Is a world war impossible?

Of course it is not. Sticklers for semantics might opine that it is not impossible but rather it is improbable.

How do you explain the following then.

Is it not curious how in the past ten years and particularly in the past five Western governments have gradually enacted legislation that could make a total war possible? Starting with broadening the definition of “terrorist”  to encompass actions that till recently had been an integral part of democratic expression thereby turning most law abiding citizens in potential terrorists if, for example, they dissent from the political line imposed by decree by government.

McGovern recalled how five years ago, when he challenged Rumsfeld, he did not get beat up by police, and was at least given the opportunity to interact with Rumsfeld.  By contrast, when McGovern disrupted a speech by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on February 15, 2011, he was arrested.  All he did was turn his back on Clinton at a speech at Georgia Washington University (You Tube video). After turning his back on Clinton, McGovern was dragged out of the room, and left with blood dripping down his pants.  This seems unbelievable, as McGovern poses no threat, is a 71 year-old calm gentleman, and a respected former CIA official.

Is it not curious that the Lisbon Treaty should have given rise to a political body that despite not being elected has broad executive powers?

And then there is the pesky provision of “Worldwide War” embedded in the National Defense Authorization Act:

And then there is that troubling attitude  that till recently was the almost exclusive domain of tin pot dictators in fringe countries like Tunisia, Syria North Korea or Libya for example and that is becoming ever more prevalent amongst “enlightened” Western politicians.

A worldwide war impossible? At this rate, hardly.

PS: By the way. I forgot this little gem from some months back:

So now NATO MUST, in the words of its chief, be prepared for perpetual war; must!

Must??!! Has anyone bothered to ask why we should prepare to launch foreign wars?

Tags: , , , ,

15 Responses to “Is a world war impossible?”

  1. pat00donnelly Says:

    Roger, I am not sure that Libya is anything like what it is being portrayed as being? To weaken NATO, they are allowed to attack a sovereign state!

    HAARP is a good thing even if it triggers vulcanism and quakes. They will be smaller than they would be if triggered later, naturally?

    • rogerglewis Says:

      Haarp could be very useful if it does indeed reach a practical implementation in the way that you suggest. Warnings to the effected populations would of course be nice, Malthus might have felt it quite a convenient tool for some of the questions he was given to pondering. On the other hand Assured Destruction without the ( Mutual ) is a really bad thing about there no longer being a Nuclear arms race.
      How about Co2 as the Saviour of Debt money though , that ones really neat who ever dreamt that one should get a Nobel prize for Economics I simply can’t believe it was Al gore.

  2. pat00donnelly Says:

    Another danger will be the “usury” division. This explains all the virulent anti zionist propaganda on the web. If it degenerates into Islam bashing, then certain steps will be taken, based upon 9/11 revelations, to redress this perversion of the agenda.

    The illness is excessive credit. It will be easy to foment hatred for the next decades as the depression deepens. Some very determined people are behind this and nationalism, religion will not be obstacles. To those who have wealth and wish to keep it in their dynasty, the message is: forget that! Unity will mean that riches, portable or otherwise, are not required and merely attract evil.

    I expect the LDS to be pivotal in unravelling the fake families that exist.

  3. pat00donnelly Says:

    This is actually progress. We will unify. Armies are not necessary and like banks are an evil that prospers upon division. We shall respect cultural diversity, but not tolerate armed force, by whomever wielded, except by the central power. All may have some access to that power. Corruption will slowly be eradicated by removal of all borders. Communists and capitalists have reached agreement on this. Secretly, some oppose it, but the military will sort out the framework.

    Very long term thinking involved here!

    The stupid emotional and venal, may be confused.

    There is real danger: a continual war identified by Eric Blair decades ago.

    We are slowly becoming Confucian in our outlook and meritocracy will be more honoured in the future. This means less “means” for the west.

    Those who decry change will find it very upsetting. But they cannot resist it and will be injured if they try.

  4. rogerglewis Says:

    I feel that Iran and Pakistan are the likely candidates for some pretty cynical treatment in the way of war, Invasion in Iran and destabilisation and provocation of India in Pakistan there by giving China a big local problem.
    Its a terrible thought but unavoidable conclusion I think guido is on the money
    un happily.

    • pat00donnelly Says:

      Pakistan, yes, but not Iran. Iran is already on board! The Iran/Iraq wars are proof of that. They cleansed those countries of certain tendencies. Don’t believe all the hype in the media. Remember it is controlled!

      • rogerglewis Says:

        I’m really not so sure about Iran, what’s your position on Libya?
        I see the dynamic as one between Free Market Ideologues and Monopolistic ( Fascist) I.e Corportae Governemet ( after Mussolini) ideologues. Free Market libetarian Capitalism is more democratic or meritocratic than monopolistic Corporate Government ( JP Morgan ,” Competition is a sin”.
        The Industrial Military Complex ( Eisenhower) is the Monopolistic embodiement of the the Fascist Clobal Cabal. ( Monsanto, Haliburton, Lockhead, Boeing, Glaxo, British Aerospace, The Seven Sisters)and so on ).
        STrangulation of the money supply forcing people to bend to the will of the Market ( opposite of market is free market).
        Personally I am convinced by the theoretical physics of Haarp as a Geological and geophysical ( weather) weapon. I also believe Carbon trading is a construct to allow massive expansion of the money supply that is saleable to the wider population with out dissent ( based on a lie of course, Climate change is altogether more complicated than that lots of recent physics on both magnetic field analysis in both Solar and sun spoy activity and of the earths core are pointing to huge influences that cancel out any feedback effects from CO2, I’m a tree hugger so I abhor pollution and anything we do to control or stop it suits me but Carbin trading is another mechanism of control and one that seeks to perpetuate the Monopoly on money creation through debt by the Global Corporate ( Fascist Banks.)Just my ten cents, ( glad to get it off my chest.

  5. Tim C Says:

    I used to think that some form of global war was inevitable due to the complete mismanagement of money and freedom by governments worldwide, and as an alternative to civil disobedience on the scale that could threaten governments, but that at least this was due to complete cock-up by those in power. Now I’m starting to worry that a global war is the end-game, I just can’t work out why anyone would want that?!? Who wins?

    • guidoamm Says:

      “Who wins?”

      The latest example of the end result of the use of Debt Based FIat Money is Greece. The arithmetic of DBFM leads to the transfer of the productive capacity of society to a select number of financial interests. As the limits of DBFM are reached, society will be divested of the assets that had been pledged towards loans during the prior inflationary cycle. The case in point is that now Greece is forced to sell their assets to private interests. But, as the logical conclusion of DBFM is reached, the only entities that have spare cash to buy anything are…. financial interests.

      A world war will serve two main purposes. Firstly it will occupy the throngs of the unemployed, homeless, angry and hungry masses that would otherwise revolt at home. Secondly, a war will obliterate excess industrial capacity thus bringing about a resetting of the manufacturing dynamic.

      Meanwhile, most financial interests will be preserved AND they will by then own significant swathes of industrial, residential and land assets globally.

      • Tim C Says:

        Sadly, I fear you are spot on. Greece is indeed providing an excellent example of the conclusion of a DBFM system. I do wonder who Greece would go to war with – or if Germany would use military force to back up its banks… I’m just being pedantic, of course I can see a major war brewing involving the US, China and the MENA region (and other African nations).

        I agree with you on what the outcomes of the war will achieve, but I’m still concerned by the idea that financial institutions are gunning for it (excuse pun). Are they deliberately trying to orchestrate war or it is just something they’re happy to see happen? I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the idea that GS has an “operation room” ready to go when countries start invading each other. Sadly I’m sure they do.

        Better question… can it be stopped?

        • guidoamm Says:

          Let me premise my answer by saying that it really does not matter who starts the fight, who fights it, where and when. What I can say is that regardless of how the war starts and where, it has to be taken to a band of land that, roughly speaking, snakes between India, via China to South Korea. Japan would likely have to have its clock cleaned too I suspect.

          Something else I can pretty much guarantee is that the war will not be inter European. Nor will it be Europe against the USA. But both Europe and the USA may very well suffer food and fuel shortages or rationing.

          As far as financial institutions gunning for war… Not all financial institutions are created equal. The Primary Dealers are the elite of the elite of course, as they pull the strings of the monetary system of all the countries that have adopted the US$ as reserve currency. And within these organizations, the few that are aware of what particular variety of monetary system is in use today in the West, will know that, if carried to its logical conclusion, DBFM will inherently and necessarily result in severe socio/economic dislocation which depending on other circumstances will result in war.

          The key is fiscal revenue and the credit markets. DBFM can perform its function for as long as both can be expanded nominally. When one or, Ye Gods, both of these dynamics are compromised, that’s when the transfer of assets begins. This is the point at which society is robbed of its wealth and the point at which social unrest begins. Once social unrest coalesces in coordinated action across borders (because whether you are Greek, Irish, French or indeed Tunisian the problem is exactly the same; what changes is the degree to which a society may be cushioned from economic shocks and in Europe we had more insulation that is now fully eroded so we are only marginally better off than Tunisians or Egyptians) then an expedient war will be precipitated somewhere where there is a foreign evil that ostensibly resents us for our way of life.

          The only way I can see we could avoid a global conflict at this point is if there is some devastating natural disaster that takes out large swathes of land and people somewhere. Something like a meteor strike or a tsunami or a large scale earthquake.

          Can it be stopped? Yes it can. But time is running out. We must take down the central banks. We must repudiate DBFM. We must allow people to rebuild their savings. There is a “What you can do” page on my blog on the top right hand corner.

        • pat00donnelly Says:

          The Greeks lied about their ability. The Irish and Spanish gained bricks and mortar and fat wages, but now fall into deeper depression.

          But Greece bought submarines!!!! They face revolution again. They must reform to have effective obedience to law. Ironic, given that we pay lip service to Greek ideals about democracy! Continual use of rape as a weapon of war by the Turks may explain the decay? Racist? Think long term. Absolute rule causes weaknesses in a society? They last for generations? That is not racism, but reality.

          Longest term thinking requires putting human survival at the bottom and top of the pyramid. The green scare stories have a basis in fact. Biological weapons exist. Those countries unable to wield massive nuclear power have bio power to fall back on. Cheap but not cheerful: think black death? W\e will censor science until we have control over our potential to destroy ourselves: what is the alternative? Eugenics takes a back seat …

  6. rogerglewis Says:

    Guido we are all busy fools now in the Narrative of those who would be king for a day even if the price is destruction. These modern day Ceasars coalesce around the levers of Government and Power and as Hegel demonstrated, If we learn anything form History it is that we learn nothing from History. The modern hegemonic dynastic cartels could mark Hegels words well as both comfort and curse.
    My view is that the best course of action is to foment peaceful civil protest as In Spain Portugal and Greece a Summer of Love if you will.
    I am reading Ruskin at the moment as fresh today as in 1860 or Ghandi’s fin de secle paraphrased translation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: