Does My Government Really Act Like This? - American Made (2017) Discussion

[–] tricksoftrade (82) 7 years ago

The affair now seems like folly. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, we know now that communism is a bankrupt ideology. But in the 1970's and 80's it was a serious challenger to the capitalist/democratic system.

You must remember,the people who made these decisions did not know that the Soviet Union would collapse in 1989. Nobody had a crystal ball. Should the CIA be used to shape governments in our own Capitalist/democratic system and be used to subvert governments that were leaning or headed toward a more Communist ideology? If you answer no to this question, you must remind yourself that the Russia's KGB had absolutely no problems doing so.

reply

[–] Khaledyaghi (44) 7 years ago

Wow.
Communism was a danger to you then.
What's the USA's business meddling in Venezuela's elections now ?

Dude
Go Nuke some civilians like you did in Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

reply

[–] JimmyStrudel (600) 7 years ago

Nuking Japan was totally worth it.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

It actually wasn't.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/

reply

[–] JimmyStrudel (600) 7 years ago

Lmao. one of those “actually” Dorks.

Enough with your hippy dippy revisionist history. Japan wasn’t going to surrender and bombing them prevented millions of American soldier casualties if the allies were forced to invade Japan. Totally worth it.

reply

[–] Khaledyaghi (44) 7 years ago

Dude , you're sick.
Get well soon.

reply

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 7 years ago

Japan had already surrendered. But FDR ordered it to be ignored. You had a lot of people with different motives for wanting to keep the war going for example scientists who just wanted to see what the bombs would do and communists like Albert Einstein who were upset we didn't make more atomic bombs and use them to wipe out the German race.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

For the record, Einstein wasn't a communist. He fled Hitler's Germany and came to the US. While here J Edgar Hoover spent 22 years putting him under heavy surveillance to find evidence he was a communist, but never could. Hoover was obsessed with trying to prove lots of prominent people he suspected were communists like MLK, but never did.

The most that could be said of Einstein politically was that he was a Zionist and socialist. And no, he did not believe Israel should be communist.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 7 years ago

Did you even bother to read the link? It's very well documented.

What you're peddling is the revisionist American myth that I was taught in primary school too. It's one I'd prefer to believe (who wants to believe dropping the bombs really weren't necessary?) but not at the expense of fact.

reply

[–] tricksoftrade (82) 6 years ago

You can justify dropping the first one easily...what President wants to tell 100,000 mothers that they had this powerful weapon that could have saved their sons lives but did not use it.

The second bomb is harder.

We are also looking for the luxury of out of the moment of a time of war. Truman kept a returned purple heart and a letter from the recipients father in his desk drawer. The father blames him for his sons death. The letter so rattled Truman that he kept it to remind him of the seriousness of his job.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Except dropping the 1st one can't really be justified either seeing how the Japanese were going to surrender anyway after the Soviets scrapped their prior neutrality and decided to enter the war. Soviet forces immediately mopped up Japanese troops in Japan controlled Manchuria and the northernmost Sakhalin islands. The were mobilizing to mount an invasion of Japanese mainland within 10 days.

The emperor had already deployed his best forces to the southernmost island of Kyushu in preparation for the likeliest US entry point of invasion. Soviets invading from the North meant Japan had no shot, preparing for US invasion in the South meant the northern flanks were left unfortified and exposed.

Japanese generals were already well aware that any hope for success against the US depended on Soviets staying neutral. Months prior they conceded in a meeting that should Soviets enter the war it was game over for them. There was no way they could withstand an invasion by both great powers US and Soviet Union.

Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was gratuitous because the summer of allied bombings had already left most Japanese cities absolutely decimated. The atomic bombs (while striking in its high devastation quotient to the relatively few US lives put at risk in their deployment) were still just a drop in the bucket compared to the total annihilation US B-52 bombing raids wrecked on Japanese cities all summer long. The greatest existential fear of Japanese leadership was not high population casualties. Their national ethos welcomed self sacrifice, look no further than the kamakazis. Their greatest fear was a land invasion where their emperor that embodied their collective national identity would be forced to endure the public humiliation of mortal defeat.

Truman had not planned for a US land invasion until November 1st yet Japan was ready to surrender on August 9th because of Soviet preparations to invade Hokkaido after mowing through their unfortified northern flanks.

reply

[–] tricksoftrade (82) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tricksoftrade (82) 6 years ago

Japan ignored the Potsdam declaration. They did not respond until AFTER dropping of the bombs in mid August. (The threat of Soviet invasion also played a factor, Japan did not want to be under the Yoke of the Soviets)

Your comment of 'ready to surrender' is interesting and somewhat vague. This tantalizing comment is to push the fault on the US side...if they waited just a little while longer!... The facts are they DID NOT surrender prior to the bombing. The Potsdam declaration was issued in Feb of that year, that is 6 months of no response!

I read the link you posted. A good read! But the author did not argue AGAINST the bombs, just that the bombs won the war. To fully complete the argument AGAINST the bombs, the US would to have known that Japan was 'ready to surrender' (unconditionally). There is no historical evidence that the US knew of this.

The one thing that the bombs did do, was to keep the Soviet Union out of Japan. Which the Japanese should be thankful for.

Anyone interested should see Wikipedia Japan WWII surrender if you are confused with the facts.

Of course some countries without freedom of the press do not allow this most reputable site to be viewed.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Here's LA Times article with supporting documentation that US absolutely did know Japan was ready to surrender:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-stone-kuznick-hiroshima-obama-20160524-snap-story.html

That's because US code breakers had deciphered Japanese communications and knew how desperate Japan was to end the war. Based on interceptions on April 11 the Joint Intel Staff of the Joint Chiefs predicted, "If at any time the USSR should enter the war, all Japanese will realize that absolute defeat is inevitable."

Knowing this, Truman went to Potsdam Conference July 16th to August 2nd, seeking assurances from Stalin he would honor the Yalta agreement and enter the war against the Japanese. When Stalin assured him on July 17, Truman wrote in his diary, "He'll be in the Jap War on August 15. Finish Japs when that comes about." Truman reiterated this in letter to his wife the next day: "We'll end the war a year sooner now, and think of the kids who won't be killed." He decided to drop the bombs anyway in order to send a message to the Soviets:

Truman exulted in the obliteration of Hiroshima, calling it "the greatest thing in history." America's military leaders didn't share his exuberance. Seven of America's eight five-star officers in 1945 — Gens. Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur and Henry Arnold, and Adms. William Leahy, Chester Nimitz, Ernest King and William Halsey — later called the atomic bombings either militarily unnecessary, morally reprehensible, or both. Nor did the bombs succeed in their collateral purpose: cowing the Soviets. Leahy, who was Truman's personal chief of staff, wrote in his memoir that the "Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan." MacArthur went further. He told former President Hoover that if the United States had assured the Japanese that they could keep the emperor they would have gladly surrendered in late May.

reply

[–] tricksoftrade (82) 6 years ago

To think that the Japanese was ready to surrender unconditionally is a bizarre revisionist history. Again, we are removed from of the passions of the time. To be a Japanese official and to be for unconditional surrender would to be putting ones life at risk. The Potsdam declaration in late July was not responded to by any Japanese official. (Sorry I got confused with the Yalta conference earlier)

We both live in a free society, free to critic our governments, their policies, and people in power. It is something that we take for granted. I would like to think that the Russians still have this, but I could be wrong.

Going against people in power without the protections of the rule of law is a very risky thing. Togo and his click would 'take note' of any Japanese official who advocated for unconditional surrender. Just as Stalin 'took note' of any Soviet official who disagreed with him

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

I think you misunderstand what is meant when I say Japanese were ready to surrender unconditionally should they be allowed to keep their emperor. I'm specifically referring to the Japanese leadership, the generals that Emperor Hirohito consulted and surrounded himself with. Like General McArthur was saying, had they agreed to allow them to keep their emperor the generals would have agreed to surrender in late May. It was their communications their code breakers were intercepting. It was the fear of the public humiliation of potentially witnessing their emperor endure a public war crimes trial that they didn't surrender sooner. And even then, the only reason they held out for the grand total of one week following Potsdam was they were hoping the Soviets would broker a peace agreement that would help them save their emperor. They had previously been in communication with Stalin for this purpose. This is all part of the public record:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War

Instead they were completely caught off guard when they decided to enter the war on the 9th which is why they held emergency council to surrender on the 9th. They didn't even receive a damage assessment over the nukes until the 10th, as my original link makes clear.

The US ended up letting them keep their emperor anyway.

reply

[–] tricksoftrade (82) 6 years ago

A while ago I read the Pulitzer prize winning book 'Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan' by Herbert Bix. In it on (page 496) it gives the American rational for 'unconditional surrender'

'Their policy of no negotiated termination of the war aimed at smashing the fascist states and putting new non-fascist political entities in place. The objective was military and postwar political and social reform-always the two together. The philosophies of fascism and militarism were to be uprooted totally, and the conquered nations democratized, reborn as peace-loving capitalistic societies.'

This hard line was build by Churchill and Roosevelt to make this the last 'total war'.

Keeping Hirohito WAS a condition. You may disagree with the hard line of unconditional surrender, many do. We are so far mentally removed from the passions of the time that our opinion of it is skewed. You may also argue that Truman should have waited longer and that eventually Hirohito would comply with unconditional surrender (this is doubtful).

It is hard to realize that I am arguing FOR the use of a nuclear weapon. Perhaps if Hirohito was not so concerned with saving his own skin, or that Truman was a more dynamic diplomat able to use backchannels...however that is not in the character of these two individuals that history has given us.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

You don't appear to be cognizant of the fact the US allowed Japan to keep Hirohito anyway.

That removes your entire rationale for demanding unconditional surrender. They would have surrendered in late May being allowed to keep Hirohito as a figurehead, which is exactly what they ended up doing. That's why Douglas MacArthur thought dropping the bombs was pointless.

No one is saying Japanese fascism wouldn't have been uprooted totally if they had forced Japanese surrender earlier!

And your argument that "we are so far mentally removed from the passions of the time that our opinion of it is skewed" isn't compelling either in light of the fact that seven of America's eight five-star officers in 1945 called the atomic bombings either militarily unnecessary, morally reprehensible, or both.

I know you strongly want to believe that dropping the bombs was necessary, but your arguments as to why just don't add up.

You should read the Times link I gave you. In it you'd learn the whole rationale Truman had for dropping the bombs was to send a warning message to the Soviets. Truman's reasons for causing all those additional casualties from the bombs was not about winning the war that he already knew was won. How do we know he knew the war was already won? Again, because he wrote it in his diary and to his wife. Let that sink in for awhile.

reply

[–] tricksoftrade (82) 6 years ago

You are making a very large assumption..... that if the USA were to concede by letting Hirohito stay on it would have no effect on the negotiating process. We are not and will never be certain of this.

A person with your obvious intellect should be able to figure out that if the USA were to give into conditions BEFORE surrender, it COULD (in my mind probably would) give the Japanese generals and Stalin one thing...hope. Hope for the Japanese war generals that they could gain more concessions if they dragged it out awhile longer, hope for Stalin that he could carve out a piece of Japan for himself.

One should never underestimate the power of hope.

.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

"Hope for the Japanese war generals that they could gain more concessions if they dragged it out awhile longer, hope for Stalin that he could carve out a piece of Japan for himself."

More of what concessions? Their backs were against the wall with the Soviet land invasion from the north. Their singular 'hope' was to spare their emperor the public humiliation of a war crimes trial. But they were ready to take their chances with an American trial over watching their leader dragged out onto the streets and shot as would be the certain conclusion of a Soviet land invasion.

Your present argument suffers from being so poorly thought through that it lacks basic coherency. You're not making even the slightest bit of sense.

reply

[–] tricksoftrade (82) 6 years ago

You don't BROADCAST to the WORLD that you will only accept unconditional surrender....and then give into a condition! Unless you want to appear weak.

THAT is exactly what Stalin and the Japanese government would see. It is like a solid wall with one small crack. They will stall...look for more cracks...or try to make more. There was a STRONG contingent in the Japanese government would never accept surrender. Japans negotiators were not a unified front that you portray.

To think that if the Americans gave into one condition and that the Japanese would IMMEDITIALY accept is naïve.

Also, your view of the opinions of 5 star generals is a little off. For negotiations is not their field of expertise. While we can all agree that nuclear weapons are barbaric, generals receive promotions for successful battles.

Finally, Japan should have reasoned out that the emperor would be in no danger and would have been kept as a figurehead. After all, the US would be occupying the country and executing the emperor would have placed occupying US troops in jeopardy.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

You keep ignoring the fundamental point here.

THE SOVIETS HAD AMASSED THEIR TROOPS AT THE BORDER IN PREPARATION FOR A LAND INVASION.

You're acting like Japan had time to prolong negotiations with the US when their backs were against the wall and THEY DID NOT.

"Finally, Japan should have reasoned out that the emperor would be in no danger and would have been kept as a figurehead. After all, the US would be occupying the country and executing the emperor would have placed occupying US troops in jeopardy."

I implore you to re-read this paragraph you just wrote and consider the absurd knots you're tying yourself into to try and rationalize why it was Japan's fault they got nuked when they didn't even know the US was preparing to nuke them.

Truman knew the war was already won, he wrote it in his diary and to his wife. He knew he didn't have to drop those nukes. He knew Japan was prepared to surrender to him over getting sacked by the Soviets when he ordered the nuking. That's why seven of America's eight five-star officers in 1945 called the atomic bombings either militarily unnecessary, morally reprehensible, or both.

Truman only needed to wait TWO DAYS to ensure Soviets would honor Yalta agreement date to declare war and invade Japan. He didn't wait because he KNEW Japan would surrender as soon as Soviets broke their treaty with Japan.

You're also acting like it was ultimately the Japanese general's call to surrender when it was not. Hirohito was the dictator the Japanese revered as a living god, it was his call. He was not a puppet of his generals even if some of them didn't want to see him surrender.

That's why Hirohito personally intervened with his Supreme Council to surrender to allied forces the day the Soviets invaded, which also happened to be the day Nagasaki was bombed. But as the article points out from postwar interrogations of the generals that they and Hirohito hadn't even understood the magnitude of the devastation from the nukes yet because comprehending it was a gradual process and they had yet to get a full damage assessment for either city. They were responding to the Soviet invasion, not the nukes.

That lays to bed your bizarre theory that Hirohito would have tried to negotiate further concessions from the US while Soviets were invading them. We know from history he did not.

reply

[–] tricksoftrade (82) 6 years ago

Sir, with all due respect, your analysis of Japans reactions to the prospect of a Soviet invasion is wrong.

Your thought that Hirohito had ultimate power and 'revered as a God' is also, well....slightly off. The power dynamic was quite different. I implore you to educate yourself by reading 'Hirohito and the making of modern Japan' by Herbert Bix, winner of the Pulitzer prize. It will inform you of the power of the Togo militaristic wing and the character of Hirohito himself.

The thought that the incredibly brave Japanese would immediately surrender upon Soviet invasion is the biggest error in your thinking.

This is a paragraph from page 494 of Bix's book;

'From April 8th, 1945 until its capitulation, the Suzuki government's chief war policy was "Ketsugo", a further refinement of the "Shosango" (Victory number 3) plan for defense of the homeland. Its defining characteristic was heavy reliance of suicide tactics, and the manufacture of weapons solely for the purpose of suicide missions using massive numbers of kamikaze 'special attack' planes, human torpedoes shot from submarines, dynamite-filled "crash boats" powered with truck engines, human rocket bombs carried by aircraft, and suicide charges by specially trained ground units. While preparations for Operation Ketsu went forward, on June 9 a special session of the Imperial Diet passed a Wartime Emergency Measures Law and five other measures designed to mobilize the entire nation for that last battle.'

The American marines were already painfully aware of the Japan 'warrior code' of never surrender. If the Soviets did invade the Japanese homeland, every man woman and child would do everything in their power to stop them.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

And yet they did surrender in reaction to the Soviet invasion, as I've repeatedly pointed out to you numerous times.

What's mind boggling to me is that you would even try to argue the Japanese would not surrender when THAT'S WHAT THEY DID.

And no, it was NOT in reaction to the atomic bombs, when, like I've repeatedly said, postwar interrogation of the Japanese generals indicated they had NO IDEA as to how destructive the atomic bombs were two days after they were dropped because they HADN'T EVEN SEEN THE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT yet. As historian Ward Weaver points out, the report on the Hiroshima bombing, the one that gave details about what had happened, WAS NOT EVEN DELIVERED TO TOKYO UNTIL AUGUST 10th, AFTER THEY SURRENDERED! Nor did they have any idea about the long term radioactive damage or any of that.

You keep trying to argue with historical fact and playing this fiction that the Japanese would not honor Hirohito's decision to surrender when it was Hirohito that intervened with his Supreme Council and made the decision to surrender. This is a fact.

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

Emperor Hirohito intervened and ordered the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War to accept the terms the Allies had set down in the Potsdam Declaration for ending the war.

Yes, it's part of a historical record that some of his officers attempted a failed coup. But so what? The point is they surrendered to the Allies in reaction to the Soviet invasion. All Truman had to do was wait two days for Soviets to honor Yalta agreement and invade to see that they'd surrender to the Allies instead of being overrun by the Soviets, as he knew Hirohito was prepared to do from signal intercepts. But instead he decided to beat the Soviets to the punch by unnecessarily nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Why do you keep ignoring historical fact?

reply

[–] tricksoftrade (82) 7 years ago

Elections...in Venezuela? That is a good one.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

'Soviet Union would collapse in 1989' - that one is even better.

reply

[–] tricksoftrade (82) 6 years ago

What do the Russian people do if Putin suddenly dies? The power vacuum and chaos that would follow in a country that has 1000 thermonuclear warheads....a part of me wishes he lives a long, long time.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Look no further than Venezuela to see what happens when a longtime strongman dies.

reply

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 7 years ago

You are saying that FDR would not have been friends with Joseph Stalin if he had known better. I don't think so. I think different people have different interests so hindsight has nothing to do with it. It was the pro-communist economist like Paul Samuelson who said the Soviet Union would overtake America instead of collapse, and this was justifaction for us to support communists. If you look at Vietnam, they were not fighting against private property. They were fighting to get private property back from colonizers. The communist manifesto has not been translated to Vietnamese. I think America behaved as communist through CIA intervention into world affairs.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

"unwavering belief in their own untethered power.... but also that those missions failed. Completely and utterly."

It's not just that those missions failed, it is that they failed because they were destined to fail, there was absolutely no way they could have succeeded because they are based upon pure ignorance and stupidity that forms an ideology of stupidity, the ideology of conservatism which is a bankrupt ideology, that is just plain wrong about everything. This is one perfect case in point. And now in 2017 and 2018 we are right back down that same path of stupidity because the American voters are just so incredibly stupid they STILL have not learned their lesson. You'd think the worst recession in history, the most unjustified wars in modern history would have been enough to teach them not to go down the same path again, but they chose it all over again!!!! and it is worse now than it has ever been.

reply

[–] FifthFreedom (196) 7 years ago

The reality is far worse than this movie depicts and likely far, far worse than you would ever imagine.

reply

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 6 years ago

America is the biggest gangster to ever walk gods green earth, meddles with so many countries affairs if its in americas intreast, sell weapons to create war , then goes and bombs the very people it supplies weapons to then makes a shed load on selling aid.

This is a list of countries America has invaded in its time.
Morocco
Canada
Algeria
Spain (Acquisition of Florida)
Cherokees (Indian Removal Act)
Indonesia (Expedition)
Ivory Coast (Expedition)
Cherokees (Trail of Tears)
Mexico (Annexation of Texas)
Mexico (Seizing of California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, some of Colorado, New Mexico, and the Texan border with the Rio Grande)
Sioux (Forced settlement and massacre)
Spain (Annexation of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines)
Philippines (Reneges on promise of Philippine independence in exchange for Filipino support during the Spanish-American War)
Fiji (Expedition)
China (Second Opium War)
China (Looting China in response to the Boxer Rebellion as part of the Eight-Nation Alliance)
Taiwan (Expedition into Taiwan)
Korea (Korean Expedition in response to "insults")
Panama, Nicaragua, Cuba, Haiti, Dominica Republic, Honduras, Mexico (US shenanigans with their military)
Germany (World War 1)
Russia (Russian Civil War - Formation of Soviet Union)
Germany, Japan, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria (WW2)
Korea
Vietnam
Guatemala (CIA overthrows of their government and funds dictator's armies)
Iran (CIA overthrows elected Prime Minister)
Cuba (Bay of Pigs)
Brazil (CIA helps overthrow the government and funds opposition groups)
Chile (CIA funds opposition then overthrows the government)
Grenada (Overthrow their government)
Nicaragua (Helps install a military junta)
Libya
Panama (Attempt to capture Gen. Manuel Noriega)
Honduras (Helps install a military junta)
Colombia (Funds and trains death squads)
Iraq
Somali
Sudan, Afghanistan (Retaliation for terrorist attacks in embassies)
Serbia (Kosovo War)
Afghanistan
Iraq

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

If you're pointing to American imperial tyranny in throwing its weight around globally, I don't disagree.

But at the same time, this is also the nature of empires. If it wasn't America it'd be someone else. Had the Soviets won the cold war they'd be doing the same thing, Soviet Active Measures were engaged in overthrowing elected governments during cold war as well.

Actually I'd argue it'd be worse if the dominant empire were under the yoke of communist totalitarianism.

reply

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 6 years ago

Great point

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

If you do a similar list for Britain, it will be 10 times as long.

reply

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

Indeed going back to the crusades

reply

[–] Satan2016 (25577) 2 years ago

Commies are so delusional! The US "invaded" during WW 1/2?

Japan forced the US to declare war by bombing Pearl Harbour. Germany and Italy had to join Japan. Axis of Evil, after all.

Grenada? There was a Commie military coup and they executed the former PM! Cuba sent soldiers. Wikipedia:

The Reagan administration in the U.S. launched a military intervention following receipt of a formal appeal for help from the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States. In addition, the Governor-General of Grenada Paul Scoon secretly signaled he would also support outside intervention, but he put off signing a letter of invitation until 26 October.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 4 years ago

Speaking of reality, you seem pretty detached from it as far as the topic goes.

"Does my government..."

This was 30-40 years ago. No one in government now was in government back then. Did "the government" do this? No, people who worked in the government back then did.

And stop rambling about "my country", governments all over the world do stuff like this. The world is not always a nice place. Dirty shit has to be done sometimes.

Barry Seal was a scumbag. He peddled garbage that ruins people's lives. He worked for murderers. MURDERERS. And you're made the government put the squeeze on him to get info? Stop it.

reply

[–] Jsully9 (377) 3 years ago

Just ask the January 6th arrestees.

reply

[–] avortac4 (3746) 6 months ago

"Do you think our government is really as soulless and corrupt as portrayed in movies like this?"

Who is this 'you' that you refer to?

Anyway, of course NO government is as corrupt (not soulless, but more like 'greedy control freak's soul') as shown in this movie or any other.

All governments of the world are WAY, way worse than any movie would ever, ever dare depict. WAY worse.

People that say it was the 'people in governments', not the governments themselves, do not understand what a government is or how it works (or how it's -supposed- to work).

The power accumulates in the same families, same hands, same entities always in this world - that's how the system is set up. A wealthy criminal gets to build their own prison with luxuries like jacuzzies and waterfalls (according to Wikipedia, look what the drug lord Escobar was allowed to do) and be admired by tens of thousands of people just because they gave poor people some of that dirty money...

In any case, the structures of this planet, the power, the goverments - it's all pretty much fully corrupt. The 'war on drugs' can never succeed, because there's just too much corruption in police alone, let alone elsewhere.

It's not an organic process, where some greedy people just happen to end up in a government, and when they are gone, everything is fine (how can anyone think like this..?)

It's a very meticulously planned infrastructure, structure and ultrastructure that dictate how things go. The PARTICULAR individuals that occupy the 'positions of power' do not matter.

However, even if it WAS somehow organic, this is how it would go..

A criminal thug seeks money, power and control over others. There are lots of this kind of cretins born every year. It's not a coincidence that these demonic sh1theads end up in positions of power - they WORK VERY HARD to get there, just not 'legitimately'. Look at how Pablo started with selling fake lottery tickets and illegan cigarettes before he was able to amass 70 billi

reply

[–] avortac4 (3746) 6 months ago

.. before he was able to amass 70 billion dollars worth of wealth.

The thing is, 'good people' are satisfied with less, they don't have this obsessive, psychotic ambition to get to the 'handle of power' to control others and murder and pillage to get drugs, money, women, and most importantly, POWER.

So this means, good people, not having this kind of demonic ambition, never even TRY to get to a position of power, but greedy idiots and criminal psycho thugs, control freaks, etc. do ANYTHING to get there.

The competition for these positions is fierce, so they do anything to trip others and climb up, which means that only those that are the most tough, most psychotic, most greedy and most determined to get there, end up in those hard-to-get positions.

This kind of 'natural law' almost ASSURES there's always going to be corruption and thuggery going on in ANY position of power (so many corrupt cops are the proof of this), and that 'regular people' are always the victims of these 'powerful thugs'.

Now, the original purpose of a government is to help people, smooth out their lives, protect them and ensure their rights are not trampled upon. How far we have sank from those ideals..

A good example of what a government does, is a library; it does not generate profit for anyone greedy, but it is VERY good for the people in so many ways, they could not easily be listed. People can learn to read more, relax, learn about things, research and explore all kinds of arts, entertainment, culture and so on. I would not know about 'Mafalda', if it wasn't for libraries. I would probably not even know about 'Yoko Tsuno' or have stumbled upon 'Mahavishnu Orchestra' and such, just to mention a few easy-to-understand examples.

A government is supposed to protect people's rights, so there's 'police' (supposed to be 'peace officers', now 'policy enforcers'), help in a crisis (fire department) and so on and so forth. This would ensure prosperity, peace and trust..

reply

[–] avortac4 (3746) 6 months ago

Government is not something that just automatically 'governs you' from above. A government is there to provide services for the GOOD OF THE PEOPLE, so we have roads, schools, public transportation and all that I mentioned before. Because it all takes money, 'taxes' exist (though 'income tax' was a thing of insanity just a short time ago, now everyone accepts it as normal, just like 'standing armies')..

The problem is, just like corporations, governments have many 'powerful' positions, governments and corporations have more wealth than any entity really should, so it all becomes corrupt, as power and wealth increases, and 'what is good for the people' diminishes.

Is it really for the good of the people to put people in jail for wanting to listen to a song they did not give their hard-earned coins to some child-enslaving, super wealthy corporation for? Or would it be for the good of the people to have all data just simply... free? All information, all data, all songs, media, entertainment, movies, music... if it was ALL free, who would suffer?

Mega-wealthy super-corporations and governments, or... people?

Usually these things are just a matter of 'arranging' them, but there's no will, because then people can't be exploited so easily. Happy people would happily give money to a good government, even voluntarily. But it's risky, so it's a big NO-NO to make and keep people happy.

In any case, power corrupts, but already psychotic, power-hungry people are the only ones that fight very hard to get to positions of power. It does not matter which individual sits in any chair at any particular point in time, when the 'agenda' rules over all anyway, and the train only moves in one direction, regardless of who the passengers or even engineers (? train drivers?) are.

It's like, your physical body's cells are COMPLETELY different than they were, let's say 10, 20 or 50 years ago. Yet, you are the same.

reply

[–] avortac4 (3746) 6 months ago

Government does not change because puppets that sit in the fake position change faces, REAL change would mean changing the families behind the veil that control those puppets.

Government has a limited power that is dictated by the UNELECTED people with REAL power.

Banks don't dictate anything, government rules don't happen organically and so on. The OWNERS of the banks dictate everything, the SHADOW government dictates the rules of all of the governments of the world (which is why they are so similar) and so on.

So anyone thinking things are fine now, because the corrupt people that were making things happen instead of the government back in the day are gone, could not be more naïve and wrong. Sigh.

reply

[–] Tabbycat (878) 6 months ago

Thought some cells like those in the brain aren’t replaced.

reply

[–] Tabbycat (878) 6 months ago

I’m with you on “Mafalda” and “Yoko Tsuno,” but I’ve known about the Mahavishnu Orchestra from their quadraphonic eight-track tapes in the $2.99 bin at Longs Drugs. Those same mixes are up on Apple Music now in Dolby Audio — I should maybe give a listen. Still don’t know who they were.

reply