Dividing up the World

[dennislmay]

Today Beck discusses the probable outcome if the US doesn't turn it around right away.

Economic collapse and WWIII.

Post WWIII the world is divided up into 3 primary power Statist groups:

An Islamic Caliphate - The Middle East and much of Africa. [Controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood]

Russia and Europe [Controlled by Russia]

China-India-Australia-Japan-New Zealand-Americas [Controlled by China]

****

The Muslim Brotherhood is very open about their plans.

The Russians have control the energy supply of Europe - after an economic collapse the Europeans will play ball or be cut off.

China controls industrial resources and the land and ports surrounding shipping lanes over much of the rest of the world. Their control will be through puppets and financial pressures.

****

Beck describes this as resetting the world - just as done following WWI and WWII.

I agree about the coming collapse, WWIII and the plans of the Muslim Brotherhood and Russia. It is less obvious to me what will happen to China-India-Australia-Japan-New Zealand-Americas. It depends too much on the internal stability of China which is a big unknown.

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

Almost straight out of Orwell's 1984

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

Quick question: How much time before the economic collapse and WWIII?

[dennislmay]

Quick question: How much time before the economic collapse and WWIII?

Good questions - Glenn Beck says the big money shakers and movers have already taken their money out of the stock market, the Russians and Chinese are buying up gold, and the European's are bracing for a run on their banks. In some ways you could argue we are already in the midst of the economic collapse which has only been delayed by printing vast sums of money. At some point money printing fails and the economic system collapses. That could happen any time from next week to a couple years from now - or if there were a sudden shift in politics it could be delayed or postponed as it has been in the past [1980s and 1994 elections].

WWIII depends on an event happening or the economic collapse followed by any number of sparking events. Beck and several others have noted Obama's sudden interest in military preparations - something he's shown absolutely no interest in until the last 2-3 weeks.

Short answer - no way to know but being prepared for your own needs is a good idea. Remember fallout generally travels East from your location. Head West and North if it hits the fan.

Dennis

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

Thanks for the reply.

That could happen any time from next week to a couple years from now...

Damn, I'm hoping for the latter (it would be even better if it were put off for a decade or two). I'm far from fully prepared at the moment, being a poor college student and all. Fortunately, I don't live in a large city, so if riots began I'll likely be able to hold off the looters. Omaha, on the other hand, will probably look like a war zone.

[dennislmay]

Thanks for the reply.

That could happen any time from next week to a couple years from now...

Damn, I'm hoping for the latter (it would be even better if it were put off for a decade or two). I'm far from fully prepared at the moment, being a poor college student and all. Fortunately, I don't live in a large city, so if riots began I'll likely be able to hold off the looters. Omaha, on the other hand, will probably look like a war zone.

I went to UNO, I know what you mean.

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

I tremble when I think there are intelligent people who take Glenn Beck seriously.

[dennislmay]

I tremble when I think there are intelligent people who take Glenn Beck seriously.

So you get your news from unbiased sources like CNN? [Clinton News Network]

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

I tremble when I think there are intelligent people who take Glenn Beck seriously.

So you get your news from unbiased sources like CNN? [Clinton News Network]

Dennis

No. I don't. I hardly ever watch CNN. Wolf Blitzer does not do it for me.

I pay no attention to editorial pages of any major press publication and I don't watch t.v. for the news.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tmj]

Almost straight out of Orwell's 1984

mixed maybe with a little Heinlein

[dennislmay]

I tremble when I think there are intelligent people who take Glenn Beck seriously.

So you get your news from unbiased sources like CNN? [Clinton News Network]

Dennis

No. I don't. I hardly ever watch CNN. Wolf Blitzer does not do it for me.

I pay no attention to editorial pages of any major press publication and I don't watch t.v. for the news.

Ba'al Chatzaf

So no Fox News, none of The Blaze TV, do you listen to talk radio? Internet news?

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

I tremble when I think there are intelligent people who take Glenn Beck seriously.

So you get your news from unbiased sources like CNN? [Clinton News Network]

Dennis

No. I don't. I hardly ever watch CNN. Wolf Blitzer does not do it for me.

I pay no attention to editorial pages of any major press publication and I don't watch t.v. for the news.

Ba'al Chatzaf

So no Fox News, none of The Blaze TV, do you listen to talk radio? Internet news?

Dennis

Internet, the blogs and my friends who are in various places over seas.

In any case I have no use for editorial comment.

[dennislmay]

I tremble when I think there are intelligent people who take Glenn Beck seriously.

So you get your news from unbiased sources like CNN? [Clinton News Network]

Dennis

No. I don't. I hardly ever watch CNN. Wolf Blitzer does not do it for me.

I pay no attention to editorial pages of any major press publication and I don't watch t.v. for the news.

Ba'al Chatzaf

So no Fox News, none of The Blaze TV, do you listen to talk radio? Internet news?

Dennis

Internet, the blogs and my friends who are in various places over seas.

In any case I have no use for editorial comment.

Well that explains a lot. You are the 3rd person in one year I've run into who has filtered their sources of news such that nearly all of their hard news originates from Progressive sources. Without Fox News, Talk Radio, and The Blaze TV you are at most listening to one leg of the triad of valid news which also includes the Internet and Blogs. The next question would be what portions of the Internet and Blogs? You could in fact be missing all 3 legs of the triad of valid news sources. The only other occasionally valid sources of news I hear about are newspapers from the UK.

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

In any case I have no use for editorial comment.

Well that explains a lot. You are the 3rd person in one year I've run into who has filtered their sources of news such that nearly all of their hard news originates from Progressive sources. Without Fox News, Talk Radio, and The Blaze TV you are at most listening to one leg of the triad of valid news which also includes the Internet and Blogs. The next question would be what portions of the Internet and Blogs? You could in fact be missing all 3 legs of the triad of valid news sources. The only other occasionally valid sources of news I hear about are newspapers from the UK.

Dennis

None of my friends are Progressive. And not all internet blogs are left wing. I avoid to the left wing sources like the plague that they are.

You exhibit a tendency to generalize with insufficient data. Do you do science that way too? I hope not.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I tremble when I think there are intelligent people who take Glenn Beck seriously.

Bob,

Glenn Beck says at least 4 or 5 times a week (probably a lot more, since I don't see him every day) to not take his word about anything. He constantly tells people to do their own research.

That makes you tremble?

Intelligent people who take Glenn Beck seriously include folks like Jake Tapper and Ray Kurzweil, just to name two surprising names that do not fit the caricature. They're on video taking him quite seriously, too. It's not that hard to dig up a whole slew of names of equal calibre.

Are all those people fools?

Try watching him first hand sometime instead of getting your information on him second hand. You might end up experiencing what many people do (left, right, middle and indifferent). They basically say they didn't realize he was actually like he is. They thought he was something else.

I've even seen people who still strongly disagree with him on several issues suddenly say they now respect him whereas before they thought he was a clown. The reason is they started seeing for themselves instead of relying on the opinions of others and media mythology.

This has had a peripheral effect, too. A healthy one, in my opinion. Sources who induced these people to believe that their caricature image of Beck was fact have ended up losing a measure of credibility in their eyes.

I've seen this happen in one person after another and they are growing and spreading like weeds.

(I threw that last metaphor in as a bone to those who look down on Beck. I could have said "like a hurricane," or "like a tidal wave," but I thought "like weeds" would make these folks feel better, poor things... )

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It is less obvious to me what will happen to China-India-Australia-Japan-New Zealand-Americas.

Dennis,

I saw that broadcast, too.

Just for the edification of the anti-Beck people (albeit this will not fit their narrative), he prefaced this whole section by saying he was moving out of fact and into his own theories and speculations about what is coming--and that others may connect the dots differently than he does. He even said he was interested in hearing from them.

The Back-bashers will try to paint it as if he is saying his predictions are fact, but he specifically said they were his conclusions of what he thinks will probably happen. And he included a butt-load of qualifications (if this happens...) and alternatives during the presentation.

This is another instance of something that will impress people who get their view of Glenn second-hand, then start seeing him for themselves. If they watch this episode, many will wonder why that part got left out in the retelling and why it was spun into a misrepresentation.

Then the credibility of the retellers will go down a notch in their minds. The retellers will have earned it, too. They do that crap on purpose.

Now, on to this New Zealand and China thing...

I don't remember the exact words, but Glenn quipped something like he hopes New Zealanders get used to the taste of Chinese boot with their tea, and I admit I immediately thought of someone in our subculture from New Zealand who I don't like very much.

The image of him taking tea with Chinese boot sorely tested my objectivity. But after a heroic inner struggle at the deepest level of my being, I finally relented and came to feel that I hope this doesn't happen.

Michael

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

I don't remember the exact words, but Glenn quipped something like he hopes New Zealanders get used to the taste of Chinese boot with their tea, and I admit I immediately thought of someone in our subculture from New Zealand who I don't like very much.

The image of him taking tea with Chinese boot sorely tested my objectivity. But after a heroic inner struggle at the deepest level of my being, I finally relented and came to feel that I hope this doesn't happen.

I'm glad you aren't vindictive

[dennislmay]

In any case I have no use for editorial comment.

Well that explains a lot. You are the 3rd person in one year I've run into who has filtered their sources of news such that nearly all of their hard news originates from Progressive sources. Without Fox News, Talk Radio, and The Blaze TV you are at most listening to one leg of the triad of valid news which also includes the Internet and Blogs. The next question would be what portions of the Internet and Blogs? You could in fact be missing all 3 legs of the triad of valid news sources. The only other occasionally valid sources of news I hear about are newspapers from the UK.

Dennis

None of my friends are Progressive. And not all internet blogs are left wing. I avoid to the left wing sources like the plague that they are.

You exhibit a tendency to generalize with insufficient data. Do you do science that way too? I hope not.

Ba'al Chatzaf

In the universe of valid information you have decided to forego at least 2 of 3 legs of the triad: TV news [Fox News and The Blaze TV], & talk radio [Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Levin, & Wilkow among others]. I hope your Internet blogs contain the original content from the other two legs or everything you think about politics would be a generalization from insufficient data. There are indeed good blogs out there and the other two legs of the triad talk about those valid blog sources all the time.

It would seem your dislike for editorial comment as part of the news package is your primary reason for restricting your news intake to a tiny amount of what is out there.

In the pre-talk radio and pre-internet days we had hidden agenda editorial comment, manufactured news, and news censorship from extreme Progressives like Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather. There was no news balance of any kind.

Fox News presents the progressive version of the news and some of the conservative version of the news - balance being giving the progressives their say also.

The Blaze TV and talk radio is the balance against the rest of the progressive media which runs virtually everything else except some Internet blogs.

Dennis

[caroljane]

In any case I have no use for editorial comment.

Well that explains a lot. You are the 3rd person in one year I've run into who has filtered their sources of news such that nearly all of their hard news originates from Progressive sources. Without Fox News, Talk Radio, and The Blaze TV you are at most listening to one leg of the triad of valid news which also includes the Internet and Blogs. The next question would be what portions of the Internet and Blogs? You could in fact be missing all 3 legs of the triad of valid news sources. The only other occasionally valid sources of news I hear about are newspapers from the UK.

Dennis

None of my friends are Progressive. And not all internet blogs are left wing. I avoid to the left wing sources like the plague that they are.

You exhibit a tendency to generalize with insufficient data. Do you do science that way too? I hope not.

Ba'al Chatzaf

In the universe of valid information you have decided to forego at least 2 of 3 legs of the triad: TV news [Fox News and The Blaze TV], & talk radio [Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Levin, & Wilkow among others]. I hope your Internet blogs contain the original content from the other two legs or everything you think about politics would be a generalization from insufficient data. There are indeed good blogs out there and the other two legs of the triad talk about those valid blog sources all the time.

It would seem your dislike for editorial comment as part of the news package is your primary reason for restricting your news intake to a tiny amount of what is out there.

In the pre-talk radio and pre-internet days we had hidden agenda editorial comment, manufactured news, and news censorship from extreme Progressives like Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather. There was no news balance of any kind.

Fox News presents the progressive version of the news and some of the conservative version of the news - balance being giving the progressives their say also.

The Blaze TV and talk radio is the balance against the rest of the progressive media which runs virtually everything else except some Internet blogs.

Dennis

I take it you do not read national newspapers or credit sources like the AP or Reuters. etc. as delivering factual information, even on non-editorial pages. Is this assumption correct?

[dennislmay]

In any case I have no use for editorial comment.

Well that explains a lot. You are the 3rd person in one year I've run into who has filtered their sources of news such that nearly all of their hard news originates from Progressive sources. Without Fox News, Talk Radio, and The Blaze TV you are at most listening to one leg of the triad of valid news which also includes the Internet and Blogs. The next question would be what portions of the Internet and Blogs? You could in fact be missing all 3 legs of the triad of valid news sources. The only other occasionally valid sources of news I hear about are newspapers from the UK.

Dennis

None of my friends are Progressive. And not all internet blogs are left wing. I avoid to the left wing sources like the plague that they are.

You exhibit a tendency to generalize with insufficient data. Do you do science that way too? I hope not.

Ba'al Chatzaf

In the universe of valid information you have decided to forego at least 2 of 3 legs of the triad: TV news [Fox News and The Blaze TV], & talk radio [Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Levin, & Wilkow among others]. I hope your Internet blogs contain the original content from the other two legs or everything you think about politics would be a generalization from insufficient data. There are indeed good blogs out there and the other two legs of the triad talk about those valid blog sources all the time.

It would seem your dislike for editorial comment as part of the news package is your primary reason for restricting your news intake to a tiny amount of what is out there.

In the pre-talk radio and pre-internet days we had hidden agenda editorial comment, manufactured news, and news censorship from extreme Progressives like Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather. There was no news balance of any kind.

Fox News presents the progressive version of the news and some of the conservative version of the news - balance being giving the progressives their say also.

The Blaze TV and talk radio is the balance against the rest of the progressive media which runs virtually everything else except some Internet blogs.

Dennis

I take it you do not read national newspapers or credit sources like the AP or Reuters. etc. as delivering factual information, even on non-editorial pages. Is this assumption correct?

No I do not read national newspapers nor local ones. Few national and no local news papers do a good job of reporting the news - not on their websites either. Original accurate reporting by the few good national newspapers is picked up by the other news sources I do watch. Funny how the National Enquirer has broken more real news than most national papers in the last decade.

The AP has been shown time and again to be an extremely biased news source with a great deal of factually incorrect information put out. First they were kicked off of the Mike Church show after he documented their bias time and again, now they are off SiriusXM Patriot Channel entirely in favor of The Blaze news. Fox News and the Patriot Channel are the top 2 rated stations on SiriusXM radio. FOX News in some time slots has nearly 50 times the audience of CNN. The Blaze is also now larger than CNN in many respects.

When AP and Reuters have factually accurate non-biased news to report it is picked up and credited by the news sources I do listen to. They have not yet become totally irrelevant yet though if they don't get their shit together they will both disappear into the obscurity CNN and MSNBC have found themselves in.

Back in the day Fox News was not allowed in Canada. I recall being in Toronto during a business trip and having to watch CBC [production quality like a 3rd tier US local market] and CNN all biased news network. I do occasionally watch all the news stations on Satellite but I can seldom stomach the bias for long.

The good thing about the non-Progressive news sources I listen to: they fully document the bias of other networks in their own words often on video. When mud is slung at Fox News by the White House and their Progressive news outlets it is almost always factually incorrect - same with Beck. Beck recently spent nearly an hour showing how fraudulent editing by a CNN News anchor [not commentator] was done in an attempt to smear him. The selective editing of clips and repeating the same clips from the same segment were done to create fake news to fit the agenda of the story.

The mistake Progressive news outlets make when they fake news is that talk radio and Beck have large audiences who already understand Progressive news bias and talk radio and Beck have hours available to fully document every aspect of that bias every time it pops up. Progressive bias in the news is worthy of news reports in and of itself.

Dennis

[caroljane]

Dennis,

I can see your mind is set on this issue, but of course I think your sweep is too broad. Though my viewpoint is progressive and leftist, I read everything -- including the Objectivist sites and Beck occasionally. I don't rely on TV or internet for actual news/ And the right-wing editorialists are as interesting and intelligent as the left wing ones, in most cases. Reporters are human and make mistakes, and editors get taken in by hoaxers, but even so I would rather make up my own mind, looking at both sides. It would be too boring to have an unrelieved diet of likemindedness!

[dennislmay]

Dennis,

I can see your mind is set on this issue, but of course I think your sweep is too broad. Though my viewpoint is progressive and leftist, I read everything -- including the Objectivist sites and Beck occasionally. I don't rely on TV or internet for actual news/ And the right-wing editorialists are as interesting and intelligent as the left wing ones, in most cases. Reporters are human and make mistakes, and editors get taken in by hoaxers, but even so I would rather make up my own mind, looking at both sides. It would be too boring to have an unrelieved diet of likemindedness!

As long as you watch everything there is no issue. I grew up only having one side [i am 50] and CNN [also Progressive] starting when I was 19, then Rush Limbaugh when I was 30, FOX News when it started, and now The Blaze - I have seen it all changing and evolving over the years. I had the advantage of seeing media corruption starting at a very young age [6th grade]. I was there when my father was interviewed for a national news program about the American Indian Movement. Everything he said was taken out of context and rearranged to say the opposite of what he actually said. I experienced it again with local news when I was interviewed about a story in Dayton OH - again a complete distortion game done by the media. I have had personal knowledge of many distortion incidents over the years.

I always watch for media bias and find it all the time. All news sources have their problems and the best there is out there is still incomplete and not of the quality I would like to see. Science News in particular is pitiful.

Watch variety and pay attention to Fox News and talk radio when they document bias in the Progressive media.

Dennis