In article , Denyav
writes

Another reply from the selective snipmeister, I see.


Why 20%? Is that an arbitrary figure? Where are we talking about? 18th
century France? 20th century USSR?


Whats about 21st century US?

Answer the question.

I don't want hints, I want a sentence that is structured and
comprehensible. English is my primary language, and I find it helps
comprehension if it's written sensibly.


As far as I know English was also Rhodes' primary language ,so there is
apparently a comprehension problem among native English speakers.
Its interesting because I am pretty sure that the individuals who use English
as second or even third language could immediately understand what Rhodes
meant.

It's not interesting. The quote you provided was incomplete,
ungrammatical and incomprehensible. You obviously don't understand what
"Incomprehensible" means. Write it again exactly the way Rhodes said it
and we might get somewhere.

Or ,is it only a loudspeaker placed inside US and connected to the music
source located inside Great Britain?

More obscure thinking.

No Sir,famous and for some dreaded CFR is nothing but the American Branch or
loudspeaker of not so famous British roundtable group.

What?

No. The Empire educated the people, so they learnt English as they grew
up.

Empire educated them to be their servants,and education was not in their native
language but in English,in empires language, a perfect example of empire
building using "cultural assertiveness".

What's wrong with that method? Most people had no education at all
before that. India had, and still has, so many languages that a common
tongue was needed to unify the country.

The tactic of Empire was the destruction of existing social structures and the
elimination of the elite class in colonized countries as the elites of the
colonies,as it happened in colonies in America,could form the nucleus of
resistance aganist colonial masters.

Existing social structures in India were repressive and exploitative.
Foe all its faults, the British ||Empire did improve the lot of the
people there.

For example in India,Empire tried to terminate elite Brahmin caste all methods.

Untrue.

Nazis tried to imitatate british tactics in Poland,they tried to liquidate
whole Polish elite while they tried pretty hard to be friendly with the
peasants,even though polish elite was much closer to the Nazis "Superhuman"
picture than peasants.

Hardly a valid comparison.

Empires do NOT educate the people of colonized countries.Its aganist their
nature.

Soerry to disappoint you, but look at the number of people around the
world who received an education courtesy of Pax Britannica.

What you called "education" is a brainwashing program designed de-root
colonized people and to make them the obedient servants of their colonial
masters.

Rubbish.

The cultural appeal can't have been that great then. You are wilfully
ignoring the question of education.

See above

Hardly relevant, even if it's true, which I doubt. Your prejudices are
showing again.

Thats a fact,life for them was very hard in puritan Britain,they could live
more freely in colonies .

So the only reason people gave up their lives in their homeland was to
exercise their perversions overseas? Great reasoning, and untrue.
Victorian Britain was not at all puritan behind closed doors.

Let's look at that again: the Allies (even before they were the Allies)
conspired to put the NSDAP into power in Germany, forced Germany to make
war on the rest of Europe, and then spent six years undoing that work?
Gotta get some of what you're smoking, it's powerful stuff.

Great Nations and their leaderships usualy make projections and plans for 50
years or more,so if you could prevent Germans from becoming worlds dominant
power for next centuries with only six years of blood and tears,its pretty good
investment.
Typical Anglo pragmatism.

But you said that the Nazis were set up by tne future Allies in the
first place.

A war with Germany,armed with nuclear tipped ICBMs and other exotic
stuff,would
be much more bloodier and even harder,if not impossible,to win

What?

Well if war started in late 40s ,Anglos had to deal with it.

Then why didn't the war start in 1938 at the time of the Munich
Agreement?

And you do know what's happening? How?

If I lived in Anglo homeland ,I would not want to learn that.

What?

You might do us the courtesy of
letting everyone know exactly who they're up against.
--

In spite of 1500 years of "dilution" process,they are apparently still in a
very good condition.
I wonder how good the "less diluted" Anglos are.

But WHO ARE THEY???

Despite my attempts at finding out what is behind your bigotry and
hatred of these "Anglos" and their alleged world domination, you still
refuse to justify your ravings or to tell us what the purpose of this
conspiracy is.

I see no purpose in my pursuing this topic with you.

You ARE the weakest link. Goodbye.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!