Greetings fellow members.
A great many things about the last decade of politics, have made it clear to me that there is a fundamental misunderstanding about how to go about
dealing with serious problems, be they in the realm of internal policy, foreign policy, and a whole host of other realms of thought.
One of the most glaring examples of this, of course, is the way the western world has tried to tackle the rise of IS and other groups like it.
Fundamental misunderstandings on the part of the population, about the origins of these groups, makes it possible for those who know EXACTLY how these
things got going, to scam the populations of nations like the US, the UK, France, Germany, and so on, into believing these things just cropped up, all
on their own, without any prompting at all from anywhere else.
Many people refuse to engage with reality on this topic, that being that IS and virtually every major terror network in the world, owes its origins
to CIA operations, designed to deliberately destabilise regions which either run a different system of governance, one which is not corporate
controlled, or regions which contain mineral or other resources, which the US and its allies would like easier, cheaper access to. The US, with help
from the UK, has been in the business of controlling matters it has no business in, for decade upon decade, since just after the Second World War in
fact. Both the War on Drugs, and the War on Terror have the same origins, not different ones. It is no more the case that the cartels massive power,
south of the US/Mexico border is a result of the desire of local people to the region, to sell drugs to Americans, than it is the case that the Middle
East is beset by marauding scum, purely because there is a conflict of religious belief in the area. In actual fact, the CIA is largely responsible
for the entirety of both situations. The cartels and the terror networks beginnings, and their tenacity throughout the years, are owed to the fact
that the CIA and its enormous black budgets, have been applied to keeping both these entities going, because their existence is desirable from the
perspective of those who believe they have a right to puppeteer, at the cost of innocent lives.
The Military Industrial Complex, the Private Prison Industry in the US, and countless powerful people within politics in the States, and indeed in
the UK for that matter, benefit MASSIVELY from keeping things unstable, allowing the businesses in which they are invested to snap up the
opportunities that are presented by nations so demoralised, damaged and rendered so poor by war, that they are willing to sell their resources for
scrap value, to sell land for pennies, materials for protection.
Given that the origins of these problems are not with the smugglers, the jihadis, the drug farmers, or the bomb makers themselves, but the people who
pay to make sure they keep getting recruited (who are largely employees of the American or British governments, or both), you would have thought,
reasonably speaking, that the solutions to both the cartel problem, and the terrorist problem, would not be found in South America, or indeed in the
Middle East respectively. And if you thought that the answers to these issues can't be found in those locations, you would be absolutely right. The
answers to these things are not to be found where the damage is done, but in the nations and the financial structures, which promote those situations
from afar, for the benefit of the select few who get the opportunity to invest in those problems, ergo, the intelligence agencies, MIC, PIC, big oil,
and so on, in both Britain and America.
But for some reason, despite the problem being caused from within our respective nations, all the solutions we appear to be able to muster, focus on
the regions we are about the process of destabilising. People are happy to hear that other countries are being bombed, or that this cartel has been
hit by a multi-national team of elite special forces, but any reasonable examination of the situation will show that unless the funding from within
the intelligence agencies of the west, for these operations ENDS, nothing will change on the ground, no matter how many terrorists and cartel men die.
So why is it that no one wants to ACTUALLY affect the situations at hand? Why is it that we cannot accept that only acting against the originators,
the instigators of these groups, the agency people, the MIC members, the oil barons and the powerful people who invest in destabilising regions of the
world, will ever actually achieve the lasting solution to the problem, that we all want to see?
There are people in America and Britain today, who are sitting pretty atop heaping piles of our taxpayers money, paid to them to trade arms and
services to the very people we are TOLD are our enemies, and the people who work counter terrorism and in drug enforcement KNOW who these people are.
And yet no one supports acting against them, tearing down the structures which support them, denying them the right to do as they please without
consequence. Our countrymen die because these people play games with the lives of nations, and yet we see fit to do nothing to stop them at all.
And more recently, the APA called out psychiatrists who make statements regarding Donald Trumps mental construction, suggesting that doing so is in
breach of good conduct... I wonder then, where is their outcry against those using psychological operations to deconstruct communities and society
itself, for the purpose of turning our people against one another, to make them more easily controlled, less powerful, less able to use their numbers
to proper effect? I wonder, where is their outcry against corporate bodies employing experts at using psychological tricks, to manipulate people by
way of advertisements over the last few generations? I wonder, where is their anger, at the presence within the ranks of US intelligence and military
circles, of qualified psychiatrists and psychologists, whose task it is to formulate effective propaganda, the better to make the people incapable of
asking these questions more broadly, more commonly than they are discussed?
When solving a problem, one does NOT start with low hanging fruit. You do the biggest and hardest work first, THEN you tidy up the easy little odds
and ends which remain. This is logical, makes best use of available resources, and actually has LONG term effective results. But starting an effort
with the lowest hanging fruit wastes precious resources of time, effort and energy, while making no net difference to the problem in the long run. It
appeases the problem, capitulates to it, does not advance a cause, does not achieve solutions, just kicks the can down the road a ways, while creating
scapegoats, and allowing the people to forget there is even a problem in the first place.
This is not solving anything.