frauds. At any rate, don't simply assume, because you've been told, that 'revolt' or 'revolution' is the way forward.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

The 'patriot movement' in the USA is basically a jewish run scam, to sell gold, silver, water filters and freeze dried food.

People say, "The USA today is not what the Founding Fathers envisioned." I say, Why isn't it? The 'Founding Fathers' so called, were a small group of rich elite who wanted to own and run everything. Today the USA is owned and run by a small group of rich and elite. The Founding Fathers would be well pleased, as long as, of course, they were still part of that small elite group.

The very founding of America was as a for profit venture. The common story that people came here to find freedom is pretty much hogwash and propoganda. People were forced out of England and Ireland because of high land rent. Many, maybe most, were brought here as slaves. And i mean, White slaves. There were far more Whites brought to America as slaves than blacks.

Corporations were given monopolies here to make a profit, and share it with the Crown. The Dutch west Indies company (which formed today's New York City), the Virginia Company, the Pennsyvania Company (That Daniel Boone worked for.) The Carolina Company. All of these companies united together and formed the United States. These efforts to exploit the resources of North America are the real stories of the foundation of America. When people came to America, they came to work for one of those corporations. They were not free. They were either wage earners or slaves.

So what are these patriots going to work to reestablish? White slavery? They have a romanticized view of the history of the USA. They fight for vague concepts of 'freedom', and 'liberty', which they couldn't define if you asked them. (And, by the way, this is exactly described in the Protocols.)

There is one trend, however, that is interesting; The people in the USA have been heavily buying guns and ammo. The people of the USA are the most heavily armed people in the world, and perhaps, every in history.

[mooninquirer]

@ rerevisionist ---- thanks for moving my text. I cannot get the hang of doing that.

Yes, we have to explore what revolutions looked like in other countries and at other times. A very promising development is that Russia is breaking free of ZOG control.
But this discussion is also to scare the Jews, both the common Jew, and the decision makers. Since nuke bombs are a hoax, the thing the Jews and even Israel have to worry about is a revolution in the US, because the US has been like the promised land to the Jews since George Washington, and no other country in the world supports Israel like America does. If America ever goes down, so will Israel, and the Jews are NOT going to be able to go to China and get them to support Israel.

The first step in something happening, is for a mass of people to ENVISION It happening. A full scale war and occupation of Iran would require a permanent draft and cost so much money, it would lead to high inflation, and therefore price controls would have to be placed upon food and other commodities. All war time economies are inflationary economies, and food rationing was required in WW II. Further, it should be noted that civil wars and revolutions are very often precipitated by the social and economic disruption caused by a country being overextended on war. Revolutions inevitably follow wars of overextension.

Police who haven't been paid in months, or who are paid with dollars with less purchasing power ---- police who see their pension funds and kids' college funds being dwindled by these wars, will have to keep crowds of anti-draft and anti-war protesters, and food rioters at bay, while they are shouting " we don't need wars for Israel; we need SOLAR ZIONISM ! " And the US military will be flooded by draftees that fundamentally do not want this war. So the makings for a mutiny are very high, if not a coup d'etat by the military ---- BECAUSE they will see they have the moral high ground, AND the support of the American people. And because the current US government is ALSO the product of a coup d'etat ( the assassination of JFK ), any coup d'etat by the military should be hailed as a restoration of the Constitution.

Also, there recently has been considerable talk of states seceding from the union. It could be a partial secession, in which the states print up their own currency, and it would be up to the federal government to enforce it. Imagine Vermont seceding from the union in protest of a war and occupation of Iran. This is NOT going to be like during the Civil War in the 1860s, because this time the UNION does not have the moral high ground. All throughout America, there would be protests in support of Vermont, and against the Fed crackdown on Vermont. Furthermore, the UN will probably condemn any federal crackdown on Vermont, and acknowledge they have the RIGHT to withdraw from the union. Stopping such a move would be extremely difficult.

Remember the riots in Chicago in 1968 ? That was during a very good economy, and long before the US has completely bankrupted itself. The rioting is going to be much, MUCH worse, with the very high inflation and unemployment caused by the wars. It is also going to be worse because people are much, MUCH more cynical and aware of the corruption in the government and the media, in comparison to the 60s. In 1964, the American public gave the murderer of JFK a landslide election.

And the media is losing its grip on the American people. Before, the media sold the American public on the idea that the Warren Commission was basically correct, and to appease the dissenters, allowed some discussion that other groups like the
Cubans, Vietnamese, the mafia, etc., were involved, but NOT the most obvious beneficiaries of the JFK assassination ---- LBJ and the Jews. TODAY, the media has a very hard time convincing the American public that Obama was born in the US.
There is only so much that you can lie to someone.

[rerevisionist]

I was actually in Chicago on that date in 1968, visiting the USA with 2 other Brits. I'm afraid I just sat in our hotel. In any case I had no idea about what was going on.

Very good posts, I must say. May I just add to FirstClassSkeptic's post that there's a quite interesting book by Patricia Nelson Limerick, The Legacy of Conquest: The Unbroken Past of the American West (1987) which says, as you do, that 'primary economic reality' was the thing, in this case, in settling the west. The book has ten chapters, but they were written separately and don't in fact hang together very well. However, clearly the federal government often lost control; or maybe didn't want to control. But anyway the romantic image of adventurous settlers clearly has a mythical component; they must have had some economic/social model in mind.

I wonder in fact if the romantic idea is intentional: if you explain to people that their ancestors were traded and dealt in, exploited and used as cannon fodder etc, it's not an attractive lesson. Better not to understand. I was just watching War and Peace, in the 1967 Russian film version, and it's striking in the occasional voiceovers how insistent Tolstoy was that nobody controlled things, events just happened, history is inexplicable, people did things contrary to all human nature for no reason. Maybe most people don't want to face the facts of evil, deception, malevolence, and violence.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

If the people generally believed that there were no atomic weapons, they would be more likely to revolt. 'And they worshipped the beast,saying, Who is like the beast, and who is able to make war against it?"

I have even seen people post things like, "You can't fight the government, after all, they have nukes."

And, for further reading about the foundation of the USA, this book might interest you:

http://www.javelinpress.com/hologram_of_liberty.html

http://www.amazon.com/Hologram-Liberty- ... 1888766034

[rerevisionist]

Brilliant posts here. May I make another point here? Because it's not talked about much, it's difficult to find a vocabulary.

If a territory is to be colonised and developed, or for that matter robbed, some aspects of the territory are clearly economically important: raw materials - oil, coal, iron ore, other metals, timber, stone, clay, fresh water, fishing waters, agricultural areas, grazing areas... Historically, flint, ice, silkworms, indigo plants - a whole array of things which now seem quaint - were once important. In the development of the USA, I'd guess railroad engineers and builders, and house builders, and miners, were imported from Europe - for example, Cornish miners.

However, there are opportunities for people concerned with the entire territory - military and police, lawyers, religious groups, educators and scientists, money minters and lenders, administrators. Each group has an interest in expanding its own influence. And of course the balance varies - before compulsory education, there were just a few universities. Before industrialism, landowning aristocracies were important in Europe, though in China it seems bureaucrats always had the upper hand. Before science, there was little opportunity for science fraud - though medicine could be considered fruadulent. Note that some of these groups cut across national boundaries.

From the point of view of any of these groups, wars to keep their ascendancy may have seemed unimportant - they weren't the ones getting killed - and I'd guess many wars can be viewed in that light. Wars of religion between Protestants and Catholics are an obvious European example; mostly (I think from memory) 17th century. There was, not a war, but at least conflict between early industrialists and landowners over the Corn Laws in Britain.

Anyway my point is that with complicated civilisation, there are more groups than before, and hence more opportunity for conflict. If a world government is ever installed, and if as seems highly likely there would be a highly-developed and corrupt legal system, any country trying to set up its own legal system would be likely to be bombed and all the rest of it. From today's point of view, this sounds incredible - who would have a War of Legal Systems? And yet it could happen. Or a War of Educational Systems. I've come round to the view that events like the Vietnam War had an economic causation, but not of the easy-to-understand raw materials type. I think it was fought so that the Jewish money system could make money from the entire country. (If things had developed differently, it might have been some other group - but it wasn't). Anyone with some experience of the 'Third World' knows that even the most poverty-stricken country somehow manages to produce surprising amounts of goodies for a few.

[rerevisionist]

Some comments by 'Earthskier' of Oregon----

Societal Collapse - why it won't be anything like the movies
I get the feeling that most folks on here have either watched too many movies, or actually write the scripts for the movies. When and if the US government collapses (genuflect, genuflect), I don't see people hunting each other and stealing their stuff.

I've read enough alternative media to realize Darwinism's "survival of the fittest" is just another divide and conquer ploy which only benefits the folks who are already fit in today's society.

We are told we need to compete amongst each other for resources, which is exactly what Capitalism preaches. But without law and order, do people really turn on themselves? I'm sure some will, because they take their programming seriously, but I think most folks will work together.

Our impression of Anarchy is given to us by the the government. Why do folks assume an anarchic situation is all violence, all the time? A good example is the old west:

The Not so Wild West:

"The authors describe how miners formed mining camps that created rules for property acquisition and settling disputes. Cooperation emerged in the absence of government."

[link to http://www.google.com]

And then there is the collapse of the Soviet Union. I recall reading an article many years ago about that, and that the people knew about the collapse before the government admitted it, and took necessary steps for survival.

Here' a different article, I can't find the posting I read before. Social Collapse Best Practices

[link to cluborlov.blogspot.com]

"Here is the key insight: you might think that when collapse happens, nothing works. That’s just not the case. The old ways of doing things don’t work any more, the old assumptions are all invalidated, conventional goals and measures of success become irrelevant. But a different set of goals, techniques, and measures of success can be brought to bear immediately, and the sooner the better. But enough generalities, let’s go through some specifics. We’ll start with some generalities, and, as you will see, it will all become very, very specific rather quickly."

Personally, I'll be collaborating with my neighbors.

In extreme cases, we may need to barricade the neighborhood and make the neighborhood watch become the neighborhood ambulance/garbage/taxi service, but the Lone Ranger, however prepared will not survive.

Survival of the Fittest is so 19th century. I vote for the survival of the collaborative.

[rerevisionist]

Generating 'revolutions' (this is not in the USA though)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpXbA6yZY-8 is a Youtube of a film by Journeyman Pictures, about a half hour long, about June 2011, and dealing with organisations which promote 'revolutions'. I'm not saying it's a perfect film - Journeyman Films was connected with John Pilger and has the usual suspects omitted. But the general idea - "You wanna revolution? You goddit" - and the way it might be done is outlined.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

The Not so Wild West:

"The authors describe how miners formed mining camps that created rules for property acquisition and settling disputes. Cooperation emerged in the absence of government."

And they were mostly White European people, with basically the same sort of Christian type religion. The USA today is split among many races and religions. Especially in the cities. There are also large parasitic groups. Most of these groups are raced based.

One advantage to the USA is that there are still surprisingly large areas of forests, deserts and mountains where people can hide out. The disadvantage is, most people have no idea how to live in the wild.