Quote: 

Wdym? 

 

This thread lays it out nicely


[url=https://mudpitpolitics.com/showthread.php?tid=213][/url]

Quote: 

It's over as in the war is over? If it ends anytime soon it will be on Russia's terms, and that would mean Putin, with his war economy, 

 

I predicted as much a couple of years ago when Trump first said that he could solve the situation within the space of 24 hrs. 

These things were planned well in advance, I believe, and what we see as historical events are in fact, scripted and manufactured. Or fake and gay as Candace Owens would say. 

Just look at Zelensky as a heroic prop. Ridiculous. Everyone that follows geopolitical events knows what happened in Ukraine in 2014 and the chain of events that followed from there. 

A more mainstream view of these 'historical' events would be indicative of a belief in the veracity of reports coming from MSM. 

Anyone, left or right, that doesn't see MSM as the propaganda outlet for both sides of the political spectrum in this day and age qualifies at the very least as per my understanding of the word, a normie. 

What would be understandable is if a person exuded the type of bias that reveals a specific connection to Ukraine. Perhaps a family connection? 

Quote: 

It's over as in the war is over? If it ends anytime soon it will be on Russia's terms, and that would mean Putin, with his war economy, might feel empowered to keep the troops rolling further west. That would start WW3. 

 

That's a MSM talking point. I did however explain how a person welcoming of such a deceptive narrative might be understood through the lense of familial bias,as an example.

If you come from there and/or have family ties from there it's completely understandable for you to stand behind a narrative that favors your people. 

I don't believe that Putin is focused on expansionism.

Looking at the facts, he accurately identifies the actions of NATO as guided by the US as a possible existential threat, which is why Putin, a careful, considerate and strategic man arrived at a place where he spoke about the use of his nuclear arsenal. 

It's all for show though. So none of what I said matters, it's part of the script. 

Russia is in on the game. 

Further groundwork of divide and conquer successfully implemented for the coming war while not only weakening the US economically, it also allowed for one of the biggest money laundering operations in history.

War is coming to the West. And a 3rd group has inserted a 2nd bug into the jar and started shaking it to see when they will fight. 

The intention is for Christians and Muslims to become embroiled in a global war sparked by the massive influx of incompatible cultures into the West in an attempt to create strife by subverting the cultural landscape.

Signs of a captured state would include politicians welcoming the invasion. Creation of laws benefiting the illegals while leaving the citizens vulnerable. NGO's streamlining the process to speed it up. Hotels housing illegals while the local homeless population was never a priority. Sentiment spread throughout MSM that whiteness is coming to an end, 'and that's a good thing'.

I could go on and on but as someone who's interested in geopolitical events you're already aware of these things. 

It would be interesting if we could identify a specific group that receives more and more protection status legally as the situation worsens. 

Especially if the media on both sides makes it clear that everyone else is fair game. 

As someone whose main interest is geopolitics, do you see and/or agree with some of these observations?

Quote: 

When the war ends, Russia's bill will come due. Russians are going to feel that, and during peace time they might start asking questions like "was this war worth it?" 

 

If my take on history is correct, Russia is an ancient enemy of TPTB and while revenge might take centuries to unfold, it fits in perfectly with the planned destruction of the White race.

Russia and the US are both being set up to fall. 

Even Joe Biden said that he's excited to see whites soon becoming a minority in the US. 

What an odd thing to say off of a teleprompter wouldn't you agree?

Could you imagine Netanyahu saying he's anxiously hoping the day arrives where Jews are a minority in Israel?

Could you imagine an issue receiving immediate bipartisan support in congress and the senate as well as from the presidency in these polarizing times?

Quote: 

AI replacing humans in the workforce is still a ways away. I hope that, when it happens, an actual competent person will be in the white house. 

 


How would an actual competent person ever be allowed to rise to such a glamorous position as hand-puppet to the elite? 

That club is Compromised Sociopaths Only. 

Quote: 

Yes, the $300m was a smart investment. It's baffling to me that he so transparently bought the US president, and Trump's supporters cheer it on. 

 


Elon Musk is surrounded by people who scoff at the title of 'World's Richest Man'. He probably feels like Tracy Elaine in the ballad of similar name. 

He's very likely permanently on drugs now. I believe that is how his handlers gain control over someone as it creates a lack of inhibition which leads to compromising behavior which sets up the person for blackmail. 

These things would be considered surprising to anyone focused on a steady diet of whatever the MSM puts out for digestion. 

Quote: 

You mean to say you think there is a guy behind Elon Musk pulling his strings? I doubt that. If there is a "deep state", like the kids are saying, it's the heritage foundation, and they're actually been pretty transparent. So nice of them. Musk I think is just temporarily allied with them, or is at least pretending to be while he uses his access to the president and US government data to enrich himself. 

 

Let me ask you this. 

If there is already a not so covert power structure setting up the pieces globally for a completely covert power structure which they label as Globalism under a one world government, would they allow an individual to rise unchallenged through the power structures, in fact enabled by those power structures, if he was to present any kind of threat to their hegemony? 

A guy that wants to implant a computer directly connected to your brain and progress transhumanism and complete submission of people to social credit scores through behavioral hierarchy?

A guy that has a company building ecosystems underground? 

A guy that is working on the ability to start afresh off world or on another planet? The same ability that would keep whoever is on his space transports out of WW3 if the whole planet went to shit? 

A guy at the forefront of AI, a crucial technology for global totalitarianism? 

No. I do not think he acted alone as what can be described as a complete inversion of what people see as a Renaissance Man.

My quote:

Quote: 

I believe that governments need a corporate overhaul in order to be streamlined for a one world-government. 

 


You:

Quote: 

A what?

 



Sorry the reply didn't include my statement to keep it coherent when I selected 'reply'.


Governments will adopt corporate streamlining to operate in the world that is planned. 

Governments and eventually the One World Government, will be run like a corporation. 

Elon Musk is part of the process facilitating the change. 

CBDC's with a federal reserve bank flair is already inevitable in over 90% of all countries.

(03-02-2025, 02:50 AM)19Bones79 Wrote: I predicted as much a couple of years ago when Trump first said that he could solve the situation within the space of 24 hrs.

It was always obvious that, if Trump would manage to end the war quickly, it would be in Russia's favor.

Quote:Just look at Zelensky as a heroic prop. Ridiculous. Everyone that follows geopolitical events knows what happened in Ukraine in 2014 and the chain of events that followed from there. 

A more mainstream view of these 'historical' events would be indicative of a belief in the veracity of reports coming from MSM. 

Anyone, left or right, that doesn't see MSM as the propaganda outlet for both sides of the political spectrum in this day and age qualifies at the very least as per my understanding of the word, a normie. ? 

It's not ideal to distrust mainstream media by default, because what you're left with at that point is obscure media, which is even less trustworthy, and it's easy then to fall into a world of biased news catered to validate your feelings. In most cases when people link articles that are from obscure media sources, I find considerably more bias than in MSM sources, as well as just lower quality reporting. Some of my favorite articles are from WaPo, NYT, etc. I have enormous respect for good journalism, and there is much of it in mainstream media. There is also bad journalism, of course, but there is much less good journalism and much more bad journalism in non-MSM.

Side note: Probably my favorite article ever is this one about political polarization and the crisis of Poland's democracy, a warning sign for democracies everywhere. Written 7 years ago (holy shit where did all that time go), it is still and will probably remain relevant for a long time to come. This one about Hungary is also very good.

In my experience, when people complain about mainstream media and its bias, what's really going on is that the MSM isn't telling them what they want to hear, and that's uncomfortable. It's easier to assume that everything and everyone that doesn't agree with us is either stupid or compromised than to do some actual self-reflecting.

The best source for developing an accurate and deep understanding of the world remains books (by reputable authors). If you don't mind me asking, what is the last non-fiction book you've read (let's exclude philosophy from this as well)? Did you accept the narrative the author presented?

Quote:That's a MSM talking point. I did however explain how a person welcoming of such a deceptive narrative might be understood through the lense of familial bias,as an example.

It's common sense, if you think about this war and the futures it could lead to. I'm not saying it's a certainty that Putin would invade more than Ukraine, in fact I think it's more likely he would stop there, but it's still a concern. And if the US is openly on his side, which it seems to be, it becomes a bigger concern.

Quote:I don't believe that Putin is focused on expansionism.

Looking at the facts, he accurately identifies the actions of NATO as guided by the US as a possible existential threat, which is why Putin, a careful, considerate and strategic man arrived at a place where he spoke about the use of his nuclear arsenal. 

What facts are you looking at, exactly? What you are saying happens to be what Russian propaganda is saying. Putin wants everyone to believe this is somehow a "defensive" war and he uses the "NATO is attacking us" narrative to justify it, but it is an aggressive war. No one in their right mind actually believes NATO was going to invade Russia, and it's also clear that Putin thinks Russia has a historical claim to Ukraine. If this isn't expansionism, I don't know what is.

Quote:Russia is in on the game. 

Further groundwork of divide and conquer successfully implemented for the coming war while not only weakening the US economically, it also allowed for one of the biggest money laundering operations in history.

War is coming to the West. And a 3rd group has inserted a 2nd bug into the jar and started shaking it to see when they will fight. 

The intention is for Christians and Muslims to become embroiled in a global war sparked by the massive influx of incompatible cultures into the West in an attempt to create strife by subverting the cultural landscape.

Signs of a captured state would include politicians welcoming the invasion. Creation of laws benefiting the illegals while leaving the citizens vulnerable. NGO's streamlining the process to speed it up. Hotels housing illegals while the local homeless population was never a priority. Sentiment spread throughout MSM that whiteness is coming to an end, 'and that's a good thing'.

I could go on and on but as someone who's interested in geopolitical events you're already aware of these things. 

It would be interesting if we could identify a specific group that receives more and more protection status legally as the situation worsens. 

Especially if the media on both sides makes it clear that everyone else is fair game.

As someone whose main interest is geopolitics, do you see and/or agree with some of these observations?

[The rest of your post]

Ok, I think it's time we address the elephant in the room. You clearly have a very far out picture of how the world works and what's really going on in it. This model of the world you've created in your head is clearly all-encompassing and it affects your views on every single other issue, so I think it's time we focus our discussion on it. 

My interpretation so far is that you think a secret society of Jews is ruling the world, that world "leaders" like Trump, Putin, Musk etc are all controlled by them, and that this group has a very specific plan for the future, which it executes by leveraging its control over these world leaders. Am I close?

When it comes to conspiracy theories like these, I tend to start by bringing up one of my favorite principles that everyone should use when trying to make sense of world events: Occam's razor. Most conspiracy theories, including this one, are in direct violation of it. My first question to you would therefore be: Why is this extra layer of secret society world leaders necessary? Why do we need them, to make sense of the world? Can we not explain world events without them?

I think by learning about history and gaining a more detailed understanding of our very complex world, we tend to realize that it's chaotic. That is uncomfortable to some, and conspiracy theories like the one you believe in can help alleviate that discomfort. After all, it allows us to imagine that there is order in the world, even if it's not the kind of order we would like. I suggest you embrace the chaos.

(03-02-2025, 06:15 PM)TokenLiberal Wrote: .

Quote: 

It was always obvious that, if Trump would manage to end the war quickly, it would be in Russia's favor. 

 


I agree. The Ukraine never stood a chance against Russia. It was a proxy war and Ukraine was given just enough to launder money while keeping the bloodshed going along. 

The groundwork for a massive child trafficking operation by both sides was carefully laid out.

The Blackrock discussions to rebuild Ukraine was already underway as more and more Ukrainians kept being rushed to the front of the conflict to die.

I take it you've seen the footage of Ukrainians being grabbed off the street and forcefully made to fight in a war they don't want any part of, most of which are dead now. 

I'm also sure you deny that Victoria Nuland and the CIA was involved in the coup of 2014.

Your response basically sets up MSM as 'the most trusted source in news' and getting any information outside of the monolith that is mainstream media is reckless, dangerous and ignorant. 

On a conspiracy website, no less, but okay. 

That's very telling, especially in this day and age.

Quote: 

The best source for developing an accurate and deep understanding of the world remains books (by reputable authors). If you don't mind me asking, what is the last non-fiction book you've read (let's exclude philosophy from this as well)? 

 


I don't read non-fiction books per se, but when I do it's usually in audio book format which I don't like at all, and it's usually historical mainstream accounts in order to understand the perception that is officially endorsed. 

When something leaps out at me as obscure or that more information is required I begin exploring other sources. When statements are vehemently contested outside of official circles I examine those as well. 

I look at court documents. I look at the power players of the day. I look at the political and military tensions of the day and the loans connected to it. I follow the money. 

Most importantly, I look at the propaganda slant of the Monolith that you happily go to in search of trusted opinions, the MSM. There are times when their spin is so obvious and yet there are still plenty of people blissfully unaware of being lied to in their faces. 

I look at the religion of the groups(or lack thereof) and ideological slant on both sides.

I study prior history between the people and the players involved spanning as far back in time as is recorded. I see a revenge factor between different factions. 

I know that no scripted and executed events  occur in a vacuum and a broader picture is absolutely essential when trying to comprehend an event realistically. 

I understand that those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it in an endless cycle of wars, invasions, coups and regime changes. 

I understand that nothing ever changes at the parralel. 

I understand that some people prefer Occam's brand of razor. 

I understand that these same people vehemently deny American involvement in the 2014 coup/regime change in Ukraine while it is common knowledge that the US has since 1945 been involved in over 70+ of these types of operations around the world, with some sources estimating that the real number is closer to a 100.

In other words, if cocaine was found in the White House during the Biden presidency, Occam's razor would shave in favor of Hunter Biden being the biggest suspect mainly because he's the person most likely to forget something somewhere without a care for the consequences.

Similar to that of a laptop that never existed.

I don't doubt that some people working at the White House also engage in drug abuse, but these people are not there because of family privilege but because they are super effective at what they do and blatantly leaving evidence of your drug abuse problem for the world to see is not something I would connect to these efficient, workaholic types.

Quote: 

It's easier to assume that everything and everyone that doesn't agree with us is either stupid or compromised than to do some actual self-reflecting. 

 


For posterity.

Quote:Ok, I think it's time we address the elephant in the room. 

 

Yes, let's.

Quote: 

No one in their right mind actually believes NATO was going to invade Russia, 

 

This is an attempt to paint me as someone that simply doesn't possess the ability to understand 'historical' events and are incapable of forming an opinion in spite of MSM willing and able to spoonfeed me the narrative that you have so willingly embraced. There must be something wrong with me? 

Let's see how that holds up. 

After the fall of the Berlin wall assurances were made that the West would not expand one inch further to the East. This is common knowledge. 

Fast forward to the point where Ukraine as a line in the sand, as a buffer state, had their democratically elected leaders disposed of in a coup backed by the US through Victoria Nuland and the CIA. . The President of Ukraine and his government were in favor of stronger relations with Russia than with Europe. 

Add the slaughter of ethnic Russians in Ukraine.

The fact that Putin had been talking about not allowing US Military forces or missiles near the Russian border for years on end. 

The fact that US politicians were all in with their support for Ukraine. 

The fake demonization of the 'Russia! Russia! Russia!' lie that was amplified globally by the news outlets you describe as some of your most trustworthy news sources.

Biden as the 'figurehead' with dementia and him and his family invested knee-deep in the corruption that the US exported to the Ukraine.

Not only democrats but also republican cross-dressers like Lindsay Graham.

The West losing its mind with open border policies that will forever destroy the cultural landscape of the West. 

And last but not least, the push for Globalism spearheaded by Israel and the West. 

Globalism includes by definition, all the countries. A one world order, if you will. 


According to you, no one in their right mind thought that NATO would invade Russia. 

Except Ukraine is a proxy for NATO. Boris Johnson openly admitted it. 

The West has gone full retard to the point where the 2020 election in the US are seen as stolen by many people, and with good reason. (Except if you believe MSM and ignore certain uncomfortable facts.)

The debacle that is labeled Jan6. 

The murder of Ashley Babbit. 

Putting innocent people behind bars for years while the FBI was working the crowd to instigate violent behavior. 

The blatant power grab of the authorities during the manufactured covid virus scare in order to give the global population an experimental vaccine which the creator of MRNA technology expressly warned against.

More and more US military bases in an effort to surround China. 


These are observations made in consideration of 'geopolitics', a subject that considers the larger picture carefully in order to accurately determine the contemporary political landscape, coming from someone who as per your definition, is not in their right mind.

Quote: 

Ok, I think it's time we address the elephant in the room. You clearly have a very far out picture of how the world works and what's really going on in it. 

 

Far out? Or running counter to the history that is known as the official narrative, influenced by Mockingbirds in order to present propaganda to the masses which some then regurgitate around the water cooler? 

I don't know if you have noticed, but people do not trust the MSM anymore, and with good reason. 

Promoting them comes across as tone deaf or worse, insincere. 

Quote: 

My interpretation so far is that you think a secret society of Jews is ruling the world 

 


That is more or less correct, yes. There are more layers to it of course. The freemasons comes to mind as an example.

Quote: 

everyone should use when trying to make sense of world events: Occam's razor. Most conspiracy theories, including this one, are in direct violation of it. 

 

I love the audacity of this statement. It's unflinching and fails to take into account thousands of years of history whereby the same suspect is always in the room or in close proximity to it wherever there's a crime scene, so to speak. 

The official report always proclaims his innocence, of course. 

Carrying on with the murder mystery analogy, this person makes up 2% of the group of people, let's say 2 out of a hundred, but is involved with his fingerprints visible everywhere over the mystery. 

How would you apply your razor to such a scenario? 

Now multiply that scenario thousands of times. 

I advise purchasing a razor sharpener as the blade tends to become blunt from time to time. 

I know because it happens to me too. 

Quote: 

I suggest you embrace the chaos. 

 


Sorry, I'm not nihilistic. 

In summary, your suggestions to become a rational person responsibly evaluating geopolitics are:

1. MSM is a valid, accurate and trustworthy goto source of information. 

2. Mainstream academia are to be trusted with their research, nevermind the "trust the science" brigade we've all come to know and love. 

3.There is nothing to see here. Everything that is occurring, geopolitically speaking, is bourne out of chaos and using pattern recognition is a fool's errand. 

4.You find it strange being referred to as a normie. 

5. You stumbled your way onto ATS, graduated to MPP and now you find yourself in a place where by your own words it is more dangerous to obtain information from than simply turning on the TV and getting it from trusted news mongers such as CNN, MSNBC , Fox News etc? 


Embracing chaos requires from me to cease looking for answers to my questions while women and children are wiped out while the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity celebrate these atrocities openly and boast about their exploits on social media. 

And while this is happening there are laws being designed that are purely intended to stifle any criticism , valid or not, of these people in other countries? 


Where did you get this attitude from and still claim to be interested in geopolitics? 

Do you watch it like other people enjoy watching sport? 

Is it the spectacle you enjoy?

For your consideration :

   


   


And very important :

Coincidence or not?





An Israeli spy network discovers an unknown Jewish spy network


Even Iran was not invited to Victory Day in the link below, imagine claiming that the world is operating on a formula called 'Chaos'. Imagine being encouraged to 'embrace the chaos':


Israel invited to Russia's May 9 Victory Parade, 'Unfriendly' Nations Excluded

   


Do you have any quotes from politicians or statesmen about embracing the chaos as a counter balance?

(03-03-2025, 06:30 AM)19Bones79 Wrote: Your response basically sets up MSM as 'the most trusted source in news' and getting any information outside of the monolith that is mainstream media is reckless, dangerous and ignorant.

For current events, the most trusted sources for me are media organizations where good journalists with a passion for their craft want to work. The best journalists tend to work for MSM. To be fair, plenty of bad ones do too. Like I said, I much prefer books to news articles, if any were written about the thing I'm trying to learn about.

Let me put it this way: If you go to the WaPo and click a random article, it's much more likely that it's a good one than if you went to some random obscure news site and clicked a random article there. As far as news goes, unbiased sources don't exist, and sensationalism is common, sure, it is what it is. Ignoring MSM is just going to make the problem worse.
 

Quote:I don't read non-fiction books per se

I think you should consider it. When we deepen our understanding of a specific subject, it becomes more clear to us that society is much too complex and chaotic, and that there are too many individual incentives at play, for any one group to successfully secretly "control" it. Common sense tells us that getting everyone in line would take an enormous organizational effort and an unfathomable amount of resources.

Basically, what you're describing is a world government. If we take the resources and manpower regular governments need, and multiply it by a lot, we can start to imagine the kind of organization required to "control the world". It's simply not possible for such an organization to exist in secret, or, if it does manage, for it to be funded in secret.

Since you expressed an interest in banking, and I thought these books were entertaining and informative, I can recommend "The big short" (they made a movie from this, you might know it) and "Boomerang", both by Michael Lewis. They're about the causes of the 2008 financial crisis, and its aftermath in state finance. If you get a chance to read (one of) them, I'd love to know which parts you don't believe and/or how your central world government fits into the picture. 

Quote:Far out? Or running counter to the history that is known as the official narrative, influenced by Mockingbirds in order to present propaganda to the masses which some then regurgitate around the water cooler? 

I don't know if you have noticed, but people do not trust the MSM anymore, and with good reason. 

Promoting them comes across as tone deaf or worse, insincere. 

I think people don't trust MSM anymore mostly for bad reasons. I tend to blame social media, and a political zeitgeist that makes people vulnerable to populism.

The algorithms that fill our feeds in social media are not designed to give us the most accurate possible picture of reality. They are designed to keep us interested, and it turns out that the way to keep us interested is to validate our existing beliefs. They say doing well in politics is not about making people feel good about you as a candidate, it's about making people feel good about themselves. It rings true here. We get fed things that make us feel good about ourselves, nevermind the truth. The truth doesn't matter anymore.

Combine this with our vulnerability to populism, caused by decades of market deregulation and increasing wealth inequality, and we end up in a situation where we are fed populist rhetoric constantly because that is what keeps us interested, and thus we are slowly pushed into extremism. We lose our ability to discern truth, and we become so used to being emotionally validated that the MSM, with its relatively balanced, fact-based reporting, starts to be uncomfortable to listen to or read. After all it is constantly challenging the "wisdom" we have gained elsewhere.

That leads people to distrust it. And it's a bad reason, of course.

Quote:I love the audacity of this statement. It's unflinching and fails to take into account thousands of years of history whereby the same suspect is always in the room or in close proximity to it wherever there's a crime scene, so to speak. 

The official report always proclaims his innocence, of course. 

Carrying on with the murder mystery analogy, this person makes up 2% of the group of people, let's say 2 out of a hundred, but is involved with his fingerprints visible everywhere over the mystery. 

How would you apply your razor to such a scenario?

It's true that Jews are generally a successful class of people (though obviously they've had their setbacks), and they are often in the room for important world events. But they are a group of people like any other: They disagree with each other and have conflicting individual incentives. White men have been the most common group in positions of power for a long time: Do you think there is a white guy conspiracy? No, because they're not a hivemind. Assigning to Jews a single set of interests is mistaking them for a hivemind.

Did you know of this document? It is likely what your antisemitism ultimately stems from. It's a Russian propaganda document made in 1903 to promote antisemitism, and was used as propaganda in Nazi Germany as well.

Quote:In summary, your suggestions to become a rational person responsibly evaluating geopolitics are:

1. MSM is a valid, accurate and trustworthy goto source of information. 

2. Mainstream academia are to be trusted with their research, nevermind the "trust the science" brigade we've all come to know and love. 

3.There is nothing to see here. Everything that is occurring, geopolitically speaking, is bourne out of chaos and using pattern recognition is a fool's errand. 

4.You find it strange being referred to as a normie. 

5. You stumbled your way onto ATS, graduated to MPP and now you find yourself in a place where by your own words it is more dangerous to obtain information from than simply turning on the TV and getting it from trusted news mongers such as CNN, MSNBC , Fox News etc? 

Some corrections:

1) MSM is biased and contains plenty of bad reporting, but it's less biased and more trustworthy than non-MSM media.

2) There are problems in academia, but generally, if the science was good, yes. Science is ultimately just applying cause and effect.

3) Pattern recognition is always good to use, but it shouldn't lead us to believe there is a secret society of Jews ruling the world. That pattern is imagined.

4) Yes, for I've never been called that before, and it conflicts with my lived experience.

5) A couple of things:
- This is not a source of information to me. I am here to try to understand why people on the other side of the political spectrum think the way they do, and to have my own positions challenged so I can flesh them out.
- I don't watch TV news and am generally partial to what used to be newspapers (NYT, WaPo, etc) as opposed to TV stations. They tend to go more in depth.

Quote:Embracing chaos requires from me to cease looking for answers to my questions while women and children are wiped out while the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity celebrate these atrocities openly and boast about their exploits on social media. 

And while this is happening there are laws being designed that are purely intended to stifle any criticism , valid or not, of these people in other countries? 

No, it doesn't require any of that. Embracing chaos means accepting that the world is complex and chaotic, and understanding that its most important events are shaped like any other: By (competing) individuals pursuing their own unique interests.

Macron - Rothschild

Read the very fine print just above the title of the article, it's hilarious. 

Notice how he sets up a strawman which he then valiantly defends against for king and country. 

Notice all the free information he supplies to people who see through the grift and take what they need to assist them in creating an 'accurate' picture of reality. 

I put the word accurate in single quotes because I am well aware that I will never have the complete picture of any event and therefore have to rely heavily on deductive reasoning and intuition supported by patterns identified by examining other events previously and picking up on common denominators.

There is no such thing as an exact science when it comes to geopolitics, but I'm giving it my best shot with whatever I can find. 

If it was truly chaos as you put it, I would've lost interest long ago and kept to myself. 

It's a dance. It's a chess game. It's mathematical. It's artistic. It's a movement as structured as the orbits of the planets around the sun. It appears as disorienting as an asteroid impact to the untrained ear. 

The previous paragraph is not a tribute to Gustav Mahler, but I bet it could be.

(03-03-2025, 11:00 AM)TokenLiberal Wrote: For current events, the most trusted sources for me are media organizations where good journalists with a passion for their craft want to work. The best journalists tend to work for MSM. To be fair, plenty of bad ones do too. Like I said, I much prefer books to news articles, if any were written about the thing I'm trying to learn about.

Let me put it this way: If you go to the WaPo and click a random article, it's much more likely that it's a good one than if you went to some random obscure news site and clicked a random article there. As far as news goes, unbiased sources don't exist, and sensationalism is common, sure, it is what it is. Ignoring MSM is just going to make the problem worse.
 

I think you should consider it. When we deepen our understanding of a specific subject, it becomes more clear to us that society is much too complex and chaotic, and that there are too many individual incentives at play, for any one group to successfully secretly "control" it. Common sense tells us that getting everyone in line would take an enormous organizational effort and an unfathomable amount of resources.

Basically, what you're describing is a world government. If we take the resources and manpower regular governments need, and multiply it by a lot, we can start to imagine the kind of organization required to "control the world". It's simply not possible for such an organization to exist in secret, or, if it does manage, for it to be funded in secret.

Since you expressed an interest in banking, and I thought these books were entertaining and informative, I can recommend "The big short" (they made a movie from this, you might know it) and "Boomerang", both by Michael Lewis. They're about the causes of the 2008 financial crisis, and its aftermath in state finance. If you get a chance to read (one of) them, I'd love to know which parts you don't believe and/or how your central world government fits into the picture. 


I think people don't trust MSM anymore mostly for bad reasons. I tend to blame social media, and a political zeitgeist that makes people vulnerable to populism.

The algorithms that fill our feeds in social media are not designed to give us the most accurate possible picture of reality. They are designed to keep us interested, and it turns out that the way to keep us interested is to validate our existing beliefs. They say doing well in politics is not about making people feel good about you as a candidate, it's about making people feel good about themselves. It rings true here. We get fed things that make us feel good about ourselves, nevermind the truth. The truth doesn't matter anymore.

Combine this with our vulnerability to populism, caused by decades of market deregulation and increasing wealth inequality, and we end up in a situation where we are fed populist rhetoric constantly because that is what keeps us interested, and thus we are slowly pushed into extremism. We lose our ability to discern truth, and we become so used to being emotionally validated that the MSM, with its relatively balanced, fact-based reporting, starts to be uncomfortable to listen to or read. After all it is constantly challenging the "wisdom" we have gained elsewhere.

That leads people to distrust it. And it's a bad reason, of course.


It's true that Jews are generally a successful class of people (though obviously they've had their setbacks), and they are often in the room for important world events. But they are a group of people like any other: They disagree with each other and have conflicting individual incentives. White men have been the most common group in positions of power for a long time: Do you think there is a white guy conspiracy? No, because they're not a hivemind. Assigning to Jews a single set of interests is mistaking them for a hivemind.

Did you know of this document? It is likely what your antisemitism ultimately stems from. It's a Russian propaganda document made in 1903 to promote antisemitism, and was used as propaganda in Nazi Germany as well.


Some corrections:

1) MSM is biased and contains plenty of bad reporting, but it's less biased and more trustworthy than non-MSM media.

2) There are problems in academia, but generally, if the science was good, yes. Science is ultimately just applying cause and effect.

3) Pattern recognition is always good to use, but it shouldn't lead us to believe there is a secret society of Jews ruling the world. That pattern is imagined.

4) Yes, for I've never been called that before, and it conflicts with my lived experience.

5) A couple of things:
- This is not a source of information to me. I am here to try to understand why people on the other side of the political spectrum think the way they do, and to have my own positions challenged so I can flesh them out.
- I don't watch TV news and am generally partial to what used to be newspapers (NYT, WaPo, etc) as opposed to TV stations. They tend to go more in depth.


No, it doesn't require any of that. Embracing chaos means accepting that the world is complex and chaotic, and understanding that its most important events are shaped like any other: By (competing) individuals pursuing their own unique interests.

Is the world complex?

Absolutely. 

Is it chaotic in the sense that pattern recognition is futile?

Never.

(03-03-2025, 12:09 PM)19Bones79 Wrote: Is the world complex?

Absolutely. 

Is it chaotic in the sense that pattern recognition is futile?

Never.

There's a big difference between saying pattern recognition is futile, and saying that I don't think the specific pattern you think you're seeing exists. I am clearly making the latter point, not the former.

I already corrected this mischaracterization in my last post.