Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

What would it take for Russia to be #1?


  • Please log in to reply
7545 replies to this topic

#2701 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 08 May 2004 - 01:23 PM

Czarist Crown Begins Trip Back to Russia

RIGA, Latvia - A Russian businessman living in Latvia has purchased a royal crown that once belonged to the Romanov dynasty, and will return it to Russia.

The so-called "Minor Crown" is encrusted with more than 800 small gems and 70 rubies and has been appraised at more than $7 million.. The crown was a wedding gift from Grand Duke Mikhail Mikhailovich, the grandson of Czar Nicholas I, to his fiance, Sofia Nikolaevna Merenberg.
After they wed, the couple left Russia because the reigning emperor at the time, Alexander III, deemed their marriage unworthy of the royal family. http://story.news.ya...a_czarist_crown

Romanov Dynasty rulers of Russia from 1613 until the Russian Revolution of February 1917. Descendants of Andrey Ivanovich Kobyla (Kambila), a Muscovite boyar who lived during the reign of the grand prince of Moscow Ivan I Kalita (reigned 1328
  • 0

#2702 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 08 May 2004 - 02:08 PM

<William A Cook like so many can only see the synptoms not the causes and his suggestion to deal to the symptoms is the standard global approach- a recipe for world govt.
The Lion lines up the dots leading to where he want s people to go and they discover a row they can link and hey presto we have abreak through to the next level of the lion trap.
I challenge anyone to state which international bank or plundering global corporation is owned by any developed world state. Govts are under the control of the banks and many corporations have more debt then many countries. The borrower is servant of the lender. The UN was set up by the same boss.
So lets go to the Lion and ask him to fix things.>

Howdy Bader, Woj
OK, Cook is right about the goal (adressing injustice) but not about the means (presenting a demand to the UN, etc) so you say. But I'd argue that *the first line of action is precisely to present a demand to the lion*, not because he'll do anything to fix (it wouldn't be in his interest to fix the jungle), but because then *we can prove firstly that he's a lion* and secondly that *we must pursue other methods*.

And I'd argue that such methods should be, first, propaganda (so to tell the little people about the lion and what we mean to do), and, secondly, a campaign of *nonviolence* leading up to getting rid of the lion...;)

<Secondly Bin Laden as propoganda would have us to believe
( when will the real Bin Laden stand up so we can see a real person?) isnt a socialist crusader trying to address the social injustice of the world he is supposed to be a defender of Islam.
It should have been addressed to Mendala, and Castro, and Prodi, and Peres to name afew.>

OK, so the little animals go, "hey, this is a fight between lions...so there ain't nothing in it for me, but death..." Yet Osama did speak last time around about social issues, so it shows he can be tamed. I hope he is. What do you think he'll do if we get rid of the lion, and establish truly free and democratic coops, etc? Will he still seek to "convert" us?:confused:

<This the same all over again as the left v right, boss v worker, get everyone divided and blaming one another so the Lion can get a good nights sleep. Would we be that insecure if we stopped history repeating itself?>

It shouldn't repeat itself, just that *there seem to be a divide between predator and prey*. Predators (bosses) tend to want to keep the jungle, prey (workers) tend to want to come out of it. Left and Right, though, is another issue. There are probably as many predators on the Left as on the Right, just that they use better camouflage...;)

<Malasia said no to the IMF. They introduced a small financial
transaction tax that international spectulation is free of everywhere else thus not encouraging the plunder of its country, the outgoing President spoke up against the zionists which everyone else knows but pretends they dont. They minted a gold coin for trade to provide solid security. What are all the other leaders doing apart from acting like prostitutes?>

They just move when the puppeteer moves the strings. Puppets, that's what they are...;)
  • 0

#2703 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 08 May 2004 - 07:04 PM

Donq ; *Yet Osama did speak last time around about social issues, so it shows he can be tamed. I hope he is. What do you think he'll do if we get rid of the lion, and establish truly free and democratic coops, etc? Will he still seek to "convert" us? *



It is a joke, because world today is like thousand simmering volcanoes ready to spill lava, fire and ashes .
Life can be build on crater only on an extinct volcano, not on exploding thing.
From Slavs priority most important is disintegration of Bosnia
to Serbia and Croatia because it is wish the Serbs and Croats. Democracy it is not US dictatiorship.
Slavs unite! :)
  • 0

#2704 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 08 May 2004 - 09:04 PM

Woj: I was thinking of the Marshall Plan of post WW2, so the sanctions by Reagan would be in 80s, which is rather interesting
given that Reagan was elected in part as Right winger to get tough with the USSR, and the Solidarity Movement appeared to me to be (outwardly) a nationalistic movement that could only undermind Soviet domination and reduce Russian Warsaw troops
based in Poland thus setting a precident that could be followed by
the other Eastern European pawns in the communist block.
But then there is the same contradiction in the supposed US
support for the Muslim Kosovoans and Bosmians while they
invade Islam elsewhere.
Obviously the game is being played on a higher level than the unenlightened can see given that we are kept blind by the
western press. I would expect that the proximity of the Balkans to Chechnia will be one factor.
This (sanctions) must have been at the same time Brzenzinki was developing the forerunners of the al qaeda to fight the Russians in Afghan.
Not only Dzierzynski trained for the priesthood so did Stalin
(Jesuit) and I wonder about Castro. The Jesuits were formed by a Illuminati German jew. So we have two parrallel groups who infiltrate in disguise to betray from within.
With the mystery of it all we are limited to labels and smoke that hides the true colour of the fire while the pupeteer has more than one character/entity in conflict at the same time to divide and confuse.
For example, you have called the vatican a disaster for Poland, I
would of the world, yet who would suspect that given the common persecution of the Jew in catholic countries over centuries that the Rothschilds would have been the Vatican bankers. While the intregue of the Vatican in the affairs of state,
eg I expect in the Pol v Swed conflict as you referred and being aware of the ongoing one in Britain between Protestants and catholics- classic example, the financing of the wars stired up was
the business of the Rothschilds. The power of the church and the power of the banker through debt and both no doubt would have had extensive intelligence systems way back then.
Pretty easy to move from there to the various think tanks/
elitist groups of Britiain, Europe and the US, the infiltration and manipulation of royal families/aristocracy, universities, control of media.
As the colonial world is made free, accelerated by the US after WW2, the tentacles reach into the new rulling class there and the
mess/corruption we have all around the world.
Now we have people talking about the white north v the poor
coloured south. One can smell it a mile off.

Pliny: I thought you would agree. I see it as global divide and rule- in preparation for a world govt which the socialists will be building towards and as I have said before Bush is doing wonder for them (apart from the fact he hasnt matched his conservative/rightwing rheteric of his campaign for President yet). The nations are divided in part between the upper class
to use a crude label and the rest. Partly the reason so many
nonwhite people want to move from there own country and culture and leaders abuse of opportunity to live amongst the terrible white people of the developed world who are fast destroying the planet. Obviously they see they need help to destroy the world faster and want to join in the cause. That is just as stupid as the racist view.
I like your point about many so called primative people are actually better off and if attached to land and distant from corrupt govt are better off. One could compare the neighbours of Donq
in the park with the Amish.
The stats of the free-market revival is that 20% gain and the rest- 80% lose and the poverty line rises slowly up the "food chain"
shall we say. The free market has never been good for anything but a burst in the past, like Bushs war it will feed and bloat the rise of neo-socialism, while the global corporate power will remain. The rhetric about the white developed world living on the backs of the rest is just another cog in the wheel. The divide is longitudinal the upper and lower ( around the world) not vertical between the haves and havenots geographically, is how I see it.


DonQ: are you advocating a solidarity movement, watch out for the weasels. Even in this little country I am aware of a certain
ethnic type who have a reputation for joining anything that wants to increase democracy and undermining it from within.
What would Bin Laden do? It never occurred to me, I dont see him as big enough to question. If he was a militant crusader
and defender of Islam, I would expect the Kuwaiti royals would be top of his hit list and Arafat second.

There is even a line out now that says the Israelis dont have the nuclear power, its just a hoax that does the same job. The US would give them nuclear tactical weapons if they didnt. Another case of "exposure as a cover" ?
  • 0

#2705 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 09 May 2004 - 12:32 AM

<DonQ: are you advocating a solidarity movement, watch out for the weasels. Even in this little country I am aware of a certain
ethnic type who have a reputation for joining anything that wants to increase democracy and undermining it from within.>

Howdy Bader
It's difficult to undermine some organization that is not built vertically top-down and which has its goals well laid out. We got the goals well laid out which are the subject of this debate. What you see is what you get. Walesa, on the other hand, didn't define the future very well, emphasizing only the Russian lion, and living Poland open to other lions. And so Poland just changed lions...;)

One Haitian guy was telling me today that he was launching this campaign in Haiti, making copies, etc, but he wanted to know if I was trustworthy... And I told him that he didn't have to trust me in the least, because I--or anyone else--could either betray them or be eaten by the lion, just like M.L. King, etc. I told him to grow some homegrown organization based on these goals, and then we could talk about solidarity...

<What would Bin Laden do? It never occurred to me, I dont see him as big enough to question. If he was a militant crusader
and defender of Islam, I would expect the Kuwaiti royals would be top of his hit list and Arafat second.>

bin Laden is not wasting too much time with the puppets. He's going for the Puppeteer himself, but he's making some big mistakes: 1) He's targetting the little people as part of his war on the lion; 2) The lion draws legitamacy from the violence inflicted upon the little people, who he claims to defend; 3) The little people are paying the economic consequences of the lion's war on terror, which means even more sacrifices for them; and 4) The military-industrial complex is fed, and the lion is fed. WAR BECOMES BIG BUSINESS...:confused:

But let me tell you what I think Osama would do if we got rid of the jungle. HE WOULD DO NOTHING, he would attack no further, because THERE CAN BE NOT MUCH ROOM FOR VIOLENCE IF THERE'S NO JUNGLE OR CAUSE. We would pursue a policy of "live and let live," because THE WORLD IS BIG ENOUGH...;)

Of course, I can be wrong but that would be a cause worth fighting for...;)
  • 0

#2706 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 09 May 2004 - 03:08 AM

Howdy DonQ,

There is no evidence as far as I know that Islamic people are imperialistic and we have touched on this previously. They are militant in defence, and multi-national in doing so as we have seen in Afghanistan. Did catholics poor in from all over the world
to join the IRA, only their money?
The crunch that has come upon Islam is the lion campaign to break up culture for a new world order, if he can get Islam to war
against the so-called christian world, so much the better. With the drawing out of the rape of Iraq the "prophesy is self fulfilled"
not by Bin Laden but by the rise of anger from what the Zionists
prostitutes like Bush, Blair and Howard are doing. Terrorism will become another endless desease like aids also man made.
Theorectically Bin Laden could hand up his gun if the jungle become civilisation as it aught. I saw his disposition as being defensive. But then I dont believe anything published to date
about him. Some have claimed his mother is Jewish making him a Jew, with relatives in Israel. Since Israel has a reputation of being a safe haven for international criminals, perhaps thats where he lives.
In a no-lion world, a single Palestinian state, with equal rights for Jews and Arabs as it should have been, and as some are now promoting again, would become the solution. After that is where the origin of the modern day terrorism originates and the great war Bush has embarked on with no use-by date.

Your Haitian friend can only trust the principles and those who
claim to believe in them, and their "coop" of fellow reformers
should provide a solid alternative, unless the lion troops from the US etc fortify again the Lions prostitutes. Its up to peoples to respectively do their thing based on the same principles. Anyone
who tried to copy Switzerland exactly, for example would probably stuff it up. Which is why we say there needs to original
alternatives, although inspired by others, and competing
alternatives likewise will add another dimension to bottem-up
as opposed to the Lion type top-down regimes.
  • 0

#2707 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 09 May 2004 - 05:40 AM

<Your Haitian friend can only trust the principles and those who
claim to believe in them, and their "coop" of fellow reformers
should provide a solid alternative, unless the lion troops from the US etc fortify again the Lions prostitutes. Its up to peoples to respectively do their thing based on the same principles. Anyone
who tried to copy Switzerland exactly, for example would probably stuff it up. Which is why we say there needs to original
alternatives, although inspired by others, and competing
alternatives likewise will add another dimension to bottem-up
as opposed to the Lion type top-down regimes.>

That's exactly what I say: "Nevertheless, we should never follow neither anything nor anyone -including myself- blindly. And, of course, everything can be improved."

But once you expand the coop concept into the Swiss system the result will be something very different, better. Haitians though put all their hopes in Aristide, who as far as I know meant well, but who couldn't deliver. Of course, the lion took good care of drying his waterhole, a fact proven by the retention of any aid, etc. Meanwhile, the little people expected him to make the WATER WELL for them, but now they must realize they have to make it themselves. And that makes all the difference in the world.;)

http://webspawner.co...ers/donquijote1
  • 0

#2708 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 09 May 2004 - 06:08 AM

"If you come from the other end of the social scale, society offers no helping hand and judges you a failure in the jungle called the American Dream."

I'd put this together with the "believe or not" series...

<<<But it was Tony Blair's foreign policy adviser, Robert Cooper, who elevated double standards into a doctrine, declaring human rights are only for the civilised: "Among ourselves we keep the law but when operating in the jungle, we must also use the laws of the jungle.">>>

http://mathaba.net/x.htm?http://mathaba.net/0...x.shtml?x=48007

Though I'm not so sure that these lions know what's going on right in their own jungles...;)

The jungle called the American Dream

President Bush has told the Arab world that the actions of US soldiers in Iraqi prisons do not represent the America he knows. I believe him. We can be sure that the nation Bush knows is one of great wealth and privilege. His only contact with prisoners was from the remoteness of his office as governor of Texas, from where he never once showed mercy to the many, mainly poor and black, convicts passing through Death Row.

More to the point, what America do his soldiers know? A country with more guns than people v where more than 30,000 die by gunfire every year, with a further 65,000 injured. A greedy, gas-guzzling nation that produces 25% of the world's pollution yet refuses to join the international community in limiting damage to our planet. Worse, a nation that, whatever the window-dressing rhetoric about spreading democracy and threats to its freedom, will go to war to safeguard its access to oil. A country that beats its chest on the international stage, proclaiming might is right. If you're not with us, you're against us. If you're French and won't be bullied into being with us, you're a surrendering coward. This is a country where the richest of the rich will lie and cheat to get even richer. If you come from the other end of the social scale, society offers no helping hand and judges you a failure in the jungle called the American Dream.

There is no justification for torture and abuse of prisoners. But there are reasons. Is it any wonder that people from trailer parks and menial occupations, who all their lives have been classed as failures, corrupt their power when, for the first time, in a foreign land, power is handed to them? The attorney for one of the accused soldiers from Abu Ghraib jail is already using the defence of "only obeying orders".
-John McNeil, Greenpark, Charlotte Street, Helensburgh.

IT is too late for the White House coterie to make apologies for the actions of US troops and hired guns in Iraq. The main reason for the descent into a state of condemnation and outright disgust was due to the use of poorly-trained military personnel and private security contractors. The US government has employed 20,000 security guards and interrogators in Iraq. Owing to a protracted cost-cutting exercise, the number of private security contractors has risen, providing well-paid employment to large numbers of young, ex-army recruits; they can earn $100,000 a year.

Apparently, these contractors are not covered by any law, cannot be court-martialled by the military and have been excluded from Iraqi law by a special decree issued last June by the US governor of Iraq. Incredible as that is, it does allow them to be used by the US in dodgy operations, thus leaving the armed forces and CIA with clean hands, only this time they have been caught in the act. It is essential that an international standard of employment and the establishment of binding laws be formulated as a matter of priority to cover all the activities of these private security contractors.
-Ian F M Saint-Yves, Dunvegan, School Brae, Whiting Bay, Isle of Arran.

Lessons of 'prisoners' and 'guards' experiment

WHAT is particularly depressing about the brutality in Iraq is the reaction of the politicians. Mr Bush, who likes to lecture the world on justice, freedom and democracy, tells us that this is not what we do in America, it is not the American way. Nonsense. In Mr Bush's own lifetime there were great swathes of the US where black citizens were discriminated against, segregated, humiliated and sometimes murdered with impunity. Vietnam was terrorised by US planes that dropped more high explosives than were used throughout the Second World War, not to mention the napalm and the poisonous agent Orange. Guantanamo Bay gave us degrading images of hooded prisoners shackled hand and foot, kneeling in front of Uncle Sam's finest.

Bush and Blair and the other non-combatant pen-pushers and bean-counters would benefit from a brief study of the Stanford University experiment of 1971 where in a role-play groups of young men were divided into "prisoners" and "guards". The experiment, which was motivated by the litany of horrors revealed at the Nuremberg trials, was scheduled to run for two weeks but had to be abandoned after six days because of the developing mayhem. Although all knew it was a role-play, the guards had become autocratic and cruel while the prisoners grew more submissive and dejected. These were all white male US citizens without the stress, fear and anger generated in a theatre of war.

Nor should the UK seek the moral high ground. It was we who were responsible for the appalling Castlereagh detention centre in Northern Ireland and who introduced the inhuman and self-destructive internment without trial in that tragic province.
-Derrick White, Whetstone Training Consultancy, 5 Cove Farm, Cockburnspath.

http://www.theherald...ures/15611.html
  • 0

#2709 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 09 May 2004 - 07:34 AM

millions ''know".
  • 0

#2710 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 09 May 2004 - 09:01 AM

Howdy Woj:
The above gentleman, Polish Foreign Affairs minister from 1932 to 1939 said after the 1939-1945 war:
"The Vatican is one of the main causes of the tragedy of my country. I realised too late that we had pursued our foreign
politics just to serve the interests of the catholic Church"

Walsea probably knew or came to the same conclusion.

The quote from Col. Beck came from the book The Secret History of the Jesuits by Edmond Paris.
He starts his chapter on Poland and Russia: "Jesuit domination was nowhere as deadly as it was in Poland. This is proved by H Boehmer, a moderate historian who does not bear any systematic hostility towards the Society.
"The Jesuits were entirely (hes quoting Boehmer now) responsible for Polands annihilation. The accusation so worded is excessive. The decadence of the polish State had started before they came on the scene. But they undoubtedly hastened the kingdom's decomposition. In all the States, Poland, who had millions of orthodox christians in her midst, should have has religious tolerance as one of the most essential principles of her interior politics. The Jesuits did not allow that. They did worse: they put Polands exterior politics at the service of catholic interests ina fatal manner."

He then went on the quote Beck who experienced the same comclusion.
He went on to tell how the Jesuits seized on Grischka Ostrepjew
a defrocked monks claim to be Ivan the Terribles son Dimitri, got him married to daughter of Palatine of Sandomir, promoted to Sigimond 111 and the pope and finally gained the use of a Polish army to rise againstCzar Boris Godounov. The Russian orthodox disgust brought their venture to capture Russia to a massacre of Dimitri and several hundred Polish followers.
Boehmer had this to say as a result of this: "Until then, one could hardly speak of a Russian national sentiment; but now, this feeking was very strong and took immediately the form of a fanatical hatred for the Roman Catholic Church and Poland."
He went on the say:
"The alliance with Austria and the offensive politics of Sigimond 111 against the Turks, all of which were strongly encouraged by the Order, were just as disastrous for Poland. To put it briefly,
no other State suffered as much as Poland did under the Jesuit domination. And no other country, apart from Portugal, was the
Society so powerful. Not only did Poland have a 'King of Jesuits'
but also aJesuit King, Jean-Casimir, a sovereign who had belonged to the Order before his accession to the throne in 1649...
"While Poland was heading fast towards ruin, the number of Jesuit establishments and schools was growing so fast that the General (of the Jesuits- not in text) made Poland into a special congregation in 1751".

I take it Jean-Casimir became known as Sigimond 111, Woj.
Also in the book it is stated that Hitler appointed a lot of Jesuits to office.
  • 0

#2711 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 09 May 2004 - 09:49 AM

Bader; Cozy Vatican
  • 0

#2712 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 09 May 2004 - 11:30 AM

Bader; I take it Jean-Casimir became known as Sigimond 111, Woj.
No.
JanCasimir Vasa (1609-16720) elected king of Poland and Lithuania 1648-1660 king of Sweden 1648- 1660, married to Marie louise Gonzaga , abdicated in 1668 was son of Sigmunt III Vasa (Elected king of Poland and Lithuania)1587-1632, king of Sweden 1592-1604 married to Anna of Austria,
Sigmunt III Vasa was son of Gustavus I Vasa King of Sweden 1523-1560).

The Society of Jesus (the Jesuit order) provides their globalization politics very efficiently up to 1773, when was suppressed by the papacy. Unfortunately Jesuits order was re-establish and now attack in Philippines, Australia, Indians etc. as a missionaries.

Hitler as a Austrian might be a catholicso fact that Hitler appointed a lot of Jesuits to office might be the truth. During WWII , Pope was German and he blessed German soldiers, but Germans killed many catholic priests during war anyway. Many priests work for anti-German resistance.
I am not saying that regular priests are seeds of evil, I say it only about elite. .
  • 0

#2713 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 09 May 2004 - 11:48 AM

Donq; *President Bush has told the Arab world that the actions of US soldiers in Iraqi prisons do not represent the America he knows.*
Hitler also knows that regarding Germany. Therefore concentration camp were in majority outside Germans borders.
Second reason were the insurances. Hitler tried to make sure that murdered person wouldn
  • 0

#2714 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 09 May 2004 - 02:20 PM

<<<Donq; *President Bush has told the Arab world that the actions of US soldiers in Iraqi prisons do not represent the America he knows.*>>>

<Hitler also knows that regarding Germany. Therefore concentration camp were in majority outside Germans borders.
Second reason were the insurances. Hitler tried to make sure that murdered person wouldn-t become financial liability for German insurance companies if they die on German soil.
Some says that Bush creation prison in Guantanamo on Cuba, was for that same reason.>

Elementary, My Dear Watson...;)

And so Hitler could have said that the concentration camps were not the Germany he knew.:) But I don't think he bothered that much about camouflage. He was the lion in plain view--and paid the price.

Lions nowadays though make better use LIE-ON mask, as Bader pointed out. But the little animals are catching up with them...;)
  • 0

#2715 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 09 May 2004 - 02:44 PM

<Donq; bin Laden is not world people trouble, he is people hope. bin Laden is sort of improved edition of Jesus Christ. People are not against violence with criminal power.>

I doubt it. Far from it, terror makes the lion stronger...;)

Capitalist terror and madness:
George bin Laden & Osama son of Bush incorporated.

There are good reasons to begin talking about terror as such and within a global context. To a large extent terror can also be viewed apart from whatever motives that may hide behind particular expressions of it, or whether it is carried out of states or not. If the end result is the same, in both a shorter and longer term perspective, such distinctions become less important. Which does not mean we should overlook the question of ideological legitimisation It is no coincidence that terror has formed such a central part within fascist movements. Nor that words such as class are absent in Osama bin Laden's as well as George Bush's legitmisation of terror.

Terror has a long history in the service of counter-revolution, and will always work towards undermining the very foundations of a new, free, postcapitalist, society, or even one where forces of death, oppression and exploitation are significantly weakened. The Red Terror orchestrated by the Bolsheviks, directed against, they claimed, the old rulling classes, had essentially two effects, apart from that of immediate, indiscriminate death. It brought into existence the repressive forces of the new state which were again redireced against the workers and peasants, and served as the most "vital" recruiting ground for the White Army (or armies). For the rest of the Civil War period, the terror within these two armies, combined with and constituted a precondition for the terror directed against workers, and even more so against the peasants masses. This produced an even greater army of deserters, but also a situation where two camps, becoming increasingly indistinguisable from each other, in effect recruited solidiers for the other side. The Red Army victory was finalised through a massive war against the peasantry and the working class, and the greatest famine that the Russian Empire, had seen. 5 million starved to death. Further down this historical blind alley, followed the rule of Stalin.

Terror can be reduced to the following: To rule through fear. The target is not the persons directly hit but those who fear they might be the next. Thus the more indiscriminate the better. Terror produces or reinforces counter-terror, and imposes internal terror in both camps. In the late Yugoslavia, this Rule was played out as civil war. On another level, in Northern Ireland, the sectarian killings are not only in themselves a manifestion of terror but also its trueborn children. While having roots and precendents further back in Irish history, organisational terror of more recent date have been effective in reproducing this madness. Any terror group, even those who start out with social revolutionary pretensions, will tend to reproduce the state from within, as well as reinforcing the one whose power they set out to "ex-terminate;" a favorite expression of Lenin, who tended to confuse social relations with biology.

more...

http://www.struggle....mwt/terror.html
  • 0

#2716 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 09 May 2004 - 09:04 PM

Donq; *terror makes the lion stronger*

Not necessary , as far I know, France left Algeria because Muslim terrorism was very efficient. And now Muslims and France are good friends and business partners.
  • 0

#2717 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 10 May 2004 - 04:55 AM

Howdy guys
The following is a note of a brave, honest American, Michael Moore. "Bowling for Columbine" is one of the best indictments of America I've ever seen. And now this "Fahrenheit 9/11" promises to be just as good. It names the Saudis in partnership and collusion with America. Is he trying to say they are the "puppeteer"? Or is it a combination of Saudi-Jew-American puppeteers? Or, as one friend put it to me today, is it simply money?:confused:

***

Friends,

Below you will find today's New York Times Editorial. Please pass it around.

Thanks for all of your letters of support. No news to report today, hopefully tomorrow.

Yours,

Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com

May 6, 2004 v Editorial, New York Times

Disney's Craven Behavior

Give the Walt Disney Company a gold medal for cowardice for blocking its Miramax division from distributing a film that criticizes President Bush and his family. A company that ought to be championing free _expression has instead chosen to censor a documentary that clearly falls within the bounds of acceptable political commentary.

The documentary was prepared by Michael Moore, a controversial filmmaker who likes to skewer the rich and powerful. As described by Jim Rutenberg yesterday in The Times, the film, "Fahrenheit 9/11," links the Bush family with prominent Saudis, including the family of Osama bin Laden. It describes financial ties that go back three decades and explores the role of the government in evacuating relatives of Mr. bin Laden from the United States shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The film was financed by Miramax and was expected to be released this summer.

Mr. Moore's agent said that Michael Eisner, Disney's chief executive, had expressed concern that the film might jeopardize tax breaks granted to Disney for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Jeb Bush is governor. If that is the reason for Disney's move, it would underscore the dangers of allowing huge conglomerates to gobble up diverse media companies.

On the other hand, a senior Disney executive says the real reason is that Disney caters to families of all political stripes and that many of them might be alienated by the film. Those families, of course, would not have to watch the documentary.

It is hard to say which rationale for blocking distribution is more depressing. But it is clear that Disney loves its bottom line more than the freedom of political discourse.

http://www.nytimes.c...&partner=GOOGLE
  • 0

#2718 Pliny

Pliny

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3587 posts

Posted 10 May 2004 - 05:32 AM

I really don't like Michael Moore too much. he recognizes there are problems in America, right enough, but thinks Bush and the Republicans are the source.

I believe the problems are a little more systemic than that.

You know, I've always enjoyed the Republican political rhetoric and platitudes when they are not in office but when they are they seem to fall far short of the mark in their actions and it greatly disappoints me.

I've got both of Michael Moore's latest books. I'm having trouble getting through one of them. I get tired of him pointing fingers in the same direction and suggesting if we just change the personnel and boost the power of government a bit things will be all-l-l--ll right!!!

He's a buffoon.
  • 0

#2719 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 10 May 2004 - 09:22 AM

<I really don't like Michael Moore too much. he recognizes there are problems in America, right enough, but thinks Bush and the Republicans are the source.

I believe the problems are a little more systemic than that.>

Howdy Pliny
I know they run much deeper. Perhaps he's limited by the political forces available--which amount to the same thing. The jungle is meant to keep on going with little challenge from either the lions or foxes.

<You know, I've always enjoyed the Republican political rhetoric and platitudes when they are not in office but when they are they seem to fall far short of the mark in their actions and it greatly disappoints me.>

Thank God I never have a problem with that...;)

<I've got both of Michael Moore's latest books. I'm having trouble getting through one of them. I get tired of him pointing fingers in the same direction and suggesting if we just change the personnel and boost the power of government a bit things will be all-l-l--ll right!!!

He's a buffoon. >

But a buffoon that makes people think, and that's dangerous to the jungle. His movie "Bowling for Columbine" does a beautiful job at depicting violence in America. Now talking about such a taboo as Saudi Arabia takes courage. Bringing the subject of complicity between an autocratic goverment and a democratic government over oil should make people stop and think about hypocrisy. I think Saudi Arabia must be the puppeteer or part of it because of the secrecy about it. And besides nobody is saying that "saving gas is patriotic," which could hurt business...;)
  • 0

#2720 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 10 May 2004 - 09:38 AM

"Never tell the public how business is done here, never let them have a peek at the man behind the curtain."

Yeap, he's allowing us a rare glimpse into the guy behind the curtain, the puppeteer...;)

And besides it provides us with a good view at "freedom" in America...

"Eisner told my agent that he did not want to anger Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida."

A good question would be, "WHY are they worried about?"

***

When You Wish Upon A Star... by Michael Moore

May 7th, 2004

Friends,

Thank you for all the incredible letters of support as my film crew and I once again slog our way through the corporate media madhouse. Does it ever end? Are we ever going to get control of our "free press" again? Can you wish upon a star?

The Disney spin machine has been working overtime dealing with this censorship debacle of theirs. I don't think they thought they would ever be outed. After all, they know that all of us are supposed to adhere to the unwritten Hollywood Code: Never tell the public how business is done here, never let them have a peek at the man behind the curtain.

Disney has been hoping for nearly a year that they could keep this thing quiet. As I promised on Wednesday, here are the details behind my sordid adventure with the Magic Kingdom:

In April of 2003, I signed a deal with Miramax, a division of the Walt Disney Co., to finance and distribute my next movie, Fahrenheit 9/11. (The original financier had backed out; I will tell that story at a later date.) In my contract it is stated that Miramax will distribute my film in the U.S. through Disney's distribution arm, Buena Vista Distribution. It also gives Miramax the rights to distribute and sell the movie around the world.

A month later, after shooting started, Michael Eisner insisted on meeting with my agent, Ari Emanuel. Eisner was furious that Miramax signed this deal with me. According to Mr. Emanuel, Eisner said he would never let my film be distributed through Disney even though Mr. Eisner had not seen any footage or even read the outline of the film. *Eisner told my agent that he did not want to anger Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida. The movie, he believed, would complicate an already complicated situation with current and future Disney projects in Florida, and that many millions of dollars of tax breaks and incentives were at stake*.:confused:

But Michael Eisner did not call Miramax and tell them to stop my film. Not only that, for the next year, SIX MILLION dollars of DISNEY money continued to flow into the production of making my movie. Miramax assured me that there were no distribution problems with my film.

But then, a few weeks ago when Fahrenheit 9/11 was selected to be in the Cannes Film Festival, Disney sent a low-level production executive to New York to watch the film (to this day, Michael Eisner has not seen the film). This exec was enthusiastic throughout the viewing. He laughed, he cried and at the end he thanked us. *"This film is explosive," he exclaimed, and we took that as a positive sign. But "explosive" for these guys is only a good word when it comes to blowing up things in movies. OUR kind of "explosive" is what they want to run from as fast as they can*.;)

Miramax did their best to convince Disney to go ahead as planned with our film. Disney contractually can only stop Miramax from releasing a film if it has received an NC-17 rating (ours will be rated PG-13 or R).

According to yesterday's New York Times, the issue of whether to release Fahrenheit 9/11 was discussed at Disney's board meeting last week. It was decided that Disney should not distribute our movie.

Earlier this week we got the final, official call: Disney will not put out Fahrenheit 9/11. When the story broke in the New York Times, Disney, instead of telling the truth, turned into Pinocchio.

Here are my favorite nuggets that have come out of the mouths of their spinmeisters (roughly quoted):

"Michael Moore has known for a year that we will not distribute this movie, so this is not news." Yes, that is what I thought, too, except Disney kept sending us all that money to make the movie. Miramax said there was no problem. I got the idea that everything was fine.

"It is not in the best interests of our company to distribute a partisan political film that may offend some of our customers." Hmmm. Disney doesn't distribute work that has partisan politics? Disney distributes and syndicates the Sean Hannity radio show every day? I get to listen to Rush Limbaugh every day on Disney-owned WABC. I also seem to remember that Disney distributed a very partisan political movie during a Congressional election year, 1998?a film called The Big One... by, um... ME!

"Fahrenheit 9/11 is not the Disney brand; we put out family oriented films." So true. That's why the #1 Disney film in theaters right now is a film called, KILL BILL, VOL. 2. This excellent Miramax film, along with other classics like Pulp Fiction, have all been distributed by Disney. That's why Miramax exists -- to provide an ALTERNATIVE to the usual Disney fare. And, unless they were NC-17, Disney has distributed them.

"Mr. Moore is doing this as a publicity stunt." Michael Eisner reportedly said this the other day while he was at a publicity stunt cutting the ribbon for the new "Tower of Terror" ride (what a pleasant name considering what the country has gone through recently) at Disney's California Adventure Park. Let me tell you something: NO filmmaker wants to go through this kind of controversy. It does NOT sell tickets (I can cite many examples of movies who have had to change distributors at the last minute and all have failed). I made this movie so people could see it as soon as possible. This is a huge and unwanted distraction. I want people discussing the issues raised in my film, not some inside Hollywood fracas surrounding who is going to ship the prints to the theaters. Plus, *I think it is fairly safe to say that Fahrenheit 9/11 has a good chance of doing just fine, considering that my last movie set a box office record and the subject matter (Bush, the War on Terror, the War in Iraq) is at the forefront of most people's minds*.

So what will happen to my movie? I still don't know. What I do know is that I will make sure all of you see it by hook or crook. We are Americans. There are a lot of screwed up things about us right now, but one thing that most of us have in common is that we don't like someone telling us we can't see something. We despise censors, and the worst censors are those who would dare to limit thoughts and ideas and silence dissent. THAT is un-American. *If I have to travel across the country and show it in city parks (or, as one person offered yesterday, to show it on the side of his house for the neighborhood to see), that is what I will do*.

More to come, stay tuned.

Yours,

Michael Moore
http://www.michaelmoore.com
mmflint@aol.com
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru