... Im certainly not one to venture into the world of paranoia, but i have noticed that there is an ever increasing presence of articles and speculation that we are on the verge of WW3. Fear mongering by the press? of course there is an element of it, it helps sell papers and grabs viewers, but tensions to do seem to be on the rise, with both the US and Russia playing some dangerous games. Now, none of that is anything new, certainly not for some of the older generation anyway, but there does seem to be a swing towards an actual conflictbewteen the two in the near future.

 

Syria is clearly the basis for a lot the pro-ww3 hype, but there are conflicts all over the middle east, in Ukraine, Africa and Yemen. Boots on the ground talk in Syria isnt helping, especially with Russia backing the Assad regime. The US and Russia seem hellbent on measuring dick sizes at the cost of innocent lives and with Russia backing out of the nuclear disarmament deal, its starting to look a little scary.

 

Every day we hear how bad mean old Russia is and how they are increasing their military might and shifting a lot of their navy forces into the med. Of course it could all be shite, but it makes you wonder if we are nearing something that we all thought couldnt happen, or at least hoped it wouldnt.

 

We have been plagued by conflict in Europe for 1000's of years, why should now be any different?

War doesn't "stir up" the economy. It drains the economy.

 

The reasons they are contriving situations to make war is because that's in their plan.

 

They even painted one of their jets in Russian colours last week.

 

It is genocide they're planning for financial gain. It's the worst evil ever. And "we" are supporting it.

 

There are arguments for and against the effect on economy from war. "The broken window fallacy" cares to explain why it is in fact bad for the economy, while others argue against it. The true cost is of course human life.

 

I saw that story of the painted jet on the Russia Today (RT) Facebook page. The majority of responses appeared to be either US posters cringing or non Americans laughing. But as explained in RT, they will likely be used for false flag operations and to make the Russians look like the enemy. Morality clearly doesn't play a part in the US minds.

 

The UK needs to surely realise that following the US into battle is damaging for the country. They may have been our allies in previous wars, but its not all that long ago that the US had their own hypothetical plans to destroy the British Empire.  They seek world domination and want to influence every singles continent, country and civilisation. Their need to look strong in the world will never bring about any peace.

There are arguments for and against the effect on economy from war. "The broken window fallacy" cares to explain why it is in fact bad for the economy, while others argue against it. The true cost is of course human life.

 

Only because we use retarded measures like GDP (and indeed money itself) to discuss our economy rather than benefit, distribution or velocity. So yes, spending on wars grows the economy by measurement of GDP. But it doesn't "stir it up" as such, no more than housing speculation. We effectively create a bunch of consumables of limited future value. Usually at the expense of something else, although there is no inherent necessity for it to be at the expense of something else just that's the way it is done.

 

Anyway, I welcome our new Russian overlords. ?? ???? as they say.

I see the Murdoch media are in full swing with their WW3 agenda and constant reporting of IS in Mosul.

 

It's not just the BBC and Sky.

 

 

I saw that story of the painted jet on the Russia Today (RT) Facebook page. The majority of responses appeared to be either US posters cringing or non Americans laughing. But as explained in RT, they will likely be used for false flag operations and to make the Russians look like the enemy. Morality clearly doesn't play a part in the US minds.

 

The corporatocracy are in on it. In the last 24 hours, Natwest have frozen the RT bank accounts in the UK. So much for "our values" as espoused repeatedly by Obama and Cameron. Freedom of expression isn't allowed and when they dare to speak the truth, they get shut down. The ongoing incarceration of Julian Assange and the made-up Swedish sex crimes in order to get him extradited to the US is an affront to any common decency and a huge abuse of human rights. Snowden also can't return to his homeland for daring to expose the institutional corruption and yet the likely next president survives criminal behaviour which her opponent would have her jailed her for, if he wasn't such a pig that he killed his own chances for the job.

 

 

The corporatocracy are in on it. In the last 24 hours, Natwest have frozen the RT bank accounts in the UK. So much for "our values" as espoused repeatedly by Obama and Cameron. Freedom of expression isn't allowed and when they dare to speak the truth, they get shut down. The ongoing incarceration of Julian Assange and the made-up Swedish sex crimes in order to get him extradited to the US is an affront to any common decency and a huge abuse of human rights. Snowden also can't return to his homeland for daring to expose the institutional corruption and yet the likely next president survives criminal behaviour which her opponent would have her jailed her for, if he wasn't such a pig that he killed his own chances for the job.

 

The thing with "freedom" is that it only exists if you tow the line.

 

Thank Christ for the dark web and the internet in general though. There is very little wool to pull over peoples eyes these days. We have so much access to the details of corruption and media blackouts, that once would have fooled an entire population into believing government lies. The government would find it very difficult to unify the British public and repeat the "British Spirit" in any future large scale conflicts, let alone another World War.

I don't think they managed it then either.

 

But they write history so they can say what they want.

 

How long did it take the British public to get rid of Churchill after the war?

I don't think they managed it then either.

 

But they write history so they can say what they want.

 

How long did it take the British public to get rid of Churchill after the war?

 

Perhaps not on the scale that is taught to us, but it seemed the propaganda was more prevalent and widely believed back then. The Blitz spirit was obviously over hyped, but for good reason at the time. Im sure the looters didnt buy into it all of course.