The latest from la-la land.
Rep. Greene is a proponent of the Camp Fire laser beam conspiracy theory. She wrote a November 17, 2018, Facebook post -- which is no longer available online -- in which she said that she was speculating “because there are too many coincidences to ignore” regarding the fire, including that then-California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) wanted to build the high-speed rail project and “oddly there are all these people who have said they saw what looked like lasers or blue beams of light causing the fires.” She also speculated that a vice chairman at “Rothschild Inc, international investment banking firm” was somehow involved, and suggested the fire was caused by a beam from “space solar generators.”
Greene added: “If they are beaming the suns energy back to Earth, I’m sure they wouldn’t ever miss a transmitter receiving station right??!! I mean mistakes are never made when anything new is invented. What would that look like anyway? A laser beam or light beam coming down to Earth I guess. Could that cause a fire? Hmmm, I don’t know. I hope not! That wouldn’t look so good for PG&E, Rothschild Inc, Solaren or Jerry Brown who sure does seem fond of PG&E.”
Again, ROW ROFLTAO.
Oh, and she is on the House Budget Committee. But it's MMT that's crazy, right?Gop
Media Matters in America
Marjorie Taylor Greene [R-GA] penned conspiracy theory that a laser beam from space started deadly 2018 California wildfires
Marjorie Taylor Greene [R-GA] penned conspiracy theory that a laser beam from space started deadly 2018 California wildfires
Eric Hananoki
The "crazies" on the democratic side want people to have healthcare, better wages, education and childcare, while the crazies in the republican party think fires are started by space lasers and that Hillary Clinton and Huma Abideen rape and ritually kill children after peeling the child's face off and wearing it as a mask while they drink the brain fluid... not to mention them all being OK with their leader attempting a coup..
ReplyDeleteBut its 50/50, both sides do it and one side is just as bad as the other...
she probably would go for you guys "neoliberal conspiracy!" too... maybe run it by her...
ReplyDeleteLook closely. It’s really Alex Jones in drag.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteTake the vote - “Do you want Trump to be barred from holding public office again?”
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/biden-promises-truth-after-trump-s-lies-how-hold-leaders-ncna1255905
Take the vote - "Do you want Democrats to stop obsessing over Trump?"
ReplyDeleteDo you want Trump to be barred from holding public office again
ReplyDeleteHe is unqualified. Should stick to RE and entertainment, or maybe just retire.
“He is unqualified“
ReplyDeleteHa! He’s just as qualified as any of the others... probably more..,,
I can’t believe you biased anti war people here wouldn’t go for trump....this is hard to understand...
ReplyDeleteCan’t wait to see you people’s reaction When the Democrat Biden people start their first war ...
You're not qualified to be Potus until you're a major league war criminal.
ReplyDeleteFortunately, the Empire offers on-the-job experience.
He’s just as qualified as any of the others... probably more
ReplyDeleteCould be true. There is a yet no objective way of testing this that I am aware of.
But it appears to me that none of them have the systems awareness coupled with the analytic ability that is needed, let alone the training, skills and experience.
So it always SNAFU to FUBAR.
Basically, the technology and scale has developed beyond our capacity to deal with it sufficiently well to prevent dysfunction.
ReplyDeleteLooks like Trump will get bailed out by Putin:-
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/29/trump-russia-asset-claims-former-kgb-spy-new-book
Putin would love a civil war in the United States!
Qanon and Republican Party supporters have a new conspiracy book to add to their reading list. This one might even be true!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/635379/american-kompromat-by-craig-unger/
Crude hit job. Let's see the KGB recruited Trump in 1977 during the USSR in preparation for his becoming a US president they could control. That's a big project for even Five Eyes in a small country. Another good laugh.
ReplyDeletein the opinion of most Russian experts that know anything Putin would not like to see civil disorder in the US, actually. The last thing he and other world leaders want to see is a US entirely unmoored. Putin values world order not chaos, like the Empire does.
I can’t believe you biased anti war people here wouldn’t go for trump....this is hard to understand...
ReplyDeleteWhile Trump did not start any new wars, he continued US policy with a different strategy and tactics, switching to economic warfare. That doesn't mean that this was an intelligent decision. It was stupid, but not as stupid as the wars the US is mired in kinetically.
So I give him credit for being less stupid than the Blob. On the other hand, I give him credit for at least trying to disengage from the kinetic wars the US is stupidly mired in.
“Economic warfare” is a figure of speech...
ReplyDeleteHe was trying to start a transition towards bilateral national agreements and associated balanced trade...
Sanctions can be kinetic for poor people.
ReplyDelete“Economic warfare” is a figure of speech... He was trying to start a transition towards bilateral national agreements and associated balanced trade...
ReplyDeleteKilled a lot of people doing it. Of course, this was an issue before DJT, too. He just ramped it up as a strategy and tactic in pursuing the same foreign policy. "America First" is just a different way of saying American domination.
Look, there are two options in foreign policy/international relations. The first is unipolarism, that is, one great power controlling unilaterally. The second is multipolarism, that is, several great powers controlling their spheres of influence and cooperating on world order.
ReplyDeleteThe former necessitates full-spectrum military dominance and economic dominance. The later, parity.
The US is committed to the former and China and Russia to the later. Both sides will go to war over this if push comes to shove.
Simple as that.
Here is a paper on it.
ReplyDeleteA New Grand Strategy
Tom,
ReplyDeleteI checked the date on the article: Jan 2002
About a year later, neocons in the US government had convinced George Bush to pursue a unipolar world, a Pax Americana to be modelled after the Roman Empire. Because the US was not powerful enough, they would use Israel to control the Muslims and India as a counterweight to China. To drive the point home, the Space Shuttle Columbia had both an Indian and an Israeli astronaut.
Scientists questioned why the Israeli they chose was a man of war.
In 1981 he was the youngest pilot taking part in Operation Opera, Israel's strike against Iraq's unfinished Osiraq nuclear reactor. The facility was destroyed, killing ten Iraqi soldiers and one French researcher.
The Space Shuttle Columbia crashed into Palestine, Texas.
John ''Ish'' Ishmael wrote a book about that symbolism titled: Chosen World: Our War on Islam and Our Own Freedoms
Since then, two Jewish authors have also written books on the same symbolism, but their take was that it was God's warning to the Jews if they gave up Jerusalem to the Palestinians.
ABC News wrote an article about it:
A Higher Reason for Columbia Crash?
Yes, but trade can be pursued as a separate policy, whereby America moves toward isolationism. As the climate crisis advances, local/regional economies will be ever more necessary for survival.
ReplyDeleteI checked the date on the article: Jan 2002
ReplyDeleteYes, authors advice was not heeded. The US had adopted the Wolfowitz Doctrine of unipolar dominance in 1992 and it was later modified as the Bush Doctrine of 2002 to include preemptive military action. This was partially replaced by theTrump Doctrine of pressuring both adversaries and allies alike. Clinton and Obama had no specific doctrines other than "engagement" (liberal internationalism) rather than isolation, and they pursued Wilsonian liberal interventionism militarily.
At least since 1905, the overall strategy was set forth by Halford Mackinder (world island) for the British Empire and it was taken over by the US subsequently and modified by Americans Alfred Thayer Mahan (seapower), Nicholas Spykman (rimland), Henry Kissinger (real politik), and Zbigniew Brzezinski (grand chessboard).
As far as the DoD and Pentagon go, the Wolfowitz Doctrine remains in place. with the objective of submitting the ROW to US unilateralism ostensibility because liberalism but really Western-dominated (US makes the rules) neoliberal capitalism. They never got on board with the Trump Doctrine, and Obama signed onto it. So will Biden, judging by his initial appointments..
See New York Times archive U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring No Rivals Develop: A One-Superpower World—Pentagon’s Document Outlines Ways to Thwart Challenges to Primacy of America By Patrick E. Tyler March 8, 1992.
By 2010, the world was multipolar and continues to become ever more so economically.
ReplyDeleteWhen are US "strategists" going to wake up to that fact?
Belligerence is only useful for the psychological wellbeing of the belligerent. It doesn't translate into power. The collapse of the USSR was an opportunity for everyone, yet the US missed the boat. The world has sailed on.
BTW, I should note that toward the end of his life Zbig changed his position on the Carter Doctrine that became the basis of the Wolfowitz Doctrine that still dominates neoconservative foreign policy, which is largely in force in the US.
ReplyDeleteAdriel Kasonta's blog -
What does the post-Brzezinski era hold for the future of the U.S. role and its geostrategic imperatives in an ever more polarized world?
He changed his mind once their legacy of failure became apparent. I suppose it will take the loss of an aircraft carrier, or equivalent defeat, to change the minds of his colleagues.
ReplyDeleteCaitlin Johnstone weighs in on Jewish lasers. Enjoy!
ReplyDelete