site banner

Potential dramatic happening soon

:marseybegging::marseybegging: :marseybegging::marseybegging: :marseybegging::marseybegging: :marseybegging::marseybegging: :marseybegging::marseybegging: :marseybegging::marseybegging:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Great more tax dollars I’m gonna have to pay to babysit the world.

I wish other countries took care of their own problems instead of us having to fix it for everyone, but I guess that’s the price we pay for being the best country on the planet.

Do you pin your comment on top of all the others as a coping mechanism?


I do it because I can. It’s janitor privilege. Perhaps you could be come a janitor too and do it. Wait no you can’t, we aren’t hiring 💅

It's a shame. You guys must be over budget on jannie wages already

We run at a surplus actually. Christmas bonuses were in the 5 figures

That's way more zeroes than I get


to pay to use something for a short period:

to employ someone or pay someone to do a particular job:


It'd be nice but it's too late to change it now. If the US just stopped meddling we'd see war and destruction on a never before seen scale. Everyone who has beef with anyone could settle it themselves because there's no risk of the defacto world police getting involved. And military technology has advanced dramatically during the nuclear (relative to scale) peace, to the point that I doubt anyone could even predict the level destruction conventional weapons could cause now. Nevermind the posibility of nuclear weapons being used.

Good drama tho.


Worst take on drama; this is the exact position the allies took which inevitable led to world wars one & two. Turns out that acting as 'world police' to deter warfare only works if you periodically make good on the threat.

If the US stopped meddling we would see a return to Vattel's Law of Nations, which is best characterized as weak nations not picking fights with strong nations and other nations staying the fuck out of conflicts that don't concern them. The US has innovated on this model wonderfully by deliberately supporting the weaker side in every conflict on some arbitrary basis of legitimacy. Of course, this only reduces warfare, as when two sides approach parity in military power, the outcome of any military conflict becomes more certain, creating enduring peace. This is why everywhere the US enforces its 'world police' presence, we see paragons of stable government, as in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and the increasingly peaceful Ukraine.

I don't have enough spoons to read this shit



this is the exact position the allies took which inevitable led to world wars one & two.

Lol what? Fuck no, bro. Especially WW1. WW1 was the result of the Concert of Europe, which is (ironically enough) a manifestation of the very geopolitical landscape you advocate for.

There was no "world police" prior to WW2. The world was highly multipolar. "World police" only really exists in a global bipolar or unipolar environment.

There was no "world police" prior to WW2.

You're quite wrong. Take a gander at this piece from F. A. Voigt in Unto Caesar (1938):

Monstrous proposals, like the proposal to create an international air force that would emerge—from some Alpine stronghold, presumably—and bomb the cities of the alleged aggressor, found a considerable following in the post-war years. Such inhuman phantasmagoria had an affinity with the secular religions of the European continent. Indeed, English militant pacifism had something in common with the Marxian dreams of a universal realm of peace, justice and well-being. As we have seen, the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth is inseparable from its own opposite. It can only come about by violence. The threat of universal war as a means of establishing universal peace is a peculiarly English conception that has crystallized in the doctrine of “sanctions.” This doctrine is analogous to the doctrine of the proletarian dictatorship which would establish social peace by making class-war permanent and universal. “Sanctions” are the counterpart of the revolutionary terror—the purpose of either is peace, but the effect of both is the consolidation, through war or the threat of war (whether between classes or nations), of power in the hands of those hold it.


To erect the “punishment of the aggressor” into a general system would be to concentrate immense power into a few hands and establish an abominable and universal tyranny. In nothing is the evil inherent in universal systems of enforced morality more evident than in the doctrine of “sanctions.”

For 'international air force' read 'Nuclear annihilation'. Voigt was an old-line British imperialist. But by the 30's he starts to show some pangs of guilt.

You're right that the world was multipolar in the 1930's — there were two poles: Anglo-American hegemony and a handful of loosely allied independent countries who weren't getting with the program. It was much more multipolar in the 1830s, to say nothing of the 1730s.

You can be sure that this 'universal peace liberation' line of thought was circulating through the great war period, too. Take a look at this bit of rambling from Lord Grey in his memoirs:

Nothing but the defeat of Germany can make a satisfactory end to this war and secure future peace…

We must, however, be careful in stating our determination to continue the war to make it clear that our object is not to force, but to support our Allies. Increasing mischief is being made between us and our Allies by German propaganda. This propaganda represents the war as one of rivalry between Great Britain and Germany; it insinuates that France, Russia and Belgium could have satisfactory terms of peace now, and that they are continuing the war in the interest of Great Britain to effect the ruin of Germany, which is not necessary for the safety of the Allies, but which alone will satisfy Great Britain.

It is just possible that this insidious misrepresentation, false though it be, may create in France, Russia, Italy and Belgium a dangerous peace movement—a movement positively unfriendly to us.

It would be well if we could all, Ministers and Press alike, strike one note, that of determination to help the Allies who have suffered the most grievous wrong, to secure the liberation of their territory, reparation for wrong done, and the advantages necessary for their future security. We should emphasize the impossibility and disgrace of thinking of peace till the Allies are secure, but should let it be understood that it is for them whose territory is occupied by the enemy, whose population has been, and is being, so grossly ill-treated, rather than for us, to say when it is opportune to speak of peace. Till that time comes, we use all our efforts and make every sacrifice to defeat the enemy in the common cause, and have no other thought but this.

Just take a second to dwell on the phrase 'dangerous peace movement'. 'We're not fighting for our hegemony, we're fighting for our allies. If they want to make peace, that's fine — just, as long as it's peace on our terms. Until then, there must be no peace. After all, we must secure reparations and liberation for them'.

Keep in mind, that these two sources are Pro-britain. Voigt was starting to see the cracks in the seams, but couldn't reconcile it with the vision of imperialism that he grew up in. Grey didn't even realize he was struggling with doubt, he just talks in circles.

At any rate, you can be assured that this thinking is quite old, and — coincidentally or not — correlated with the advent of total war and the bloodiest conflicts in human history. The intent is peace, but the effect is war. At least so I think.

First of all, no one is proud of or impressed by you for typing all that because no one is going to read it.

Second, a bunch of shitty quotes is super unnecessary when you could just say "Britain was similar to the US before WW1" and save us all the headache of having to scroll through that monstrous comment.

You can read it or not; it's basically a splice of a few different Moldbug posts. If I just said "Britain was similar to the US before WW1" no one would have believed me. There aren't any recognized school of thought that endorse this view, so I have to corroborate it from scratch.

The US has innovated on this model wonderfully by deliberately supporting the weaker side in every conflict on some arbitrary basis of legitimacy.

what? The US supports the side that advances its interests.

It's interests are quite abstract and ideological, though — unless there's some monetary benefit to supporting insurgents in Libya and Syria. When Obama said Assad must go, was he being informed by a projection of increased oil revenue, or something?

In fact, the US is openly sworn to the spread of democracy and peace, and quite routinely supports liberation efforts whose financial incentive is nil, seeing as the effect is typically to set certain parts of the world on fire.

The US wasn't world policing until after WWII so it's conservative approach to global military conflict didn't leave a power vacume, it was part of the status quo. Conflicts before that were going to happen regardless. I'm talking about what would happen if the US just up and stopped world policing after 80 years of meddling and monopolizing world politics.

Nations with strong militaries will have free reign to do what they want to their weaker neighbors due to the dramatically reduced risk of bringing the cops into it. Any other strong nation will be in a position to take up that job (Russia or china for example) but will have to monopolize global politics themselves.

The US was absolutely world policing in WW2 (E.g.), in fact, their policy for it was formalized before they had even entered it.

Conflicts before that were going to happen would absolutely not have happened with the certainty that US interference gave it. Would Libyan insurgents have tried to topple Gaddiffi, if the US hadn't gave them a wink, wink, nudge, nudge?

Without a 'world police', nations with strong militaries will indeed have free reign to do what they want to their weaker neightbours. They already do — unless you were to think that the US, and by extension, it's allies, — are 'weak'.

Any strong nation could take up that position when it's gone. This isn't really worth the effort, though (it costs a lot of money for very little return — at least the British were profiting off of their colonies), and so is only pursued if the nation is also possessed by an ideological zeal — for instance, to support World-wide revolution, or perhaps quasi-religious obsession with spreading freedom and democracy. Classical international law didn't persist for hundreds of years for nothing.

You can type 10,000 characters and you decided that these were the one's that you wanted.

On the one hand, very correct.

On the other, low-functioning, and utterly Trumppilled hand: Why'd we pay for those nukes of we can't use them?


Hmm...this sounds almost like a US false-flag to false-flag a false-flagger.


The US government invents false flags of false flags to troll dramatards.

And we’re glad for it too.

♻ Devez-vous vraiment imprimer ce courriel ? Pensons à l'environnement ! ♻

Exactly what I was thinking



I hecking LOVE wars when people get killed it's just like in my bideo games!! :soyjackwow: :soyjackwow:

As long it's all burgers ruskies and chinks I'm all for it


This but 100% unironically.



Agreed, every single day I wake up and hope Pakistan and India nuke each other and take out Bangladesh at the same time. Absolutely nothing of value would be lost

Cope, you VILL be drafted and you VILL be happy.

Im too old, too Canadian, and too rich. If it looks like there will be a draft Ill just apply to intelligence lmao


Oh you'll be fighting for the chinks then. :marseykyle:. See you on the battlefield.


This unironically

You say that now but just wait until you need technical support.

what are indians going to do tho? If its the ruskies and ricechads on one side and the ameriLARDS and eurocucks on the other, will the hate that curries have for the SigmaRice be enough to push them into get involved in the war?

Maybe the chinks will try to invade us too?

Yeh there's no way our politicucks ever start a war. You could literally have the plot of independence day playing out and our politicians would still be kvetching about negotiations. :marseysad: Very dramaphobic.

i dont think the ricecels have enough power to invade a country with a population of almost 2 billion people, also you curries have nuclear bombs, so maybe a more localized conflict in some border region? I hope not; i would love a war between burgers, eurocucks and russians because i hate mayos so much is unreal, but BIPOCs killing each other would be a tragedy :marseydisagree:

Isn't argentina mayo? :marseysus:

if one is mayo looking, but speaks spanish and lives below the 45th parallel south, he is considered an honorary BIPOC, sweetie :marseynails:

Yeah lol

people? in russia?

Desert Storm. Now that was a fun war. :marseyboomer: sip

so what they are saying is ukraine is going to DESERVE it! just like poland did for attacking innocent peaceful germany in 1939!

Yeah that’s why false flags are so unjustifiably awful, yet for some reason you seldom hear people talk about them as the worst war crimes a state can do. Look up the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the Lavon Misunderstanding, Operation Northwoods, etc. It makes you think, if these are just the ones we know about, how many other historical tragedies were secretly false flags as well? 9/11 is the most obvious example, you can understand the conspiracies around that for sure.

the Lavon Misunderstanding

Antisemitism is not allowed here

too long didn't read

They seem like the most effective tactic with the largest ROI, especially because after any event people will scream "it's not a false flag, it's never a false flag." Yet officially, they're extremely rare.

we need a bard_bot but for glowie ops

r-reset the counter...



Remember it's ok to shill evidence-light claims about other countries committing false flag attacks, but if you say it about the US you're an evil r-slurred conspiracy theorist. Thanks journies.

Yes 🇺🇸

WW3 is gonna happen and I’m too old to get conscripted I get to stay at home and look after all the lonely young wives!


♻ Devez-vous vraiment imprimer ce courriel ? Pensons à l'environnement ! ♻

everyone on this site can just show the feds they browse here and automatically be exempted for autism

I am so ready for this

False flags are honestly such a scary thing, personally I think they’re up there with genocide as the worst things a state can do. No wonder alphabets love them

Come on glowies, be right for once!

:marseybegging: :marseyglowaward:

Preparations for Operation Bagration 2. :marseytinfoil2:

Goddamnit Brandon is going to cause yet another run on ammo now isn’t he? Goddamn 60 cents a cartridge of 5.56 is bad enough

Finally a way to take out all the anger and hatred inside of me that I get from living in modern society and watching my football team.

Millenials will never understand this feeling...