SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,401
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 82:
Line 82: + + +
no edit summary
:::::Again, it really is a prime example of creative destruction (adding the ''caveat'' that military establishments are entirely non-profit institutions, dependent entirely on their capitalist paymasters). Two simple examples: Native Americans in the US military or Chechens in the Russian military. They evolved from enemies of the Russian and US militaries into their most esteemed warriors through creative destruction. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 19:58, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
:::::Again, it really is a prime example of creative destruction (adding the ''caveat'' that military establishments are entirely non-profit institutions, dependent entirely on their capitalist paymasters). Two simple examples: Native Americans in the US military or Chechens in the Russian military. They evolved from enemies of the Russian and US militaries into their most esteemed warriors through creative destruction. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 19:58, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
:::::As to Meirsheimer, see this interesting video by a Russian analyst: [https://youtu.be/DTJc9pN29A419:03 Nikolai Starikov explains Europe's refugee crisis], who says essentially the samething as Meirsheimer: the US unleashed the [[European migrant crisis]] on Europe to weaken and prevent, or slow down, the rise of a European hegemon. (To this extent, US policy would work to Russia's advantage on two levels: (a) maintain Russia's strength as a hegemon by not participating in migration, and (b) strengthen European mistrust of America and drive Europe toward an alliance with Russia. It's easy to overanalyze anything in intellectual discussion). [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 20:19, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
:::::As to Meirsheimer, see this interesting video by a Russian analyst: [https://youtu.be/DTJc9pN29A419:03 Nikolai Starikov explains Europe's refugee crisis], who says essentially the samething as Meirsheimer: the US unleashed the [[European migrant crisis]] on Europe to weaken and prevent, or slow down, the rise of a European hegemon. (To this extent, US policy would work to Russia's advantage on two levels: (a) maintain Russia's strength as a hegemon by not participating in migration, and (b) strengthen European mistrust of America and drive Europe toward an alliance with Russia. It's easy to overanalyze anything in intellectual discussion). [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 20:19, 22 April 2018 (EDT)
::::::I can't see Starikov's argument being correct.
::::::Although it would make sense for the "America Uber Alles" wing of the Deep State to force the migrant crisis onto Europe to prevent the rise of a European hegemon, it would '''not''' make sense for the Deep State as a whole to do so, because the Deep State contains elements that want to see a Federal Europe become reality, as continental unions are a step closer to global government. If the Deep State is supposed to be globalist, then logically speaking it appears the the pro-Federal Europe faction won the internal debate on what to do with Europe, and oriented the migrant crisis in a way to make sure a Federal Europe becomes a reality. Logically speaking, the globalist Deep State sparked the migrant crisis, and the Ukraine crisis to create conditions of unrest necessary to create an excuse for EU leaders to call for the creation of an EU army, which is in turn necessary to make a Federal Europe become a reality. The fact that the globalist EU leaders are placing more emphasis on the need for an EU army in wake of Trump's election and the rise of Putin's Russia, and not the migrant crisis, would only reinforce this narrative. The globalists clearly want a Federal EU to happen.
::::::But let's pretend that Starikov's analysis is 100% correct, and that attempts to create an EU army are in the name of resisting the Deep State. If an EU army is supposed to be an appropriate response to outside efforts by the Deep State to break up the EU, then does that make people like Farage, Le Pen, and others who have publicly come out against this project the bad guys? Does that make them agents of the Deep State? Does that make the EU globalists the good guys? --[[User:James Kardys|James Kardys]] ([[User talk:James Kardys|talk]]) 21:51, 22 April 2018 (EDT)