Europeans and Australians, what's the deal with 'The International Community'

[TSA]

This shit may sound real specific but it isn't, many of you will know what I'm talking about.

There's this group of people that constantly go to these almost unanimously british 'international conferences' and 'international organizations' to shot shit out of their ass. or arse. They're usually part of very useless organizations like 'The Eurasia Group' that end in the word 'Group' 'Initiative' or 'Foundation'. Usually white, middle eastern, or Indian.

They get together and give speeches about particular globalist buzzwords (may of which they make up) like 'The girl child' and always have ridiculous 'goals' they want to reach by dates at are multiples of 10 or spew statistics with years that are multiples of 10 as benchmarks

'by 2020 the girl child will have access to clean water'. Then they take pictures and answer very stupid questions from people with british accents and give myopic british opinions as answer.

Usually American celebrities and post IPO business people that are genuinely shitty ppl in real life are a big part.

Madonna
Angelina Jolie
Brad Pitt
Bono
David Beckham
Richard Branson
Bill Gates
the Dhalia Lama
That infidel Malaia or whatever, the ones the terrorist ethered for going to school
Bhutto
etc etc
cnn international (which everyone on has a british accent)
the BBC
all the companies that advertise on those channels

I added australians because you're exposed enough to british shit to know what i'm talking about

[Rev Jones]

the Eurasia group analyses political situations in order to find out how the political climate could influence the local and international economy. banks, multinationals etc. are the kind of clients who pay for this analytical data

so the Eurasia group is not a political organisation, they're a consultancy firm

in that way it is different from the other kinds of organisations you're referring to

hope that helps somewhat

btw where I live the phrase 'international community' refers to the important world leaders. kind of like the countries that formed the G8 (or G9 if you include the European Union as a whole) + China, India, Brazil

[TSA]

Are these British attempts to be relevant internationally? I know France used the IMF for this aim but since their language is irrelevant nobody knows what they're doing, or cares.


Shit like this^, lol wtf? They're always 'eliminating' shit 'by 2020'. Nigga 2020 is going to be the shit if these guys didn't just have meetings where they drank bottles of water on Youtube and went home.

They also like giving each other very stupid awards 2020







Africans, indians and muslims really take these people seriously and it's sad AF. I think it's just a british foreign policy strategy to form various groups that think america begins and ends in NY, publish a bunch of statistics, 'consult', and set a bunch of goals for 2020 and 2050 that they set in 2000 and 2010. Americans outside of NY don't take them seriously though I cringe at americans that watch BBC (lol) because all their ads are of this shit.


Could it be related to London's money laundering status? Like, if they put their money in 'initiatives' it doesn't get taxes and they get government reimbursements because it's charitable' and 'non-profit'. I know that's how using 'charity' to evade taxes. It's pretty visible that it's the UK trying to have input on global opinion but I think tax evasion is a big draw as well outside of pretentiousness. They also need to get off Africa's dick.

[TSA]

the Eurasia group analyses political situations in order to find out how the political climate could influence the local and international economy. banks, multinationals etc. are the kind of clients who pay for this analytical data

so the Eurasia group is not a political organisation, they're a consultancy firm

in that way it is different from the other kinds of organisations you're referring to

hope that helps somewhat

btw where I live the phrase 'international community' refers to the important world leaders. kind of like the countries that formed the G8 (or G9 if you include the European Union as a whole) + China, India, Brazil

Yeah dude that's the faggot ass shit I'm talking about. A bunch of people in a room drinking bottled water talking about 'the girl child 2020'

Nobody is important other than the US, China, Russia(ish), Israel, and Saudia Arabia and it's because they're violent AF. Germany is up there too but they're not violent enough. The Eurasia group is the most useless entity on god's green earth lol. Do you really need 'international consultants' to tell you that Somalia is a piece of shit? 'Aye nigga don't go to Syria LOL'

Also I would like to rephrase, Africans don't take them seriously, just richer east africans from former british colonies and muslims. So Kenya and South Africans.


"..we need to provide the girl-child with sustainable green development by 2020.."


lol sooo useless. Again I think the real motivation is money laundering, ego soothing and british attempts to control global public opinion. If some asshole like the Dalia Llama says "Derrrp da chinese izz bad, deerpp love one another mhhhh" everyone is supposed to just accept that this nigga knows what he's talking about. Or having Malala go to talk to work leaders because she got sonned by terrorists. Is she the only one? wtf does she know about shit? They try so hard to brand themselves as 'the good guys' it's nauseating and gay.

I think they're all taken very seriously in Europe as a whole.

[Rev Jones]

from an American perspective I think these just look like meetings where the US is dragged in to confer with other countries that think they matter to discuss a whole host of so called global issues like the environment, health care etc. I think that behind this facade of 'soft topics' and 'soft goals' a lot of finetuning is done involving international finances and geopolitical relations

also think of how many people are employed keeping these conferences going the world over. it's like a little industry that finances itself with government money (taxes)

imo it's good to set goals but realistically speaking it's hard to compromise with so many countries involved. just look at how they are trying to reduce global warming. there are always gonna be countries whose employment rate and export rate are gonna drastically fall if they make too many concessions so conferences like this consist of countless episodes drawn out in time and taking place all over the world. it's true that they hardly ever meet the time goals they set

climate change conferences should be important in the long run 'to save the planet' but short and mid term goals often include giving every country, esp around the equator enough access to water so no armed conflicts flare up that could destabilize the 'money flow' between nations. global warming causes deserts to expand, I wouldn't be surprised if more conflicts over water broke out in the next few decades

[TSA]

girl summit LOL


lol wtf are they talking about? Christine Amanpour is one of them too. As is that niggas that looks like he's trying to prey out of a human ass David West.




I honestly think europe is very naive and live in their own bubble where they're obligated to their own egos to seem important in ways that nobody outside of them consider important.

hella british accents at these 'global' events. You would swear britain was 60% of the global. Every now and then they'll throw in a quirk indian with some type of transcendental gimmick that it's coincidentally politically adverse to someone NATO doesn't fuck with (China) or some muslims that's on some 'moderate islam' shit (not a real muslim) with a british accent too

[Rev Jones]

I think they're all taken very seriously in Europe as a whole.

yes they are

it helps that it makes the national governments in Europe feel important as 'they still have a role to play on the international stage'

countries like France have fuck all to say anymore internationally. they have no network left - the former colonies aren't organized in any meanngful international network (compare to the Commonwealth, that doesn't get much done either btw)

getting more specific about France for a minute. here you have a country that has a working class that goes on strike so often that continuous governments have failed to make hard choices, making France lag behind internationally (when it comes to finances, thus to real politics)

countries like France still being 'an important part' of these conferences gives the respective national governments and the citizens the idea that they are still relevant internationally

I'd have to add that these conferences are held in higher regard in Western than in Eastern Europe (when I say Eastern Europe I specifically refer to the countries that used to be under soviet regime in one way or another)

btw I agree with the whole trophy people thing (Bono etc.)

[TSA]

from an American perspective I think these just look like meetings where the US is dragged in to confer with other countries that think they matter to discuss a whole host of so called global issues like the environment, health care etc. I think that behind this facade of 'soft topics' and 'soft goals' a lot of finetuning is done involving international finances and geopolitical relations

also think of how many people are employed keeping these conferences going the world over. it's like a little industry that finances itself with government money (taxes)

imo it's good to set goals but realistically speaking it's hard to compromise with so many countries involved. just look at how they are trying to reduce global warming. there are always gonna be countries whose employment rate and export rate are gonna drastically fall if they make too many concessions so conferences like this consist of countless episodes drawn out in time and taking place all over the world. it's true that they hardly ever meet the time goals they set

climate change conferences should be important in the long run 'to save the planet' but short and mid term goals often include giving every country, esp around the equator enough access to water so no armed conflicts flare up that could destabilize the 'money flow' between nations. global warming causes deserts to expand, I wouldn't be surprised if more conflicts over water broke out in the next few decades

How are you going to set a 'global' soft goal for 'africa', or 'the girl child', in a room that's no less than 80% british in Switzerland? That shit is sooo stupid lol. I think it's a tax evasion thing. There's nothing 'global' about it, they're just celebrity carnivals and they're building up the ethical argument for various foreign policy pawns (dala lama, malala, bhutto (RIP), Mandela (RIP), etc etc) so that when those people say 'Britian's enemies are bad' it means more.

Only it doesn't mean shit lol. Who cares? I don't even think the UK foreign policy matters in the UK, let alone in Bangladesh.

What's even stupider is none of the people participating have the power to actually do anything or anyone ever. Bill Gates is in Africa telling people that they're over populated and not volunteering to actually address that problem by killing his self. Other than him none of them have the capacity to do anything they're talking about by 2020.

[Rev Jones]

tbh goals set for africa by the international community are just window dressing

geopolitically africa hasn't been important on an international scale ever since the cold war died down

instead of giving government guns, cia/kgb training to have capitalist/communist powerhouses on that continent it's only about money now, not so much influence

china's been sucking central africa dry for a hot minute now. just one example

[TSA]

yes they are

it helps that it makes the national governments in Europe feel important as 'they still have a role to play on the international stage'

countries like France have fuck all to say anymore internationally. they have no network left - the former colonies aren't organized in any meanngful international network (compare to the Commonwealth, that doesn't get much done either btw)

getting more specific about France for a minute. here you have a country that has a working class that goes on strike so often that continuous governments have failed to make hard choices, making France lag behind internationally (when it comes to finances, thus to real politics)

countries like France still being 'an important part' of these conferences gives the respective national governments and the citizens the idea that they are still relevant internationally

I'd have to add that these conferences are held in higher regard in Western than in Eastern Europe (when I say Eastern Europe I specifically refer to the countries that used to be under soviet regime in one way or another)

btw I agree with the whole trophy people thing (Bono etc.)

I don't even know why the UK was at Yalta. That shit was between the USSR and the US. Britian excels at having useless 'discussions' about worthless shit. They just go there to speak english, which they do extra-ordinarily. I guess it's a comparative advantage thing. Like hey, we can speak more english than anyone else so lets base or foreign policy on opening our fucking mouth and pissing dust.



France is verrrrrryyyy useless. VERY.
VERY. VERY. useless. It's 3rd world stable and outside of being pretty looking because their architects have taste, is of no real significance. The only bargaining chip they have internationally are colonies in west africa (LOL). They have this 'Franafrique' arrangement with their former colonies in west africa where they have to agree with france internationally on everything, have french bases, use a french propped currency, and link their educational systems to france. All of their presidents are either married to doughy french women or went to school there. It's very pathetic.


But even in D-league africa these countries don't matter. AT-ALL. They're like the eastern europe of Africa with no Russia. So they really have nothing. The French have to make sure Nigeria and Morocco aren't successful because they'll 'push france out of west africa' which is already happening. This would make them admit they're another Portugal/Spain.

[Rev Jones]

what would you consider the top five influential african countries (I mean influential on a continental scale, not a global one)?

[TSA]

tbh goals set for africa by the international community are just window dressing

geopolitically africa hasn't been important on an international scale ever since the cold war died down

instead of giving government guns, cia/kgb training to have capitalist/communist powerhouses on that continent it's only about money now, not so much influence

china's been sucking central africa dry for a hot minute now. just one example

'the international community' wants everyone to believe China is just robbing africa blind and that isn't the case at all. They're just setting up their companies there and they trade very equally and ask for nothing in return. I'll build this road, you pay, we move on.

If France builds that road they're going to want to pick your next president, and have you sign on to have nuclear waste dumped on your shore or test nuclear weapons on your land. Or sign predatory IMF loans if you want us to build this 6 bedroom school (IMF is always headed by a french person). Real brutally little man-syndrome shit

that's why China is moving so fast there, it's a reasonable no-strings-attached alternative. Dangote in Nigeria is building cement plants all over african and when he tried in a former French colony the media war against him started. Luckily he has bought ad time on CNN and it was put at bay quickly.



Also, what China owns in africa is a margin of what they own in Europe. China has firmly bought enough of the EU to do whatever the hell it wants and not have them say shit. Which sucks for the EU because it's biggest weapon is saying shit. 'The international community' is concerned that China is pushing europe out of Africa (the only place they hold sway) and want to use 'China is robbing africa' as the narrative when really China is robbing Europe. Owns more european assets and debt than it does of any other continent. Also invests there more.

[TSA]

what would you consider the top five influential african countries (I mean influential on a continental scale, not a global one)?

Nigeria, South Africa, Morocco, Egypt, Ghana. Continental, roughly in that order.
Though I don't think (and don't hope) there will be a Nigeria in the next 10 years.

globally its

Egypt, South Africa, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Angola.

[Rev Jones]

so you're saying the africa-china trade off (in general) is mostly just resources for infrastructure?

[Rev Jones]

Nigeria, South Africa, Morocco, Egypt, Ghana. Continental, roughly in that order.
Though I don't think (and don't hope) there will be a Nigeria in the next 10 years.

globally its

Egypt, South Africa, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Angola.

interesting. I wouldn't have thought of Angola. any specific reason?