Mike
The Great Awakening
- Onderwerp starter fatsnotbad
- Startdatum
Mike
Mike
Mike
P Diddy house was raided in March 2024. He was not arrested until September 2024. He foolishly remained in the United States for those 6 months when he should have been moving to France where he could fight extradition for many years.
Roman Polanski has lived in France for decades avoiding r@pe charges in the USA since 1978.
Any other celebrities who think there might be something incriminating on the Diddy videos will also likely be fleeing in exile in the near future.
Mike
Roman Polanski has lived in France for decades avoiding r@pe charges in the USA since 1978.
Any other celebrities who think there might be something incriminating on the Diddy videos will also likely be fleeing in exile in the near future.
Mike
Mike
Mike
Mike
Interessant. FISA brings down the house.
Mike
Mike
Mike
Er zitten ook voordelen aan alcohol.
Mike
Mike
Mike
Johnny
Well-known member
Groot denken in vertrouwen leven.
stopworldcontrol.com
Durf Groots Te Denken: Een Pad Naar Wereldtransformatie
Kom los van beperkende denkbeelden, omarm goddelijke visie en sluit je aan bij een beweging voor wereldwijde transformatie.
stopworldcontrol.com
Mike
H.E.K.S.
Well-known member
Het zijn in ieder geval aan te raden boeken.
Echter valt me op dat mensen denken dat ze het begrijpen, maar vervolgens wel bijvoorbeeld hun hele huis vol camera's hangen en hun kinderen zo controleren op hun telefoon. Ik vermoed dan dat het kwartje nog niet helemaal is gevallen.
Ach, en misschien zei de "Gov't" hier nu eindelijk toch eens wat verstandigs? Het is maar hoe ze "Right-Wing Extremism' definiëren en zij lijken de definitie te bepalen.
Mooi hoe ze met waarschuwingen [zoals ook met rauwe melk] aangeven in welke hoek mensen het moeten zoeken
Mike
The End of Agreements.
[LONG POST CLICK TO READ]
This is the end of the era of agreements. Going forward, this must be a solid and unified understanding among the diplomatic corps of anti-hegemonic nations. Russia once believed it had secured significant diplomatic, strategic, and political victories with the signing of the Minsk and Astana accords. However, these agreements have proven to be ill-fated lessons in misplaced trust.
The Minsk Accords were signed in 2014 and 2015, were designed to de-escalate the conflict in eastern Ukraine. They included provisions for a ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons, local elections in separatist-held areas, and constitutional reforms to grant those regions special status within Ukraine.
The Astana Accords were brokered by Russia, Iran, and Turkey in 2017 to create “de-escalation zones” in Syria to reduce fighting and facilitate humanitarian aid.
However, the West has openly admitted that the Minsk Accords were little more than a smokescreen to buy time for the militarization of Ukraine. During this period, NATO countries accelerated the construction of NGO, political, and military networks designed to embed deeply anti-Russian ideologies at every level of Ukrainian society.
Similarly, in Syria, the freezing of the conflict without creating a clear framework or compelling incentives for the U.S. to end its occupation—or for Turkey to disengage from its control over Idlib—has led to disastrous consequences. This stagnant state allowed the U.S., Turkey, and Qatar to funnel arms, money, and global terrorists into Idlib, strengthening their assets while the conflict remained dormant. This mirrors the strategy seen in Ukraine, where periods of apparent calm masked preparations for a new wave of aggression.
Learning from past conflicts and demonstrating courage is essential. The “carrot” offered to Syria to participate in these drawn-out, futile negotiations was the promise that the U.S. would ease its sanctions agenda and help facilitate Syria’s return to normalcy. However, the reality is stark: the U.S. has nothing to gain from even a semi-independent Syria, especially with its current leadership intact and its ties to Russia and Iran unbroken. These negotiations, much like those involving Ukraine, were little more than a treadmill—designed to buy time for the U.S. and its allies to plan their next strategic moves.
China and the DPRK stand as powerful examples of nation-states that have survived relentless sanctions, isolation, and encirclement by adversaries. Their experiences demonstrate that independence is the most valuable asset a nation can possess. A country can endure war, sanctions, and even nuclear threats, but without independence, it lacks the foundation to build a coherent and enduring national project.
This moment also reflects the truth revealed in the master-slave dialectic: the master’s reliance on the slave eventually makes the master vulnerable, while the slave’s defiance and struggle bring forth the potential for liberation. In geopolitics, the analogy applies to nations that resist domination. Those willing to endure greater risk and sacrifice often emerge victorious, as their struggle transforms the balance of power. Sovereignty is won by those who embrace risk and refuse submission, not by those who compromise their independence for fleeting promises.
In the Cold War, the U.S. maintained a consistent strategy of “strike first, strike hard, and keep striking until the opponent gives up.” They were always more willing to climb the escalation ladder, start global conflicts, and do whatever it took to achieve their objectives. Maintaining the strategic initiative was a cornerstone of their approach, leading to significant victories, such as forcing Khrushchev to back down during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The countries mentioned in this discussion must similarly seize the strategic initiative if they are to survive and thrive in the face of their adversaries. In short, the world belongs to those willing to burn it.
For Syria, Iran, and Russia, the way forward is clear: abandon the reliance on agreements and frameworks that serve only to benefit your adversaries. Let your enemy negotiate with the bombs dropping on their heads.
Mike
[LONG POST CLICK TO READ]This is the end of the era of agreements. Going forward, this must be a solid and unified understanding among the diplomatic corps of anti-hegemonic nations. Russia once believed it had secured significant diplomatic, strategic, and political victories with the signing of the Minsk and Astana accords. However, these agreements have proven to be ill-fated lessons in misplaced trust.
The Minsk Accords were signed in 2014 and 2015, were designed to de-escalate the conflict in eastern Ukraine. They included provisions for a ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weapons, local elections in separatist-held areas, and constitutional reforms to grant those regions special status within Ukraine.
The Astana Accords were brokered by Russia, Iran, and Turkey in 2017 to create “de-escalation zones” in Syria to reduce fighting and facilitate humanitarian aid.
However, the West has openly admitted that the Minsk Accords were little more than a smokescreen to buy time for the militarization of Ukraine. During this period, NATO countries accelerated the construction of NGO, political, and military networks designed to embed deeply anti-Russian ideologies at every level of Ukrainian society.
Similarly, in Syria, the freezing of the conflict without creating a clear framework or compelling incentives for the U.S. to end its occupation—or for Turkey to disengage from its control over Idlib—has led to disastrous consequences. This stagnant state allowed the U.S., Turkey, and Qatar to funnel arms, money, and global terrorists into Idlib, strengthening their assets while the conflict remained dormant. This mirrors the strategy seen in Ukraine, where periods of apparent calm masked preparations for a new wave of aggression.
Learning from past conflicts and demonstrating courage is essential. The “carrot” offered to Syria to participate in these drawn-out, futile negotiations was the promise that the U.S. would ease its sanctions agenda and help facilitate Syria’s return to normalcy. However, the reality is stark: the U.S. has nothing to gain from even a semi-independent Syria, especially with its current leadership intact and its ties to Russia and Iran unbroken. These negotiations, much like those involving Ukraine, were little more than a treadmill—designed to buy time for the U.S. and its allies to plan their next strategic moves.
China and the DPRK stand as powerful examples of nation-states that have survived relentless sanctions, isolation, and encirclement by adversaries. Their experiences demonstrate that independence is the most valuable asset a nation can possess. A country can endure war, sanctions, and even nuclear threats, but without independence, it lacks the foundation to build a coherent and enduring national project.
This moment also reflects the truth revealed in the master-slave dialectic: the master’s reliance on the slave eventually makes the master vulnerable, while the slave’s defiance and struggle bring forth the potential for liberation. In geopolitics, the analogy applies to nations that resist domination. Those willing to endure greater risk and sacrifice often emerge victorious, as their struggle transforms the balance of power. Sovereignty is won by those who embrace risk and refuse submission, not by those who compromise their independence for fleeting promises.
In the Cold War, the U.S. maintained a consistent strategy of “strike first, strike hard, and keep striking until the opponent gives up.” They were always more willing to climb the escalation ladder, start global conflicts, and do whatever it took to achieve their objectives. Maintaining the strategic initiative was a cornerstone of their approach, leading to significant victories, such as forcing Khrushchev to back down during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The countries mentioned in this discussion must similarly seize the strategic initiative if they are to survive and thrive in the face of their adversaries. In short, the world belongs to those willing to burn it.
For Syria, Iran, and Russia, the way forward is clear: abandon the reliance on agreements and frameworks that serve only to benefit your adversaries. Let your enemy negotiate with the bombs dropping on their heads.
Mike
Forum statistieken
