Originally published on The Strategic Culture Foundation During a meeting held between Putin and Xi the recent Shanghai Organization Summit in Samarkand, the Chinese leader re-affirmed his understanding both of the historical moment now shaping the world and also the vital role he understands both Russia and China must play in navigating humanity through this storm
I for one hope the Russians, Chinese, Indian, and other nations NEVER give an inch to the Western Globalist House of Lies. I think that's not likely, anyway, considering how much crap they've taken off these psychotic, spiritually necrotic, despotic tyrants, or would-be tyrants, for what, 70 years? And more... It's time to put the rabid skunk down, I just don't want to see so many innocent CITIZENS going down with them... Mass starvation and genocide generally is just not good...
I’m more optimistic. I believe we can have a world of universal peace without the scary threat of nuclear Armageddon. In other words, we can drop the whole nuclear bomb hoax, and get on with telling the truth. The global central bank scheme is crumbling, and in the era of a billion social media accounts, big war with millions dead is going to be hard to sustain. Most people don’t enjoy killing people.
Your "Of course, one option would be for Russia, China, India and other nations currently organized around the multipolar alliance to abandon 1) their sovereignty and 2) desires to establish a new system based upon win-win cooperation.
These nations would also need to agree to a Great Reset of the world on the terms of a nest of technocratic unipolar priests managing a new world government from above the structures of elected regimes."
I'm confused by this.
Your first of the above two sentences: I don't see why an agreement between nations necessarily implies abandonment of sovereignty.
Your second: I don't see how a Great Reset follows from the same agreement.
The point about agreements that they can be modified. Practically, all agreements are modified once Real Life intervenes (Brexit/Ireland).
The difficulty here is the Anglophone idealism which always ends up insisting on a hundred-per-cent answer. Parenthetically, the "latin-" American world of my home, with a built culture going back at least 5 millennia and a shared one 3-4 times as long, never looks for more than 90 per cent and is happy with a lot less. Striving for perfection prohibits happiness, and unhappy societies never find resolutions.
And my final comment is to wonder how you managed to piggyback the NWO Technocracy on top of some fairly simple achievable aims for limited mutual cooperation.
The way your paragraph reads is a sell for the NWO on top of something completely unrelated. I try to remember that the psychology of the Great Reset is not only a throwback to the Germany of the inter-war period but more weirdly it marries nanotechnology with a social paradigm of pure old-fashioned feudalism.
I for one hope the Russians, Chinese, Indian, and other nations NEVER give an inch to the Western Globalist House of Lies. I think that's not likely, anyway, considering how much crap they've taken off these psychotic, spiritually necrotic, despotic tyrants, or would-be tyrants, for what, 70 years? And more... It's time to put the rabid skunk down, I just don't want to see so many innocent CITIZENS going down with them... Mass starvation and genocide generally is just not good...
I’m more optimistic. I believe we can have a world of universal peace without the scary threat of nuclear Armageddon. In other words, we can drop the whole nuclear bomb hoax, and get on with telling the truth. The global central bank scheme is crumbling, and in the era of a billion social media accounts, big war with millions dead is going to be hard to sustain. Most people don’t enjoy killing people.
Your "Of course, one option would be for Russia, China, India and other nations currently organized around the multipolar alliance to abandon 1) their sovereignty and 2) desires to establish a new system based upon win-win cooperation.
These nations would also need to agree to a Great Reset of the world on the terms of a nest of technocratic unipolar priests managing a new world government from above the structures of elected regimes."
I'm confused by this.
Your first of the above two sentences: I don't see why an agreement between nations necessarily implies abandonment of sovereignty.
Your second: I don't see how a Great Reset follows from the same agreement.
The point about agreements that they can be modified. Practically, all agreements are modified once Real Life intervenes (Brexit/Ireland).
The difficulty here is the Anglophone idealism which always ends up insisting on a hundred-per-cent answer. Parenthetically, the "latin-" American world of my home, with a built culture going back at least 5 millennia and a shared one 3-4 times as long, never looks for more than 90 per cent and is happy with a lot less. Striving for perfection prohibits happiness, and unhappy societies never find resolutions.
And my final comment is to wonder how you managed to piggyback the NWO Technocracy on top of some fairly simple achievable aims for limited mutual cooperation.
The way your paragraph reads is a sell for the NWO on top of something completely unrelated. I try to remember that the psychology of the Great Reset is not only a throwback to the Germany of the inter-war period but more weirdly it marries nanotechnology with a social paradigm of pure old-fashioned feudalism.
I'm grateful for your invitation to comment.
Zionist Balfour Declaration
.