Sadly the revolutionary ideals were no more than propaganda. And the people empowered by the revolutions (the 1948 ones too) were not the bourgeoisie but the bankers who funded them. Always the golden rule is supreme: those with the gold make the rules. The ancien regime's only mistake was to allow such vast accumulations of wealth (the banks) outside if its control. Without that no political change would have been possible in Europe to this day. And the proof for that is the precedent of the roman empire: it grew to be an order of magnitude more oppressive than any 18th century monarchy and yet it was only destroyed by outside pressure. The reason is simple: it managed to control all the monetary wealth in its territory, while the european monarchies did not- while the roman state was owed money by everybody, the european monarchies owed money to the bankers: THAT was the cause of their downfall.

You're funny. Napoleon the III was indeed a military disaster compared with Napoleon I, but Bonaparte certainly was no champion of revolutionary ideals. He was only a champion of himself. He undermined the old regime only to the extent required to keep his own dynasty afloat. He made kings of his relatives and he crowned himself emperor. Not to mention he made quite clear his opinion about revolutionary ideals: “Vanity made the [French] Revolution; liberty was only a pretext.” And he was right too. If anybody cared about any liberty nonsense he could not have ended up being worshiped. People cared about the liberty propaganda to the extent that it massaged their egos and boosted their sense of self worth. Napoleon's merit was realizing that and managed to do a better job at it as an autocrat than any elected professional liars.

True, but if you're giving Libya as an example of the armed people successfully resisting government oppression I have to disagree with that. That's only another CIA opperation to justify invasion. The "peaceful" "protesters" were from the start armed insurgents initiating all the violence for political gain, not rights. Before NATO started destroying the place Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa and therefore would be the last country on that continent vulnerable to any genuine rebellion.

Yeah. Which is why most states ban people from owning weapons. :) Even the US keeps trying to do that and limiting as much as possible gun ownership with licenses and restrictions. You can be sure it has nothing to do with public safety: the last thing any politician cares about is the public.

It doesn't work quite like that. For people to remain gathered against the government they must at least have the expectation of success. Unarmed people will not continue to demonstrate for long in a square where the army has no problem shooting to kill. You can see that with Tiananmen square, the failed rebellions in Myanman in 1988 and 2007 and the one this year in Bahrein for ex. Wherever the army is willing to kill the protesters the state wins. And from that you can safely conclude that the only place a revolution succeeds is where the demonstrators are a cover for a coup plot, most of the time with foreign help. As for this supercomputer, it probably picks up the pattern of CIA instigators working at getting even more pliable governments in place.

So the chinese doing some computer hacking is the moral equivalent to the US murdering a bunch lot of Iraqis. Then I guess that would make the chinese massacring a bunch of tibetans the moral equivalent of the US nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

No. It's not weird at all. The sociopathic homicidal way to govern has been the rule throughout history and still is. The only weird part is that some people in the west have developed the absurd notion that their countries are run in a different manner. The places that diverted even briefly from this model quickly became the victims of revolutions or invasions after which the psychos who won in those revolutions and wars quickly vilified the losing party to cover their own genocidal crimes. And exactly from those farces some gullible fools got the idea there's some justice in this world.

Yup. It's all about control. The money is just the means to that end. Which is why people assume wars had to be for a "higher purpose" since they cost a lot more than the winers could have gotten back. But it's never about profit. Control is the name of the game because it doesn't matter how profitable or not you are when you get utterly defeated- you lose everything. :)

I'm quite sure they view the entire economy as their domain and the population as their serfs. In their mind everything everywhere is theirs, including the pesky arabs that are sitting on their oil. :)

I understand what you mean :) But my point is they could have done it much cheaper, without paying for a western standard of living in Israel and for the israeli army they could have supported them substantially less, relying on western intervention to prop them up and control them too. As things are the israeli army is immensely powerful, a nuclear power, and not in a position to be manipulated by anybody. The reason for that is the yearly tribute trips the US congress takes to Israel to kowtow to their masters.

If that was the aim they would have been left to their own devices against the arabs. Instead their economy and their army are subsidized by the US while their safety is also guaranteed by the US. There would be no need to go that far just for those reasons. The border of the empire is defended with cheap (read free) expendable barbarians, not hugely expensive usurious jews.

Hostile neighbors of their own making by coveting their neighbor's land. Funny enough I think they had a commandment about that, but I guess it doesn't apply to non-jews, those are just goyim- cattle, slaves.

Really ? It seems to me wages are adjusted only down- by inflation or outsourcing to poorer countries while the price of goods is more or less adjusted for inflation. In that equation where's that increase in standard of living coming from ? You're assuming prices would and could be adjusted down to meet demand at lower prices. Problem is most companies operate on bank debt and simply can't afford that. It is proven in the 1929 crisis that companies will hold their prices, cut production and if that doesn't help go bankrupt- reducing prices is not an option since that would bring immediate inability to repay loans and bankruptcy.

I imagine it's for contingencies involving inmates taking over the prison. The ability to leave them without water would be quite a decent leverage against them, don't you think ?

Right, enjoy forking all your wealth to the banksters and their freemason cronies while laughing at those who see the truth. I wonder if you'll still be laughing when they'll starve you like they did with millions after 1929.