For The First Time Ever, I Agree With Rush Limbaugh

[Gold9472]

For The First Time Ever, I Agree With Rush Limbaugh

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...tor.guest.html

"I have come to the conclusion that there are a significant number of people in this country who still don't get it. It's going to take a couple or three more 9/11s, and I'm not kidding. I don't think there are enough people in this country that understand who and what we're up against."

Of course... not in the context that HE meant it... and the fact of the matter is, it is very sad.

[vernon]

So you beieve Bush blew up the WTC?

[Gold9472]

So you beieve Bush blew up the WTC?

I think the video evidence of the collapse of the buildings certainly looks like controlled demolition. I think Professor Steven E. Jones who recently wrote a paper on it should be heard, and I think his findings should be compared to NIST's findings in a public arena.

Do I think the Bush Administration was behind 9/11?

Absolutely 100%.

[vernon]

So you think it's part of the plot for "one world government"?

[Gold9472]

So you think it's part of the plot for "one world government"?

I think in the grand scheme of things, 9/11 was a "move" on the "Grand Chessboard".

[Gold9472]

vernon... is this belief something you find inconceivable?

[Partridge]

Not speaking for JonGold, but whether you call it 'one world government' (a definition I have many problems with, not least its very simplism), 'economic hegemony', or my personal perference 'Empire' is up to yourself.

The idea that powerful economic and military states/blocs seek to dominate and exploit the (natural/financial/human) resources of less powerful states/regions is hardly a startling revelation. This is how empires have acted throughout history - and the US contrary to what its propagandists and apologists would have us belieive is not 'unique'.

[Gold9472]

Not speaking for JonGold, but whether you call it 'one world government' (a definition I have many problems with, not least its very simplism), 'economic hegemony', or my personal perference 'Empire' is up to yourself.

The idea that powerful economic and military states/blocs seek to dominate and exploit the (natural/financial/human) resources of less powerful states/regions is hardly a startling revelation. This is how empires have acted throughout history - and the US contrary to what its propagandists and apologists would have us belieive is not 'unique'.

Excellent.

[Gold9472]

Where did he go?

[Partridge]

Why thank you.

I should say that the reason I disagree with the 'OWG' label is because, I don't think there is a concerted effort to establish a single unified global government (the UN is not even this - the UN is in fact relativley powerless) - the object of capitalist Empire is economic rather than political domination. That is to say, big business cares not WHO is in power, as long as that 'who' does not get in the way of making money/resource exploitation. If they can achieve that through pliant repressive regimes (such as Hussien in the 1980s, the Shah in Iran, Pinochet in Chile, Suharto in Indonesia etc etc) then thats all well and good - and of course military dictatorship have the added bonus of providing a market for the military industrialists. If they can achieve it through ostensibly democratic means (eg most of Western Europe), all well and good also. But if needs be, military invasion and old school colonial occupation are always an option on the table.

Either one of the Rockefellers, or the Rothschilds (and no, I don't think these people secretly pull ever lever in world affairs - they are very rich families though, and no doubt their wealth gives them considerable leverage - but I do think they are most definitely part of the ruling class) once said something to the effect that "If you give me the economy, I don't care who rules" - which I guess is pretty much true for capitalism in general.

But once a leader or popular movement comes along that threatens capitalist control of the economy (a revolutionary leftist govt, a radically left-reformist, or a even an economic nationalist [say Nasser's Egypt] govenrment) then the primary objective is to oust these by whatever means necessary. One need only look at the history of Western imperialist overt/covert interventionism in the 20th century to see this trend.