[QatzelOk]

One of the last memorable lines of the movie "Gangs of New York" was something like "Let's do what we've always done and pay half the poor to kill the other half of the poor."

What if World Wars One and Two fit this model? What if the German, French, American, Japanese and British Elites (and Russian) were actually working together to traumatize their populations into submission and to eliminate radicals and young men with bold ideas?

After both world wars, the millions of French men who were killed were replaced by cheap laborers from North Africa. The Elites were able to make more money and worry less about unions once their "French brothers" were cut down to size.

Same with British and German working classes.

"Better Hitler than Blum" was a popular opinion among commercial media memes. The message is that a giant murderous war is better (for the upper-class deciders) than equality or socialized banks.

I often think it's horrible that so few people realize that our debt-based, fractional-reserve banking system is a huge scam that enriches a mafia. But what if a lot of people realized this in 1912? What about if masses of people started to realize this in 1933?

That would explain why the banksters (our real Elite) had to blow everything up.

[Suntzu]

Wars are fought for profit.

[MistyTiger]

Wars are fought because men just like to blow stuff up and kill people.

I find it sick when grown men get together to play military type MMORPG games with their buddies and with millions of strangers online. Ummm why? It kind of feels like the gaming industry glorifies war and therefore making it a popular thing to do. So they just play for hours at a time on the couch whilst stuffing their faces with junk food and guzzling down beer by the quart.

Many are just so fascinated with violence.

[Stormsmith]

After WWI unions in England became common because of a labour shortage, and after WWII, companies fired the women, who were working for half the pay to re-hire men, so, no.

[Ter]

After WWI unions in England became common because of a labour shortage, and after WWII, companies fired the women, who were working for half the pay to re-hire men, so, no.

Because of WWII the women found the way to the work place and this started the "End of happy marriages" era and the start of "Divorce lawyers become wealthy" era.
QED

[QatzelOk]

Wars are fought for profit.

Yes, of course. But by the same principle, if unions and socialism are threatening the profit of major corporations and - most importantly - the bankster class... a nice killing spree can quickly put a stop to that.

After WWI unions in England became common because of a labour shortage, and after WWII, companies fired the women, who were working for half the pay to re-hire men, so, no.

Unions and demands for equality and an end to corporate scamming... started in the late 19th Century with the advent of generalized education. War provides and excellent way to kill young working class leaders who would make much greater demands on unions (even going as far as nationalizing banking and enforcing equal working conditions for all). Also, you have demonstrated that war is used to alter the working class structure in short-term and long-term ways. But the most important thing to remember is that lots of working class working men were disposed of. By the rich.

Because of WWII the women found the way to the work place and this started the "End of happy marriages" era and the start of "Divorce lawyers become wealthy" era. QED

WWII gave us the life we know today: working-still women, suburban barracks, personal tanks (SUVs), and military-industrial culture (mass media and Internet). That war never ended because corporations are always killing for supply chains and to keep labor submissive.

[Stormsmith]

Unions and demands for equality and an end to corporate scamming... started in the late 19th Century with the advent of generalized education. War provides and excellent way to kill young working class leaders who would make much greater demands on unions (even going as far as nationalizing banking and enforcing equal working conditions for all). Also, you have demonstrated that war is used to alter the working class structure in short-term and long-term ways. But the most important thing to remember is that lots of working class working men were disposed of. By the rich.

Unions struggled before WWI, afterwards they took hold because of the labour shortage.

As for the notion of young men died, yes, that's almost a tautology. What they would or wouldn't do is speculative, and doesn't address the fact that since the end of WWI nobody has tried to nationalise said banks.

Because of WWII the women found the way to the work place and this started the "End of happy marriages" era and the start of "Divorce lawyers become wealthy" era.

Some women always have needed to work. Some have wanted to work. It wasn't so much WWII that provided them the opportunity, that happened in the 1960-70's. You'll need to provide evidence that there were no unhappy marriages before then, because my read on it was unhappy marital situations have always existed but divorces occurred more easily when women could support themselves.

[QatzelOk]

Unions struggled before WWI, afterwards they took hold because of the labour shortage.

Unions "struggled" before WW1 because their leaders were constantly being killed or beaten up by management goons. The war allowed for a mass kill of this type of working class hero. The terrorizing of union leaders continued up to WW2. After WW2, many of these union struggles were taken over by people who could be easily controlled by management. And the new breed of mentally-dead suburbanite car-drivers... lost all its social capital and the ability to organize in groups.

And more important than the unionization struggle (unions don't always help the general welfare of all) were the struggles for eliminating centralized private banking, and other forms of corporate scamming. Private scamming and backdoor deals can very easily eradicate any ostensible gains made by unions.

The violent struggle for equality dried up (for a short time) after both wars. But after WW2, not only did social capital dry up, but communities were destroyed by suburban relocation and mass media brainwashing. Virtually all the "science" since that time has been looking for ways to destroy working class solidarity and community cooperation.

The post-war North American has made several orders more ignorant than his grandparents by his carefully-designed living arrangement and its socially limiting distances, mass media personality-damage and the loss of common sense which sprouts from shared everyday information.

[AJS]

It rather blew up in the faces of most of those elites. Russian, German and Italian royals gone, Britain and France bankrupt, Japan nuked. America probably did strengthen its hand but quite an elaborate way to do it and hard to see how the American elite caused either war.

I think war is just what civilisations do.

[Stormsmith]

Define this lost social capital plse qatz

[QatzelOk]

It rather blew up in the faces of most of those elites. Russian, German and Italian royals gone, Britain and France bankrupt, Japan nuked. America probably did strengthen its hand but quite an elaborate way to do it and hard to see how the American elite caused either war.

I think war is just what civilisations do.

All the "elites" that you mention were the secondary elites that the primary one - banking and commerce - needed to eliminate to establish themselves as unopposed and total. Also, the church and communities needed to be (and were) destroyed, both by wars and by the social changes that were initiated by the war profiteers (and their bankster allies) after the second big war.

Define this lost social capital plse qatz

This is a sociological discussion, and not a Chemistry formula, so the response will take the form of what was lost.

Children played on the streets and parents walked home on the same streets. Children grew up connected to their neighborhoods and stayed connected to it right up to old age. Community sharing and cooperation were the strength of the working classes. This community sharing is how we got common sense, and also where unions and communism for the people came from.

Once the war profiteers moved everyone to isolated suburbs, trapped them in cars, and zapped their brains with media propaganda, the working classes were helpless, weak, and immiserated. That's where the working class is today. Without social capital, lost, and directionless. And they've (we've) voluntarily stopped making babies and have been convinced that we need to import foreigners to do "the jobs that need to be done." We're so brainwashed that killing us has never been easier.

---------------

NEW MATERIAL

Why is the US provoking so many nations into open hostility? It doesn't really make sense from a long-term economic or social strategy. But one reason might be that... when the banksters get scared that Americans are onto them, they will blow up a large American city and blame it on North Korea which they will then 'heroically" nuke.

Nice to have a tiny, helpless scapegoat on the other side of the world that you can pin false-flags on. This seems to be what most of our wars are for - that is, the ones that aren't about securing supply chains for industry.