PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2017-11-21, 22:56:35
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 ... 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 [83] 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93
Author Topic: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk!  (Read 351455 times)

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2063
Everyman decries immorality
War of independence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_independence

A war of independence is a conflict occurring over a territory that has declared independence. Once the state that previously held the territory sends in military forces to assert its sovereignty or the native population clashes with the former occupier, a separatist rebellion has begun. If a new state is successfully established, the conflict is usually known as a ¨War of Independence¨.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_of_independence


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 273
War of independence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_independence

A war of independence is a conflict occurring over a territory that has declared independence. Once the state that previously held the territory sends in military forces to assert its sovereignty or the native population clashes with the former occupier, a separatist rebellion has begun. If a new state is successfully established, the conflict is usually known as a ¨War of Independence¨.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_of_independence

An interesting point of view on the USA, 'war of independence'

http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2014/07/24/american_revolution_did_britain_treat_all_its_colonies_equally.html

And some  claim that the USA still pays tax to England...

http://stopthepirates.blogspot.ca/2012/08/americans-pay-percentage-of-their-taxes.html

Ron

   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2063
Everyman decries immorality
Three countries, three continents: One imperial Western project

https://richardedmondson.net/2017/07/08/three-countries-three-continents-one-western-imperial-project/

[ Ed. note – An excellent comparative analysis of US regime change operations in three different countries–Syria, Libya, and Yugoslavia. Writer Neil Clark discovers a seven-step process that the regime-changers seem to have employed in all three cases. ]

By Neil Clark

A resource-rich, socialist-led, multi-ethnic secular state, with an economic system characterized by a high level of public/social ownership and generous provision of welfare, education and social services.

An independent foreign policy with friendship and good commercial ties with Russia, support for Palestine and African and Arab unity – and historical backing for anti-imperialist movements.

Social progress in a number of areas, including women’s emancipation.

The above accurately describes the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Syrian Arab Republic. Three countries in three different continents, which had so much in common.

All three had governments which described themselves as socialist. All three pursued a foreign policy independent of Washington and NATO. And all three were targeted for regime change/destruction by the US and its allies using remarkably similar methods.

The first step of the imperial predators was the imposition of draconian economic sanctions used to cripple their economies, weaken their governments (always referred to as ‘a/the regime’) and create political unrest. From 1992-95, and again in 1998, Yugoslavia was hit by the harshest sanctions ever imposed on a European state. The sanctions even involved an EU ban on the state-owned passenger airliner JAT

Libya was under US sanctions from the 1980s until 2004, and then again in 2011, the year the country with the highest Human Development Index in Africa was bombed back to the Stone Age.

Syria has been sanctioned by the US since 2004 with a significant increase in the severity of the measures in 2011 when the regime change op moved into top gear.

The second step was the backing of armed militias/terrorist proxies to destabilise the countries and help overthrow these “regimes”. The strategy was relatively simple. Terrorist attacks and the killing of state officials and soldiers would provoke a military response from ‘the regime, whose leader would then be condemned for ‘killing his own people’ (or in the case of Milosevic, other ethnic groups),  and used to ramp up the case for a ‘humanitarian intervention’ by the US and its allies.

In Yugoslavia, the US-proxy force was the Kosovan Liberation Army, who were given training and logistical support by the West.

In Libya, groups linked to al-Qaeda, like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, were provided assistance, with NATO effectively acting as al-Qaeda’s air force

In Syria, there was massive support for anti-government Islamist fighters, euphemistically labelled ‘moderate rebels.’ It didn’t matter to the ‘regime changers’ that weapons supplied to ‘moderate rebels’ ended up in the hands of groups like ISIS. On the contrary, a declassified secret US intelligence report from 2012 showed that the Western powers welcomed the possible establishment of a Salafist principality in eastern Syria, seeing it as a means of isolating ‘the Syrian regime’.

The third step carried out at the same time as one and two involved the relentless demonisation of the leadership of the target states. This involved the leaders being regularly compared to Hitler, and accused of carrying out or planning genocide and multiple war crimes.

Milosevic – President of Yugoslavia – was labelled a ‘dictator’ even though he was the democratically-elected leader of a country in which over 20 political parties freely operated.

Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi was portrayed as an unstable foaming at the mouth lunatic, about to launch a massacre in Benghazi, even though he had governed his country since the end of the Swinging Sixties.

Syria’s Assad did take over in an authoritarian one-party system, but was given zero credit for introducing a new constitution which ended the Ba’ath Party’s monopoly of political power. Instead all the deaths in the Syrian conflict were blamed on him, even those of the thousands of Syrian soldiers killed by Western/GCC-armed and funded ‘rebels’.

The fourth step in the imperial strategy was the deployment of gatekeepers – or ‘Imperial Truth Enforcers’ – to smear or defame anyone who dared to come  to the defence of the target states, or who said that they should be left alone.

The pro-war, finance-capital-friendly, faux-left was at the forefront of the media campaigns against the countries concerned. This was to give the regime change/destruction project a ‘progressive’ veneer, and to persuade or intimidate genuine ’old school’ leftists not to challenge the dominant narrative.

To place them beyond the pale, Yugoslavia, Libya and Syria were all labelled ’fascist,’ even though their leadership was socialist and their economies were run on socialistic lines. Meanwhile, genuine fascists, like anti-government factions in Ukraine (2013-14), received enthusiastic support from NATO.

The fifth step was direct US/NATO-led military intervention against 'the regime' triggered by alleged atrocities/planned atrocities of the target state. At this stage, the US works particularly hard to sabotage any peaceful solution to the conflicts they and their regional allies have ignited. At the Rambouillet conference in March 1999, for example, the Yugoslav authorities, who had agreed to an international peace-keeping force in Kosovo, were presented with an ultimatum that they could not possibly accept. Lord Gilbert, a UK defence minister at the time, later admitted "the terms put to Milosevic (which included NATO forces having freedom of movement throughout his country) were absolutely intolerable … it was quite deliberate."

In 2011, the casus belli was that ‘the mad dog’ Gaddafi was about to massacre civilians in Benghazi. We needed a ‘humanitarian intervention’ to stop this, we were repeatedly told. Five years later, a House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report held that "the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence."

In 2013, the reason given for direct military intervention in Syria was an alleged chemical weapons attack by 'Assad's forces' in Ghouta. But this time, the UK Parliament voted against military action and the planned ‘intervention’ was thwarted, much to the great frustration of the war-hungry neocons. They still keep trying though.

The recent claims of The White House, that they had evidence that the Syrian government was planning a chemical weapons attack, and that if such an attack took place it would be blamed on Assad, shows that the Empire hasn’t given up on Stage Five for Syria just yet.

Stage Six of the project involves the US continuing to sabotage moves towards a negotiated peace once the bombing started. This happened during the bombing of Yugoslavia and the NATO assault on Libya. A favoured tactic used to prevent a peaceful resolution is to get the leader of the target state indicted for war crimes. Milosevic was indicted at the height of the bombing in 1999, Gaddafi in 2011.

Stage Seven is ‘Mission Accomplished’. It’s when the target country has been ‘regime-changed’ and either broken up or transformed into a failed state with strategically important areas/resources under US/Western control. Yugoslavia was dismantled and its socially-owned economy privatised. Montenegro, the great prize on the Adriatic, recently joined NATO.

Libya, hailed in the Daily Telegraph as a top cruise ship destination in 2010, is now a lawless playground for jihadists and a place where cruise ships dare not dock. This country, which provided free education and health care for all its citizens under Gaddafi, has recently seen the return of slave markets.

Syria, though thankfully not at Stage Seven, has still been knocked back almost forty years. The UNDP reported: "Despite having achieved or being well under way to achieving major Millennium Development Goals targets (poverty reduction, primary education, and gender parity in secondary education, decrease in infant mortality rates and increasing access to improved sanitation) as of 2011, it is estimated that after the first four years of crisis Syria has dropped from 113th to 174th out of 187 countries ranked in the Human Development Index."

Of course, it’s not just three countries which have been wrecked by the Empire of Chaos. There are similarities too with what’s happened to Afghanistan and Iraq. In the late 1970s, the US started to back Islamist rebels to destabilise and topple the left-wing, pro-Moscow government in Kabul.

Afghanistan has been in turmoil ever since, with the US and its allies launching an invasion of the country in 2001 to topple a Taliban 'regime' which grew out of the ’rebel’ movement which the US had backed.

Iraq was hit with devastating, genocidal sanctions, which were maintained under US/UK pressure even after it had disarmed. Then it was invaded on the deceitful pretext that its leader, Saddam Hussein, still possessed WMDs.

The truth of what has been happening is too shocking and too terrible ever to be admitted in the Western mainstream media. Namely, that since the demise of the Soviet Union, the US and its allies have been picking off independent, resource-rich, strategically important countries one by one.

The point is not that these countries were perfect and that there wasn’t political repression taking place in some of them at various times, but that they were earmarked for destruction solely for standing in the way of the imperialists. The propagandists for the US-led wars of recent years want us to regard the conflicts as ‘stand alones’ and to regard the ‘problem' as being the ‘mad dog’ leadership of the countries which were attacked.

But in fact, the aggressions against Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, and the threatening of Iran, North Korea, Russia and Venezuela are all parts of the same war. Anyone who hasn’t been locked in a wardrobe these past twenty years, or whose salary is not paid directly, or indirectly, by the Empire of Chaos, can surely see now where the ‘problem’ really lies.

The ‘New Hitlers’ - Milosevic, Hussein and Gaddafi - who we were told were the ‘biggest threats’ to world peace, are dead and buried. But guess what? The killing goes on.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2063
Everyman decries immorality
Eastern Europe Chooses To Keep Western Civilization

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-08/eastern-europe-chooses-keep-western-civilization

Authored by Giulio Meotti via The Gatestone Institute,

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10631/eastern-europe-islam-civilization

    "The greatest difference is that in Europe, politics and religion have been separated from one another, but in the case of Islam it is religion that determines politics" - Zoltan Balog, Hungary's Minister for Human Resources.

    It is no coincidence that President Donald Trump chose Poland, a country that fought both Nazism and Communism, to call on the West to show a little willingness in its existential fight against the new totalitarianism: radical Islam.

    "Possessing weapons is one thing, and possessing the will to use them is another thing altogether". — Professor William Kilpatrick, Boston College.

In a historic speech to an enthusiastic Polish crowd before the meeting of the G20 Summit leaders, US President Donald Trump described the West's battle against "radical Islamic terrorism" as the way to protect "our civilization and our way of life". Trump asked if the West had the will to survive:

    "Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?"

Trump's question might find an answer in Eastern Europe, where he chose to deliver his powerful speech.

After an Islamist suicide-bomber murdered 22 concert-goers in Manchester, including two Poles, Poland's prime minister, Beata Szyd?o, said that Poland would not be "blackmailed" into accepting thousands of refugees under the European Union's quota system. She urged Polish lawmakers to safeguard the country and Europe from the scourges of Islamist terrorism and cultural suicide:

    "Where are you headed, Europe? Rise from your knees and from your lethargy, or you will be crying over your children every day".

A few days later, the European Union announced that it would begin proceedings to punish Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic for their refusal to accept migrants as the European Commission had decided under a 2015 scheme it created.

After Szyd?o's speech, Zoltan Balog, Hungary's Minister for Human Resources, declared:

    "Islam is a major culture and religion, which we must respect, but Europe has a different identity, and it is clear that these two cultures are incapable of coexisting without conflict...

    The greatest difference is that in Europe, politics and religion have been separated from one another, but in the case of Islam it is religion that determines politics".


That is why Viktor Orban has been labelled as "Europe's enemy within" -- because he spelled out what the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, will never do: "Keeping Europe Christian".

These speeches from Visegrad officials -- the European group made up of the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Slovakia -- are just two examples of deep ideological divisions between Western European countries and those in Central- and Eastern Europe.

There has been a growing tendency of Visegrad leaders to depict Islam as a civilizational threat to Christian Europe. If, in Western Europe, Christianity has been dramatically cast aside by public opinion and severely restricted by EU official rules, in Eastern Europe new polls reveal that Christianity is as robust and patriotic as ever. That is why Trump called Poland "the faithful nation". That is why US Catholic magazines are openly asking if there is a "Christian reawakening" in Eastern Europe. Slovakia approved a law to prevent Islam from becoming an official state religion.

These Central- and Eastern European countries know that Western Europe's multiculturalism has been a recipe for terror attacks, for a start. As Ed West of The Spectator noted:

    "Not all of Europe, of course. Central Europe, chiefly Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, remain largely safe from the terror threat, despite the former in particular being a Nato player in the Middle East. It is precisely because the reasons for this are so obvious that they cannot be mentioned. Poland is 0.1 percent Muslim, most of whom are from a long-settled Tartar community, Britain is 5 percent, France 9 percent and Brussels 25 percent, and those numbers are growing".

What is presumably "obvious" here is that Poland and Hungary are not hit by Islamic terror attacks because they have very few Muslims, while Belgium and UK it is the reverse. Europe would probably have been safer if it had followed Eastern Europe's example.

Eastern Europe not only shows a greater understanding of Western culture than Western Europe does; these Eastern countries have also been far more generous to NATO, the bulwark of their independence and security. Culture and security go hand-in-hand: if you take your own culture and civilization seriously, you will be ready to defend them.

A brief look at the NATO's members' military spending as a percentage of GDP shows that Poland meets the 2% target, unlike all the Western European countries. Only five of NATO's 28 members -- the U.S., Greece, Poland, Estonia and the U.K. -- meet the 2% target. Where is France? And Belgium? And Germany? And The Netherlands?

"Unlike most of its NATO and European peers," Agnia Grigas, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, explained, "Poland has for the past two decades consistently viewed defense as a priority issue, and as a result, has been slowly but steadily emerging as the bedrock of European security". Poland -- unlike Belgium, Italy and other European countries -- is not a "free rider" but a trustworthy partner to its US ally. Poland showed loyal support to the United States both in Afghanistan and Iraq, where its troops fought the Taliban and helped to topple Saddam Hussein.

It is no coincidence that President Trump selected Poland, a country that fought both Nazism and Communism, to call on the West to show a little willingness in its existential fight against the new totalitarianism: radical Islam.

    "The West will continue to have the military edge for a good time to come, but possessing weapons is one thing, and possessing the will to use them is another thing altogether", wrote William Kilpatrick, a professor at Boston College.

    "The West is strong militarily, but weak ideologically. It lacks civilizational confidence".


That is why it is critical that Eastern Europe continues to be a strong voice of dissent in the EU project. It might provide just the cultural confidence that European bureaucrats dramatically lack -- at the peril of Europe itself.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2063
Everyman decries immorality
Leo Varadkar wins: Ireland set to install first openly gay Prime Minister

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/leo-varadkar-wins-gay-ireland-pm-election-first-lgbt-leader-a7770091.html

The 38-year-old son of an Indian immigrant will succeed Enda Kenny

The proud Irish who for many a year fought the occupation of Ireland by the Judeo-Christian Empire known as Great Britain.. has fallen.. it is a sad day for the Irish Celts and they may never recover  :'(

Celts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts

FLASHBACK: Muslim Mayor Of London Tells Citizens To Get Used To Terrorism


http://www.dailywire.com/news/16770/flashback-muslim-mayor-london-told-citizens-get-michael-qazvini

As the civilized world joins the United Kingdom in mourning the deaths of 22 innocent people, children included, in a horrific suicide bombing attack at an Ariana Grande concert in the Manchester Arena, police and counter-terrorism agents are scouring to find any accomplices linked to the perpetrator, a 22-year-old Muslim male named Salman Abedi.

Terrorist attacks on major European cities are beginning to feel routine. But they shouldn’t be. This isn’t normal. The Islamic terrorist reportedly blew himself up with a device meant to send nails flying into human flesh. At the local children’s hospital in Manchester, doctors are removing shrapnel from the faces of young girls. This isn’t normal. It never was. It never is. And it will never be normal.

But that’s not what Sadiq Khan, the Muslim mayor of London, thinks.

In September 2016, Khan actually had the gall to say that citizens in big cities should just get used to terrorism.

At a glitzy event in New York City called “Building Progressive, Inclusive Cities” alongside his counterpart in the Big Apple, far-left Mayor Bill de Blasio, Khan talked about the virtues of immigration and multiculturalism, explaining that some sacrifices had to be made.

Terror attacks are “part and parcel of life in a big city,” Khan later told the Evening Standard just hours after police foiled multiple terror attacks in New Jersey and New York.

Once hailed as a “progressive” Muslim that would inevitably challenge regressive Islamists, Khan echoed the same excuse shared by European leaders across the West. After a series of terror attacks in France, the French Prime Minister told his countrymen that France “will have to live with terrorism.” In other words, terrorism is the new normal.

Serving as London’s mayor for less than a year, Khan has a history of controversial remarks.

During the London mayoral election, Khan apologized after a video surfaced showing the Labour party official calling moderate Muslims “Uncle Toms.”

And in February, Khan overstepped his authority as mayor and demanded that President Trump be denied a state visit to the United Kingdom, citing the American administration’s “cruel” immigration policies.

Khan is so devoted to the tolerant tenets of multi-culturalism that he even served as “legal consultant’ to 9/11 bomber Zacarias Moussaoui, and "shared a platform" with terrorist Yasser al-Siri, who once said American soldiers’ corpses should be “dragged in the streets,” according to Daily Wire’s Hank Berrien.

But Khan isn’t the only one who shares a nearly cultish belief in multiculturalism.

Unfortunately, Europe is littered with bureaucrats and politicians who think exactly like Khan. If all stays the same and the European Left has its way, then Europe (and perhaps even the West) as we know it is dead.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2063
Everyman decries immorality
Last stand

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_stand

A last stand is a military situation in which a body of troops holds a defensive position in the face of overwhelming odds. The defensive force usually takes very heavy casualties or is completely destroyed, as happened at the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC, the Battle of the Persian Gate in 330 BC, the Battle of Karbala in 680, the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Georgian Three Hundred Aragvians in 1795, the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, the Battle of Shiroyama in 1877, the Battle of the Little Bighorn in 1876,[1], the Battle of Pavan Khind in 1660, and Battle of Saragarhi in 1897 and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in 1943. Troops may make a last stand due to a perceived duty; because they are defending a tactically crucial point; to buy time to enable a trapped army to escape, due to fear of execution if captured; or to protect their ruler or leader. Last stands loom large in history, as the heroism and sacrifice of the defenders exerts a large pull on the public's imagination. Some last stands have become a celebrated part of a fighting force's or a country's history.

Tactical significance


A "last stand" is a last resort tactic, and is chosen because the defending force realizes or believes the benefits of fighting outweigh the benefits of retreat or surrender. This usually arises from strategic or moral considerations, such as staying and fighting to buy time for wounded soldiers or civilians to get to a safe place, leading defenders to conclude that their sacrifice is essential to the greater success of their campaign or cause, as happened at the end of the Battle of Thermopylae.[2][3] The situation can arise in several ways. One situation is that retreat by the defending force would lead to immediate defeat, usually due to the surrounding geography or shortage of supplies or support, as happened to the Royalist infantry on Wadborough Hill after the Battle of Naseby.[4][5]

Perceived duty

A last stand may also be the last pitched battle of a war where the position of the defending force is hopeless but the defending force considers it their duty not to surrender until forced to do so, as happened to the last Royalist field army of the First English Civil War at the Battle of Stow-on-the-Wold.[6]

Defending tactically crucial point

Specifically, defeat or withdrawal by the defending force may give the attacking force a point of utmost tactical importance, making it imperative that the defending force hold its position at all costs. The historian Bryan Perrett suggests that although the majority of last stands throughout history have seen the defending force overwhelmed, on rare occasions the outnumbered defenders succeed in their desperate endeavours and live to fight another day, and he lists the Battle of Agincourt and the Battle of Rorke's Drift as such engagements.[7] Another example could be the Battle of Myeongnyang, where 13 Joseon Navy warships (led by Korean admiral Yi Sun-sin) defeated 133 Japanese warships,[8] as well as battles such as Siege of the International Legations, the Battle off Samar and the Raid on Godfrey Ranch.

Protecting leader

In some cases, troops will make a last stand to protect their ruler or leader. When Rome was attacked in 1527 by the army of the Holy Roman Empire under Emperor Charles V, over 20,000 troops stormed the city. The 189 Swiss Guards made a last stand against the massive army by forming a square around St. Peter's Basilica to give Pope Clement VII time to escape through secret tunnels, and held the doors until Clement could escape. In the Battle of Hastings in 1066, Saxon King Harold II battled the Norman William the Conqueror, who invaded with 7,000 men. After most of the Saxons were killed in the battle, "Harold and his housecarl bodyguard...fought on until an arrow struck the king in the eye." After Harold died, the housecarl bodyguard made a last stand and "...fought to the death around the body of their dead king."[9] At the 1795 battle of Krtsanisi, where the Persian army led by Agha Muhammad Khan defeated the Georgians, the Three Hundred Aragvians - a detachment of the highlanders from the Aragvi valley - loyally fought and died in order to enable the escape of king Heraclius II, for which they are remembered as national heroes and were canonized by the Georgian Church.

Buying time

Sometimes, rather than face annihilation at the hands of a pursuing victorious army, a rearguard will be tasked by the commander of the defeated army with hindering the advance of the victorious army. Even if the rearguard is destroyed in a last stand, its sacrifice may buy their commander time to disengage without losing the majority of his army as happened during the Battle of Roncevaux Pass (778), and the Dunkirk evacuation (1940, in World War II).[10][11]

During the second Persian invasion of Greece, the Greeks blocked the advance of the Persian army at the pass of Thermopylae, during what is known as the Battle of Thermopylae. A Greek force of 7,000 men marched north to block the pass in the middle of 480 BC. The Persian army, ranging between about 100,000 and 150,000,[12][13] arrived at the pass in late August or early September. The vastly outnumbered Greeks held off the Persians for seven days (including three of battle) before the rear-guard was annihilated in one of history's most famous last stands. During two full days of battle, the small force led by Leonidas blocked the only road by which the massive Persian army could pass. When Leonidas became aware that his force was being outflanked, he dismissed the bulk of the Greek army and remained to guard their retreat with 300 Spartans, 700 Thespians, 400 Thebans, fighting to the death.

Fear of execution

Troops may fight a last stand if they believe that they will be executed if they surrender.

In Custer's last stand, at the end of the battle, the extent of the soldiers' resistance to the Native Indian warriors indicated they had few doubts about their prospects for survival if they surrendered. In the end, the hilltop where Custer's remaining troops made their last stand made it impossible for Custer's men to secure a defensive position. Nevertheless, the soldiers put up their most dogged defense, and died fighting.

During the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, by the end of 1942, the Jews trapped in the Warsaw Ghetto learned that the deportations were part of an extermination process, as the deportees were sent to death camps. Many of the remaining Jews decided to revolt.[14] The first armed resistance in the ghetto occurred in January 1943.[15] On 19 April 1943, Passover eve, the Germans entered the ghetto. The remaining Jews knew that the Germans would murder them all and they decided to resist the Germans to the last, rather than surrender.[16]

At the end of a siege


A siege may lead to a last stand by the defenders (see for example the Battle of the Alamo).[17] Last stands at the end of sieges became less common after the Hague Conventions came in force. Before the 20th century, if a besieged garrison refused any offered terms of surrender and the attackers subsequently breached the defences, the defenders were only given quarter at the discretion of the attackers, something they were not likely to do if they perceived that by holding out, with no hope of relief, the defenders had needlessly squandered lives. Under the laws of war as they are now "...it is especially forbidden - ... To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion; [and] To declare that no quarter will be given ...",[18] it is unlawful for an attacking force to kill a garrison if they attempt to surrender even if it is during the final assault on a fortified position.

Historical significance

Last stands loom large in history due to the pull on popular imagination. Historian Nathaniel Philbrick argues:

    Long before Custer died at the Little Bighorn, the myth of the Last Stand already had a strong pull on human emotions, and on the way we like to remember history. The variations are endless — from the three hundred Spartans at Thermopylae to Davy Crockett at the Alamo — but they all tell the story of a brave and intractable hero leading his tiny band against a numberless foe. Even though the odds are overwhelming, the hero and his followers fight on nobly to the end and are slaughtered to a man. In defeat the hero of the Last Stand achieves the greatest of victories, since he will be remembered for all time.[19]

During WW I, the expression to fight "with one's back to the wall" became a widely-known way to refer to making a last stand. The London Times reported on April 13, 1918 that General Douglas Haig ordered British troops that "Every position must be held to the last man...With our backs to the wall...each one of us must fight on to the end". [20]


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2063
Everyman decries immorality
Merkel Migrant Blowback Begins: "Chechen Sharia Police Terrorize Berlin"

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-10/merkel-migrant-blowback-begins-chechen-sharia-police-terrorize-berlin

The comments on this article are very interesting! The discussion that needed to be had publicly.. is finally happening.. the end times indeed.

Delusion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

A delusion is a belief that is held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception.

Delusions typically occur in the context of neurological or psychiatric disease, although they are not tied to any particular disorder and have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states (both physical and mental). However, they are of particular diagnostic importance in psychotic disorders including schizophrenia, paraphrenia, manic episodes of bipolar disorder, and psychotic depression.

Definition

Although non-specific concepts of madness have been around for several thousand years, the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his 1913 book General Psychopathology.[1] These criteria are:

    certainty (held with absolute conviction)
    incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
    impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre, or patently untrue)[2]

Furthermore, when a false belief involves a value judgment, it is only considered a delusion if it is so extreme that it cannot be, or never can be proven true. For example: a man claiming that he flew into the sun and flew back home. This would be considered a delusion,[3] unless he were speaking figuratively, or if the belief had a cultural or religious source.

Causes

Explaining the causes of delusions continues to be challenging and several theories have been developed. One is the genetic or biological theory, which states that close relatives of people with delusional disorder are at increased risk of delusional traits. Another theory is the dysfunctional cognitive processing, which states that delusions may arise from distorted ways people have of explaining life to themselves. A third theory is called motivated or defensive delusions. This one states that some of those persons who are predisposed might suffer the onset of delusional disorder in those moments when coping with life and maintaining high self-esteem becomes a significant challenge. In this case, the person views others as the cause of their personal difficulties in order to preserve a positive self-view.[4]

This condition is more common among people who have poor hearing or sight. Also, ongoing stressors have been associated with a higher possibility of developing delusions. Examples of such stressors are immigration, low socioeconomic status, and even possibly the accumulation of smaller daily hassles.[5]

Specific delusions

The top two factors mainly concerned in the germination of delusions are: 1. Disorder of brain functioning; and 2. background influences of temperament and personality.[6]

Higher levels of dopamine qualify as a symptom of disorders of brain function. That they are needed to sustain certain delusions was examined by a preliminary study on delusional disorder (a psychotic syndrome) instigated to clarify if schizophrenia had a dopamine psychosis.[7] There were positive results - delusions of jealousy and persecution had different levels of dopamine metabolite HVA and homovanillyl alcohol (which may have been genetic). These can be only regarded as tentative results; the study called for future research with a larger population.

It is too simplistic to say that a certain measure of dopamine will bring about a specific delusion. Studies show age[8][9] and gender to be influential and it is most likely that HVA levels change during the life course of some syndromes.[10]

On the influence personality, it has been said: "Jaspers considered there is a subtle change in personality due to the illness itself; and this creates the condition for the development of the delusional atmosphere in which the delusional intuition arises."[11]

Cultural factors have "a decisive influence in shaping delusions".[12] For example, delusions of guilt and punishment are frequent in a Western, Christian country like Austria, but not in Pakistan - where it is more likely persecution.[13] Similarly, in a series of case studies, delusions of guilt and punishment were found in Austrian patients with Parkinson's being treated with l-dopa - a dopamine agonist.[14]

Types

Delusions are categorized into four different groups:

    Bizarre delusion: Delusions are deemed bizarre if they are clearly implausible and not understandable to same-culture peers and do not derive from ordinary life experiences.[15] An example named by the DSM-5 is a belief that someone replaced all of one's internal organs with someone else's without leaving a scar.

    Non-bizarre delusion: A delusion that, though false, is at least possible, e.g., the affected person mistakenly believes that he is under constant police surveillance.

    Mood-congruent delusion: Any delusion with content consistent with either a depressive or manic state, e.g., a depressed person believes that news anchors on television highly disapprove of him, or a person in a manic state might believe she is a powerful deity.

    Mood-neutral delusion: A delusion that does not relate to the sufferer's emotional state; for example, a belief that an extra limb is growing out of the back of one's head is neutral to either depression or mania.[16]

Themes

In addition to these categories, delusions often manifest according to a consistent theme. Although delusions can have any theme, certain themes are more common. Some of the more common delusion themes are:

    Delusion of control: False belief that another person, group of people, or external force controls one's general thoughts, feelings, impulses, or behavior.[16]

    Cotard delusion: False belief that one does not exist or has died.[17]

    Delusional jealousy: False belief that a spouse or lover is having an affair, with no proof to back up their claim.[16]

    Delusion of guilt or sin (or delusion of self-accusation): Ungrounded feeling of remorse or guilt of delusional intensity.[16]

    Delusion of mind being read: False belief that other people can know one's thoughts.[16]

    Delusion of thought insertion: Belief that another thinks through the mind of the person.[16]

    Delusion of reference: False belief that insignificant remarks, events, or objects in one's environment have personal meaning or significance.[16]

    Erotomania: False belief that another person is in love with them.[16]

    Grandiose religious delusion: Belief that the affected person is a god or chosen to act as a god.[18][19]

    Somatic delusion: Delusion whose content pertains to bodily functioning, bodily sensations or physical appearance. Usually the false belief is that the body is somehow diseased, abnormal or changed.[16] A specific example of this delusion is delusional parasitosis: Delusion in which one feels infested with insects, bacteria, mites, spiders, lice, fleas, worms, or other organisms. Affected individuals may also report being repeatedly bitten. In some cases, entomologists are asked to investigate cases of mysterious bites. Sometimes physical manifestations may occur including skin lesions.[20]

    Delusion of poverty: Person strongly believes they are financially incapacitated. Although this type of delusion is less common now, it was particularly widespread in the days preceding state support.[21]

Grandiose delusions or delusions of grandeur are principally a subtype of delusional disorder but could possibly feature as a symptom of schizophrenia and manic episodes of bipolar disorder.[22] Grandiose delusions are characterized by fantastical beliefs that one is famous, omnipotent or otherwise very powerful. The delusions are generally fantastic, often with a supernatural, science-fictional, or religious bent. In colloquial usage, one who overestimates one's own abilities, talents, stature or situation is sometimes said to have "delusions of grandeur". This is generally due to excessive pride, rather than any actual delusions. Grandiose delusions or delusions of grandeur can also be associated with megalomania.[citation needed]

Persecutory delusions

Persecutory delusions are the most common type of delusions and involve the theme of being followed, harassed, cheated, poisoned or drugged, conspired against, spied on, attacked, or otherwise obstructed in the pursuit of goals. Persecutory delusions are a condition in which the affected person wrongly believes that they are being persecuted. Specifically, they have been defined as containing three central elements:[23][page needed] The individual thinks that:

    harm is occurring, or is going to occur.
    the persecutor(s) has(have) the intention to cause harm.
    they are constantly being prejudged or profiled.

According to the DSM-IV-TR, persecutory delusions are the most common form of delusions in schizophrenia, where the person believes they are "being tormented, followed, sabotaged, tricked, spied on, or ridiculed."[24] In the DSM-IV-TR, persecutory delusions are the main feature of the persecutory type of delusional disorder. When the focus is to remedy some injustice by legal action, they are sometimes called "querulous paranoia".[25]

Diagnosis

The modern definition and Jaspers' original criteria have been criticised,[by whom?] as counter-examples can be shown for every defining feature.

Studies on psychiatric patients show that delusions vary in intensity and conviction over time, which suggests that certainty and incorrigibility are not necessary components of a delusional belief.[26]

Delusions do not necessarily have to be false or 'incorrect inferences about external reality'.[27] Some religious or spiritual beliefs by their nature may not be falsifiable, and hence cannot be described as false or incorrect, no matter whether the person holding these beliefs was diagnosed as delusional or not.[28]

In other situations the delusion may turn out to be true belief.[29] For example, in delusional jealousy, where a person believes that their partner is being unfaithful (and may even follow them into the bathroom believing them to be seeing their lover even during the briefest of partings), it may actually be true that the partner is having sexual relations with another person. In this case, the delusion does not cease to be a delusion because the content later turns out to be verified as true or the partner actually chose to engage in the behavior of which they were being accused.

In other cases, the delusion may be assumed to be false by a doctor or psychiatrist assessing the belief, because it seems to be unlikely, bizarre or held with excessive conviction. Psychiatrists rarely have the time or resources to check the validity of a person’s claims leading to some true beliefs to be erroneously classified as delusional.[30] This is known as the Martha Mitchell effect, after the wife of the attorney general who alleged that illegal activity was taking place in the White House. At the time, her claims were thought to be signs of mental illness, and only after the Watergate scandal broke was she proved right (and hence sane).

Similar factors have led to criticisms of Jaspers' definition of true delusions as being ultimately 'un-understandable'. Critics (such as R. D. Laing) have argued that this leads to the diagnosis of delusions being based on the subjective understanding of a particular psychiatrist, who may not have access to all the information that might make a belief otherwise interpretable. R. D. Laing's hypothesis has been applied to some forms of projective therapy to "fix" a delusional system so that it cannot be altered by the patient. Psychiatric researchers at Yale University, Ohio State University and the Community Mental Health Center of Middle Georgia have used novels and motion picture films as the focus. Texts, plots and cinematography are discussed and the delusions approached tangentially.[31] This use of fiction to decrease the malleability of a delusion was employed in a joint project by science-fiction author Philip Jose Farmer and Yale psychiatrist A. James Giannini. They wrote the novel Red Orc's Rage, which, recursively, deals with delusional adolescents who are treated with a form of projective therapy. In this novel's fictional setting other novels written by Farmer are discussed and the characters are symbolically integrated into the delusions of fictional patients. This particular novel was then applied to real-life clinical settings.[32]

Another difficulty with the diagnosis of delusions is that almost all of these features can be found in "normal" beliefs. Many religious beliefs hold exactly the same features, yet are not universally considered delusional. These factors have led the psychiatrist Anthony David to note that "there is no acceptable (rather than accepted) definition of a delusion."[33] In practice, psychiatrists tend to diagnose a belief as delusional if it is either patently bizarre, causing significant distress, or excessively pre-occupying the patient, especially if the person is subsequently unswayed in belief by counter-evidence or reasonable arguments.

It is important to distinguish true delusions from other symptoms such as anxiety, fear, or paranoia. To diagnose delusions a mental state examination may be used. This test includes appearance, mood, affect, behavior, rate and continuity of speech, evidence of hallucinations or abnormal beliefs, thought content, orientation to time, place and person, attention and concentration, insight and judgment, as well as short-term memory.[34]

Johnson-Laird suggests that delusions may be viewed as the natural consequence of failure to distinguish conceptual relevance. That is, the person takes irrelevant information and puts it in the form of disconnected experiences, then it is taken to be relevant in a manner that suggests false causal connections. Furthermore, the person takes the relevant information, in the form of counterexamples, and ignores it.[35]

Treatment

Psychotherapies that may be helpful in delusional disorder include individual psychotherapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and family therapy.

Abrahamic religions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions

The Abrahamic religions, also referred to collectively as Abrahamism, are a group of Semitic-originated religious sects that claim descent from the practices of the ancient Israelites and the worship of the God of Abraham. The term derives from a figure from the Bible known as Abraham.[1] Abrahamic religion was able to spread globally through Christianity being adopted by the Roman Empire in the 4th century and the Islamic Empire from the 7th century onward. As a consequence, today the Abrahamic religions are one of the major divisions in comparative religion (along with Indian, Iranian, and East Asian religions).[2] Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the largest Abrahamic religions in terms of numbers of adherents.[3][4][5]

The major Abrahamic religions in chronological order of founding are Judaism in the 7th century BCE,[6] Christianity in the 1st century CE, and Islam in the 7th century CE.

Abrahamic religions with fewer adherents include the faiths descended from Yazdânism (the Yezidi, Yarsani and Alevi faiths), Samaritanism (sometimes classified as a branch of Judaism),[7] the Druze faith (often classified as a branch of Isma'ili Shi'i Islam),[8] Bábism,[9] the Bahá'í Faith and Rastafari.[10][11]

As of 2005, estimates classified 54% (3.6 billion people) of the world's population as adherents of an Abrahamic religion, about 32% as adherents of other religions, and 16% as adherents of no organized religion. Christianity claims 33% of the world's population, Islam has 21%, Judaism has 0.2%[12][13] and the Bahá'í Faith represents around 0.1%.[14][15]

Challenges to the terms "Abrahamic religions" and "Abrahamic traditions"


The appropriateness of grouping Judaism, Christianity, and Islam by the terms "Abrahamic religions" or "Abrahamic traditions" has been challenged in the following books.

In 2012, Alan L. Berger, Professor of Judaic Studies at Florida Atlantic University,[23] in his Preface to Trialogue and Terror: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam after 9/11 wrote that there are "commonalities", but "there are essential differences between the Abrahamic traditions" both "historical and theological". Although "Judaism birthed both Christianity and Islam", the "three monotheistic faiths went their separate ways". The three faiths "understand the role of Abraham" in "differing ways", and the relationships between Judaism and Christianity and between Judaism and Islam are "uneven". Also, the three traditions are "demographically unbalanced and ideologically diverse".[24]

Also in 2012, Aaron W. Hughes published a book about the category Abrahamic religions as an example of "abuses of history." He said that only recently the category "Abrahamic religions" has come into use and that it is a "vague referent." It is "largely a theological neologism" and "an artificial and imprecise" term. Combining the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religions into this one category might serve the purpose of encouraging "interfaith trialogue", but it is not true to the "historical record". Abrahamic religions is "an ahistorical category". There are "certain family resemblances" among these three religions, but the "amorphous" term Abrahamic religions prevents an understanding of the "complex nature" of the interactions among them. Furthermore, the three religions do not share the same story of Abraham. For these and other reasons, Hughes argued that the term should not be used, at least in academic circles.[25]


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2063
Everyman decries immorality
The CIA’s Absence of Conviction

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

11 Dec, 2016

I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.

A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of “We know who it was, it was the Russians” are beneath contempt.

As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.

The continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of “Russia”, while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque.

I had a call from a Guardian journalist this afternoon. The astonishing result was that for three hours, an article was accessible through the Guardian front page which actually included the truth among the CIA hype:

    The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.
    Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”
    “I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
    “If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.
    “America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”


But only three hours. While the article was not taken down, the home page links to it vanished and it was replaced by a ludicrous one repeating the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming – incredibly – that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion. Presumably this totally nutty theory, that Putin is somehow now controlling the FBI, is meant to answer my obvious objection that, if the CIA know who it is, why haven’t they arrested somebody. That bit of course would be the job of the FBI, who those desperate to annul the election now wish us to believe are the KGB.

It is terrible that the prime conduit for this paranoid nonsense is a once great newspaper, the Washington Post, which far from investigating executive power, now is a sounding board for totally evidence free anonymous source briefing of utter bullshit from the executive.

In the UK, one single article sums up the total abnegation of all journalistic standards. The truly execrable Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian writes “Few credible sources doubt that Russia was behind the hacking of internal Democratic party emails, whose release by Julian Assange was timed to cause maximum pain to Hillary Clinton and pleasure for Trump.” Does he produce any evidence at all for this assertion? No, none whatsoever. What does a journalist mean by a “credible source”? Well, any journalist worth their salt in considering the credibility of a source will first consider access. Do they credibly have access to the information they claim to have?

Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.

Contrast this to the “credible sources” Freedland relies on. What access do they have to the whistleblower? Zero. They have not the faintest idea who the whistleblower is. Otherwise they would have arrested them. What reputation do they have for truthfulness? It’s the Clinton gang and the US government, for goodness sake.

In fact, the sources any serious journalist would view as “credible” give the opposite answer to the one Freedland wants. But in what passes for Freedland’s mind, “credible” is 100% synonymous with “establishment”. When he says “credible sources” he means “establishment sources”. That is the truth of the “fake news” meme. You are not to read anything unless it is officially approved by the elite and their disgusting, crawling whores of stenographers like Freedland.

The worst thing about all this is that it is aimed at promoting further conflict with Russia. This puts everyone in danger for the sake of more profits for the arms and security industries – including of course bigger budgets for the CIA. As thankfully the four year agony of Aleppo comes swiftly to a close today, the Saudi and US armed and trained ISIS forces counter by moving to retake Palmyra. This game kills people, on a massive scale, and goes on and on.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2063
Everyman decries immorality
The Stink Without a Secret

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/07/stink-without-secret/

03 Jul, 2017

After six solid months of co-ordinated allegation from the mainstream media allied to the leadership of state security institutions, not one single scrap of solid evidence for Trump/Russia election hacking has emerged.

I do not support Donald Trump. I do support truth. There is much about Trump that I dislike intensely. Neither do I support the neo-liberal political establishment in the USA. The latter’s control of the mainstream media, and cunning manipulation of identity politics, seeks to portray the neo-liberal establishment as the heroes of decent values against Trump. Sadly, the idea that the neo-liberal establishment embodies decent values is completely untrue.

Truth disappeared so long ago in this witch-hunt that it is no longer even possible to define what the accusation is. Belief in “Russian hacking” of the US election has been elevated to a generic accusation of undefined wrongdoing, a vague malaise we are told is floating poisonously in the ether, but we are not allowed to analyse. What did the Russians actually do?

The original, base accusation is that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC and Podesta emails and passed them to Wikileaks. (I can assure you that is untrue).

The authenticity of those emails is not in question. What they revealed of cheating by the Democratic establishment in biasing the primaries against Bernie Sanders, led to the forced resignation of Debbie Wasserman Shultz as chair of the Democratic National Committee. They also led to the resignation from CNN of Donna Brazile, who had passed debate questions in advance to Clinton. Those are facts. They actually happened. Let us hold on to those facts, as we surf through lies. There was other nasty Clinton Foundation and cash for access stuff in the emails, but we do not even need to go there for the purpose of this argument.

The original “Russian hacking” allegation was that it was the Russians who nefariously obtained these damning emails and passed them to Wikileaks. The “evidence” for this was twofold. A report from private cyber security firm Crowdstrike claimed that metadata showed that the hackers had left behind clues, including the name of the founder of the Soviet security services. The second piece of evidence was that a blogger named Guccifer2 and a websitecalled DNC Leaks appeared to have access to some of the material around the same time that Wikileaks did, and that Guccifer2 could be Russian.

That is it. To this day, that is the sum total of actual “evidence” of Russian hacking. I won’t say hang on to it as a fact, because it contains no relevant fact. But at least it is some form of definable allegation of something happening, rather than “Russian hacking” being a simple article of faith like the Holy Trinity.

But there are a number of problems that prevent this being fact at all. Nobody has ever been able to refute the evidence of Bill Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA who designed its current surveillance systems. Bill has stated that the capability of the NSA is such, that if the DNC computers had been hacked, the NSA would be able to trace the actual packets of that information as those emails travelled over the internet, and give a precise time, to the second, for the hack. The NSA simply do not have the event – because there wasn’t one. I know Bill personally and am quite certain of his integrity.

As we have been repeatedly told, “17 intelligence agencies” sign up to the “Russian hacking”, yet all these king’s horses and all these king’s men have been unable to produce any evidence whatsoever of the purported “hack”. Largely because they are not in fact trying. Here is another actual fact I wish you to hang on to: The Democrats have refused the intelligence agencies access to their servers to discover what actually happened. I am going to say that again.

The Democrats have refused the intelligence agencies access to their servers to discover what actually happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqIY8KvuoJo

The heads of the intelligence community have said that they regard the report from Crowdstrike – the Clinton aligned private cyber security firm – as adequate. Despite the fact that the Crowdstrike report plainly proves nothing whatsoever and is based entirely on an initial presumption there must have been a hack, as opposed to an internal download.

Not actually examining the obvious evidence has been a key tool in keeping the “Russian hacking” meme going. On 24 May the Guardian reported triumphantly, following the Washington Post, that

    “Fox News falsely alleged federal authorities had found thousands of emails between Rich and Wikileaks, when in fact law enforcement officials disputed that Rich’s laptop had even been in possession of, or examined by, the FBI.”

It evidently did not occur to the Guardian as troubling, that those pretending to be investigating the murder of Seth Rich have not looked at his laptop.

There is a very plain pattern here of agencies promoting the notion of a fake “Russian crime”, while failing to take the most basic and obvious initial steps if they were really investigating its existence. I might add to that, there has been no contact with me at all by those supposedly investigating. I could tell them these were leaks not hacks. Wikileaks. The clue is in the name.

So those “17 agencies” are not really investigating but are prepared to endorse weird Crowdstrike claims, like the idea that Russia’s security services are so amateur as to leave fingerprints with the name of their founder. If the Russians fed the material to Wikileaks, why would they also set up a vainglorious persona like Guccifer2 who leaves obvious Russia pointing clues all over the place?

Of course we need to add from the Wikileaks “Vault 7” leak release, information that the CIA specifically deploys technology that leaves behind fake fingerprints of a Russian computer hacking operation.

Crowdstrike have a general anti-Russian attitude. They published a report seeking to allege that the same Russian entities which “had hacked” the DNC were involved in targeting for Russian artillery in the Ukraine. This has been utterly discredited.

Some of the more crazed “Russiagate” allegations have been quietly dropped. The mainstream media are hoping we will all forget their breathless endorsement of the reports of the charlatan Christopher Steele, a former middle ranking MI6 man with very limited contacts that he milked to sell lurid gossip to wealthy and gullible corporations. I confess I rather admire his chutzpah.

Given there is no hacking in the Russian hacking story, the charges have moved wider into a vague miasma of McCarthyite anti-Russian hysteria. Does anyone connected to Trump know any Russians? Do they have business links with Russian finance?

Of course they do. Trump is part of the worldwide oligarch class whose financial interests are woven into a vast worldwide network that enslaves pretty well the rest of us. As are the Clintons and the owners of the mainstream media who are stoking up the anti-Russian hysteria. It is all good for their armaments industry interests, in both Washington and Moscow.

Trump’s judgement is appalling. His sackings or inappropriate directions to people over this subject may damage him.

The old Watergate related wisdom is that it is not the crime that gets you, it is the cover-up. But there is a fundamental difference here. At the centre of Watergate there was an actual burglary. At the centre of Russian hacking there is a void, a hollow, and emptiness, an abyss, a yawning chasm. There is nothing there.

Those who believe that opposition to Trump justifies whipping up anti-Russian hysteria on a massive scale, on the basis of lies, are wrong. I remain positive that the movement Bernie Sanders started will bring a new dawn to America in the next few years. That depends on political campaigning by people on the ground and on social media. Leveraging falsehoods and cold war hysteria through mainstream media in an effort to somehow get Clinton back to power is not a viable alternative. It is a fantasy and even were it practical, I would not want it to succeed.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 273
The Stink Without a Secret

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/07/stink-without-secret/

03 Jul, 2017



I do not support Donald Trump. I do support truth. There is much about Trump that I dislike intensely. Neither do I support the neo-liberal political establishment in the USA. The latter’s control of the mainstream media, and cunning manipulation of identity politics, seeks to portray the neo-liberal establishment as the heroes of decent values against Trump. Sadly, the idea that the neo-liberal establishment embodies decent values is completely untrue.

snip

Those who believe that opposition to Trump justifies whipping up anti-Russian hysteria on a massive scale, on the basis of lies, are wrong. I remain positive that the movement Bernie Sanders started will bring a new dawn to America in the next few years. That depends on political campaigning by people on the ground and on social media. Leveraging falsehoods and cold war hysteria through mainstream media in an effort to somehow get Clinton back to power is not a viable alternative. It is a fantasy and even were it practical, I would not want it to succeed.

An excellent article, well written.

Living next to the beast we have long had a term for such people, we call them ugly Americans. I am quite sure Trump qualifies.

I was fooled in the beginning as he was saying all the right things. However the light came on when I saw the dinner video. Trump is a Jesuit with strong ties to Judaism. What he is doing is exactly in character. No different than if the dragon lady won.

Here is a quote:

"Donald Trump has been the subject of media frenzy as of late. It seems that a considerable amount of those who subscribe to alternative sources of information are Trump supporters. They see him as some kind of rebel, going against both the Republican and Democratic parties (as exemplified by his recent non-commitment to support the Republican nominee for President).
Could it be though, that Donald Trump is a "false flag candidate" being used to secure the vote of the ever-increasing independent constituency in order to inevitably lull the US into a false sense of positive political novelty and thus to subsequently impose Jesuitical right-wing fascism leading to a nation-wide race war as devised by the masters of class adversarialism, the Sons of Loyola?
It very well could be. Here is why:
Trump claims to be Presbyterian, yet he attended Jesuit Fordham University for two years and then transferred to the covertly Jesuit-controlled University of Pennsylvania. 1
The University of Pennsylvania is funded by various Papal Court Jews, notably by The Annenberg Foundation, 2 started by Papal Knight and hofjude Walter Hubert Annenberg. Annenberg briefly attended the University of Pennsylvania in his youth and later established the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Annenberg is a Knight Commander of the Order of St. Gregory the Great. 3 , 4
Court Jew David L. Cohen is the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania as well as an alumnus of University of Pennsylvania. He is also the executive vice president of Comcast. 5 He was recently named co-chairman of the leadership planning committee of the Roman Catholic World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia (which is the coming of the Pope to Philadelphia!) 6
University of Pennsylvania could be renamed "Hofjude University" because of its enormous amount of Papist Jewish funding and leadership and really the entire Pennsylvania area is controlled by the Roman Catholic hierarchy via the Jesuit provincial holding jurisdiction over Pennsylvania, the Archbishop of Philadelphia and the Bishop of Pittsburgh in conjunction with the temporal coadjutor government officials produced from UPenn and the following Roman Catholic or Catholic-funded Universities: La Salle University, Duquesne University, Pennsylvania State University, Villanova University, Temple University and Saint Joseph's University.
Protestants do not attend Roman Catholic institutions, especially counter-reformation Jesuit institutions like Fordham University, so Trump is at the very least an apostate for having done that. However, the story does not end with Trump.
Out of the five children he has, the three listed on Wikipedia have attended the following schools: 7 , 8 , 9
Donald John Trump, Jr. - Alma mater: University of Pennsylvania
Ivanka Marie Trump - Alma mater: University of Pennsylvania
Eric Frederic Trump - Alma mater: Georgetown University
There you have it; Trump, in addition to being affiliated with both Jesuit Fordham and covertly Jesuit UPenn, has at least three children who are all alumni of UPenn and notorious Jesuit Georgetown University!
Whether it be Trump, Jeb Bush, Hilary Clinton or even Bernie Sanders that ends up winning the 2016 election, all of these candidates are connected to Rome and all will only serve to implement the tyrannical, neo-Romanist policies of the Papacy and its professed soldiers of the Society of Jesus."

https://www.reddit.com/r/RomeRules/comments/3g7zgf/donald_trump_secret_jesuit_agent_for/?st=j4yq9d09&sh=0ec5d577



Ron
« Last Edit: 2017-07-11, 00:26:45 by ronee »
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2063
Everyman decries immorality
Society of Jesus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Jesus

The Society of Jesus (S.J. – from Latin: Societas Iesu) is a male religious congregation of the Catholic Church which originated in Spain. The members are called Jesuits.[2] The society is engaged in evangelization and apostolic ministry in 112 nations on six continents. Jesuits work in education (founding schools, colleges, universities, and seminaries), intellectual research, and cultural pursuits. Jesuits also give retreats, minister in hospitals and parishes, sponsor direct social ministries, and promote ecumenical dialogue.

Ignatius of Loyola, a Basque nobleman from the Pyrenees area of northern Spain, founded the society after discerning his spiritual vocation while recovering from a wound sustained in the battle of Pamplona. He composed the Spiritual Exercises to help others follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. In 1534, Ignatius and six other young men, including Francis Xavier and Peter Faber, gathered and professed vows of poverty, chastity, and later obedience, including a special vow of obedience to the Pope in matters of mission direction and assignment. Ignatius's plan of the order's organization was approved by Pope Paul III in 1540 by a bull containing the "Formula of the Institute".

Ignatius was a nobleman who had a military background, and the members of the society were supposed to accept orders anywhere in the world, where they might be required to live in extreme conditions. Accordingly, the opening lines of the founding document declared that the society was founded for "whoever desires to serve as a soldier of God[a] to strive especially for the defence and propagation of the faith and for the progress of souls in Christian life and doctrine."[4] Jesuits are thus sometimes referred to colloquially as "God's soldiers",[5] "God's marines",[6] or "the Company", which evolved from references to Ignatius' history as a soldier and the society's commitment to accepting orders anywhere and to endure any conditions.[7] The society participated in the Counter-Reformation and, later, in the implementation of the Second Vatican Council.

The Society of Jesus is consecrated under the patronage of Madonna Della Strada, a title of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and it is led by a Superior General.[8][9] The headquarters of the society, its General Curia, is in Rome.[10] The historic curia of St. Ignatius is now part of the Collegio del Gesù attached to the Church of the Gesù, the Jesuit mother church.

In 2013, Jorge Mario Bergoglio became the first Jesuit Pope, taking the name Pope Francis.

Jesuits and Nazi Germany

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuits_and_Nazi_Germany

At the outbreak of World War II, the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) had some 1700 members in the German Reich, divided into three provinces: Eastern, Lower and Upper Germany. Nazi leaders had some admiration for the discipline of the Jesuit order, but opposed its principles. Of the 152 Jesuits murdered by the Nazis across Europe, 27 died in captivity or its results, and 43 in the concentration camps.[1]

Hitler was anticlerical and had particular disdain for the Jesuits. The Jesuit Provincial, Augustin Rosch, ended the war on death row for his role in the July Plot to overthrow Hitler. The Catholic Church faced persecution in Nazi Germany and persecution was particularly severe in Poland. The Superior General of the Jesuits at the outbreak of War was Wlodzimierz Ledochowski, a Pole. Vatican Radio, which spoke out against Axis atrocities, was run by the Jesuit Filippo Soccorsi.[2]

Jesuits made up the largest contingent of clergy imprisoned in the Priest Barracks of Dachau Concentration Camp, where some 30 Jesuits died. Several Jesuits were prominent in the small German Resistance, including the influential martyr Alfred Delp of the Kreisau Circle.[3] The German Jesuit Robert Leiber acted as intermediary between Pius XII and the German Resistance. Among the Jesuit victims of the Nazis, Germany's Rupert Mayer has been beatified. Among twelve Jesuit "Righteous Gentiles" recognised by Yad Vashem is Belgium's Jean-Baptiste Janssens, who was appointed Superior General of the Jesuits after the War.[4]


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 273
Society of Jesus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Jesus

 The society is engaged in evangelization and apostolic ministry in 112 nations on six continents. Jesuits work in education (founding schools, colleges, universities, and seminaries), intellectual research, and cultural pursuits. Jesuits also give retreats, minister in hospitals and parishes, sponsor direct social ministries, and promote ecumenical dialogue.


What a white wash!  The most diabolical order in the world.

From Titanic to 9-11

Quote:

Peter Hans Kolvenbach General of the International Military Order of the Society of Jesus is seen by many as one of the main people responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001 on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The New World Order is the fourth empire, an empire under the Vatican under Lucifer. Since the secretions of the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation does the Luciferian cult everything possible to regain full control.


http://www.volkwordtwakker.nl/en/truth-or-lies-revelations/black-pope-lucifer-and-the-jesuits/

Eric Jon Phelps quotes

The Jesuits obviously wrote the Protocols because they have carried out every protocol in that little handbook. Alberto Rivera says that it was Jews aligned with the Pope who published the Protocols. Well, I tend to feel that it was just the Jesuits themselves because they and they alone, were the ones who were able to bring this to pass.
They’re the ones in the government. They’re the ones behind professional sports. The owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers is a Knight of Malta. The owner of the Detroit Lions is a Knight of Malta. All your top owners of these ball clubs, for the most part, are Knights of Malta, getting the people whooped up in this hoopla over games and sports, while they’re busy creating a tyranny. So, that was one of the things in the Protocols-that they would create ‘amusements’.
Another one they used was Walt Disney, 33rd-degree Freemason-Disneyworld, Disneyland. Another one was Milton Hersey, with Hersey Park. They create all of these amusements and games and pastimes to get the people drunk with pleasure, while they’re busy overthrowing the Protestant form of government…….. the High Knights are good, dear brothers with the High Mafia Dons-the Gambinos, the Lucchese, the Columbos, all of them. And they control Hollywood, not the Jews. It’s only Jews who are front-men who are involved in Hollywood and working for the Mafia and for the Cardinal, just like in politics it would be Arlen Spector. Arlen Spector was Spelly’s [Cardinal Spellman’s] Jew in the assassination [of President Kennedy], and he would never say a word about it.

https://dreamweaver11gold.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/jesuits-exposed-jesuit-general-black-pope-most-powerful-man-jesuits-who-took-the-4th-vow-blood-oath-referred-to-extreme-oath-of-the-jesuits-eric-john-phleps-quotes-2/

The Council of Trent was the response of Rome to the Protestant Reformation. Remember-the Protestant Reformation brought us all of the political liberty that we know of today. There’s no such thing as national sovereignty without the Reformation. There’s no such thing as private rights without the Reformation. There’s no such thing as the Law of Nations, as we know of it today, of Montesquieu and the others, without the Reformation.  Eric Jon Phelps

In the 4th Session, which is probably the most important Session, the Jesuits condemn freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of conscience. So, no man has the right to choose his own religion; no man has the right to publish what he feels is the truth; and no man has the right to freedom of conscience.

Harry Truman was put in office by the Jesuits, the Pensergast Democratic machine in Missouri.Harry Truman takes over after FDR’s murder, because he was murdered in the home of Bernard Baruch. When he did that, he then finished up the war with the hoax called the dropping of the nuclear bombs, to purposely create this greater hoax called the Cold War, that would enable the Vatican to knock over country after country after country, and replace the leaders with dictators, subordinate to the Pope. That was the purpose of the Cold War.  Eric Jon Phelps

The reason why Kennedy was assassinated was he wanted to end the Vietnam War, and he wanted to end the rule of the CIA. That begets two questions: Did Rome want the Vietnam War? And, did Rome control the CIA? The answer is yes on both counts. We know, on its face, that the Vietnam War was called ‘Spelly’s War’-Cardinal Spellman’s war. He went over to the warfront many times and he called the American soldiers the ‘soldiers of Christ’. The man who was the Commander of the American forces was a Roman Catholic, CFR member, possibly a Knight of Columbus, I don’t know, but he was General William Westmoreland.
So, Westmoreland was Cardinal Spellman’s agent to make sure that war was prosecuted properly. And another overseer of Westmoreland was Cardinal Spellman’s boy, Lyndon Baines Johnson. Lyndon Baines Johnson was a 33rd-degree Freemason. He was also part of the assassination, with J. Edgar Hoover, another 33rd-degree Freemason.
……..Spellman wanted the Vietnam War, why? Spellman was controlled by the Jesuits of Fordham. Why did the Jesuit General want the Vietnam War? The people of Vietnam, the Buddhists, were unconvertible. They would not convert to Catholicism. They didn’t need Rome.
There had been a Jesuit presence in Vietnam for centuries, so it had been decided that about a million or so Buddhists would have to be ‘purged’. They would later continue this purge of Cambodia, with Pol Pot, and the purge is yet for Thailand. It was a purging of Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam of all these Buddhists, just like they purged the Buddhists of China with Mao Zedong, because Mao Zedong was completely controlled by the Jesuits. So, they wanted the Vietnam War.  Eric Jon Phelps

Ron
« Last Edit: 2017-07-11, 03:29:03 by ronee »
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 273


From Titanic to 9-11


Yes the Titanic's captain was a  Jesuit.

The Jesuits are undoubtedly the true representative of evil the world has ever known.

History is replete with warnings do we ever listen?

Quote
“The public is practically unaware of the overwhelming responsibility carried by the Vatican and its Jesuits in the starting of the two world wars – a situation which may be explained in part by the gigantic finances at the disposition of the Vatican and its Jesuits, giving them power in so many spheres, especially since the last conflict.”
– Edmond Paris


 “It is impossible to read Elizabethan history [i.e., the history surrounding Queen Elizabeth I of England; queen: 1558-1603] except in the context of an army of Jesuits, masters of deceit, treachery, treason, infiltration, subversion, assassination, insurrection, civil war and coercion, plotting for the good of the papacy, and the defeat of all the Pope’s foes anywhere in the world.” (1987)
– J.E.C. Shepherd


“[Wherever] a totalitarian movement erupts, whether Communist or Nazi [Fascist], a Jesuit can be found in the role of ‘adviser’ or leader; in Cuba [it was] [Jesuit-trained] Castro’s ‘Father’ Armando Llorente…”
– Emanuel M. Josephson


“If you trace up Masonry, through all its Orders, till you come to the grand tip-top head Mason of the World, you will discover that the dread individual and the Chief of the Society of Jesus [i.e., the Superior General of the Jesuit Order] are one and the same person.”
– James Parton


“The Society of Jesus [i.e., the Jesuit Order] is the enemy of man. The whole human race should unite for its overthrow. …For there is no alternative between its total extirpation, and the absolute corruption and degradation of mankind.”
– Robert J. Breckinridge

https://aplanetruth.info/2015/12/08/famous-warning-quotes-on-the-evil-of-jesuits/

Ron
« Last Edit: 2017-07-16, 04:44:55 by ronee »
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2063
Everyman decries immorality
Christian Zionism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism

Christian Zionism is a belief among some Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with Biblical prophecy. The term began to be used in the mid-20th century, superseding Christian Restorationism.[1][2]

Traditional Catholic thought did not consider Zionism in any form.[3] Christian advocacy of the restoration of the Jews arose following the Protestant Reformation. A contemporary Israeli historian suggests that evangelical Christian Zionists of the 1840s "passed this notion on to Jewish circles",[4] while Jewish nationalism in the early 19th century was widely regarded with hostility by British Jews.[5]

Some Christian Zionists believe that the gathering of the Jews in Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Jesus. The idea that Christians should actively support a Jewish return to the Land of Israel, along with the parallel idea that the Jews ought to be encouraged to become Christians as a means of fulfilling a Biblical prophecy, has been common in Protestant circles since the Reformation.[6][7][8][9]

History prior to the First Zionist Conference


Christian advocacy of the restoration of the Jews in Palestine, was first heard following the Protestant Reformation, particularly in the English-speaking world among the Puritans. It was common practice among Puritans to anticipate and frequently pray for a Jewish return to their homeland.[10] John Owen, a prominent 17th century English Covenant theologian, for example, wrote: "Moreover, it is granted that there shall be a time and season, during the continuance of the kingdom of the Messiah in this world, wherein the generality of the nation of the Jews, all the world over, shall be called and effectually brought unto the knowledge of the Messiah, our Lord Jesus Christ; with which mercy they shall also receive deliverance from their captivity, restoration unto their own land, with a blessed, flourishing, and happy condition therein."[11] John Gill took a similar position.[12]

Samuel Rutherford, a seventeenth-century Scottish theologian, expressed the ardent spirit of prayer of many of his contemporaries: "O to see the sight, next to Christ's coming in the clouds the most joyful! Our elder brethren the Jews and Christ fall upon each other's necks and kiss each other! They have long been assunder, they will be kind to one another when they meet. O day! O longed-for and lovely day-dawn!"[13]

In 1762, Charles Wesley wrote:[14]

    O that the chosen band

    Might now their brethren bring,
    And gather'd out of every land
    Present to Sion's King;
    Of all the ancient race
    Not one be left behind,
    But each impell'd by secret grace
    His way to Canaan find!

Christian support for Jewish restoration was brought to America by the Puritans who fled England. In colonial times, Increase Mather and John Cotton, among many others, favored Jewish restoration.[10] Later Jonathan Edwards also anticipated a future return of Jews to their homeland.[15] However it was not until the early 19th century that the idea gathered political impetus.

Ezra Stiles at Yale was a prominent supporter of Jewish restoration. In 1808, Asa McFarland, a Presbyterian, voiced the opinion of many that the fall of the Ottoman Empire was imminent and would bring about Jewish restoration. One David Austin of New Haven spent his fortune building docks and inns from which the Jews could embark to the Holy Land. In 1825, Mordecai Manuel Noah, a Jew who wanted to found a national home for the Jews on Grand Island in New York as a way station on the way to the Holy Land, won widespread Christian backing for his project. Likewise, restorationist theology was among the inspirations for the first American missionary activity in the Middle East[16] and for mapping the Holy Land.[17]

Many Christians believed that the return of the Jews to Judea, as prophesied in the Bible, was a necessary preliminary step towards the Second Coming. In this particular interpretation, after the Jews returned they would both accept Jesus as their savior and rebuild the Temple, which would usher in the Second Coming of Christ.[18]


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1178
Another piece of the 9/11 Puzzle has emerged which fits
smoothly into place.


Poignantly demonstrates the Power of Indoctrination as well as
the Power of MainStream Media Propaganda techniques.

Engineers are susceptible to the "programming" and the
"indoctrination."

Follow the Money.

Those who participated in the "event" often reveal the Truth
at the end of their lives.


---------------------------
"Truth: the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death." - John Gilmore (1935- ) Author
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 995
@mudped
Quote
Engineers are susceptible to the "programming" and the
"indoctrination."
Follow the Money.
Those who participated in the "event" often reveal the Truth
at the end of their lives.

As an Engineer I have another theory... shit happens. I was working on my tractor one day and I dropped a part which fell under the tractor. So I looked and it wasn't there, then I looked everywhere for hours and it wasn't anywhere. So I bought another part but months later I found that little bugger. You see it only dropped 4 feet but somehow it managed to bounce straight sideways when it hit the ground and travel twenty feet across my shop ricochet off the wheel of a cart and wedge itself behind a box. Hell the odds are more likely that tomorrow morning I will be able to walk on water but it happened... shit happens.

It's kind of an Engineering secret but we don't have all the answers and were just ordinary people like you with a little extra knowledge and training. I know good engineers and bad engineers and crazy as a loon engineers... that's life.


---------------------------
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt.

There is infinitely more that we do not know, than we know.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1178
One can only wonder whether the State Propaganda Apparatus of the West,
also known as the Mainstream Media, will publish this sort of Truth regarding
ISIS or DAESH?


ISIS, the brainchild of the NeoCon controlled Pentagon, aptly
demonstrates the ruthlessness of those who are responsible
for implementation of The Protocols.

Shit is made to happen.


---------------------------
"Truth: the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death." - John Gilmore (1935- ) Author
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2063
Everyman decries immorality
The State of Israel, Zionism and the Jewish Worldwide Diaspora

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-state-of-israel-zionism-and-the-jewish-worldwide-diaspora/5598328

Is the State of Israel really held by American, British and French Jews to be a safe haven - or a nuclear flashpoint?

By Anthony Bellchambers

Bearing in mind that the majority of the Jewish Diaspora is not Zionist – only less than half reside in Israel, the majority being permanently resident in the US, and Europe – plus the documented fact that the overwhelming  proportion of Zionists are not even Jewish but are Evangelical Christians who number something in the region of 50 million – it is reasonably clear that the Jewish majority who currently live and work in the Diaspora, not only have no desire to move to one of the world’s most dangerous, geo-political trouble spots, but would dismiss the idea of the State of Israel being a safe haven for anyone, whether Jew or Gentile. 

So, what are the facts?

    The OECD in 2016 ranks Israel as the country with the highest rates of poverty among its members. 21% of Israelis live under the poverty line – (more than Mexico, Turkey or Chile).

    Israel has a population of about 8.5 million and is the 34th most densely crowded country in the world.

    20% of Israelis are Muslim Arab; a further 20% from the former USSR and another 20% being from North Africa. There is little commonality of ethnicity or purpose with the EU or any Western Europe state.

    Hebrew and Arabic are the official languages.

As a result of Likud government intransigence, there is now no peace process with the over five million indigenous Muslim Arabs, half of whom are forced to live under a 10 year Israeli blockade, of essential supplies, designed to try to break them. Tragically, there is now virtually no electricity or power in Gaza for its 600,000 families the majority of whom are deliberately kept unemployed and hungry.

However, there is an absolute imperative to recognise the difference between Jewish Diaspora communities in Europe and America, and the hard .

The Jewish worldwide Diaspora is universally respected for its various talents (and its loyalty to its host countries), whereas the State of Israel is held in fear because of its massive, undeclared arsenal of nuclear warheads that could bring disaster to the world. There is virtually no commonality between the two. Israel is a secular, nuclear weapons state that has little connection with Judaism, or any respect for human dignity and life.

Meanwhile the region simmers on the brink of another expected war with Hezbollah, which would almost certainly involve heavy fatalities on both sides.

Hardly a place to holiday, much less a Dar-es-Salaam, by any stretch of the imagination.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2063
Everyman decries immorality
Why Has The Thinking Class Of America Abandoned Thinking?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-14/why-has-thinking-class-america-abandoned-thinking

The abiding enigma of this tormented era remains: why has the thinking class of America abandoned thinking?

The answer is: it’s the reaction to their own failure.

Failure to do what? To produce the utopia that Gnostic liberalism promised - a perfect world based on altering human nature.

The result is an essentially religious hysteria, like the witch frenzies of Medieval Europe that were sometimes provoked by ergot poisoning — a fungus with toxic psychotropic properties that grew on the harvested rye, inducing frightful hallucinations in the villagers, who then lashed out at their perceived supernatural antagonists. Trump in our time is the ergot on the bread of our politics. And Russia is the witch.

Like other operations of the human mind, this collective fugue-state has a big subconscious module in it: the deep, poorly articulated fear that the single notion of Progress behind progressive politics in the industrial era has reached a dead end. The world is clearly not becoming a better place, but rather reeling into disorder and ecological crisis, despite all the rational programs and politics of modern democracy, and political failure is everywhere.

The “peace dividend” promised by the end of the cold war has degenerated into endless war. The miraculous promises of medicine have been hijacked by “health care” racketeering now institutionalized under ObamaCare. The Civil Rights campaign begun in the 1950s with the most earnest, hopeful intentions (and generous policies) has produced off-the-charts black crime rates, educational defeat, ruined cities, and epic rancor. The middle class has been left economically shipwrecked by the promises of globalism. The pledge of a happy retirement dissolves as the pension funds roll over and die. And the supposed paragon of enlightened American governance morphs into a sinister and corrupt Deep State of oligarchical corruption.

In the background of all this are even more disturbing quandaries and prospects: population overshoot, mass migration from regions that can’t support these numbers of people, extinctions of animal species, the death of the oceans, climate instability. The practical problems of economy approach an event horizon of energy scarcity, runaway debt from trying to mitigate it, and eventual collapse of our day-to-day hyper-complex economic arrangements. These things are so scary that the thinking classes - except for a minority of nerdy scientists - can’t even bear to think about them.

Instead, we have the Gnostic drive to alter human nature, which has terminated in the preoccupation with abolishing sexual identity - the fantasy that we will (and ought to) throw off the shackles of biology and rise into a sort of “trans-human” nirvana. Just behold the amount of “ink” that The New York Times has spilled reporting on the triumphs of transexualism in the past year.

It’s not surprising that some of the worst thinking, the most obviously tortured theological hallucinations, emanate these days from the universities — the places where young, developing intellects are supposed to be molded. Instead of free inquiry, they now offer intellectual martial law, chained to sets of ersatz metaphysics. “Victim” ideas run wild because malign supernatural powers are in play against the faculty hierophants on the elite campuses, charged with interpreting the sacred mysteries and esoteric principles of “post-structural” (reality-optional) thought. The quandaries of “minority” America have resolved in the simple superstitious idea that demonic forces of “white male privilege” and ubiquitous, implacable misogynistic racism are entirely responsible for the woes and sorrows of the world, and the failure of progress in particular.

The failures of US-sponsored economic globalism now focus on the ur-demon (the Satan!) called Russia. Apocalyptic battle with the greatest monster of the imagination is the ultimate struggle in outbreaks of religious frenzy, and America has a ripe history of engaging with the Devil. It’s bad enough when it breaks out in a tiny colonial settlement like Salem, Massachusetts, in the 1600s. There only a few dozen people were persecuted and destroyed. It’s another matter on the global stage today when you engage a perceived “Satan” like Russia, which truly can rain holy Hell back on you if you push your hallucinated animus too far.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 273
Why Has The Thinking Class Of America Abandoned Thinking?

snip
It’s not surprising that some of the worst thinking, the most obviously tortured theological hallucinations, emanate these days from the universities — the places where young, developing intellects are supposed to be molded. Instead of free inquiry, they now offer intellectual martial law, chained to sets of ersatz metaphysics. “Victim” ideas run wild because malign supernatural powers are in play against the faculty hierophants on the elite campuses, charged with interpreting the sacred mysteries and esoteric principles of “post-structural” (reality-optional) thought. The quandaries of “minority” America have resolved in the simple superstitious idea that demonic forces of “white male privilege” and ubiquitous, implacable misogynistic racism are entirely responsible for the woes and sorrows of the world, and the failure of progress in particular.


How far back should we go in our discussions of history?

Would 200 K and the advent of "humans" suffice?  Anyway I found this of interest, As Sitchin said, we were 'engineered' to be a slave race with limited intellect, this vid seems to bear that out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiXOFBMDagE

Ron
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1760


Buy me some coffee
@mudped
As an Engineer I have another theory... shit happens. I was working on my tractor one day and I dropped a part which fell under the tractor. So I looked and it wasn't there, then I looked everywhere for hours and it wasn't anywhere. So I bought another part but months later I found that little bugger. You see it only dropped 4 feet but somehow it managed to bounce straight sideways when it hit the ground and travel twenty feet across my shop ricochet off the wheel of a cart and wedge itself behind a box. Hell the odds are more likely that tomorrow morning I will be able to walk on water but it happened... shit happens.

It's kind of an Engineering secret but we don't have all the answers and were just ordinary people like you with a little extra knowledge and training. I know good engineers and bad engineers and crazy as a loon engineers... that's life.

Some one looking for me?  :D


Brad
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2063
Everyman decries immorality
America’s War Against International Civil Society Is Permanent

http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13960424001997

TEHRAN (FNA)- This week, ISIL lost its medieval caliphate in Mosul. The fringe terrorist organization is also fast losing the remaining places it has occupied in Syria. It will soon be relegated to the ash heap of history. But it may not matter much if the US Empire of Bases decides to stay and entertain supposedly to fight terrorism.

The terrorist organization, which once mesmerized and horrified the world, only has a few small desert towns left in northern Iraq and eastern Syria. Its biggest lasting impact will most likely be on the Capitol Hill, where the political class has every intention to maintain a global state of emergency, occupy Muslim lands, launch a permanent war on Islam (alias War on Terror), and use it as a pretext to maintain the global colonial order. This development is no surprise in Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain - but Syrian, Iraqi and Yemeni democracies are in danger:
 
- After powering Saudi-led war on Yemen, war-party Washington imposed a state of emergency and began building a closed military zone on the Yemeni Island of Hanish al-Kubra, which is 130 km from the city of Hodeidah.
 
- After getting involved directly in regime-change campaign in Syria – again on the pretext of fighting terror – the US began building military bases along the Syrian-Iraqi border.
 
- The US also has military and drone bases in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya – among many other illegal sites scattered across the region and beyond.
 
Neither President Trump nor his predecessors Obama and Bush have seriously addressed US policy for any of these multiple wars and bases, and the Trump administration has not publically stated its grand strategy for any of them. For the first time in its history, the United States has no intention to seriously debate or discuss where its permanent war is going, or what its longer-term impacts will be.
 
If anything, both American politics and the “fakestream” media seem to focus far more on whether or not President Trump had any contacts with Russia during the presidential race than ending the permanent war. This focus disregards whether or not his policy involves the ability to actually win any of what are now very different conflicts in a form that will have an outcome that serves global interests.
 
Given that America’s state of emergency is going to be permanent long after ISIL and Trump, it has allowed the US government to continue its vendetta against the resistance front, a non-aligned group that seeks to stay outside the realm of American power and influence – mainly Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. The Trump administration continues the lie that the resistance front supports terrorism, while it is fighting designated terrorist organizations like ISIL and Al-Qaeda in the Levant and the Arabian Peninsula, where they have the full backing of the United States and its allies, mainly Saudi Arabia.
 
This situation does not require a state of emergency throughout the region, especially since the US government routinely rides roughshod over basic sovereign rights in any case. Presumably, the state of emergency – and the subsequent terror war - is a hedge against any nation brave enough actually to take the US government to an international court in defense of its sovereign rights.
 
Into the argument, America’s state of emergency and permanent war is not primarily related to ISIL or Al-Qaeda, though the bombings and attacks carried out by terrorists from those groups in Europe and the United States contributed to a sense of insecurity that lies in the background of the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. The US, Israel and Saudi Arabia blame Iran, Iraq and Syria for the emergence of ISIL which works for the first three regimes.
 
Many nations targeted by ISIL, however, are not pro-US at all but critics of Washington’s meddling in internal affairs of the Muslim world. The US and its allies are also fighting what amounts to a proxy war with Iran in the region as the forces of the latter nation have helped liberate so many ISIL-held cities and towns recently.
 
That time of hope is now in jeopardy. The state of emergency, which Washington has said will not be lifted as long as the threat of global terrorism remains, is the nail in its coffin. After ISIL was defeated on many fronts by the allied forces of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Russia, the Trump government escalated the conflict. Most recently, it has been trying to capture Raqqa from ISIL with support from proxy forces. It allows permanent occupation without a warrant from Syrian government or United Nations. The Trumpsters are trying to enshrine these repressive measures in International Law by statute, making them permanent. To this end, every military base is precious.
 
Make no mistake. The danger of terrorism is real, and as ISIL dwindles it may lash out in revenge at any country. But that does in no way give an international warrant to the US to build illegal bases, occupy Muslim lands, and police the world in between. The real threat, nonetheless, is America’s permanent state of emergency and war, under which it can make law, occupy lands, and create colonial crises at will. The aim seems not so much to combat terrorism as to strengthen the US influence against international civil society.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2063
Everyman decries immorality
How far back should we go in our discussions of history?

An excellent question Ron, let's try to answer it. The British Empire is an excellent place to start as it demonstrates in recent history how a sovereign native people can be occupied and conquered by an artificial construct that denies them the right to self government, or even the public acknowledgement that they exist as an individual ethnic and racial identity, separate from the artificial construct identity, as is the case with England and the English people. The British 'label' model was the forerunner of the 'United States' under a centralised federal identity, and lately the European Union, attempting the same play. The low IQ mongrel racial identity is essential for a 'One World Order and Religion' and is being forcefully pushed as an ongoing fait accompli.

The Great Replacement, Part 2: Great Britain

https://www.defendevropa.org/2017/population-replacement/the-great-replacement-part-2-great-britain/

The demographic situation in the United Kingdom is very dire indeed. As of the 2011 census, 13% of the population of our islands are foreign born. The native, white British population of England sits at just 79%, a dramatic fall from the 91% recorded in the 1991 census. In the 10 years to 2011, the Pakistani, Indian and African communities increased their shares of the overall population of the United Kingdom by 37, 57 and 63% respectively. Asians not from China or the Indian sub-continent increased their share of the population by a massive 247.9% in the same 10 year period. Meanwhile, the fertility rate of native British women has fallen well below the accepted replacement rate (2.1), to a staggering 1.7, possibly even lower, whilst the fertility rates of immigrant women from Somalia, Afghanistan and Pakistan – but living in the UK – stand at 4.19, 4.25 and 3.82 respectively.  Now, 1 in 3 new born babies in the United Kingdom are not white British. There are over 80 schools in the country that do not have a single white British child in attendance. Major cities such as London, Leicester, Birmingham and Luton have seen native, white British people become an overall minority.

Startling information, but how did we get here?

The current effort to displace the native ethnic groups of the United Kingdom began in the immediate aftermath of the second world war, with the British Nationality Act of 1948 – signed by the then Labour Party government – often regarded as the beginning of the mass-immigration methods used to achieve a multicultural society. Back at that time, the governments of many Western European nations, including that of Britain, believed that they could use immigration as a way in which to plug the gap in the labour markets that had been created by the loss of the young men who tragically died at war. To this end, the British Nationality Act decreed that subjects of British territory overseas (current or historic) – those of India, Botswana or Ghana for example – automatically had the right to move freely to and from Britain, and the right to remain here indefinitely.

Commonwealth Immigration: 1948-1997

Prior to 1945, the ethnic groups of the constituent countries of Great Britain – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – had been relatively homogeneous since the land was first settled. In any case, those “migrants” that came to the United Kingdom between the Roman withdrawal and 1066 (Anglo-Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Normans etc), did so in relatively small groups and from largely similar cultures. They looked like us, they behaved like us and brought their cultural benefits with them.

This all changed in the post-war period. By 1951, the foreign born population of the United Kingdom stood at 1.9 million (approx. 3% of the overall population). The largest number of the foreign born contingent in the UK were from Ireland (492,000), with tens of thousands also originating from Germany (96,000), the Soviet Union (76,000), USA (59,000), Canada (46,000), Australia (31,000) and France (30,000) – this is not a particularly startling piece of information, particularly because people from these countries that are similarly ethnically and culturally, if not directly descended from the British ethnic groups, as is the case with Canada, Australia and the USA.

What is notable, however, is the first influx of immigrants from non-western nations and non-European ethnic heritage. By 1951, 111,000 Indian-born immigrants had settled in the United Kingdom (England & Wales, to be precise), which was the first sign that the British Nationality Act of 1948 had set the government on a course which would forever alter the demographic make-up of the nations.

By 1961, the numbers had not dwindled, but had in fact risen to include various other non-European, non-western countries of origin. The number of Indian-born immigrants in the country by this time had risen to 157,000, without counting the children born in the United Kingdom to earlier Indian settlers. Furthermore, 100,000 Jamaicans had come to settle in the United Kingdom between 1951 and 1961.

This trend continued through to the 1970’s, by which time there were 313,000 Indian-born settlers in the United Kingdom, along with 171,000 Jamaicans, 136,000 Pakistanis and 36,000 Kenyans. Again, it is important to stress that these are not figures demonstrating the ethnic make-up of the nations, but rather the number of people living in England and Wales that were born in the aforementioned countries. These figures do not account for children born in the UK to parents from these countries, which one can assume to be a relatively large number, considering factors such as decreased infant mortality upon moving here, lack of belief in birth control and so on.

These trends continued through the 1970’s, into the 1980’s and beyond. However, in 1991, the government introduced the recording of ethnic classification into the compulsory census questionnaire that every resident in the United Kingdom is required to return each decade. This new classification of demographic groups has enabled us to not only analyse the number of foreign-born settlers in Britain, but also children born in the UK to one or two non-native parents and so on. This is important in the demonstration of the “changing face of Britain”, the term often used to refer to the ethnic displacement of natives and replacement by immigrants, which I shall come back to in a short while.

Mass-Immigration: 1997-2015

When the Labour Party came to power in 1997 after an 18 year period in opposition, they did so with a determination to make the United Kingdom truly “multicultural”. They sought to transform Britain’s ethnic makeup, using the United States as a model for the ‘melting pot’, as has been openly expressed by various members of Tony Blair’s cabinent, one of whom claimed they sent out search parties in foreign lands for immigrants to come to Britain, whilst another (Andrew Neather) claimed they enacted this policy to “rub the right’s nose in diversity”.

In 1997, Blair appointed the Jewish MP Barbara Roche as Immigration Minister, who presided over – alongside Jewish Home Secretary Jack Straw – the most dramatic increase in third world immigration any European country saw until Angela Merkel. The “migrant crisis” that countries like Germany and Sweden have suffered since 2014 was effectively British government policy from 1997 onward. Incidentally, 1997 – the year Blair’s government came to power – was the last year that net migration to Britain was below 100,000. By 1998, net migration had jumped from 48,000 to 140,000, and this trend continued right through until the end of the government in 2010. In 2004, the Labour Party presided over an immigration policy that saw more people settle in the United Kingdom than in the entire period between 1066 and 1945.

Over the period of the Labour government between 1997 and 2010, migrants arrived in the UK at an average rate of one every minute. By 2010, 3 million immigrants had come to the United Kingdom since 1997, whilst a third of new households were immigrant families and half a million extra immigrant children had enrolled in British primary schools. Perhaps the most concerning statistic of this period for the average working class Briton is the fact that, under this Labour government, 75% of new jobs created went to migrants – this despite the fact that there was consistently over 1.5 million Britons unemployed throughout the Labour years. The majority of these migrants were from the third world, and the Labour Party had already identified the fact that immigrants from Africa and Asia are many times more likely to vote for Labour than for their rivals the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats – of course, short-term electoral gain is more important to the left than the irreparable damage they’ve done to the ethnic makeup of the nation.

It was not just the Labour Party’s lackadaisical attitude towards non-European immigration that proved disastrous for Britain, but also their willingness to open the door to the former communist countries that became part of the European “Schengen Zone” (border-free zone) in 2004. Even though the British government were offered an opt-out on this policy, that is to say that they had the chance to extracate themselves from impending migrant chaos, they refused. So, to that end, 2004 marked a dramatic increase in immigration from the European Union, particularly from Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. As of 2013, over a million (1.07, to be precise) migrants from the 8 former communist countries that acceded to the EU in 2004 had settled in Britain.

The Labour government implemted a number of policies to diliberately increase the levels of immigration. In 1997 for example, they abolished the “Primary Purpose Rule”, which removed the responsibility of non-British citizens to prove that the primary purpose of their marriage to a British citizen was not to gain entry to the country. Of course, this greatly increased the number of “sham marriages” and, therefore, immigration. In addition to this, in 1998 the government abolished exit checks to non-EU destinations, rendering it impossible to check whether or not non-European migrants on a temporary or student visa had left or illegally remained, ensuring that levels of illegal immigration sky-rocked.

Not content with just these reforms, Immigration Minister Barbara Roche announced further reforms of the Highly Skilled Work Permit system in the year 2000. As we know, Ms. Roche was very keen to force diversity on the people of Britain, therefore it is unsurprising that the changes made only served to lower the requirements for obtaining a visa for non-European migrants. Further reforms to this system were implemented in 2005 and 2008, the latter of which dropped the requirement to have an offer of employment prior to entering the United Kingdom, making it easier for immigrants to arrive here and live off the British taxpayer.

In 2010, the Conservative Party came to power in a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats on a platform of cutting net migration “to the tens of thousands” – needless to say, they failed.

By the time the coalition left office in 2015, net migration was running at record levels. In fact, in 2014, gross immigration rose from 530,000 from the previous year, to 624,000. Emigration had remained the same, meaning that net migration stood at 298,000 for that year. Despite the Conservative Party presiding over immigration levels as high as those seen under the Labour years, the British people saw fit to trust them with re-election in 2015 with the same promise of “reducing net migration to the tens of thousands”. Of course, in the short amount of time that has lapsed since this latest untruth, immigration has hit record levels. In the year to June 2016, net migration stood at 335,000 – just a thousand below the previous all-time record (2014).

“Fudging” The Statistics

An interesting dynamic of the debate about immigration and demographics in the United Kingdom is the insistence of the government statistics bureau in using “net” migration as a marker, instead of gross immigration. By using this figure, they can A) create the impression that the numbers are smaller than they actually are, i.e 335,000 “net” migration, as opposed to 624,000 immigrants and, B) move the debate to one about numbers as opposed to the demographic effect over time.

Using net migration as a basis on which to determine the effect of immigration is based on the assumption that you are bringing in 624,000 people who are identical to the 311,000 people who left the country. In actual fact, what this means is the replacement of 311,000 British people with 624,000 non-British people – therefore the overall displacement is much greater than when we simply speak in terms of net migration. This somewhat dishonest way in which immigration statistics are reported does not allow for racial variations, so for example, the fact that non-European migrants tend to have a lower intellect and lower earning – and therefore tax-raising – potential than the British people who are emigrating. Not to mention the fact that those who emigrate tend to be towards the higher end of the economic prosperity scale, resulting in a scenario where we are replacing 300,000 British people with high tax receipts, with 600,000 non-British people who for the large part do not have any intention of contributing to the fiscal state of the nation.

Fertility Rates

As I touched upon earlier, it is not just immigration that is contributing to the demographic situation in which native British people find themselves. The fact is that, even if we were to hypothetically halt all immigration from this day forth, native British people will still see their percentage share of the overall population continue to fall, whilst that of minorities continues to rise. This is because the immigrants coming here, particularly from outside of the European Union, continue the high fertility rates that they might have in their own nations. There is often the assumption that this will change and that, as they “adopt western values”, the women will begin to have more of a career and less children. All of the available evidence suggests that this is not the case.

It is widely accepted that the “replacement rate” for an ethnic group – that is, the fertility rate required for their population size to remain the same or grow – is 2.1 children per woman. All across western Europe, the fertility rates of native women have fallen chronically below this level, and Great Britain is no exception. Official government statistics state that women born in the UK are having 1.78 children on average, yet we can assume that this figure is much lower as it does not differentiate between those who are native to the UK and those who are simply citizens by way of birth i.e descendants of immigrants.

Women living in the UK who originate from Eastern Europe have a fertility rate of 2.19, whilst immigrants from Western Europe – the most like us ethnically and culturally – have drastically low fertility rate of 1.52 (which we can safely assume is around the rate for native British women too). Contrast these with the fertility rates of women from the third world and the story is very different indeed.

As I mentioned in the introduction, women living in the UK who originate from Somalia have a fertility rate of 4,19, from Afghanistan 4.25 and from Pakistan, 3.82. This is played out in regional statistics across the country, for example, birthrates in a city such as Peterborough have jumped from 1.8 a decade ago to 2.34, in direct correlation with the large settlement of immigrants over the same time period.

1 in 12 children under 5 in England and Wales are now Muslim, which demonstrates the high fertility rates amongst immigrants and their descendants from the Muslim world. Alongside this, Muhammad (and variants) is now the most popular name for new-born boys in the United Kingdom. A child born in Birmingham – England’s second city – is more likely to be born into a Muslim family than a Christian one, whilst more than 50% of under-16s in Birmingham are non-white, with a significant number of the white population originating from Eastern Europe in any event.

The academic consensus is that by 2066 white Britons will become a minority in their own country. This will be achieved through the continuation of mass-immigration policies – the government insists we need net migration of 200,000 per year – as well as the continuation of the decline in native fertility rates, and the exponential rise in babies born to non-native women.

Socio-Cultural Effect


The changing demographics of the United Kingdom are reflected by a myriad of cultural affects that can be seen in every British city. The evidence available dispels completely the myth that culture is a mould in which all of humanity can fit seamlessly, as immigrants (particularly from the third world) are keeping their own cultural values and failing to adopt British cultures and values. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that second and third generation immigrants, particularly those of African extraction, are less integrated than their parents and grandparents, and less likely to adopt the values that are promoted as British by the politicians. This can be evidences just on a surface level by the fact that the majority of terririst incidents that occur in England are perpetrated by “home grown terrorists”, that is, those Islamic extremists that were born here but descended from previous generations of immigrants.

Crime figures are a good indicator of the cultural effects on Britain that result from immigration. Crime rates have risen in direct correlation with “diversity”, indicating that migrants are more likely to break the law and live in an anti-social manner than native British people.

As of February 2016, Eastern European migrants are committing 700 crimes per week, as rise of 40% in the preceding 5 year period. In the same period, the number of EU-born citizens living in the United Kingdom rose by 30%. in 2015, 17,000 citizens from Romania and Poland alone were convicted of criminal offences. Some figures suggest that there has been a 240% rise in the number of EU convicts in British prisons, which is estimated to be costing the taxpayer as much as £150 million.

Having said that, it would be fair to summarise that, on the whole, European migrants integrate more effectively into the British way of life than non-European migrants. Within a few generations they have adopted British names, British values and have totally closed any ties to their countries of origin – as an example, the immigrants who came to the UK during the war and in the post-war period, from Czechoslovakia and Hungary, are today indistinguishable from their native counterparts.

The same cannot be said for migrants and their descendent of non-European extraction. Specifically, citizens of African origin often reject British values and the rule of law, in favour of a more tribalistic (gang) mentality, as can be seen in the crime statistics for Great London. In England’s capital city, citizens of African origin account for 12% of the city’s population, yet they account for 32% of suspected sexual violence cases, 54% of street crime convicts (muggings, assault), 46% of knife crimes, 59% of robberies and 64% of gun related crimes. This is a stinging indictment on the ability of Africans to behave in the same way as native Britons, for such a large proportion of them do not even respect simply the British rule of law.

The same situation can be seen in the prison statistics for the country as a whole, in which blacks account for 13.7% of the prison population despite being just 3% of the overall population. Similarly, Muslims represent 5% of the UK population, but 14% of the prison population. This further demonstrates the inability of certain immigrant groups to respect the British rule of law, and the cost of replacing law-abiding native Britons with law-disregarding foreign communities.

Aside from the crime figures, we are seeing this population replacement have an issue on other aspects of our cultural lives. Language, for example, is being changed by immigration, as we now have an entire new dialect of the English language prevalent within British youth “culture” called “London Multicultural English”. It is said that this is based largely around slang terms from the Afro-Caribbean communities in the city, but has been adopted by youths of all creeds and colour in the city. This dumbed down version of the English language is now presented as a viable dialect,despite the fact that it originates from a totally alien – and frankly inaudible – set of slang words improvised by the African community.

The social shock that is incurred through this large scale population replacement can be further evidenced from the conditions under which British children are attempting to get an education. At one in nine schools in England and Wales, English is no longer the first language of a majority of pupils and in London, children who’s first language is not English are doing better statistically than native speakers, demonstrating the further damaging effect this is having on British children. Furthermore, native British children are ranked behind 14 other ethnic groups when ranked in terms of meeting educational targets at age 16, despite the fact that they rank third aged 5, suggesting that the schools system is disadvantaging native children in favour of non-natives who require extra attention i.e English lessons, translation and extra time in exams.

The effects that this multicultural agenda is having on British children is in no small part down to the teachers themselves, who at a conference last year pledged that they would refuse to teach British values as it was a case of “cultural supremacy”. When there are Marxist thinkers such as these teaching our children, it isn’t any wonder that the education system is failing British children, in favour of products of diversity.



The information presented is quite clear; replacing native Britons, or white Europeans in general, with those from the third world does not bode well for the well-being of a society. However, the only important prediction is that native Britons will be a minority within 5 decades. This is as a result of deliberate policies to flood our country with immigrants from both the third world and former communist states. It is not as if the powers that be are not aware of the dangers – they are – so it is safe to assume that they simply don’t care. This is an organised replacement of our population that is bringing down thousands of years of in-group development and, for the time being, we are powerless to stop it.

In the near future, www.defendevropa.org will produce a further piece demonstrating how this same practise is being applied in Germany and how Angela Merkel’s migrant policies are ensuring that Germany is in a race to the bottom with Britain and France. In addition to this, we will publish a summary article, demonstrating the reasons why this replacement plan is being put into operation, the historical context behind this, as well as who we have identified as the key perpetrators of this crime against Europe.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2063
Everyman decries immorality
Now adjust your studies to the artificial constructs known as Saudi Arabia and Israel, created by the Anglo-Zionist British Empire a century ago. The concept of a holy trinity triumvirate constructed from the three common Abrahamic religions over multiple millennia, and observed today as the Judeo-Christian-Islamic alliance, is self evident at this point.

How Zionism helped create the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

http://mondoweiss.net/2016/01/zionism-kingdom-arabia/

The covert alliance between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Zionist entity of Israel should be no surprise to any student of British imperialism. The problem is the study of British imperialism has very few students. Indeed, one can peruse any undergraduate or post-graduate British university prospectus and rarely find a module in a Politics degree on the British Empire let alone a dedicated degree or Masters degree. Of course if the European led imperialist carnage in the four years between 1914 – 1918 tickles your cerebral cells then it’s not too difficult to find an appropriate institution to teach this subject, but if you would like to delve into how and why the British Empire waged war on mankind for almost four hundred years you’re practically on your own in this endeavour. One must admit, that from the British establishment’s perspective, this is a formidable and remarkable achievement.

In late 2014, according to the American journal, Foreign Affairs, the Saudi petroleum Minister, Ali al-Naimi is reported to have said “His Majesty King Abdullah has always been a model for good relations between Saudi Arabia and other states and the Jewish state is no exception.” Recently, Abdullah’s successor, King Salman expressed similar concerns to those of Israel’s to the growing agreement between the United States and Iran over the latter’s nuclear programme. This led some to report that Israel and KSA presented a “united front” in their opposition to the nuclear deal. This was not the first time the Zionists and Saudis have found themselves in the same corner in dealing with a perceived common foe. In North Yemen in the 1960’s, the Saudis were financing a British imperialist led mercenary army campaign against revolutionary republicans who had assumed authority after overthrowing the authoritarian, Imam. Gamal Abdul-Nasser’s Egypt militarily backed the republicans, while the British induced the Saudis to finance and arm the remaining remnants of the Imam’s supporters. Furthermore, the British organised the Israelis to drop arms for the British proxies in North Yemen, 14 times. The British, in effect, militarily but covertly, brought the Zionists and Saudis together in 1960’s North Yemen against their common foe.

However, as this author has previously written, one must return to the 1920’s to fully appreciate the origins of this informal and indirect alliance between Saudi Arabia and the Zionist entity. An illuminating study by Dr. Askar H. al-Enazy, titled, The Creation of Saudi Arabia: Ibn Saud and British Imperial Policy, 1914-1927, has further and uniquely provided any student of British Imperialism primary sourced evidence on the origins of this alliance. This study by Dr. Enazy influences the following piece.  The defeat of the Ottoman Empire by British imperialism in World War One, left three distinct authorities in the Arabian peninsula: Sharif of Hijaz: Hussain bin Ali of Hijaz (in the west), Ibn Rashid of Ha’il (in the north) and Emir Ibn Saud of Najd (in the east) and his religiously fanatical followers, the Wahhabis.

Ibn Saud had entered the war early in January 1915 on the side of the British, but was quickly defeated and his British handler, William Shakespear was killed by the Ottoman Empire’s ally Ibn Rashid. This defeat greatly hampered Ibn Saud’s utility to the Empire and left him militarily hamstrung for a year.[1] The Sharif contributed the most to the Ottoman Empire’s defeat by switching allegiances and leading the so-called ‘Arab Revolt’ in June 1916 which removed the Turkish presence from Arabia. He was convinced to totally alter his position because the British had strongly led him to believe, via correspondence with Henry McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, that a unified Arab country from Gaza to the Persian Gulf will be established with the defeat of the Turks. The letters exchanged between Sharif Hussain and Henry McMahon are known as the McMahon-Hussain Correspondence.

Understandably, the Sharif as soon as the war ended wanted to hold the British to their war time promises, or what he perceived to be their war time promises, as expressed in the aforementioned correspondence. The British, on the other hand, wanted the Sharif to accept the Empire’s new reality which was a division of the Arab world between them and the French (Sykes-Picot agreement) and the implementation of the Balfour Declaration, which guaranteed ‘a national for the Jewish people’ in Palestine by colonisation with European Jews. This new reality was contained in the British written, Anglo-Hijaz Treaty, which the Sharif was profoundly averse to signing.[2] After all, the revolt of 1916 against the Turks was dubbed the ‘Arab Revolt’ not the ‘Hijazi Revolt’.

Actually, the Sharif let it be known that he will never sell out Palestine to the Empire’s Balfour Declaration; he will never acquiescence to the establishment of Zionism in Palestine or accept the new random borders drawn across Arabia by British and French imperialists. For their part the British began referring to him as an ‘obstructionist’, a ‘nuisance’ and of having a ‘recalcitrant’ attitude.

The British let it be known to the Sharif that they were prepared to take drastic measures to bring about his approval of the new reality regardless of the service that he had rendered them during the War. After the Cairo Conference in March 1921, where the new Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill met with all the British operatives in the Middle East, T.E. Lawrence (i.e. of Arabia) was dispatched to meet the Sharif to bribe and bully him to accept Britain’s Zionist colonial project in Palestine. Initially, Lawrence and the Empire offered 80,000 rupees.[3] The Sharif rejected it outright. Lawrence then offered him an annual payment of £100,000.[4] The Sharif refused to compromise and sell Palestine to British Zionism.

When financial bribery failed to persuade the Sharif, Lawrence threatened him with an Ibn Saud takeover. Lawrence claimed that “politically and militarily, the survival of Hijaz as a viable independent Hashemite kingdom was wholly dependent on the political will of Britain, who had the means to protect and maintain his rule in the region.” [5] In between negotiating with the Sharif, Lawrence made the time to visit other leaders in the Arabian peninsula and informed them that they if they don’t tow the British line and avoid entering into an alliance with the Sharif, the Empire will unleash Ibn Saud and his Wahhabis who after all is at Britain’s ‘beck and call’.[6]

Simultaneously, after the Conference, Churchill travelled to Jerusalem and met with the Sharif’s son, Abdullah, who had been made the ruler, “Emir”, of a new territory called “Transjordan.” Churchill informed Abdullah that he should persuade “his father to accept the Palestine mandate and sign a treaty to such effect,” if not “the British would unleash Ibn Saud against Hijaz.”[7] In the meantime the British were planning to unleash Ibn Saud on the ruler of Ha’il, Ibn Rashid.

Ibn Rashid had rejected all overtures from the British Empire made to him via Ibn Saud, to be another of its puppets.[8] More so, Ibn Rashid expanded his territory north to the new mandated Palestinian border as well as to the borders of Iraq in the summer of 1920. The British became concerned that an alliance maybe brewing between Ibn Rashid who controlled the northern part of the peninsula and the Sharif who controlled the western part. More so, the Empire wanted the land routes between the Palestinian ports on the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf under the rule of a friendly party. At the Cairo Conference, Churchill agreed with an imperial officer, Sir Percy Cox that “Ibn Saud should be ‘given the opportunity to occupy Hail.’”[9] By the end of 1920, the British were showering Ibn Saud with “a monthly ‘grant’ of £10,000 in gold, on top of his monthly subsidy. He also received abundant arms supplies, totalling more than 10,000 rifles, in addition to the critical siege and four field guns” with British-Indian instructors.[10] Finally, in September 1921, the British unleashed Ibn Saud on Ha’il which officially surrendered in November 1921. It was after this victory the British bestowed a new title on Ibn Saud. He was no longer to be “Emir of Najd and Chief of its Tribes” but “Sultan of Najd and its Dependencies”. Ha’il had dissolved into a dependency of the Empire’s Sultan of Najd.

If the Empire thought that the Sharif, with Ibn Saud now on his border and armed to the teeth by the British, would finally become more amenable to the division of Arabia and the British Zionist colonial project in Palestine they were short lived. A new round of talks between Abdulla’s son, acting on behalf of his father in Transjordan and the Empire resulted in a draft treaty accepting Zionism. When it was delivered to the Sharif with an accompanying letter from his son requesting that he “accept reality”, he didn’t even bother to read the treaty and instead composed a draft treaty himself rejecting the new divisions of Arabia as well as the Balfour Declaration and sent it to London to be ratified![11]

Ever since 1919 the British had gradually decreased Hussain’s subsidy to the extent that by the early 1920’s they had suspended it, while at the same time continued subsidising Ibn Saud right through the early 1920’s.[12] After a further three rounds of negotiations in Amman and London, it dawned on the Empire that Hussain will never relinquish Palestine to Great Britain’s Zionist project or accept the new divisions in Arab lands.[13]In March 1923, the British informed Ibn Saud that it will cease his subsidy but not without awarding him an advance ‘grant’ of £50,000 upfront, which amounted to a year’s subsidy.[14]

In March 1924, a year after the British awarded the ‘grant’ to Ibn Saud, the Empire announced that it had terminated all discussions with Sharif Hussain to reach an agreement.[15] Within weeks the forces of Ibn Saud and his Wahhabi followers began to administer what the British foreign secretary, Lord Curzon called the “final kick” to Sharif Hussain and attacked Hijazi territory.[16] By September 1924, Ibn Saud had overrun the summer capital of Sharif Hussain, Ta’if. The Empire then wrote to Sharif’s sons, who had been awarded kingdoms in Iraq and Transjordan not to provide any assistance to their besieged father or in diplomatic terms they were informed “to give no countenance to interference in the Hedjaz”.[17] In Ta’if, Ibn Saud’s Wahhabis committed their customary massacres, slaughtering women and children as well as going into mosques and killing traditional Islamic scholars.[18] They captured the holiest place in Islam, Mecca, in mid-October 1924. Sharif Hussain was forced to abdicate and went to exile to the Hijazi port of Akaba. He was replaced as monarch by his son Ali who made Jeddah his governmental base. As Ibn Saud moved to lay siege to the rest of Hijaz, the British found the time to begin incorporating the northern Hijazi port of Akaba into Transjordan. Fearing that Sharif Hussain may use Akaba as a base to rally Arabs against the Empire’s Ibn Saud, the Empire let it be known that in no uncertain terms that he must leave Akaba or Ibn Saud will attack the port. For his part, Sharif Hussain responded that he had,

    “never acknowledged the mandates on Arab countries and still protest against the British Government which has made Palestine a national home for the Jews.”[19]

Sharif Hussain was forced out of Akaba, a port he had liberated from the Ottoman Empire during the ‘Arab Revolt’, on the 18th June 1925 on HMS Cornflower.

Ibn Saud had begun his siege of Jeddah in January 1925 and the city finally surrendered in December 1925 bringing to an end over 1000 years of rule by the Prophet Muhammad’s descendants. The British officially recognised Ibn Saud as the new King of Hijaz in February 1926 with other European powers following suit within weeks. The new unified Wahhabi state was rebranded by the Empire in 1932 as the “Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” (KSA). A certain George Rendel, an officer working at the Middle East desk at the Foreign Office in London, claimed credit for the new name.

On the propaganda level, the British served the Wahhabi takeover of Hijaz on three fronts. Firstly, they portrayed and argued that Ibn Saud’s invasion of Hijaz was motivated by religious fanaticism rather than by British imperialism’s geo-political considerations.[20] This deception is propounded to this day, most recently in Adam Curtis’s acclaimed BBC “Bitter Lake” documentary, whereby he states that the “fierce intolerant vision of wahhabism” drove the “beduins” to create Saudi Arabia.[21] Secondly, the British portrayed Ibn Saud’s Wahhabi fanatics as a benign and misunderstood force who only wanted to bring Islam back to its purest form.[22] To this day, these Islamist jihadis are portrayed in the most benign manner when their armed insurrections is supported by Britain and the West such as 1980’s Afghanistan or in today’s Syria, where they are referred to in the western media as “moderate rebels.” Thirdly, British historians portray Ibn Saud as an independent force and not as a British instrument used to horn away anyone perceived to be surplus to imperial requirements. For example, Professor Eugene Rogan’s recent study on the history on Arabs claims that “Ibn Saud had no interest in fighting” the Ottoman Empire. This is far from accurate as Ibn Saud joined the war in 1915. He further disingenuously claims that Ibn Saud was only interested in advancing “his own objectives” which fortuitously always dovetailed with those of the British Empire.[23]

In conclusion, one of the most overlooked aspects of the Balfour Declaration is the British Empire’s commitment to “use their best endeavours to facilitate” the creation of “a national home for the Jewish people”. Obviously, many nations in the world today were created by the Empire but what makes Saudi Arabia’s borders distinctive is that its northern and north-eastern borders are the product of the Empire facilitating the creation of Israel. At the very least the dissolution of the two Arab sheikhdoms of Ha’il and Hijaz by Ibn Saud’s Wahhabis is based in their leaders’ rejection to facilitate the British Empire’s Zionist project in Palestine.

Therefore, it is very clear that the British Empire’s drive to impose Zionism in Palestine is embedded in the geographical DNA of contemporary Saudi Arabia. There is further irony in the fact that the two holiest sites in Islam are today governed by the Saudi clan and Wahhabi teachings because the Empire was laying the foundations for Zionism in Palestine in the 1920s. Contemporaneously, it is no surprise that both Israel and Saudi Arabia are keen in militarily intervening on the side of “moderate rebels” i.e. jihadis, in the current war on Syria, a country which covertly and overtly rejects the Zionist colonisation of Palestine.

As the United States, the ‘successor’ to the British Empire in defending western interests in the Middle East, is perceived to be growing more hesitant in engaging militarily in the Middle East, there is an inevitability that the two nations rooted in the Empire’s Balfour Declaration, Israel and Saudi Arabia, would develop a more overt alliance to defend their common interests.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2063
Everyman decries immorality
Pincer movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pincer_movement

The pincer movement, or double envelopment, is a military maneuver in which forces simultaneously attack both flanks (sides) of an enemy formation.

The pincer movement typically occurs when opposing forces advance towards the center of an army that responds by moving its outside forces to the enemy's flanks to surround it. At the same time, a second layer of pincers may attack on the more distant flanks to keep reinforcements from the target units.

Description

A full pincer movement leads to the attacking army facing the enemy in front, on both flanks, and in the rear. If attacking pincers link up in the enemy's rear, the enemy is encircled. Such battles often end in surrender or destruction of the enemy force, but the encircled force can try to break out. They can attack the encirclement from the inside to escape, or a friendly external force can attack from the outside to open an escape route.

History

Sun Tzu, in The Art of War (traditionally dated to the 6th century BC), speculated on the maneuver but advised against trying it for fear that an army would likely run first before the move could be completed. He argued that it was best to allow the enemy a path to escape (or at least the appearance of one), as the target army would fight with more ferocity when completely surrounded, but it would lose formation and be more vulnerable to destruction if shown an avenue of escape.

The maneuver may have first been used at the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC. The historian Herodotus describes how the Athenian general Miltiades deployed 10,000 Athenian and 900 Plataean hoplite forces in a U-formation, with the wings manned much more deeply than the centre. His enemy outnumbered him heavily, and Miltiades chose to match the breadth of the Persian battle line by thinning out the centre of his forces while reinforcing the wings. In the course of the battle, the weaker central formations retreated, allowing the wings to converge behind the Persian battle line and drive the more numerous, but lightly armed Persians to retreat in panic.

The tactic was used by Alexander the Great at the Battle of the Hydaspes in 326 BC. Launching his attack at the Indian left flank, the Indian king Porus reacted by sending the cavalry on the right of his formation around in support. Alexander had positioned two cavalry units on the left of his formation, hidden from view, under the command of Coenus and Demitrius. The units were then able to follow Porus's cavalry around, trapping them in a classic pincer movement. That tactically-astute move from Alexander was key in ensuring what many regard as his last great victory.

The most famous example of its use was at the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC, when Hannibal executed the maneuver against the Romans. Military historians view it as one of the greatest battlefield maneuvers in history and cite it as the first successful use of the pincer movement that was recorded in detail,[1] by the Greek historian Polybius.

It was also later used effectively by Khalid ibn al-Walid at the Battle of Walaja in 633, by Alp Arslan at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 (under the name crescent tactic), at Battle of Mohács by Süleyman the Magnificent in 1526 and by Field Marshal Carl Gustav Rehnskiöld at the Battle of Fraustadt in 1706.

Daniel Morgan used it effectively at the Battle of Cowpens in 1781 in South Carolina. Many consider Morgan's cunning plan at Cowpens the tactical masterpiece of the American War of Independence.

Zulu impis used a version of the manoeuvre that they called the buffalo horn formation.

Genghis Khan used a rudimentary form known colloquially as the horns tactic. Two enveloping flanks of horsemen surrounded the enemy, but they usually remained unjoined, leaving the enemy an escape route to the rear, as described above. It was key to many of Genghis's early victories over other Mongolian tribes.

Even in the horse-and-musket era, the manoeuvre was used across many military cultures. A classic double envelopment was deployed by the Asiatic conqueror Nader Shah at the Battle of Kirkuk (1733) against the Ottomans; the Persian army, under Nader, flanked the Ottomans on both ends of their line and encircled their centre despite being numerically at a disadvantage. In another battle at Kars in 1745, Nader routed the Ottoman army and subsequently encircled their encampment. The Ottoman army soon after collapsed under the pressure of the encirclement. Also during the famous Battle of Karnal in 1739, Nader drew out the Mughal army which outnumbered his own force by over six to one, and managed to encircle and utterly decimate a significant contingent of the Mughals in an ambush around Kunjpura village.

The manoeuvre was used in the blitzkrieg of the armed forces of Nazi Germany during World War II. Then, rather than a mere infantry maneuver, it developed into a complex, multi-discipline endeavour that involved fast movement by mechanized armor, artillery barrages, air force bombardment, and effective radio communications, with the primary objective of destroying enemy command and control chains, undermining enemy troop morale and disrupting supply lines. During the Battle of Kiev (1941) the Axis forces managed to encircle the largest number of soldiers in the history of warfare. Well over half a million Soviet soldiers were taken prisoner by the end of the operation.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Pages: 1 ... 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 [83] 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2017-11-21, 22:56:35