Would a world war fix this f***ed up world?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by dammage79

A new world war would be a slaughter. after watching the movie "Good Kill" I cannot fathom the horror of air to ground drone strikes.

Not only do drones have crazy kill numbers from afar but the psychological terror they impose on those in their patrol area is unparalleled.

Old school war won't happen anymore unless the warring sides wipe out the technological edges either side may have. Even then you're going to have to take the war to orbit and wipe out satellites. A new world war is going to be gross.

Besides, why would our corporate overlords want to wipe out any percentage of the population, our debt based incomes keep them fat and rich and the more people they have under their thumbs the more profit they make. Now excuse me while i go fashion my new tin foil hat.

My gut feeling is that Drones would be neutralized fairly early in the war.

China has worked on hacking the communication links of the U.S. military and we don't know what they're capable of. As well, its not hard to find the building with the antennae around it and destroy them.

Its not like the Russians and Chinese have been sitting around admiring the drones. The Drones are a key part of America's war fighting campaign and they'll have figured out a way to take them apart.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by polak

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by T@T

Talking to a retired military guy today he thinks it'll take a world war to reset society and sees no other way, when you look at it there seems to be nothing positive on a world scale happening.

- ISIS in the middle east
- Russia trying to take Ukraine and maybe more
- Saudi's screwing up oil prices
- Euro country's on the brink of bankruptcy
- Iran trying to build a bomb (to end Israel)
- mass shootings in the USA

It goes on and on, the world is truly crap

People have said for a few years now it would take WWIII to fix global economy but would it fix global ######ation as well.?

All I can say is thank ###### for hockey!

Would you be willing to nut up and fight in it?


If not, the STFU.

[AltaGuy]

I dated a member of the Rothschild family. Unfortunately not one of the uber-wealthy branches, but I went to some family gatherings and such. They're just people. People are not good at secrets.

But, now I'll put my tinfoil hat on with all y'all and note that WWII was so disruptive to entrenched capital that it allowed for a middle class to develop and flourish over the next fourty years in the Western world. Aside from that historical blip, capital tends to stay with the wealthy few.

Yeah, I just started reading Piketty. Pretty interesting stuff.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

I dated a member of the Rothschild family. Unfortunately not one of the uber-wealthy branches, but I went to some family gatherings and such. They're just people. People are not good at secrets.

But, now I'll put my tinfoil hat on with all y'all and note that WWII was so disruptive to entrenched capital that it allowed for a middle class to develop and flourish over the next fourty years in the Western world. Aside from that historical blip, capital tends to stay with the wealthy few.

Yeah, I just started reading Piketty. Pretty interesting stuff.

Yeah, I was going to say that is Piketty. It's not tin foil stuff, it's the fact that 60 million people died, and most of Europe was bombed to rubble.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by AcGold

I wasn't talking about handsigns that may or may not hold significance, I was talking about videos of secret religious rituals that do exist.

Are they still secret if videos exist.......?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

They were a political entity by literally every definition. At many times they failed to affect other political systems, but they were mostly political. In fact, in feudal England they were basically the government

Yeah, I don't get exactly where peter12 is going with this. The various popes acted as facilitators and co-conspirators with various groups trying to gain power in Italy alone, and even amassed their own forces when they could. I'd argue that their motivations were largely secular and that they used Catholicism in order to recruit people to their cause, but they certainly were a political entity.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yeah, I was going to say that is Piketty. It's not tin foil stuff, it's the fact that 60 million people died, and most of Europe was bombed to rubble.

Yeah, hopefully there's a better way to reduce inequality!

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, I don't get exactly where peter12 is going with this. The various popes acted as facilitators and co-conspirators with various groups trying to gain power in Italy alone, and even amassed their own forces when they could. I'd argue that their motivations were largely secular and that they used Catholicism in order to recruit people to their cause, but they certainly were a political entity.

I am going to pull a CP, and say "source?"

I didn't go back to read what I said, but my intent was to say they were never successful as a political entity.

Basically what you said. They tried to mediate conflict, and attempted to create a Catholic political empire (HRE), but were never successful.

They never formed the government of England.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Yeah, hopefully there's a better way to reduce inequality!

Well, maybe this tech bubble will collapse sooner or later.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

I am going to pull a CP, and say "source?"

I didn't go back to read what I said, but my intent was to say they were never successful as a political entity.

Basically what you said. They tried to mediate conflict, and attempted to create a Catholic political empire (HRE), but were never successful.

They never formed the government of England.

I think I missed that you were explicitly referring to England. I was more referring to the various power-struggles in renaissance-era Italy. For instance, they had the Paple States, as well as their attempts to get into bed with various factions and families, including the French and the Spanish at times. I'm likely getting some of these mixed up since it's been about a year and half since I did any reading on it. I've pimped this book a few times before, but "The Myth of Religious Violence" by William Cavanaugh actually does a pretty good job of breaking down a lot of the early European conflicts.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm more referring to the various power-struggles in renaissance-era Italy. You have the Paple States and the attempts to get into bed with various factions, including the French and the Spanish at times. I'm likely getting some of these mixed up, since it's been about a year and half since I did any reading on it. I've pimped this book a few times before, but "The Myth of Religious Violence" by William Cavanaugh actually does a pretty good job of breaking down a lot of the early European conflicts.

I am sure you have read "The Prince" by Machiavelli. He is the first guy to say, "hey the Catholic Church stinks at this, because ultimately Christians don't believe in the kind of violent action needed to actually CHANGE things."

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I think I missed that you were explicitly referring to England. I was more referring to the various power-struggles in renaissance-era Italy. For instance, they had the Paple States, as well as their attempts to get into bed with various factions and families, including the French and the Spanish at times. I'm likely getting some of these mixed up, since it's been about a year and half since I did any reading on it. I've pimped this book a few times before, but "The Myth of Religious Violence" by William Cavanaugh actually does a pretty good job of breaking down a lot of the early European conflicts.

I'm no expert, but I've done a fair bit of reading on the subject. I would say that yes the Vatican/Papal states were a political entity to varying degrees for a long time. The Pope was essentially the king of the papal states, and they participated in world politics; they had to.

They were nowhere near as powerful as some think, but they did participate. Kings & princes cared more about territory, wealth, title, etc than what "God" aka the Pope thought of them.

Many princes and emperors over the years tried influencing the pope and likewise the pope influenced or tried to influence the politics of the day.

Even the modern church (say, post 1871) participated in politics heavily, and even to this day they participate, although to a lesser degree.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Are they still secret if videos exist.......?

Absolutely, people still deny they exist and the members often have no idea what the hell the rituals mean because they are so esoteric. Many initiates join because of career ambitions, my own interest grew when one of my close friends joined one of these religions unonowingly.

[Kybosh]

How does one go about accidentally joining a powerful secret society or religion? Sounds pretty exclusive, and I want in, but I want to bumble my way into it in Clouseauesque manner.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I'm no expert, but I've done a fair bit of reading on the subject. I would say that yes the Vatican/Papal states were a political entity to varying degrees for a long time. The Pope was essentially the king of the papal states, and they participated in world politics; they had to.

The Popes were "also king makers" however, and in a way that made them more powerful in some circumstances. In medieval Europe, no one could be declared the king of a realm or an emperor unless approved by either the Pope or the Orthodox Patriarchy.

This was a big reason why when the Bulgarian king declared himself "emperor", the Byzantine Empire (home of the Orthodox Patriarchy) and Croatia (on behalf of the Pope) declared war on Bulgaria and eventually defeated them. Incidentally, the Byzantine emperor rewarded Croatia with parts of Dalmatia for their part in the war.

Of course, pagan areas of Europe didn't adhere to any of that, but their kingdoms were not very organized to begin with.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The Popes were "also king makers" however, and in a way that made them more powerful in some circumstances. In medieval Europe, no one could be declared the king of a realm or an emperor unless approved by either the Pope or the Orthodox Patriarchy.

This was a big reason why when the Bulgarian king declared himself "emperor", the Byzantine Empire (home of the Orthodox Patriarchy) and Croatia (on behalf of the Pope) declared war on Bulgaria and eventually defeated them. Incidentally, the Byzantine emperor rewarded Croatia with parts of Dalmatia for their part in the war.

Of course, pagan areas of Europe didn't adhere to any of that, but their kingdoms were not very organized to begin with.

All true, however a touch simplified. Different princes and/or kings had personal relationships or personal tiffs with different popes. If a pope endorsed one son to become the next king of a particular realm, but the other son ended up succeeding his father, said son wouldn't give a rats ass about the pope's blessing. Whereas other times, people would go out of the way to seek the popes blessing or endorsement. Sometimes personal agendas trumped convention or law.


Extremely interesting history. I love that kind of stuff.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

How does one go about accidentally joining a powerful secret society or religion? Sounds pretty exclusive, and I want in, but I want to bumble my way into it in Clouseauesque manner.

His dad was in it and he joined for the business connections.

[HelloHockeyFans]

Originally Posted by driveway

Utter nonsense based entirely on fearmongering news organizations.

There has simply never been a better, safer, healthier, more affluent time to be alive in the history of the human race.

More people live under functioning democracies than ever in history. More people are living without the threat of violence from their own or other governments than ever before. More people have access to healthcare, education, and opportunity than ever before.

Minorities have better and more effective representation, women are more involved and have better access to public life, there is better awareness of and support for mental and emotional health, there are more national parks, more environmental organizations, more money being poured into 'green' technologies. There are more philanthropists doing more with more money.

More people are being fed on less land, science is developing new foods which require less care, water, pesticides, and energy to produce higher caloric content.

Prohibitionist laws are falling, barriers to full-participation in society are falling, ethnic self-determinism is on the rise, the number of religious people is falling, the number of people with college degrees is rising.

We just flew a probe past Pluto and found the most Earth-like planet yet outside our own Solar System.

The world is fine. Turn off your goddamn TV.

Agreed.

26 charts that show how much better the world is today, compared to before.

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/7272929/charts-thankful

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Muffins

I feel like there's another solution...

That was such a god awful movie