Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Mon Dec 11 08:48:42 PST 2023
Utopia Talk / Politics / Senate vote on Sweden and Finland
| Thu Aug 04 03:47:34|
The Senate was almost unanimous in accepting the entry of Sweden and Finland into NATO. 98 for 1 no 1 present.
Guess the No
Guess the Present
| Thu Aug 04 04:12:28|
| Thu Aug 04 04:56:49|
Paul voted present.
| Thu Aug 04 05:05:28|
Hawley was correct to vote against this, and Rand Paul voting present was also a good move (though not as strong as Hawley's move).
Abstaining were Cornyn (R, TX), Leahy (Bolshevik, VT), and Merkley (Bolshevik, OR), so patom gave inaccurate info on 98 to 2. It was actually,
• 95 yea,
• 1 nay,
• 1 present,
• 3 no-votes
Results are posted here:
"Treaty Doc. 117-3"
[Senate dot gov; August 3rd, 2022]
Hawley explains his decision here:
"Hawley Op-Ed: Why I Won’t Vote to Add Sweden and Finland to NATO"
[Hawley; Senate dot gov; op-ed]
Hawley's recognition is that the West is over-committing to a European strategy while under-committing to Pacific alliances. In hot conflict, China would be like Japan version 2, capable of Pacific dominance if not checked through a stronger U.S.-Pacific strategy. By allowing countries to join NATO when they clearly lack strategic independence (i.e., lacking their own armed forces investments and thus dependent on help from other nations), the U.S. is committing forces in Europe that may be better directed in the Pacific — where Europe will likely not help the U.S. (as was largely the case in WWII). China is the much greater threat to the U.S., and even with Jacinda Ardern's meddling in the region on behalf of the World Economic Forum (WEF), key nations have not yet been secured (e.g., Sri Lanka, Taiwan).
Rand Paul has not officially released an op-ed or explanation (likely coming this morning).
I think voting "Nay" was the better move because Finland and Sweden are openly part of the ESG/DIE totalitarian strategy under the UN and WEF framework — setting the stage for WWIII by creating an ESG/DIE versus BRICS binary of competing totalitarian powers. The WEF-sponsored Corporate Governance Index shows which countries have most complied with totalitarian strategies, with Finland sitting at 97.6% compliance and Sweden sitting at 97.3% ( https://worldeconomics.com/Indicator-Data/ESG/Governance.aspx ). This means that they are in the top 5 list of nations most likely to repress their own citizens to implement the totalitarian framework, behind only Norway, Denmark, and New Zealand. These sorts of nations should not be helped, and officially adding them to the West's ranks only pushes the world still closer to hot conflict.
Jesse Malcolm Barack
| Thu Aug 04 08:20:59|
Yeah ok dude, finland and sweden are going to become dictatorships, and then Norway, Denmark and New Zealand are going to join them. You're such a retard dude
| Thu Aug 04 09:07:52|
Hawley explains his decision here: "Go Russia! I love my Putin daddy!"
| Thu Aug 04 09:56:07|
This is a strategically illiterate argument.
Sweden and Finland both have large, technically capable militaries that (Finland has one of the larger and more capable militaries of EU NATO members, and collectively Finland and Sweden bring around 150 attack jets to the Baltic theatre and full use of their waters and airspace.
It does not increase the exposure of the US to a war between Russia and NATO membership.
Firstly, looking at Russian performance - mean that Russia would be hard pressed to fight them conventionally in any case.
Secondly, the principle focus of Russian aggression on NATO members or deployed forces in Europe remain the Baltics and the Balkans via proxy.
In the unlikely event Russia might have ambitions to start a conflict against Finland or Sweden in and of itself, both are members of the EU which has a mutual self defence clause likely to draw in other European NATO countries; and if you think the US is going to sit back as a nuclear war develops in Europe I think that is implausible. And US force deployments need to hedge against that risk anyway.
The benefit of joining NATO is therefore mutual (and more to the US arguably) in deterrence - in making war less likely and making the strategic and theatre situation for a war in the Baltic region far harder for Russia - which can enable *less* US commitment to Europe and more to Pacific than might otherwise be the case for the same level of deterrence.
* Finland is geographically situated in such a way that in a conflict between Russia and NATO, lines of communication and logistics for Russia's main submarine fleet base and nuclear weapons facility is immediately threatened.
* There is no scope for Russian subs or surface combatants to slip into/out of Swedish or Finish waters in the event of a conflict.
* NATO has full use of Swedish and Finish airspace and waters.
* Both countries have already said they will not host US forces.
Sweden and Finland formally joining NATO therefore greatly increase NATO's ability to defend the Baltics - the weakest point in NATO - from Russian aggression and greatly increase the risks to Russia of any attempt to stage a limited conflict against the Baltics.
If Sweden and Finland remain outside of NATO - simply relying on the existing level of integration and political commitment to defend the Baltics through the EU treaties - there is much higher chance Russia might discount their involvement (or ability at least to rapidly respond in coordination with NATO) to a Russian attempt at a coup de main on the Baltics - which remains the most obvious flashpoint for Russia/NATO conflict that isn't one of western initiative.
Therefore NATO, specifically the US, would need to have credible provision to handle a baltic war without Finland and Sweden, or writing the Baltics off entirely - irrespective of NATO - if they were invaded (which you are still free to do anyway).
Finland and Sweden joining NATO strengthens European defence and allows US force commitments to Europe to be lower than what it would otherwise be.
| Thu Aug 04 10:08:31|
”lines of communication and logistics for Russia's main submarine fleet base and nuclear weapons facility”
Which is supplied by exactly 1 set of train tracks. Finland joining NATO, is somewhat of a national security disaster for Russia. They don’t have the money to move those bases.
| Thu Aug 04 10:26:31|
"finland and sweden are going to become dictatorships, and then Norway, Denmark and New Zealand are going to join them."
High Corporate Governance scores mean that nearly all of their businesses have adopted the ESG/DIE framework. This means that their own governments can be dictated externally via the international anti-competitive strategy; their leaders are now oligarchs of the World Economic Forum. To test this: search the leaders of those countries and see for yourself their connections to the WEF. Countries with high G-Indexes invariably have visited Davos and/or given speeches signalling agreement with this world governance strategy.
To prevent further solidification, Sweden and Finland would need to return their Corporate Governance to their own sovereign legal frameworks — allowing their businesses to write their own profit-motive policies. If they do not do this, increasingly citizens of these nations will see soft-power policies that become more apparent, even as WEF-owned media assures them that they should not worry that they are now ruled by oligarchs.
Soft policies begin semi-reasonably, but if a country's S-Index is not high (indicating high public compliance), people will begin to question them:
• medical mandates (e.g., vaccines, vasectomies, hysterectomies, drug regimes),
• workplace initiatives (e.g., men removed from the workforce, DIE LGBTQ+NAMBLA given leadership roles without competence),
• movement limitations (e.g., carbon taxes on individuals, tracking of diets, purchase-options limited by digital ID, world-crypto with total tracking, tracking and limiting of travel)
• A.I. given automatic authority over small-scale issues (e.g., court rulings, petitions to the government, procreation)
Like a contracting snake, this strangulation does not happen immediately. The WEF's stated goals are 2030 and 2050. As we get closer to 2030, some of these machinations will get more and more apparent. Many measures should have gotten your attention already. If they did not, you may want to use services such as Ground.News to check your blind spots or simply peruse the World Economic Forum website. All of this information is publicly available and overtly stated should you choose to search for it.
| Thu Aug 04 10:47:16|
"This means that their own governments can be dictated externally via the international anti-competitive strategy; their leaders are now oligarchs of the World Economic Forum."
The international jews are at it again! >:o(
| Thu Aug 04 11:27:06|
International Jewry is the worst kind of Jewry.
But uh, yeah ESG is a plague.WEF and it's cronies are worse than actual Nazis.Like the kind that gassed a few million people.Worse than those guys.
| Thu Aug 04 12:03:37|
Yes, yes, obviously wonky requirements that companies conform to standards for social and environmental impact and corporate governance are a terrible threat to global freedom.
You can complain that ESG stuff is a form of pseudo protectionism and forcing companies to do the work of the state by providing public goods that should be the responsibility of the state to deliver via taxes (which, given the reality of who makes these arguments often also being those that demand a small state and low tax, actually means "these public goods should not be delivered at all unless voluntarily funded by private citizens").
Arguing it is a threat to global freedom is unhinged.
| Thu Aug 04 12:42:22|
Well, there is still hope that Türkiye will vote no.
| Thu Aug 04 12:44:56|
” finland and sweden are going to become dictatorships”
Sweden already is a dictatorship. Sweden been ruled by the Socialists ever since they forced the King to give up his power.
| Thu Aug 04 13:17:04|
Paramount is waking up? Hmm. Maybe there is hope.
Sweden is very homogenous culturally and ethnically. You don’t need a hard dictatorship when everyone is basically one large family/clan.
| Fri Aug 05 04:19:33|
[Seb]: "Unlike Russia."
Oh good, a fallacy of relative privation. How unexpected.
I suppose when ESG/DIE totalitarians are solidifying responses from BRICS totalitarians by attempting to force them into the global anti-competitive pyramid scheme, our only response should be, "[*My* totalitarians only want to annihilate the West, whereas *those* totalitarians only want to annihilate the West.]"
Maybe a better response would be to reject totalitarianism with decentralized protections such as national sovereignty, immigration controls, checks against mob rule, and laws against Marxist legal frameworks infiltrating and undermining Constitutional principles? Maybe those kinds of responses would even make the West stronger against the BRICS Group rather than making the West a soft target for the same?
[Seb]: "Arguing it is a threat to global freedom is unhinged."
Arguing it's not is extreme ignorance.
The stated goals of these organizations is to oppose ideas such as "freedom". They even admit that populism and conservatism are barriers to their success ("Populist movements generally express scepticism of perceived elites, and profess a faith in the wisdom of ordinary people."). Their overtly stated policy of "global governance" even includes — and again, their words here — "weaponizing interdependence"
"Making that interdependence effective is now more important than ever for tackling shared challenges and ensuring prosperity."
Their very idea of global values is based in collectivism, which cuts away at the heart of American ideas of freedom and self-reliance. Their entire corrupt worldview is thus the idea that if everyone is equally enslaved by corporate sameness, that enslaved people will be better for it. They intend to be benevolent masters, surely! How could we not trust the oligarchs? They are cut from a "finer clay", surely!
Now, let's see how the Swedish military is doing under ESG/DIE:
Translation: "Pride. More Important Now than Ever"
[Swedish Military, Official Website]
"Rights are pitted against each other and one wonders what is more important: a strong defense or everyone's equal value?
"For us there is no contradiction. The task of the armed forces is to defend Sweden, everyone who lives here, our democracy and our rights. Because in the end, it is the one without rights who is without protection."
This sort of Newspeak works on Sebbish folk. Phrases such as "our democracy" and "our rights", which have been intentionally undermined with a Marxist framework. "Our democracy" is how they groom a dictatorship of the proletariat under the management of oligarchs, and "our rights" is how they mandate the works of other people as essential to one's own survival (Communism / collectivism).
LGBTQ+NAMBLA face paint might not be tactical, but the sniper that shoots them in the face will revel in their "democracy" and "rights".
Jesse Malcolm Barack
| Fri Aug 05 06:50:33|
Dude you're just unhinged, you endlessly support Trump despite him trying to make America his own dictatorship and then pretend sweden is going the way of Mau
in related news http://www.../08/04/orban-republicans-trump
Why are Trump Republicans embracing Hungarian leader Orbán?
Conservatives gathered in Texas to welcome Orbán, but why are so many Republicans cozying up to a man described as an authoritarian ruler?
“Once he was elected in a free and fair election in 2010, Orbán then changed all the election rules,” Scheppele says. “So now it’s impossible to get rid of him through free and fair elections.”
Orbán is a good friend of former President Donald Trump. In a show of that friendship, Orbán stopped in for a personal visit with Trump at his New Jersey golf club on Tuesday.
| Fri Aug 05 08:17:56|
[Random multi account for a coward]: "[I'm] just unhinged[; I stupidly bought the propaganda painting] Trump [as] trying to make America his own dictatorship [because I am just a useful idiot of the establishment media and get my news from memes]."
That's brutally honest of you. I appreciate your candor.
Lots of people were fooled into thinking that Trump was the worst thing ever because of all of the propaganda. Our local TDS Bot is still rocking back and forth in the corner, waiting for DNC media to tell him that "Trumpism" is no longer a threat (it's going to be a while, since this is a useful propaganda control).
This propaganda was necessary because the Malthusian strategy needed to stay on schedule in 2016 in order to implement UN/WEF 2030 and 2050 goals more gradually, and, despite the DNC's election meddling (funding/manipulating Trump's nomination because they believed he was a candidate that the highly unpopular Clinton could beat), their plans fell apart, their claims of fraud and illegitimacy didn't pan out (which was okay to point out in 2016, you bigot), and they instead had to do everything they could to keep him from stopping the totalitarian strategy, including burning the credibility of their entire Politburo, exposing their entire apparatus in the process.
Luckily, brave and honest people such as yourself were able to see this for what it was: a directed propaganda strategy by totalitarians embedded in the DNC, who were merely projecting a "fascist" enemy while seeding their own "shareholder capitalism" structure of world Marxism.
[Random multi account for a coward]: "Why are Trump Republicans embracing Hungarian leader Orbán?"
Incidentally, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has rejected the ESG/DIE Malthusian strategy, proudly saying that he would support Hungary in efforts to increase the birth rate of its own citizens. This flies in the face of the WEF's hopes of infiltrating the birth rates of nations via migration and demoralization.
The WEF's migration goals interconnect as such (same WEF source as above):
• "Migration" — "Emigration and immigration provide tremendous opportunities"
• "Demographic push" — "The incentive to migrate due to demographic pressure is likely to increase in many parts of the world, at least until improved education for girls and greater gender parity improve development outcomes and reduce both fertility rates and entrenched poverty."
• "Integrating migrants" — "The effective integration of migrants can lead to economic, social, and security benefits for everyone - not just for migrant communities."
"There has been greater recognition in recent years of the positive role that local governments can play in attracting and integrating migrants"
• Birthrate migration: "Many children on the farm means lots of free hands to do the work. Many children in the city means lots of mouths to feed. That’s why we do the economically rational thing when we move to the city: we have fewer kids."
• "Because soon, humanity will be a lot smaller and older than it is today."
I.e., the general strategy has been to capture economies, decrease their birthrates, and encourage migration to decrease the overall birth rates of the region and replace the ethnic majorities, since ethnic majorities are more likely to defend regional sovereignty (which defies globalism). The countries that have attempted to repair their birth rates after COVID are being met with scorn by the UN/WEF Malthusians — Hungary being one of them.
Hungary currently has these Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance scores:
E — 94.6
S — 69.6
G — 62.2
I.e., Hungary has not been fully infiltrated by corporate governance (they have less infiltration even than the U.S.), and their executive branch is flexing powers that keep further Corporate Governance actions from taking place in the legislature; so, their natalist strategies are making them a propaganda target for the UN/WEF.
Additionally, while they have a good E-Index (94.6), they are not low enough in Earth Overshoot (2.4) for the UN/WEF to approve of their increased birth rates:
[OverShoot Day dot org; 2022 Report]
"2.4" here means that if every citizen of the Earth consumed as much as a Hungarian citizen, the Earth would need to be 2.4 times larger than it is for the UN/WEF to see this population as "sustainable".
In short, the UN/WEF goal is to make the entire Earth 1.0 or less (i.e., "sustainable"). This requires depopulation. Hungary is not depopulating like they are supposed to. Thus, the propaganda will continue.
| Fri Aug 05 08:57:08|
"Oh good, a fallacy of relative privation. How unexpected."
Except it isn't a fallacy of relative privation:
Letting Sweden and Finland into NATO has - as I discussed - a direct risk reduction from Russia to European NATO countries (and non-European NATO countries risk of being embroiled in a war) with Russia.
This is traded off against your hysterical nonsense about Sweden and Finland being a stalking horse for an imagined totalitarian conspiracy involving ESG standards.
So it is a direct trade off - even if you happen to believe this whackjob nonsense.
That is why NATO has previously accepted dictatorships like Spain under Franco, Turkey under various periods of military rule etc. as members - which are far more obviously ideological threats.
The trade off of deterring Russian aggression via the strategic benefit those members bring to the defence of Europe outweighs the other risks.
| Fri Aug 05 09:20:14|
As for ESG, avoiding a race to the bottom with companies polluting, allowing companies to act as monopsony or monopolies and high standards for prosecuting fraud, - that's to enable global competition. Otherwise the best you can do is as you say, put up barriers to trade and competition.
Describing this as totalitarian or anti-competitive is nonsense - nobody complains about now positively ancient global standards on accounting etc.
It's really simply to opt out of though - it just means you are going to lose export markets - but that's fine and dandy and every country has that option. Look at the UK, we've just done exactly that.
"The stated goals of these organizations is to oppose ideas such as "freedom"."
If that is a stated goal, you will be able to show me a statement where those organisations say they are opposed to ideas such as freedom.
I already know what you are going to say, you are going to argue that agreeing common standards internationally as the rules for global trade amounts to infringements of freedoms for states to act as they want, and imposing obligations on their citizens and companies.
But that is precisely the wrong way around. The only thing you are "free" to do as a sovereign entity relates to things within your borders - and these rules of the road are the level playing field that let countries lower barriers and embrace cross border competition - which actually improves freedom on both side.
You want to be free? Fine, you are free to leave the international organisations and put up trade barriers as are other parties - but what you can't do is claim the *benefits* of free trade and globalisation between nations is something that you are somehow independently entitled to, and that countries exercising their freedom to put up barriers if you don't abide by a set of common standards for a level playing field amounts to totalitarianism.
As for weaponization of interdependency - well yes with dependency comes influence (and that works both ways: e.g. Europe may be dependent on US based international tech firms, but equally they are very dependent on European revenue which results in the EU and US in a complicated balance of the EU imposing regulations on US tech firms as a price of access to that revenue stream and US tech firms pushing that as far as possible because European electorate would not easily tolerate withdrawal of services) - but equally there are two ways of trying to manage that:
1. global governance mechanisms where states agree the rules of the road to try and maximise overall benefits
2. pursuing autarchy and isolationism and forgoing any dependency on outside countries
Countries are free to pursue either in various sectors.
Bottom line, every country is free to adopt Juche economics and be like North Korea if they want (though few are able to do so at any decent standard of living)- the fact it is massively undesirable to do so is not punishment to coerce countries into subservience - it is what happens when you are in a world where each country maximises sovereignty and absolute "freedom" of their state to act as it wants.
"which cuts away at the heart of American ideas of freedom and self-reliance."
Bollocks no. What cuts away at the American idea of freedom is American firms desire to have access to foreign markets - that's the only thing that motivates America to pursue global institutional frameworks. Secure access to foreign markets using access to American markets - which requires countries to both agree on level playing field rules to avoid competition on undesirable points (corporate bribery, cheap toxic materials in toys, slave labour etc.).
"This sort of Newspeak works on Sebbish folk."
Only you could be so ridiculous as to quote an utterly anodyne phrases as proof of sinister intent on the assertion that every adjective is actually, secretly and known only to you, intended to be an antonym.
What a moron.
| Fri Aug 05 09:23:22|
"In short, the UN/WEF goal is to make the entire Earth 1.0 or less (i.e., "sustainable"). This requires depopulation."
No, it requires reduced consumption or higher sustainability through efficiency or greater use of renewable resources.
It's ironic that you are accusing others of Malthusianism while implicitly adopting Malthus's fallacy.
|show deleted posts|