Posted by:
CSRAJim
at Mon Aug 10 12:52:51 2009 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by CSRAJim ]
Aquick,
Thanks…The old axiom of “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link" is where I was going with this…And the use of the Soviet analogy was not random…When I was in the military, it was paramount to “study” our enemy…Which meant learning about “who they are”…To understand “how they’ll fight”…For brevity sake, because of the soviet system itself, fear was a constant “over-the-shoulder” aspect of every soviet citizen (more so once they were in the military-each commander had a political officer to ensure “loyalty”-depending on the size of the unit and its mission)…That leads to hesitancy via lack of initiative based on fear of failure (e.g. many soviet commanders were called back to Moscow during WWII and were never heard from again…They simply “vanished”). Weakness #1 was communications, command and control (C3), meaning, every time a command or communications asset was identified by NATO meant “take-it-out”…This meant that the unit(s) it controlled would follow the last orders but once accomplished, probably would not initiate additional actions until they received new orders as if they failed, they didn’t want to disappear.
Weakness number #2 was fuel. We knew the capabilities of all of the armored weapon systems (as did they about ours) and we knew that if we could “interdict” their logistical supply lines…Well, it would take a lot of infantrymen to push a tank forward…So, as a lesson learned from WWII, the soviets did push forward large quantities of fuel (forward positioned supplies was captured in LARGE quantities by the Wehrmacht during the first 9 months of Barbarossa) except for the initial attack units and the immediate follow on units to exploit the breakout…About 200 km (until supplies could be brought forward)…Soldiers, tanks and entire units were expendable as a fight of attrition (the winning formula from WWII)…Because of their heavy forces, they required MASSIVE amounts of fuel, these depots were difficult to disguise and left a very large “footprint” to see from eyes-in-the-sky…So, our side developed the rockets to take these out…
So what does this have to do with today? The ECO Agenda Movement (politicians, “dot-orgs”, etc) has two fundamental strengths that are based on the “message” itself. 1) They are able to “frame” the debate based on their “propaganda” and present it in the “firstest-with-the-mostest” message to the American people because as an industry, the news media (the overwhelming amount of it) provides them the vehicle to accomplish this. 2) Because of #1, they are also the arbitrators of the “truth”…In other words, they decide not only what is discussed, but they decide what “truth” is allowed to be discussed.
Bluntly stated, their message is one of DECEPTION that can only be successful as long as they control the agenda…In other words, this effort on their part falls under the guise of “the best defense is a good offense”…If they are ever exposed to American people, it will be a bad day for them…As long as they are able to sell us with their inflatable tanks (dummies filled with air), they maintain the position of strength…As far as actually being real, they are neither real or genuine.
All of this “stuff” is based on three central tenets which are 1) biodiversity conservation (invasive species is part of this), 2) climate change and 3) sustainable development…In two words, this means CENTRALIZED CONTROL of the entire American economy…
Granted, the invasive species is a small piece of the “trilogy” above but, within the scope of the World Heritage Program…This is very important and one of the reasons why it continues to pop up over and over again on the legislative agenda – In addition to controlling this segment of the economy, which they honestly have no idea how large or small it actually is…For that matter, they can not even accurately define how many timber rattlesnakes (or any other plant or vertebrate for that matter) actually exist in areas where they’ve provided grants (to their approved “experts”) to study and report their findings…The numbers that they often cite are based on calculations based on variables (which they can manipulate) and observations from field studies (another tax payer financial “black hole”)…There are numerous variables here so this is just a general observation for brevity…I think you get the idea…
#1 provides them with the “propaganda” banner for education, out-reach, etc; #2 provides them with additional “propaganda” to control the energy of our country and #3, well, this is the non-discussed, central planning aspect that will result from #1 and #2…#3 is what they attempting to do and the other two are the ones that are what they want us see…It’s the perfect “smoke and mirrors” deception campaign and it is the message that they control…
Later,
Jim.
-----
CSRAJim
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: Pyrrhic Victory? - CSRAJim, Mon Aug 10 12:52:51 2009