Five Eyes, NATO and the Ugly Truth of CSIS

[EndtheMadnessNow]

Interesting presentation. It's short, 21 min.

[Ninurta]

Yup, it was an interesting presentation, but I never quite caught which empire was the source of the "imperialists" they kept referring to. Or did they just mean generic "imperialist running dogs" that Leftists have been referring to as bogey men for the last 70 years?

Also, it was never quite explained WHY the "fascists" they also kept referring to would set up any agencies to defend the "imperialists" they were also loosely labeling. It would seem to be in the vested interests of "fascists", which are, after all no less authoritarian collectivists than communists are, to take out "imperialists" rather than defending them.

Those questions lead me to wonder whether this video may not be an ANTIFA or CCP production - it uses the same language and catch-phrases that they both use, without ever clearly defining them, and would appear to work to the benefit of both of those organizations. Especially at the end, where it poses the question of whether we should still look sideawys at the CCP, or turn our ire towards our own governments.


.

[F2d5thCav]

Five Eyes as a concept is far too "white man oriented" for certain individuals and groups.  Even when it excludes "white men" like Germany and France.  It is held to Anglophone countries for reasons of shared cultural values.

NATO is an altogether different topic although it certainly benefits from 5E intel.  Had Stalin been more relaxed in his outlook, I doubt NATO would have succeeded over the long term.  That NATO iteration is long gone, the current iteration made a mistake in looking for new missions when it should have concentrated on outstanding issues of military integration during the years when there was less tension in Europe.  Add to that the outsized ambition of certain EU powers to be "playuhs" again, and NATO's value as a deterrent is less than what it once was.

[xuenchen]

[EndtheMadnessNow]

Yup, it was an interesting presentation, but I never quite caught which empire was the source of the "imperialists" they kept referring to. Or did they just mean generic "imperialist running dogs" that Leftists have been referring to as bogey men for the last 70 years?

Also, it was never quite explained WHY the "fascists" they also kept referring to would set up any agencies to defend the "imperialists" they were also loosely labeling. It would seem to be in the vested interests of "fascists", which are, after all no less authoritarian collectivists than communists are, to take out "imperialists" rather than defending them.

Those questions lead me to wonder whether this video may not be an ANTIFA or CCP production - it uses the same language and catch-phrases that they both use, without ever clearly defining them, and would appear to work to the benefit of both of those organizations. Especially at the end, where it poses the question of whether we should still look sideawys at the CCP, or turn our ire towards our own governments.


.

Definitely not ANTIFA nor Chinese. I should of mentioned one needs to be up to speed on his earlier detailed explanations. This vid is an edited slice summary of a much longer version which I lost the URL somewhere.

"Imperialists" from his viewpoint are the old Anglo-saxon British-American intelligence alliance apparatus.
Also, he's a French Canadian historian with a load of books, hundreds of vids. I don't always agree how he covers current & ancient history (often simply because I'm not up to speed on it all) but he's mostly down the middle of exposing hidden history, that being what most are not familiar with and gives a lot of controversial history for thought. And as you probably know every 'ist' has split-off factions and some of course play both sides.

If interested...

His Rumble channel: https://rumble.com/user/MattEhret
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@RisingTideFoundation
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@canadianpatriotpress3573
Website: https://matthewehret.substack.com/
His wife's website: https://cynthiachung.substack.com/

You might like this guy or you might hate him. He's a NON-mainstream geopolitical analyst and I think he's a former Marine now living in Bangkok. He has no love for the US gov't or it's NGO's. I been aware of NED for a long time but not quite as to how this guy covers them.

Washington's Unstoppable Superweapon & How to Begin Defending Against It:



Description box has a load of his sources.

[Ninurta]

After ruminating on this a while, I'm coming to the conclusion that this is just part of the human condition following the rise of civilization. Everybody wants to rule the world, and that has been a part of humanity every since the first city-states arose. This city state tried to take over territory from that city state in the beginning, and as society and politics advanced and progressed, city-states developed into empires as this polity took over and consumed that polity in order to increase itself. 

We saw the Sumerian, Babylonian, Akkadian, Assyrian, Egyptian, Persian (Iran), Greek, Roman, French, Spanish, and British empires rise and fall. That doesn't even start to mention the plethora of smaller empires that rose and fell in other places around the world, such as the Mississippians, Olmecs, Maya, Aztecs, and Incas in the Americas, or the "Warring States" of the various Chinese mini-empires. In this current day and age, it's just the turn of the United States, Russia, and China to try building their empires at the expense of everyone else. Eventually, they too will fall, only to be replaced by... the Next Big Thing, wherever in the world that may emanate from.

Back in the early 1980's, a wise man mentioned to me that Communists were not objectively "bad" - they were, at that time, the only friends that roughly a third of the world had. They were only "bad" for other, competing, rival empires, like the US. The US was viewed similarly by the Communists. That's because there was a Cold War on to determine which came out supreme in the global arena. They were "bad" for us, because they intended to take us over to enhance their own empire. We were bad for them, for the same reason but in reverse.

And, so it is in the modern day. It's the same game that it has been for the last 5 or 6,000 years. Only the players change. Whomever one perceives as "bad" generally hinged on whomever is closer and therefore more dangerous to one's self (or, conversely, whomever is closer and therefore can more easily provide "help" to one's self), or whose interests in empire-building is most likely to subsume one's own happy home in conquest, or who's interests in empire building most closely align with one's own wishes for the future..

Empires are not "bad" until they plant their flag in YOUR yard, and start thinking they can tell you what to do and when to do it. By the same token, all competing empires or would-be empires are "bad" to someone... generally all the someones in all of the other wannabe empires.

So, the American empire (or the "AFE" - "American Federal Empire" as John Titor called it), is "bad" in the view of the people rooting for the supremacy of the Chinese Communist Empire. Likewise, the Chinese Communist Empire is viewed as "bad" for folks rooting for the American Federal Empire. Russia has really been relegated to bit-player status these days, and is willing to throw in with whomever is seen as able to advance Russian interests, which is as it should be. Most recently, that has been China and North Korea - but that is sure to backfire on Russia, probably about the time that Russia realizes they are just another pawn in the Chinese Communist Empire's global game.

It's a Game of Empires, and those of us caught up with a vested interest in one side or the other... or those of us just caught up in the middle in the clash of empires, watch and bite our nails. It is those in the middle - the undecideds, the unsures, and the leave-me-the-hell-alones who are the targets of the propaganda campaigns in the information wars. The True Believers don't have to be convinced, as they are already True Believers. It's the vast majority of folks in the middle, who may not want any part of either empire, who have to be somehow brought into the fold, because they are where the true power dynamic resides.

And now, a musical interlude - say it in song:



Now personally, I think the world could learn a lot from kindergarten classes, where kids used to be taught to keep their hands to themselves. In other words, look after your own affairs, and leave other folks alone to look after theirs rather than trying to take all of their space. 

That is where Nationalism and Populism come into the fray - folks who want to just look after their own, and let the rest of the world do likewise. It's the diametric opposite of the Globalism in play currently which is, after all, the quest to make the entire world into one huge empire, the only thing in question is which empire gets to rule the whole thing.


But that - the reality of tending to your own business and letting everyone else do the same - isn't likely to ever happen so long as civilization survives, because it's the human nature of civilization to covet what the other guys have, and try to take it from them.

Because everybody wants to rule the world.




.