Fear, Anxiety and Doomscrolling

ralfy

Member
Civilian casualties in war or direct consequence of war are not up compared to history except in total numbers. The population of the world is so much larger now more do suffer in some conflicts
The number of civilians taken as slaves in history by nations and tribal peoples is much larger by percent of the total population.
Speaking of actual slaves how many Uighur Moslems are held in camps for forced labor, organ harvesting and forced breeding. Ironically in western China which till the 50’s was once part of Tibet.
What likely happened is that military powers have employed proxy wars, and numbers understated by media controlled by the rich to justify conflict.

That's also why the issue concerning Uyghurs involves Western vs. Chinese propaganda:



The scenario, then, involves a multifold increase in arms production and deployment worldwide and calibrated conflict brought about by media propaganda.

When seen in light of most of the points I raised in my first post, then one can only conclude that the points raised in the thread title are not unfounded.
 

ralfy

Member
I agree. When I stumbled upon this site many years ago it really drew me in by the way people interacted & what they were posting was always very interesting or fascinating & most of the time something that the "mainstream media" or many news outlets was not covering or sometimes the news hadn't broke yet. 🤣
I think it's the other way round: most of the points raised in this forum are the same as what mainstream media has been promoting, together with commercial mass entertainment. That is, excitement over conflict, good vs. evil, our troops vs. theirs, morality based on technical superiority, and other views that have been promoted by politicians for the past three decades.
 

ralfy

Member
How’s the tally sheet between western democracy’s and socialist centrally planned states?
According to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks, the future lies with the latter, which consists of essentially state-sponsored capitalist systems:
The catch is that the resources and energy needed to sustain that growing global middle class are many times more than what the biosphere can provide:
which means increased resource and energy issues, pollution, and its effects, such as global warming, not to mention problems like epidemics and pandemics brought about by increased vectors for the spread of disease.
Thus,
- the threat of a resource crunch, as seen in oil production per capita peaking back in 1979, conventional production reaching an undulating plateau after 2006 (according to the IEA), and a peak for nonconventional production in the near future (according to the EIA);
- the effects of climate change eating up at least a third of world economic growth, prompting more insurers to increase rates, and with potential threats to food production, etc.;
- organizations from the U.S. military to Lloyds of London to HSBC issuing reports to clients and personnel warning of long-term effects of a resource crunch plus climate change;
- possibly increased incidences of epidemics and pandemics, as first reported by the WHO and others in the early 1990s, driven by increased vectors in the spread of disease plus urban congestion plus shocks to economic systems due to resource crunches and financial instability plus natural disasters;
- soaring debt as the result of global competitive capitalism coupled with financial speculation, leading to a global unregulated derivatives market with a notional value of at least a quadrillion dollars, and major debts for countries like the U.S. ($70 trillion in total debts plus over $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities);
- a multi-fold increase in arms deployment and production on a global scale, as reported by the FAS, and possible use of them given the effects of a resource crunch, climate change, etc.
 

MikeG

Member
Case in point. These are the types of articles that give me the anxiety I mentioned in my original post. I’d love to get professional takes by DWS and the other admins on the scenario being discussed here when you have time:

 

DEFCON Warning System

Director
Staff member
I’d love to get professional takes by DWS and the other admins on the scenario being discussed here when you have time:
I need a tl;dr for that article.

I think Abraham Lincoln was right. No foreign power can, by force, take a drink from our waters. That if the downfall of the U.S. be its lot, the U.S. itself must be its author and finisher.

China knows they can't successfully invade the U.S.. Russia knew that.

But China is waging an economic war, and the U.S. is asleep. The U.S. is handing its sovereignty away, both to other countries and to political parties who hate the country.

Nut hey, keep those stimulus cheques coming!
 

MikeG

Member
I need a tl;dr for that article
The gist of it is the discussion regarding Russian/Chinese war and invasion plans explained by former GRU defectors like Lunev. Nyquist talks about them using non-conventional means of transport, support by unsavory drug lord types in Mexico, the former Chinese general’s 10k ft long runway on his Texas ranch wind farm etc.
 

ralfy

Member
I need a tl;dr for that article.

I think Abraham Lincoln was right. No foreign power can, by force, take a drink from our waters. That if the downfall of the U.S. be its lot, the U.S. itself must be its author and finisher.

China knows they can't successfully invade the U.S.. Russia knew that.

But China is waging an economic war, and the U.S. is asleep. The U.S. is handing its sovereignty away, both to other countries and to political parties who hate the country.

Nut hey, keep those stimulus cheques coming!
I don't think there's a reason for China to invade the U.S. or even engage in an economic war as it's been winning by doing the opposite. The same goes for Brazil, Russia, India, South America, and around forty other countries.

The gist is that the U.S. allowed for the use of the dollar as a global reserve currency, and that created a Triffin dilemma: it made the U.S. incredibly powerful because it could borrow and spend heavily but it also made it reliant on the same because it made its exports very expensive. The opposite happened to others: they had to export and save more to earn more dollars, and that required industrialization, which in turn made their economies stronger.
 

MikeG

Member
@DarkNoon I saw that you added an “lol” reaction to the article but I’d be curious to get your reasons why. I enjoy reading your take of events in here

@DEFCON Warning System in your opinion, is Nyquist out to lunch, making too many assumptions etc? I HAVE to believe that if an independent writer/analyst such as himself has contacts in China and can draw these conclusions, there must be folks in our govt and military which are doing the same. We can’t be this blatantly blind to what Nyquist is warning about, can we?

thanks both for your time.
 

DarkNoon

Well-known member
saw that you added an “lol” reaction to the article but I’d be curious to get your reasons why.
Because it's just hands down, without any reasonable doubt, 110% impossible to invade America.

We would sink every last landing craft before they even reached 400 miles to any US coast.

It's just funny to me when I read or see people talk about America being taken over by Russia or China. It's just not possible.

Only way America ends is by her own hands and that's it.
 

DarkNoon

Well-known member
Because it's just hands down, without any reasonable doubt, 110% impossible to invade America.

We would sink every last landing craft before they even reached 400 miles to any US coast.

It's just funny to me when I read or see people talk about America being taken over by Russia or China. It's just not possible.

Only way America ends is by her own hands and that's it.
Lastly there is a gun behind every blade of grass in America. If not the military the US people themselves make it also impossible to invade. In fact half of the ENTIRE worlds private gun ownership is in US of A. There are more guns than people in America. That makes ANY invasion and or occupation impossible alone. Many other solid reasons why its impossible to invade America and that is a big one.

God bless Merica as some folks say. Lol
 
Last edited:

Obreid

Power Poster
Because it's just hands down, without any reasonable doubt, 110% impossible to invade America.

We would sink every last landing craft before they even reached 400 miles to any US coast.

It's just funny to me when I read or see people talk about America being taken over by Russia or China. It's just not possible.

Only way America ends is by her own hands and that's it.
I agree except for a large emp attack scenario and that is still a questionable one. One is, realistically how successful would multiple emp detonations be. An emp would be like any other bomb. Yeah it would detonate, yeah it would do damage. But would it produce the damage on large enough scale to sufficiently destabilize the nation.
And even still it wouldn’t negate much of the military response.
Chinas army is touted as a million man. Transporting just one whole division across the ocean by boat of plane is an impossibility unless the US military would be completely destroyed. That’s a reach.
I still maintain we are already in a asymmetric war with several nations and that front is already being fought with in our boarders.
Their is a concerted effort to infiltrate laws, cultures, and social systems within the US. Money flows into the nations political dialogue through Charatable foundations and universities to effect our populations political religious and cultural loyalties.

You can argue that but in my opinion it’s already on, and this is the real threat.
 

DarkNoon

Well-known member
Lastly there is a gun behind every blade of grass in America. If not the military the US people themselves make it also impossible to invade. In fact half of the ENTIRE worlds private gun ownership is in US of A. There are more guns than people in America. That makes ANY invasion and or occupation impossible alone. Many other solid reasons why its impossible to invade America and that is a big one.

God bless Merica as some folks say. Lol
This is why I am a huge supporter of the second amendment to bear arms. It's that simple law that made America impossible to invade. Our ancestors here in America know that the Military can only do so much and that if the American people where armed or majority, would make any invasion just logistically impossible for a foriegn adversary.

Also that is why the American government has never tried any funny business against it's people. American people have the guns and power to stop and destroy any and all American Government Take overs of life.
 
Last edited:

DarkNoon

Well-known member
agree except for a large emp attack scenario and that is still a questionable one. One is, realistically how successful would multiple emp detonations be. An emp would be like any other bomb. Yeah it would detonate, yeah it would do damage. But would it produce the damage on large enough scale to sufficiently destabilize the nation.
Oh sure yeah a EMP attack would destroy the fabric of America. BUT GUNS DON'T STOP WORKING in a EMP.

The amount of guns the American people own still make any scenario impossible for a foriegn country to invade or occupy. Even after a EMP, nuclear, bio, or chemical war.
 

Obreid

Power Poster
Asymmetric warfare?
This is still a one source, wait and see news story so I’ll leave it here solely as a bookmark.
If it turns out to be true then it is in fact monumental and should be at the for of US military planning and foreign response.
It corresponds to the charges made by the Chinese scientist from spring of 20 who claimed the virus was a lab leak and it was related to chines bio weapon research.
Based on the trajectory of the lab vs market origins story I see no reason not to consider the possibility now the virus might be the product of a bio weapons development.

https://redstate.com/jenvanlaar/202...the-creation-of-covid-19-and-lab-leak-n395384

China wouldn’t inflict on its own people,
How many was too many for the cultural revolution?
 

DarkNoon

Well-known member
Their is a concerted effort to infiltrate laws, cultures, and social systems within the US. Money flows into the nations political dialogue through Charatable foundations and universities to effect our populations
Absolutely hands down your right. BUT it's the American people who run the government in reality not a foriegn adversary no matter how hard they try.

Even if the US government rolled over no Country would be able to occupy America because US citizens themselves are more armed than most countries!
 

Obreid

Power Poster
Absolutely hands down your right. BUT it's the American people who run the government in reality not a foriegn adversary no matter how hard they try.

Even if the US government rolled over no Country would be able to occupy America because US citizens themselves are more armed than most countries!
Respectfully that’s naive, not if the nations own laws are used against Americans self determination.
it’s happened before.
 

DarkNoon

Well-known member
Respectfully that’s naive, not if the nations own laws are used against Americans self determination.
it’s happened before.
Like I mentioned above. The main reason why the American government has not tried any "funny" business against its own people is because the American people are also capable of fending off it's own Military.

The only way a country would attempt such a thing would be likly after a nuclear exchange. So won't be any laws or much of a government after such events so won't be "laws" working against the people.

Even so after WWIII still impossible for a nation to invade because again American people are armed more than most nations. It's all to logistically impossible even for the American Military Itself.
 

Obreid

Power Poster
This is why I am a huge supporter of the second amendment to bear arms
To even further develop the impact of the second amendment.
the argument that it was written during the age of muzzle loading weapons and logic would dictate citizens should not have high capacity firearms.
The second amendment was written when most people owned the same caliber rate of fire and lethality of any army in the world.
including if it could be afforded cannon fire.
there were no restrictions made or implied.
consequently their should be no restrictions on citizens who have no criminal history the right to own comparable military firearms.
It’s a matter of parity.
the citizens vote is neutered if there is no threat of force behind it.
 
Top