| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
China
|
Geopolitical rivals |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Middle East Strongmen (Mubarak/Gaddafi)
|
Political diplomatic |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Islamic Enemy
|
Unknown |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Historical period referenced regarding America's limited experience with homeland threats. | America | View |
| 1990-01-01 | N/A | China brought into the World Trade Organization. | Global | View |
| 1955-01-01 | N/A | Vietnam War | Vietnam | View |
| 1939-01-01 | N/A | World War II | Global/America | View |
The text discusses the psychological mechanism called the "Control Factor," likening American complacency regarding threats (specifically the "Islamic Enemy") to the arc of a horror film where characters are initially oblivious. It argues that psychological defenses like denial and projection prevent society from recognizing the reality of threats, creating an addict-enabler relationship with the enemy.
The text explores the geopolitical tension between the United States and China, comparing their relationship to historical rivalries like Germany and Great Britain to illustrate the dangers of the "security dilemma." It discusses how each nation's pursuit of security often leads to mutual insecurity and highlights their fundamentally different perceptions of the current global order—America viewing it as sustainable and beneficial, while China sees it as broken and in need of reconstruction ("Da po, Da li").
This document is page 54040 from the Federal Register, dated August 30, 2011, detailing a legal argument against a new rule by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The author contends the NLRB overstepped its statutory authority, citing legal precedents on agency power and the 'arbitrary and capricious' standard. Despite the user's framing, this document is entirely about U.S. labor law and contains no information whatsoever related to Jeffrey Epstein, his associates, or any of their activities.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity