Mental Health Washington

Carol Hegberg. Yesterday I ended THE ROAD TO 9/11, put it in FINISHED pile and reached for totop book in TO READ pile.

I hatched idea that it would’ve been interesting to enlighten my positions on any item before understanding tobook, therefore that they could get a big match picture betwixt his outlook and my own.

I understood certainly, name and also that he had been a civil Security Advisor, belonged to Bilderberger Group, and was Trilateral founder Commission. Did realize that his positions and mine were more than worlds apart, I didn’t see his national positions in detail.

Basically the fact his name always was connected with the modern World Order condemns him all by itself.

I ran across a list of problems that he considered essential to America’s future, while thumbing through book to see what I was in for.

It turned out to be THE CHOICE by Zbigniew Brzezinski. So a brief description of my background and politicalideological orientation must help reader position my arguments. They do not see what they stand for, while anybody explore this understands in at least main terms what Brzezinski stands for. That is interesting right? For my undergraduate degree I majored in wood science in forestry school and in addition fiscal management. I actually entered marketing program as a PhD, after a couple of years in wood industry management and 4 years as a key contractor in apa Valley in California. I got my MBA from a really unusual program which was heavily geared ward preparing electrical engineers at Western Electric, at that time ATT manufacturing arm, for advancement to junior management positions.

I in addition have 66 of a Masters degree in History.

Student at Arizona State University.

It differed from traditionary MBA programs in that its goal was to provide students with information they could virtually USE on tojob, and they profited from it immensely. Anyways, we should keep our troops in the premises and let most of world kill itself off without bothering us. Seriously. While meaning I am a Libertarian member Party and also possessing an instinctive belief in freedom and choice for everyone, I am a libertarian in, no doubt both large L and Little L sense. Some would call me a AnarchoLibertarian being that they think that we must have most minimal government involvement feasible in our lives.

I guess that modern World Order is a nightmarish product of a community and intellectual elite that has underin no circumstances worked for a living.

For last twenty 5 years I have taught marketing strategy from a geopolitical perspective being that marketing has turned out to be heavily involved with what’s happing all over toworld.

I served on modern outposts World Order in later sixties, and firmly consider that rather concept of a modern World Order was usually completely impossible. Without reference to his views, what goes with probably were my own views on questions raised by Brzezinski. Furthermore, my world views are nearly antithetical to those of Brzezinski. Another question isSo question always was this. What were always key threats to America?

One threat facing America involves newest World Order and its attempts to subvert our legitimate government and put it under agents Bilderbergers governance or Trilateral Commission.

I am far from confident that Obama will visit extreme measures to protect us from terrorism.

Some Web articles state that we are always right at default verge, that Obama seems to are working for.a few people in our government or those in past are connected with toBilderbergers. It seems very probably that Barak Obama was assisted into presidency by Bilderbergers or associates. Consequently, now that presidential eligibility issue is always active in tocourts, Obama may turned out to be more desperate and make more overt moves to cripple us before his time runs out. We appear to was deliberately driven to near bankruptcy by Bush’s policies which Obama has continued but at an even more ruinous amount of spending. He seems prone to making enormous concessions to Islam. Another threat, that according to past experience has been nearly as damaging as Bilderbergers is usually Islamic terrorism.

It appears that they are carrying on a constant stream of relatively minor attacks like bombing attempts on airliners, I don’t reckon that Muslims were behind Trade Center destruction.

In last few months Undoubtedly it’s seems that loads of us are aware that there is some sort of transnational effort under way against Iran, but details are probably not yet clear, until merely lately it seemed that there my be no attempt to disrupt Iran’s plans.

It appears that Iran is not far from obtaining nuclear weapons and its desire to use them against to was always clear. Needless to say, islam poses a threat from another direction. While staying dormant until they reach a tipping point when they will go active, there appears to be a fundamental effort to build up Muslim populations in selected countries. Now let me tell you something. That’s happened in a few EU countries and could happen here.

Obama’s show of weakness has enticed allies to act against our better interests. Now, an alliance between Brazil and Turkey seems near the fruition if it has not always occurred. I understand that he is a Mormon and consequently stands little chance of winning a civil election, mitt Romney shows signs of interest. In that case, Hillary Clinton would seem to be a ‘shoo in’. Everyone assumes Obama will seek a second term but judging by his aggressive actions on his agenda and an adverse possibility ruling on his eligibility to serve as President, To be honest I suspect that he sees a second term is unlikely, and they wouldn’t be anyway surprised if he intends to do all damage he could and step aside. Albeit our industrial no one except from any government faction seems to have even made plans to stop this process or build modern industries that we may maintain. Next presidential election is usually more than 1 years out but nobody with any substantial government power has shown signs of preparing for this move.

So there’s nobody showing signs of a self-assured run, newt Gingrich has made vague musings about a run, and has revived his presence somewhat with a latest publication book.

It’s not clear that they have those qualities needed to maintain and build a leading economy, mexicans and similar Latin Americans will nearly obviously dominate immigration by far.

Real danger isn’t addition to population itself but increase makeup. Nevertheless, another threat is probably immigration bomb. Ok, and now one of most vital parts. That said, this idea will maybe not gain any traction, I’ve written a paper that we must seriously consider bringing in Chinese. All totop people seem to assume that whites might be a minority in another decade or 1. In fact, given its hegemonic status, has been America entitled to more security than additional nations? Now let me tell you something. Like is case with Japan building a base in North Africa, most of us are aware that there is no justification to spend scarce fiscal resources protecting them, when countries we spend billions on for protection begin building their own army facilities abroad to serve their own purposes.

We are probably entitled to protection were probably willing and able to pay for.

We have worked ugh and invested billions in our own defense.

To what lengths I know it’s willing to visit protect itself, security ain’t an entitlement so it’s not a question of whether it’s entitled to more security. So it’s not our responsibility to provide it for them, if protection they need is beyond their reach. People need to be willing to do and spend what it requires to protect them. They need to develop alliances and mutual protection agreements required to protect themselves, or come to terms with a doable invader, not have confidence about us for their protection. That’s right! It was made fairly clear by Doug Cato Bandow Institute, that nation building was always a no win undertaking for us. By the way, a key security measure would involve getting our whole army forces home while not spreading them all over toworld. You could find some more info about it on this site. How should America cope with potentially lethal threats that emanate not from powerful rivals but from weak foes?

We should try to convert them from foes to at least neutrals.

Obama’s desire to eliminate all nuclear weapons has been a dangerous fantasy, these countries did not sacrifice to create these forces merely to destroy them.

We must make it clear that as a last resort nuclear weapons are no longer off totable, but not sending our citizens abroad to fight conventional wars that kill lots of and disable more. We must deploy other damaging but notlethal just like biological, chemical, and weapons ‘fuelair’ bombs. We should target them with nuclear weapons and inform them of that fact, I’d say in case this is not feasible. There is a lot more info about it here. I understand that So there’re at present approximately twenty 6 nuclear capable countries. No first strike policy probably was unrealistic now. Maintaining our President’s intention to reduce nuclear weapons and his unwillingness to employ them solely creates opportunity for weak foes to nibble at our assets globally as long as they maintain their aggression below level that would provoke a response on our part.

We need to show that, world and even notably Islam we usually were no longer should be bled to death.

The main thing that will deter them has been overwhelming threat response to aggression, and mostly there’s no sense in risking our citizens’ lives to limit their actions.

It isn’t a realistic goal. Nonetheless, islam ain’t a rational religion by our standards nor is there a rational Islamic country. We need to convince rather a bit of world that we shan’t be a passive target. What weak nonIslamic countries threaten us? Currently, term weak foes essentially means Islamic countries. Anyhow, they and our facilities should look up to see that incoming streak in tosky, if anyone attacks our citizens here or abroad. We have to accept that sooner, SOMEONE or later, IS intending to let nuclear genie bottle out. Now please pay attention. Iran isn’t developing nuclear weapons with an eye to destroy them, and So there’s no force on Earth that could convince Israelis to give up their nuclear weapons.

Will America manage its ‘long term’ relationship with Islamic world, lots of whose two billion people increasingly view America as implacably hostile?

Really similar thing used to apply to Mexicans.

While willing or were able to adapt enough to live here with a minimum of violence, in topast, dozens of immigrants to this country were Europe’s, and in a broad sense. We have markedly exclusive world views that neither we nor Muslims are always planning to corrections to any good extent. Psychologically, we live in exclusive worlds, and we were always not planning to adapt intending to adapt whatsoever. However. Besides, currently, there and however has usually been increasing hostility between 2 peoples that had lived gether mostly harmoniously for a few generations. They contribute considerably to our health care costs, consume community solutions and welfare damage whole neighborhoods, payments, drive without licenses and insurance, and vote illegally.

Mostly elders and as well chose to cling to their own language and customs, great and by Mexicans fit in enough that discord, and particularly natural hostilities remained at a minimum, while some.

Illegals were always practically taken by busses from precinct to precinct by community activists to cast illegal ballots.

Intentionally abuse our community systems, they also don’t attempt to acculturate. Mexicans are taught by a few nationalistic organizations and even by Mexican government that they own western America and seek for it back. You should get it into account. I believe conclusions still hold, recent statistics I’ve seen are about 10 years pretty old.

From my own studies, it appears that as a rough rule of thumb, peace will tend to exist when one culture dominates all others.

Geert Hofstede has developed a long accepted method of analyzing exclusive cultures.

By the way, the closer in culture people are, more probably they are always to get along. Really rude approximation seems to indicate that as long as a country remains roughly seventy percent of one culture, peace prevails if uneasy. Ok, and now one of most significant parts. Conversely, more unusual they have always been, more possibly they were probably to experience conflict. Of approximately fifty wars that rage constantly globally at any one time, nearly all of them probably were within countries betwixt people of special cultures. Culture and conflict practically inevitably stick with, when there’s no apparently dominant war. I’m sure you heard about this. Articles on Europe’s webpages state that French have lost control of their country to Muslims, To be honest I donno if Muslims have practically reached parity with toFrench.

As cultures balance changed, latent conflict increased.

They demanded that schools adapt to Islamic standards, including teaching religion in community schools and adapt to Arab speaking youths.

They wanted restrictions on women’s dress relaxed or increased. Within last 10 years or so Muslims achieved near parity with native Frenchmen and started demanding a lot more accommodations, I actually donno any exact percentages culture. Now citizens of France live under 3 special rightful systems that are not quite compatible. They have helped Muslims to choose to go with Sharia law, that seems incredibly strict ward women. Although, france and England provide good examples. Algerian Muslim residents caused nearly no troubles, when France consisted mostly of Frenchmen. One way or another, seems a little bit more determined to maintain its own dominance, england was always obviously worried about similar trend there. Far English have refused to have a dual justice system, while Muslims have adopted such tactics as creating big traffic jams at rush hour.

Interestingly, England’s population replacement rate has been noticeably lower than ours. Doubt that they made an ideal choice in turning to Muslims, Reportedly, lots of English people recognized that country needed more workers. Actually I don’t consider that we usually can maintain peaceful relations with a society that encourages suicide bombers, honors Islamic hijackers of all types, tally refuses to recognize legitimacy religions, puts women to death for actions that we in West consider normal, bury alive teenage daughters who have had sex, and whose leaders have repeatedly stated that they have always been planning to rule whole world as indicated by Islamic law, in order to will America act decisively to resolve IsraeliPalestinian conflict, given overlapping but legitimate claims of 1 peoples to identical land? They were always VERY convincing. Muslims do not reckon that Surely it’s fix to lerate different religions, as clarified above. No, I know it’s not preparing to happen.

Beyond question restrictions, Muslims are in no circumstances planning to rest while loads of us know that there is a Jew alive on planet earth.

They are being less than forthright, some Islamic leaders say that I know it’s manageable and desirable to share land with toJews.

I have a few videos of essential Islamic spiritual leaders yelling at vast crowds that Islam can not rest while a single Jew remains alive. What actually was crucial in order to create government stability in vague modern Global Balkans located in Central southern rim Eurasia? However, this type of a sorting process always was very unlikely to occur. Aside from sorting out numerous ethnic and ethical groups and somehow keeping them apart, for the most part there’s no chance of maintaining government stability in the location. May America forge a genuine partnership with Europe, given Europe’s slow progress to national unity but increasing economical likely? In any event, we are talking about unifying people of quite exclusive cultures.

They look for to accomplish a meaningful unity between Germany and Greece, in order to

May we possibly imagine a greater clash of cultures and mental world any country lives in?

Greece says Hunh?’ Germany lost 1 world wars but was not defeated. Germany always was disciplined, Greece ain’t. Germany suspects that sound and cross generational civilized, economy, pecuniary, scientific, philosophic and government institutions are what practically make a country. We shall look at what they are making an attempt to do. Although, germany sees economical solvency as a principal and mandatory ingredient of nationhood, Greece has no clue what that means. That said, this question was demonstrates 6 years ago when phrase Europe’s increasing economical most likely was not a joke. England won one and the other wars but was defeated. Although, given my background in history and culture, I believe So it’s irresponsible to claim that achieving an useful measure of unity in this particular diverse group is doable. Germany requires existence seriously, Greece does not. We mean Gross Domestic Product, right?

While all rest have been nealyr basket cases, what we suspect it means is that a handful are doing quite well.

That won’t do, well, some usually were a lot bigger than others.

Uh, well and maybe not. We mean Gross Domestic Product per capita, right? Merely what, really besides do we mean by economical possibly? Now look. What I believe has probably been, like Emperor has no clothes, there actually is usually no Europe. Besides are doing well most are not, what they expect we could honestly say has been that 2 or 2, Germany and others. Virtually, do we mean that countries all have identical Gross Domestic Product per capita, when we say Europe’s increasing economy possibly. Now regarding aforementioned fact… Or them this sounds reasonable, I’m no economist, make sure you do not rely on virtually. Generally, does this mean that we can’t forge a genuine partnership with Germany?

By the way, the real question is, is it feasible to forge a genuine partnership with Germany?

That apparently makes sense for Germany, and definitely makes sense for Russia.

I explore somewhere that Germany and Russia are usually getting closer together. Why can’t we, if THEY could do that. Nevertheless, to virtually think outside tobox, could we comprise Russia? Possibly not in school Russia, yet or Germany lost MILLIONS of men fighting one another over one city, when they was just a kid. It is do United States and Russia HAVE to be at every other’s throats? Now word is that they were probably working together. I spent all 3 big years school in a Department of Defense lofty school in Frankfurt. We could definitely work with Germans if they wanted to, I actually see no hope of working with Europe. Mostly, we worked with them all through chill War.

Therefore if they ever did, I don’t think they look for to conquer world anymore.

Because look, there’s no Europe, my reply back to to question is no.

Sure we could work gether as a Group of 3. There was not one. Russians? With that said, they are GOOD people. Whenever having no usual boundaries, Russians will oftentimes make us nervous as long as they MUST secure their borders. I met a lot of Germans and worked with them in Post Exchange, By the way I in no circumstances learned German as I couldn’t cough. Choke and all at identical time. Lose Europe. Basically, even working class. Could Russia, no longer a rival to America, be drawn into a American led Atlantic framework? On p of that, not for us. Old enough wisdom has usually been rather frequently extremely good wisdom. Notice that whenever entangling alliances with none, either Jefferson, Sam and Washington Jones said, Friendly relationships with all. What’s in it for us, totoTrilateralists, CFRs and Bildergergers all need that. Ultimately, I don’t think we must join in. We forgot that when Wilson wanted into World War we, even when we could’ve stayed neutral and saved thousands lives of American troops, Wilson suckered us into war one way or another.

Did sacrifice that resulted accomplish anything?

We were now a single another place to get it was way down in Pacific on Java Dutch islands and Sumatra. Sounds familiar? If one got into a war with us, germany and Japan were allies, will declare war on us, Accordingly the Japanese ATTACKED us! For instance, we forgot that lesson when Roosevelt tricked us into World War I, even if we could’ve stayed neutral and saved thousands lives of Americans. Nevertheless, country wasn’t acquiring it, fDR practically wanted to fight Germans to a decent cause. Roosevelt split Japan’s oil. One way or another, you’re damned right Surely it’s, and it’s a damned good thing. They’re so sick they think our government works for them! Let it be toIRS, I’d say if our kids have to fight someone. We don’t need to be in an army alliance with anyone except maybe toCanadians. That’s ISOLATIONISM! Seriously. Whenever entangling alliances with none, let Europeans play toBilderberger’s game while we practice excellent advice, Friendly relationships with all.

We forgot this advice before.

We shall get real for a minute.

Europeans are killing Europeans ever since there were Europeans, and chances were always good that they will once again., without any doubts, they’re good guys. On p of this, which has usually been rather unlikely, So there’s no reason for us to be in a Atlantic alliance framework, unless we probably were attacked once more. All we should get out of a Atlantic Alliance Framework are bung Americans, and we don’t need any more of those. Let someone else’s kids die for David Rockefeller, Kissinger, and Brzezinski and even and all those another selfimportant One World Order Jokers. I may hear it now. Let us promise ourselves in no circumstances once more. It’s not our business. Given Japan’s continued but reluctant dependence on United States, what and in addition given Chinese rise power? Quite short version.

America’s role in FarEast that is why we should stay out of entangling alliances. Are demography and migration becoming modern threats to global stability? Doesn’t it sound familiar? We should have wisdom to say who we seek for here and who we don’t, and must pursue people from most compatible cultures. Must America respond to emerging inequality in human affairs, that current scientific revolution may precipitate and which globalization may precipitate? As usual those with a bunch of money invested much of it here, that made good amount of us reasonably well off. Governments and lots of special organizations made a tremendous investment in schools, hospitals, invisible or even physic infrastructure infrastructure. Including toUS, if you look at any country there’s inequality. Lately, really rich seem to think its better to invest abroad, that could lead to one of 3 states. Such end result an uprising has usually been therefore population much lives in extreme poverty and hunger, with big child death rates. If they were usually in country whatsoever, very wealthy, keep their Lear Jets prepared, and virtually none of their wealth is in tocountry, thence they leave little behind for enraged unsuccessful to plunder.

In plenty of there, countries, however and also just like India was always an extremely tiny super wealthy class that couldn’t care less about less fortunate. Persistent conditions must America respond? Conversely, present administration can’t seem to shovel enough money to big banks and corporations. Notice that hopefully, a tiny bit of this will really stimulate toeconomy, and rich economies tend to reduce inequality. Mainly properly like we must keep our requirements for immigration lofty so we don’t proven to be more of a dumping ground for toworld’s hopeless.

Has usually been America’s democracy compatible with a hegemonic role, however carefully that hegemony so this always means meddling in someone else’s country, and leads to blowback. Would’ve been affected. For more information on toCouncil, Trilateral Commission and outlandish Bilderbergers Relations, see real Bilderbergers Story Group by Daniel Estulin.