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

#4581 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 11 December 2004 - 05:13 PM

My dear Isidoro
>I like you. You're a good natured fellow. Sure, I've heard of Jose Marti. Through Pete Seeger. Guantanamera, the song/poem. In some circles it's sung as "One ton tomato, I ate a one ton tomato..."<

Thanks. You are too, otherwise we'd talking here about blowing up the stupid lion.;)

Marti is a very curious case. He was a man with deep philosophy and yet chose to fight the lion at hand--Spain--and died in the very first battle. He once wrote "God is Truth," meaning he's one of those rare honest people with the power to write and change things, and chose to die in a heroic if stupid way. He said this though, which to me is a pretty accurate picture of Good and Evil...

"The world is divided into two camps: all who abhor freedom, because they only want it for themselves, are in one; those who love freedom, and want it for all, are in another"
-Jose Marti (1853-95)

>I guess we have been heading into some pretty deep philosophical territory, or at least I have been in my own head. This question of evil is pretty philosophical. On the one hand I agree that there is "evil" in the world but on the other hand I know that this has to change and, in fact, is changing. The world view of polarity consciousness is definitely changing. It always begins with science, then the arts, then it filters down to the general public. The world view of polarity simply doesn't work anymore in the new physics. At the atomic and subatomic level there are no longer clear cut black and white certainties. This is related to our most basic myths-- free will, our whole conception of linear time, our word-built world. These concepts are coming apart at the seams.<

The concept of Evil-Good or lion-little animals, is not necessarily polar. I can be perfectly good today and tomorrow be placed in a situation of power and become an evil person. In the story of the Law of the Jungle, the monkey is enticed into becoming a lion, and he became a lion to all practical purposes. Chances are that, had he beat the lion--as it happens in revolution--he'd have become another lion. Conversely a bad lion could be tamed by outside circumstances, that don't allow him to prey at will. I don't assume that all lion are bad or even that they were born that way. I have an example at hand. Scandinavian lions have become tamed to such extent that they can hardly be called predators. Not much in common with, say, Colombia...

But even in these conditions of tough Law of the Jungle--kill or be killed--situations, there's an strategy we can follow without blowing the beast. SEPARATION, yes, if there's situations of conflict, separation is in order. Let the lion be a lion, and look for you own space among the little animals, and get together in cooperatives. If you get attacked, well, don't be surprised, but be aware of what you are up against. A lion who HATES COMPETITION.

>I have a lot of faith in the idea that we truly create our own reality. I think the most subversive thing we can do is to stop watching the mass media. Even if we think there is an unbaiased source,. we need to disconnect from it because all it will do is instill fear. And as long as we are afraid we won't be able to think clearly and create the reality we want. This may sound reasonable to some, wishful thinking to others but I maintain that these principles are universal. I'm certain that these "powers that be" know this principle well and employ it with great skill -- through the mass media. Then that becomes a self perpetuating fear machine as the independants report on all the atrocities. Isn't this what critical mass is all about? A world concensus that creates a reality? Then we truly do have the power to change things.<

Agreed. The media is the serpent at the service of the Evil. Ignore or tune into it--and laugh about it, because it's all a BIG SHOW. I sometimes do the latter, and have a lot of fun. "Democracy" in Iraq--or in America for that matter--is one of the funniest things I ever heard.

>That's why I feel so strongly about your myth about the lion. Our reality is rooted in our conceptions of the world. It springs from it. If that conception is based in victim consciousness, then that is what we will create, victims.<

We ARE victims at this point in time. We want to bike and save the environment, but the lion says "no." He's being Evil at this point in time. He's the STUPID HUNGRY LION now, more hungry than stupid, I'd say. Now if he were to go down--they all go down sooner or later--wouldn't mean the end of Evil. Quite possibly it would the beginning of new lions, perhaps worse.

So is there a hope? Yes, Scandinavia and a few other places show us that we can tame the beast if we are conscious of it, and know what we want, CHOICES being one of them.

So the "no lion no problem!" is not a campaign against a particular lion but a call for everlasting vigilance for the lion among us...

PS: Hey, nice story about Calixto. The lion killed him on the spot. Good to know, it adds to the crimes of the beast.:cool:
  • 0

#4582 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 11 December 2004 - 07:58 PM

Howdy DonQ:

I agree with Isidoro. People need to realise that they do have latent power that has been usurped by the system which is biased in favour of those who have a clear view of the reality that serves them, who realised it through orthodox systems and retain those interests and power. They win their reality by default.
Gulliver has to wake up, which they fear. So certain worker enterprises must be stiffled to prevent (competition) their 'reality' from being challenged by a truer reality that people working together can achieve more.
Notice the difference is that with coops the value and principles are informal and within (internal) the members and all social and material structures arise from the inner power (all based on a common concept of pro-social reality) where as the contrived phoney usurping reality has to depend on (after dupping the mass-power of the usurped) is external regimes achieved through formal factors such as laws, regulations, banking criteria etc through govt and international regimes through the international banks.
People should analys formal structures and propositions by these two contrasts- informal/internalised tending to move away from centralising power and the opposite of formal externalised and centralising power, because one tends towards freedom and the other either communism or fascism. Every youth should have this simple tool in their heads before they leave school.

AS I have said previously, agreeing with Isidoro, we should
embargo the media. If people want to take an exercise to demonstrate they can have power if they want to create reality
the media is an easy first target that will build pychological muscels which are the biggest nes missing. A media product can fall very quickly if its circulation drops because its overheads remain high and if its circulation drops so will its advertising income because big businesses wont waste money advertising where few people will see their ads.
Once people have digested that exercise they will be aware that
they can do the same to political parties. But they need to be aware they are playing with various lions menues and they might just touch some of their choice foods.
For political clout I would suggest a voters union who once they have numbers look for a strategic issue/place to exercise it, like the local or national reps who dont support the workers take over of the failed and empty businesses. When key players know their political office will close on them at the next election they seem to have a different point of view.
The Argeninian govt can grant interest free loans through its central bank and in the first three years claim a reapayment in lieu of taxes to help the new enterprise to get established and then start repayments and a graduating tax payment after three years. The new owners/members can take minimum wages and plough back into the businerss capital within the three years as well by which time it should be showing whether its a goer or not. If it is successful, they have a whole bunch of new tax payers, foreign currency from exports and less people dependant on govt welfare.
You can see the huge downside of the capitalist debt money system. They dont do anything, they only risk figers created out of thin air on paper but after everyone involved risks and looses their real capital the bankers can claim the machinery just to spite the ones who are prepapred to create a different self-initiative venture. They are protecting their power.
The answer is that sufficient numbers of Argentinians must put more pressure on a key or key (plural) persons than the banks
in the normal run of things, to get a breakthrough.
It goes without saying that any such voters union will be infiltrated and disgraced ior divided unless care is taken to keep all those in keys places clean and transparent.
Make no mistake THE PEOPLE ARE THE GOLD to back a
democratised financial and economic system. After all at the end of the day. no people no power, no profits
The reverse is No lion more people, more power to the people and more profits (revards) to the people.
The 'more people' factor is because without debt there is less need to have abortions, to have poisened food that shortens life, less need to work like slaves and die earlier than one should,
less likely to have pharmacutical cartels that drug people and poisen their systems making fortunes out of sickness,
less wars because every cant sell more and buy less to pay their debts so it leads to wars to capture resourses or extreme capitalisms freemarket to capture resurses without military wars.
All these things are the result of the debt money system. The list is not complete either.
  • 0

#4583 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 14 December 2004 - 02:29 AM

I'm quoting this article here, not because I endorse it, but because is very thought provoking. I leave it up to you to make the final judgement...;)


Today the real victims of Western anti-Semitism are Arabs and Muslims, argues Joseph Massad
December 13, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is much misunderstanding about the term "anti-Semitism" among Jews, Arabs, and European Christians. The term is bandied about as a description of attitudes deemed anti-Jewish, and on occasion anti-Arab, but much of its use is anachronistic and ahistorical. While Zionists and their supporters have been using the charge of anti-Semitism against any and all who oppose Israel and its policies, especially, although not exclusively, in the Arab World, Arabs have taken offense countering that they are "Semites" and therefore by definition cannot be "anti-Semitic". What are the merits of such arguments?

Perhaps some history will help: The term "Semite" was invented by European philologists in the 18th century to distinguish languages from one another by grouping them into "families" descended from one "mother" tongue to which they are all related. In this context, languages came to be organised into "Indo-European" and "Semitic", etc. The philologists claimed that Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, Amharic, etc., were "Semitic" languages, even though philologists could never find a parent Semitic language from which they all derived.

In the 19th century and with the rise of European biological racism, those who hated Jews could no longer rely on religious difference to mark out post- Enlightenment Jews as objects of their hatred. As religion was no longer part of the argumentation that could be used in a "rational and scientific" Europe, a new basis for the hatred of Jews had to be found. This did not mean however that certain religious ideas could not be rationalised. They often were. In keeping with the Protestant Reformation's abduction of the Hebrew bible into its new religion and its positing of modern European Jews as direct descendants of the ancient Hebrews, post- Enlightenment haters of Jews began to identify Jews as "Semites" on account of their alleged ancestors having spoken Hebrew. In fact the ancient Hebrews spoke Aramaic, the language in which the Talmud was written, as well as parts of the bible. Based on this new philological taxonomy and its correlate racial classifications in the biological sciences, Jews were endowed with this linguistic category that was soon transformed into a racial category. Accordingly, haters of Jews began to identify themselves as "anti-Semites". Thus the object of hatred of European anti-Semitism has always been European Jews.

The claims made by many nowadays that any manifestation of hatred against Jews in any geographic location on Earth and in any historical period is "anti-Semitism" smacks of a gross misunderstanding of the European history of anti- Semitism. While oppression of, discrimination against, and hatred of communities of Jews qua Jews are found in many periods of European history, the basis for this hatred is different from modern anti-Semitism, as its inspirational sources are not rational science and biology or Enlightenment philology, but religious and other political and economic considerations that scapegoated Jews. This may not be important for those who want only to produce a lachrymose history of European Jews, but it is crucial to the understanding of how the identities produced since the European Enlightenment are different from preceding periods, and that they function as new bases for nationalism, racism, oppression, discrimination, and liberation, and for the modern mechanisms put in place to institutionalise such identities and categories of humans.

The defensive claim made by some that Arabs cannot be "anti-Semitic" because they are "Semites" is equally erroneous and facile. First, I should state that I do not believe that anyone is a "Semite" any more than I believe anyone is an "Aryan", and I do not believe that Arabs or Jews should proudly declare that they are "Semites" because European racists classified them as such. But if the history of European Christian anti-Semitism is mostly a history targeting Jews as objects of discrimination and exclusion, the history of European Orientalism and colonialism is the one that targeted Arabs and Muslims, among many others. This does not mean that Arabs are not considered Semites by European racialist and philological classifications; they indeed are. Nor does this mean that much of the hatred of Arabs today is not derived from a prior anti- Semitism that targeted Jews. Indeed it is. The history of European Orientalism is one that is fully complicit with anti-Semitism from which it derives many of its representations of ancient and modern Arabs and of ancient Hebrews and modern Jews. As Edward Said demonstrated a quarter of a century ago in his classic Orientalism, "what has not been sufficiently stressed in histories of modern anti-Semitism has been the legitimation of such atavistic designations by Orientalism, and... the way this academic and intellectual legitimation has persisted right through the modern age in discussions of Islam, the Arabs, or the Near Orient." Said added: "The transference of popular anti-Semitic animus from a Jewish to an Arab target was made smoothly, since the figure was essentially the same." In the context of the 1973 War, Said commented that Arabs came to be represented in the West as having "clearly 'Semitic' features: sharply hooked noses, the evil moustachioed leer on their faces, were obvious reminders (to a largely non- Semitic population) that 'Semites' were at the bottom of all 'our' troubles."

to be continued...
  • 0

#4584 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 14 December 2004 - 02:30 AM

This is important, as many people in the Arab world and outside it think that European Jews are the ones who called themselves "Semites", rather than European Christian racists who invented the term. Of course this misunderstanding is understandable given the fact that Zionism, which adopted wholesale anti-Semitic ideologies, would also call Jews "Semites" and would begin to consider Jews as Semites racially from the late 19th century to the present. In this sense not only do many Arabs think that "Semites" is a Jewish-invented category but so do many European Jews who were (and in some contexts remain) victims of this anti-Jewish designation.

But this is different from the spurious claim that "Arabs cannot be anti-Semitic because they are Semites." There are Arabs today who are anti- Jewish, and they borrow their anti-Jewish rhetoric not from the Palestine experience but from European rhetorics of anti-Semitism. The point is that Arab Christians and Muslims can be anti-Jewish just as Jews can be, and American and Israeli Jews often are, anti-Arab racists, even though many among these Jews and Arabs use the category "Semite" for self-classification. Indeed a large and disproportionate number of the purveyors of anti- Arab racism in today's United States and Israel as well as in Western Europe are Jews. But there is also a disproportionate number of Jews among those who defend Arabs and Muslims against Euro- American and Israeli racism and anti-Semitism. The majority, however, of those who hate Arabs and Muslims in the West remain European and American Christians.

It is often pointed out by Zionists and their supporters that holocaust denial in the Arab world is the major evidence for "Arab anti-Semitism". I have written elsewhere how any Arab or Palestinian who denies the Jewish holocaust falls into the Zionist logic.

While holocaust denial in the West is indeed one of the strongest manifestations of anti-Semitism, most Arabs who deny the holocaust deny it for political not racist reasons. This point is even conceded by the anti-Arab and anti-Muslim Orientalist Bernard Lewis. Their denial is based on the false Zionist claim that the holocaust justifies Zionist colonialism. The Zionist claim is as follows: Since Jews were the victims of the holocaust, then they have the right to colonise Palestine and establish a Jewish colonial-settler state there. Those Arabs who deny the holocaust accept the Zionist logic as correct. Since these deniers reject the right of Zionists to colonise Palestine, the only argument left to them is to deny that the holocaust ever took place, which, to their thinking, robs Zionism of its allegedly "moral" argument. But the fact that Jews were massacred does not give Zionists the right to steal someone else's homeland and to massacre the Palestinian people. The oppression of a people does not endow it with rights to oppress others. If those Arab deniers refuse to accept the criminal Zionist logic that justifies the murder and oppression of the Palestinians by appealing to the holocaust, then these deniers would no longer need to make such spurious arguments. All those in the Arab world who deny the Jewish holocaust are in my opinion Zionists.

Anyone who believes in social justice and opposes racist oppression must be in solidarity with all holocaust victims, especially European Jews, 90 per cent of whom were exterminated by a criminal and genocidal regime. Such a person must equally be against the Zionist abduction of the holocaust to justify Israel's colonial and racist policies. The attempt by holocaust deniers to play down the number of holocaust victims is obscene, as whether one million or 10 million Jews were killed, the result is still genocide and this would never justify Israel's oppression of the Palestinians. Such obscene number games on the part of holocaust deniers are hardly different from Zionist Jewish denial of the Palestinian nakba and are also similar to the continued Zionist attempts to play down the number of Palestinian refugees. While the nakba and the holocaust are not equivalent in any sense, the logic of denying them is indeed the same. I should stress here that the Palestine Liberation Organisation and most Palestinian intellectuals have spoken and written since the 1960s of their solidarity with Jewish holocaust victims and have attacked those who deny it took place. Unlike the official and unofficial Israeli denial of the expulsion of the Palestinians and the numbers of the refugees, those who deny the holocaust among Palestinians have no position whatsoever inside the PLO nor any legitimacy among the Palestinian intelligentsia.

Today we live in a world where anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hatred, derived from anti-Semitism, is everywhere in evidence. It is not Jews who are being murdered by the thousands by Arab anti- Semitism, but rather Arabs and Muslims who are being murdered by the tens of thousands by Euro- American Christian anti-Semitism and by Israeli Jewish anti-Semitism. If anti-Semites posited Jews as the purveyors of corruption, as financier bankers who control the world, as violent communist subversives, and as poisoners of Christian wells, the Arab and the Muslim today are seen as in control of the oil market and therefore of the global financial market, the purveyors of hatred and corruption of civilised Christian and Jewish societies, as violent terrorists, and as possible mass murderers, not with some Semitic Jewish poison but with Semitic Arab nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons (which are nowhere to be found). Thus Michael Moore feels vindicated in telling us in his recent film, Fahrenheit 9/11, about the portion of the American economy controlled by Saudi money while neglecting to mention the much, much larger American share of the Saudi economy. Anti- Semitism is alive and well today worldwide and its major victims are Arabs and Muslims and no longer Jews. The fight should indeed be against all anti-Semitism no matter who the object of its oppression is, Arab or Jew.

* Joseph Massad teaches modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University in New York.

http://mparent7777.b...read/957241.htm
  • 0

#4585 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 15 December 2004 - 12:52 AM

This Massad article is so full of holes.
He doesnt acknowledge the fifty years of biased Jewish press that has the Israelis the poor circled wagon defendants and the Arabs Jew-hating religious fanatics.
The Zionists have brought the world to the brink of world war three
which could be argued has already started. No one will love them for that. If you dont turn a blind eye you hate them, is merely nazi-type control on freedom of speach and information.
Its also racist given it is exclusive to them.
The Jews and Americans are both in the same crisis and if they do not get their houses in order it will cost them big time. Ask the Germans and the Russians.
  • 0

#4586 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 15 December 2004 - 03:01 AM

Originally posted by Bader
This Massad article is so full of holes.
He doesnt acknowledge the fifty years of biased Jewish press that has the Israelis the poor circled wagon defendants and the Arabs Jew-hating religious fanatics.
The Zionists have brought the world to the brink of world war three
which could be argued has already started. No one will love them for that. If you dont turn a blind eye you hate them, is merely nazi-type control on freedom of speach and information.
Its also racist given it is exclusive to them.
The Jews and Americans are both in the same crisis and if they do not get their houses in order it will cost them big time. Ask the Germans and the Russians.



OK, I said it's thought provoking...

But if Israel was able to play the victim was because initially they had WWII behind them and it took a while to be recognized for for the new lion. And the fact that the "bad indians" were willing to surround their wagons with bows and arrows strenghtened the case of the "good cowboys," and allowed for good Hollywood show. The fact that that the cowboys stole the land from the indians was never mentioned. Surely an oversight.;)

The best strategy, IMHO, is make a list of what you are fighting for, JUSTICE, RIGHTS, LAND, whatever, and make your case before the international community. If that doesn't work, then, well, many people are asking for boycott. Don't feed the lion!:cool:

NONVIOLENCE IS THE WAY TO GO!


Abbas Calls for End of Armed Uprising
By RAVI NESSMAN, Associated Press Writer

JERUSALEM - Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader campaigning to succeed Yasser Arafat (news - web sites) in elections next month, said in an interview published Tuesday that the 4-year-old armed uprising against Israel was a mistake and must end.

His strong statement, which could cost him some electoral support, sent a challenge to militants who have been waging war with suicide attacks and ambushes; it also set the stage for a resumption of peace efforts if he wins.

In an interview with the London-based Arabic newspaper Asharq al-Awsat, Abbas said Palestinians should resist Israeli occupation, but only through nonviolent means.

"The uprising is a legitimate right of the people to express their rejection of the occupation by popular and social means," Abbas said. "Using the weapons was harmful and has got to stop."

At a news conference in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, Abbas said armed attacks could damage peace moves.

"We, at this stage, are against the militarization of the intefadeh (uprising) because we want to negotiate. And because we want to negotiate, the atmosphere should be calm in preparation for political action," Abbas said. "That's why we have frankly called for ... an end to the militarization of the intefadeh."

While Arafat was alive, Abbas mainly saved his criticism of the armed uprising for private conversations. When he publicly expressed his belief during the launch of the U.S.-backed "road map" peace plan in 2003, he drew sharp condemnation at home.

Uprising leader Marwan Barghouti's withdrawal from the Jan. 9 presidential elections has left Abbas the clear front-runner, giving him more leeway to risk alienating some potential voters in exchange for laying the groundwork for rapid post-election peace moves.

And many Palestinians --while supporting militant attacks that have killed more than 1,000 Israelis, many of them civilians-- have tired of a conflict that has crushed their economy and killed more than 3,000 of their people.

Abbas, a pragmatist who has the quiet support of Israel and the international community, has been working to persuade militant groups to halt attacks.

In Washington, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the Bush administration welcomes Abbas' call for an end to violence.

"We remain focused on working toward a strategy that will put in place the institutions necessary for a viable state to emerge. But fighting terrorism and putting in a unified security force are key to those efforts," McClellan said.

Israel has said violence must end before peace talks can resume and has held out the prospect of coordinating its planned withdrawal from Gaza and four West Bank settlements with the new Palestinian leadership if it quells violence.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) refused to negotiate with Arafat, who died Nov. 11, accusing him of fomenting violence.

Israel also said that if the Palestinians reorganize their security services, it would be willing to give them control over large areas of Gaza and parts of the West Bank, even before the pullout next year.

Abbas told Asharq al-Awsat that Palestinian security is badly disorganized.

"Frankly, the Palestinian (security) apparatus needs discipline. There is security chaos, that's why we're demanding and are seeking to unify the security apparatus," he said.

Abbas also said he was in talks with the militant Islamic groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad to bring them into the PLO, an umbrella group for Palestinian parties.

Abbas' efforts to broker a cease-fire suffered a setback Sunday when militants killed five soldiers in a blast on the Gaza-Egypt border.

Militants have also fired rockets and mortar barrages at settlements in Gaza in the last week. One shell hit a greenhouse in the Ganei Tal settlement in southern Gaza on Tuesday, killing a Thai worker, rescue workers said.

Israel's response to the violence has been relatively muted. Israel has targeted militants with small raids, and military officials said Tuesday that Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz ordered the army to step up targeted attacks on Palestinians responsible for digging tunnels, which are used to smuggle weapons from Egypt and to burrow under military outposts in preparation for attacks.

Also Tuesday, Israeli troops shot three Palestinian security officers, wounding two and killing one, in the southern Gaza town of Rafah, Palestinian medical officials said. They said Samir Khafaja, 27, was walking in the street when Israeli forces on the border with Egypt fatally shot him. The army said it opened fire on three suspicious figures crawling near the border.

Late Tuesday, troops entered the West Bank city of Ramallah to arrest a senior official from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the army said. The soldiers shot and wounded the official, Salah Ali, as he tried to flee and took him to a hospital, the army said.

Israeli troops demolished eight homes in the Khan Younis refugee camp Tuesday, saying militants used the area as a staging ground for mortar attacks. Troops in the West Bank city of Hebron demolished two houses belonging to Hamas members and sealed the office of an Islamic charity accused of aiding militants and their families.
  • 0

#4587 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 15 December 2004 - 06:03 PM

Howdy DonQ:

Abbas is a new actor on stage. He will do the about turn like Sharon. Its the Middle East Market to be dominated by the Israelis and maybe the Hashimite Royals. They have has a Hasimite King in Iraq before havent they, may try again to keep the peace between the three main groups who will not work together.
Plus they want to make Jerusalem an international city and there must be 'peace' first. Thats why Peres is there now.
The Pope is coming.
  • 0

#4588 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 16 December 2004 - 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Bader
Howdy DonQ:

Abbas is a new actor on stage. He will do the about turn like Sharon. Its the Middle East Market to be dominated by the Israelis and maybe the Hashimite Royals. They have has a Hasimite King in Iraq before havent they, may try again to keep the peace between the three main groups who will not work together.
Plus they want to make Jerusalem an international city and there must be 'peace' first. Thats why Peres is there now.
The Pope is coming.



Howdy Bader
Oh, he may also be part of the puppet show, but remember that at least the little people won't be dying while others get fat. The main thing is the water well, which I don't think they got a clue where it is. They'll probably provide cheap labor to the lion in the meantime.

Hey, another friend that joins the lion chase...;)

Howdy Andy

>I'm glad you liked the article. Your lion metaphor is interesting. Are you by any chance a fan of Nietzsche, or maybe of Marcos's writings?<

They sound familiar...;)

But no, I think Orwell impressed me quite a bit with Animal Farm. I know I can reach the Proles with them, and that makes me happy. Many other sources as well, and of course, Don Quixote...

>I also think perhaps that the lions are so strong, partly because it's not just that they control and attack - it's also that a lot of those who are beneath them, WANT to be dominated by someone strong. So the trick is not just to deal with the lions, but also to deal with the people who think they need the lions to protect them from the wolves... or from the other lions... or from themselves.<

Well, the lion hands out the scraps in order to insure loyalty from the foxes, hyenas, snakes and even rats. Of course, the sheep are pretty indifferent, perhaps thinking they got no choice. My stories give them a jolt though, I hope enough to change things. Still many remain loyal to the lion...

HOW THE BLACK SHEEP WERE EXPELLED

One day the Lion, who had been thinking how to best eat the sheep, decided to dress as a sheep... This way the sheep trusted the new "sheep" more and more every day, some confessing to him, others voting for him, and most allowing to be trimmed by him...

Meanwhile, the Black Sheep--who was able to see through camouflage--thought this way: "If he got big paws and teeth, roars, and takes the lion's share, lion he is..."

And that's the reason why from then on the Black Sheep weren't allowed to mingle anymore with the simple and common sheep...

>I also remember another little fable - the woodcutter wanted to take a tree, and the trees thought, that's OK, we can afford to lose one tree, and then he'll leave us alone. So they let him take a tree. And he went away and made from that tree, an axe. And then he came back and chopped down all the other trees. Very relevant today I think.

Andy.<

Very appropriate. They think that the lion will go away for a while ignoring that he only gets stronger all the time.

Look at what happened to this parrot...

THE PARROT THAT KNEW HOW TO ROAR

Once upon a time, in the deep jungle, there was a Parrot whose capacity to mimic others impressed everybody. One day, observing that all the little animals panicked when the King of the Jungle roared, and fearing for his own life, he learned to roar himself... It occurred to him that he could form an alliance with the Lion and partake of his feasts, and even, why not, be revered like a king...

One time, however, the Lion--who happened to be running out of little animals to hunt and was mighty hungry--noticed the Parrot, and roared: "You are exactly what you I'm looking for!" and gulped him down--amid the bird's cries of, "I'm a lion too!"
  • 0

#4589 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 16 December 2004 - 01:12 PM

>>valerie and michael <entropy4@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry I did not know you were passing on an article.
Still I think my points stand. Language is important. It is important
to say what we mean. If we invent new meanings for existing words then
it most likely leads to confusion. I have problems with primitivists
spreading ideas over the internet - seems to me like a contradiction.
I have problems with people trying to establish purist definitions
that exclude most people (who have credit accounts for example). They
might establish themselves as holier than the rest of us but really to
what purpose? We all know that survival in this world involves some
complicity. So what. The problem is to change it not to save our souls
through our purity. The issue raised was not that western civilisation
was the dominant one but that it was worse than other preindustrial
civilisations. As you say this was not true. That it is dominant is a
different point. Important but different.<


Howdy
I'm not so sure you are addressing me, but I like to make a point: I make a distinction not between credit-card holders and not, but between the ones that are for CHANGE and not.

If we live in the jungle (pardon my colorful language) we may use the tools of the jungle. But if you are for ending the jungle, and all the hierarchy and injustice it entails, then you are a truly progressist person.

Oh, by the way, the lion and his Law of the Jungle are very "primitivist.";)
  • 0

#4590 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 16 December 2004 - 01:51 PM

"The Itar-Tass news service estimates that some $10
million were necessary to support the two-week mass
demonstrations alone: rock concerts, entertainments,
food supplies, shelters, etc."

Howdy Bader
Ukrania looks like a big Christmas party. I'm afraid we just missed another of those puppet shows. I wished it came to a theater near me.;)

Anyway this article (though with communist slant) tells us some interesting facts about the other pacifist revolutions that came before. Now they have joined the ranks of "freedom," if still asking, "where is it?":confused:


The Face of Imperialism: Ukraine
Louise Michel, MLToday
December 14, 2004

(snip)

After the defeat of US imperialism in Vietnam,
enlightened liberals and most of the political left
expressed revulsion and embarrassment at US arrogance
towards the rest of the world.

And then the Soviet Union and Eastern European
socialism collapsed.

Suddenly, the US, its European co-imperialists, and
the US-dominated UN became a great force for
democratic change and human rights! It was as though
the US ruling class found a new religion after the
only countervailing force dissolved. The arrogant and
rapacious imperialism of the past was --we were told--
happily and voluntarily replaced with a profound
commitment to freedom by such paragons of virtue and
compassion as Clinton, Albright, Bush, and Powell.

With the rubber stamp of handpicked UN leaders, the US
returned to the imperial tasks of reshaping the world,
particularly progressive and socialist countries.
Shockingly, most liberals and a shameful section of
the left hailed the democratic mission of the US as it
exploited ethnic divisions and backwardness to break
up the formerly socialist Yugoslavia. Privatization
and plunder came under the banners of democracy and
human rights, enforced with NATO air strikes. Today,
this area is reduced to ethnically cleansed,
economically primitive backwaters, begging for crumbs
from the imperial table.

But if these maneuvers fooled some of our comrades on
the left, the various "revolutions" --velvet,
peaceful, rose, and, now, orange-- truly baffled them.
The scenes of massive demonstrations, the cries of
electoral fraud, and the earnest faces of young
students in Belgrade, Tbilisi, and today, Kiev, prove
too seductive for many to see the hidden hand of
imperialism. Like the Cold War uprisings in Poland and
Czechoslovakia that preceded them, these movements
were portrayed by the capitalist press as spontaneous
organizations of selfless, freedom-loving idealist
seeking their liberation from left or
independent-minded tyrants.

The truth, however, is very different.

As Greg Godwin wrote in the People's Weekly World
after last year's November 23 coup in Georgia
("Imperialism Behind the Coup in Georgia"), "Amid
charges of electoral fraud generated by US and NGO
exit polls, the opposition sprung into action. Since
February, they had been studying the tactics employed
to depose Milosevic in the former Yugoslavia.
Thousands of students were trained by Serbian
activists who had been imported by the opposition.
When the elections were challenged, the Georgian
students were activated, becoming --as The Wall Street
Journal so aptly stated-- the 'foot soldiers of the
opposition politicians'."

Godwin explained how George Soros --the Democratic
Party's favorite billionaire-- funded the softening up
process through his (sic) Open Society Institute, just
as he did in Eastern Europe before the fall of the
Soviet Union. The Agency for International
Development's money, and the efforts of the (sic)
Liberty Institute, "served as a cover for organizing
opposition to the government and for furthering
Western interests."

Another writer, Mark Almond, writing in the UK's The
Guardian ("The Price of People Power," 12/07/04)
affirms that these "revolutions" are "more about
closing things than creating an open society." "It
shuts down factories but, worse still, minds. Its
advocates demand a free market in everything --except
opinion. The current ideology of New World Order
ideologues, many of whom are renegade communists, is
Market-Leninism --that combination of a dogmatic
economic model with Machiavellian methods to grasp the
levels of power."

Almond should know, since he confesses to being "an
old cold war swag man, who carried tens of thousands
of dollars to Soviet-bloc dissidents." "I should have
recognized the symptoms of corruption earlier," he
admits. "Back in the 1980s, our media portrayed Prague
dissidents as selfless academics who were reduced to
poverty for their principles, when they were in fact
receiving $600-monthly stipends. Now they sit in the
front row of the new Euro-Atlantic ruling class."

(snip)

Matt Kelley of the Associated Press, in an article
appearing on December 11, 2004, contends that the US
government has spent more than $65 million in the last
two years in support of the Ukrainian opposition. He
cites the underwriting of the inflammatory exit polls
and the subsidizing of a visit by Yushchenko to the US
to meet with leaders here as examples of the uses of
this largesse. His sources place this expenditure in
the context of a US budget of over $1 billion per year
to promote the imperial mission. Kramer's claims
confirm Leicht's citing of the activities of the
Eurasia Foundation, the International Republican
Institute (a funnel for $25.9 million), the Agency for
International Development and a front called the
Center for Political and Legal Reform that proclaims a
partnership with Yushchenko's web site.

The Itar-Tass news service estimates that some $10
million were necessary to support the two-week mass
demonstrations alone: rock concerts, entertainments,
food supplies, shelters, etc. To put some perspective
on these sums, the chairman of the Ukrainian Central
Election Commission, Sergei Kivalov, asserts that $2
million was the maximum legally allowed expenditure on
the first two rounds of the election. That renders
laughably cynical the statement by the head of the
International Republican Institute, Lorne Craner, that
"There is this myth that the Americans go into a
country and, presto, you get a revolution."

(snip)
  • 0

#4591 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 16 December 2004 - 06:01 PM

Originally posted by TDPushkin
______________________

"There is this myth that the Americans go into a
country and, presto, you get a revolution."
________________________

Yes you do get a revolution some good some bad

Pinochet or allawi...



The "democratic" candidate manufacturing is in full swing. Gone are the days of Pinochet, welcome to DEMOCRACY LAND, the latest theme park. You only got to cast a vote to get admitted.;)
  • 0

#4592 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 17 December 2004 - 07:02 AM

The best democreacy that money can buy.

It was pretty obvious when people 'camped' for days and weeks
in protest in a country where people wouldnt have the means to such luxury as persuing political hobbies and not going to work
or studies.

Obviously it cant last even if they get in power is likely to be what many might think. Not so. Once they get their hands on the levers of power the rules will change and the money will change.

It will be tax money.

Some war on terror isnt it? Its the last days of freedom.
The cockoo has taken over the US nest.
  • 0

#4593 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 17 December 2004 - 07:16 AM

The Left were the first to be fooled, they capitulated to globalism
because it was the direct route to world govt driven by the bankers debt money system. Lenins goal was world wide centralised democracy and that is what the article
"The Face of Imperialism: Ukraine" is about. Lenin was manager of a bankers creation in Russia. The word communism and the word Jew were all but synominous. Rabbi Wise said that Marxism
was Judaism.
World govt like the UN is a giant monster of bureaucracy. One of the by-products of free maket reforms is bureaucratic madness.
We can expect corporatism and communism together which equats with fascism. Global controls with everyone voting for 'Hobsons choice' (no option) like the US election making it centralised democracy is the fulfillment of Lenins dream ( well so the propoganda went).
  • 0

#4594 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 17 December 2004 - 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Bader
The Left were the first to be fooled, they capitulated to globalism
because it was the direct route to world govt driven by the bankers debt money system. Lenins goal was world wide centralised democracy and that is what the article
"The Face of Imperialism: Ukraine" is about. Lenin was manager of a bankers creation in Russia. The word communism and the word Jew were all but synominous. Rabbi Wise said that Marxism
was Judaism.
World govt like the UN is a giant monster of bureaucracy. One of the by-products of free maket reforms is bureaucratic madness.
We can expect corporatism and communism together which equats with fascism. Global controls with everyone voting for 'Hobsons choice' (no option) like the US election making it centralised democracy is the fulfillment of Lenins dream ( well so the propoganda went).



Yep, it all makes sense because the lion is basically NON-POLITICAL. How so? Well, he's a MONOPOLISTIC LION and the less his rule is challenged the better. Only puppet show among foxes every few years is allowed. The little animals then are rendered totally helpless.
  • 0

#4595 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 17 December 2004 - 01:31 PM

The Western media promotes "democracy" abroad while ignoring it at home. Likewise the sad state of affairs in many former communist countries is being ignored. Once they get the West's officially approved candidate in power, they'll be ignored the same way Romanians are.

(I recommend this magazine as a source of news: World Press Review. Some fresh viewpoints there outside the West's media lapdog job.);)

In Ukraine, a Franchised Revolution

K Gajendra Singh, Asia Times Online (English-language), Hong Kong, November 26, 2004

(fragment)

Western media, such as CNN and BBC, with anchors and often-biased experts, pounced on the story with an enthusiasm unseen since Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled in Baghdad. London's anti-Iraq war newspaper the Independent and the pro-war Telegraph excitedly declared a "revolution" in Ukraine. Across the Atlantic, the rightwing Washington Times welcomed "the people versus the power".

It is interesting that 2 million anti-war demonstrators who streamed though the streets of London against the war on Iraq in March 2003 were politically ignored, but some tens of thousands in central Kiev are proclaimed to be "the people," while the Ukrainian police, courts and governmental institutions are dubbed as instruments of oppression. Little notice was taken when opposition parties in Pakistan, in power in two provinces, protested against President General Pervez Musharraf, who reneged on his promise to the opposition to give up the all powerful post of army chief at the end of 2004. And the many thousands in the streets were also largely ignored.

This writer, who was posted in Bucharest in the early 1980s and has been based here for many years and was accredited to Azerbaijan in Caucasus in the mid-1990s, feels that after the collapse of the Soviet Union and former communist regimes in Europe, mostly money grabbing mafia-style leadership, supported by the West, have been thrown up as an alternative. They have built up massive nests in the West on which they then become dependent, like Russia's billion-dollar oligarchs, who also control "free media." Under the charade of globalization and economic laissez faire, hundreds of billions of US dollars have been transferred to Western banks and institutions, which have become debts for the hapless poor masses in these countries.

In Romania in 1989 there was a spontaneous uprising by students and people against the Nicolae Ceausescu regime, but it was taken over by old Communist Party nomenclature. In 1990, security officials of the old regime emerged as Romanian nationalists to provoke inter-ethnic riots with Hungarians in Tirgu Mures. Vladimir Tudor, an admirer of Ceausescu, makes no bones about his anti-foreigner policy. Under a pro-West president in the late 1990s, Romania was robbed left and right. EU leaders and the US have repeatedly criticized rampant and pervasive corruption in Romania, which itself went to polls on Sunday to elect a new president.

There is a similar pattern developing elsewhere in Eastern Europe with the nationalist card being used by corrupt politicians to cover up their own corruption. The events in Serbia, Georgia and now Ukraine are an expression of people's frustration and helplessness; however, pro-West leadership is unlikely to deliver the goods either. Romania's GDP now equals what it was in 1989, when the communist regime was overthrown. Most of the GDP is now cornered by 10-15% of the top political and bureaucratic elite. The masses - especially the older generation - suffer from daily privations and are withering away. The populations in most of the former communist states are declining fast. But the Western media rarely write about the terrible impact of this so-called democracy, capitalism and globalization.

http://www.worldpres...Europe/1987.cfm
  • 0

#4596 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 17 December 2004 - 02:05 PM

http://engforum.prav...threadid=110037
  • 0

#4597 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 17 December 2004 - 10:00 PM

Hey, Bader, I posted many Polls to tell at the Main Forum. They are really entertaining...;)
  • 0

#4598 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 19 December 2004 - 03:07 AM

"State propaganda, when supported by the educated classes and when no deviation is permitted from it, can have a big effect. It was a lesson learned by Hitler and many others, and it has been pursued to this day."

And the Media is the perfect vehicle by which the elites stay in power, be it Fascism, Communism or Spectator Democracy...;)

"The liberal democratic theory and Marxism-Leninism are very close in their common ideological assumptions. I think that's one reason why people have found it so easy over the years to drift from one position to another without any particular sense of change. It's just a matter of assessing where power is. Maybe there will be a popular revolution, and that will put us into state power; or maybe there won't be, in which case we'll just work for the people with real power: the business community. But we'll do the same thing: We'll drive the stupid masses towards a world that they're too dumb to understand for themselves."

Very interesting article by Chomsky...

http://www.quotes2u..../propaganda.htm
  • 0

#4599 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 21 December 2004 - 02:13 AM

>People surely have lived in 'terror' for quite an extensive period of
time. Environments have simply changed. The propaganda
of 'terrorism' has little to do with the well-being of any country or
its peoples.<

Howdy friend
Exactly. Fear and terror ain't new. It's been around for ever, if only now directed against the lion and sometimes the little animals.

>Racism and inequality lie at the bottom of the 'fix-it' list, with
corporate global america keeping its till full.<

Policies are implemented that break countries apart, and peoples are forced to emigrate and serve as cheap labor. Then they are rejected...

>Each corporation should be made to pay for the legal fees induced by
injustices which the government creates. e.g. British Airways, for
each detainee that immigration annoys and terrorises.<
I know. But the lion says he's above the law.

>When justice is worked for, and sometimes even accomplished, it
empowers the monkeys. Lions cannot have that.

There's quite enough corporate everything, that money should flow
freely out of the lions share and be given back to where it came
from, the people. Corporations such as those that work with
government in privatisation, should be made to pay for their own
injustices. Companies that abuse the environment should pay for the
damages they create. Not the people who buy the product.<

They are subsidized at the moment. Oil is a case in point. They have armies serving them.

> Still, do
not buy the products! <

Sure, do not feed the lion!;)

>Legal recourse to fight against an unjust 'lions' state' is severely
limited. e.g. a Muslim or others, turned back to their own country,
keeping in mind some (most) would have left their own country,
voluntarily, is termed a 'terrorist' out of nothing but discrimation,
and held under any pretense a lion can come up with.<
Exactly, the monkeys are going in circles with no place to hide and no place run...

>Flats are empty, there is no reason for this. These people can and
do contribute to society and community. They bring new ideas, they
bring different culture. Oh dear, they must be 'one of them'... <

Yep, by running out of options the monkeys they are only left with one: fixing the jungle where they come from.

>Where there is no due regard for an individual, from a state-view, it
becomes state-sponsored terrorism.<

Sure. Politically and economically, which many people don't see a form of terrorism.

>Where there is no due regard (shall we term it mutual respect?)
likewise it becomes just 'terrorism'. The abuse of power. <

The lion roars and everybody runs, but he claims not to notice.

>Emergency powers? What emergency? Its .. 2004 is it not and suddenly
half the world is a 'terrorist' cos they are different than
other 'whiteys', which is nothing but culture oftentimes.>

2004, though it sounds like 1984. Orwell would have recognized it.

>I cannot recall even if the Russians were ever termed
this, 'terrorist', but the word means nothing anymore to myself other
than its an insult to people everywhere. Its an everyday part of
life, and government believes there is a bogeyman around every
corner... and it is always a little bogeyman, go figure that one
out. <

Terrorist is tantamount to the Barbarians used by the Romans. Sometimes more civilized than themselves and certainly less cruel.

>The United States, now faced with its own struggle against terrorist
violence, can take a
lesson from the United Kingdom experience with emergency laws. These
draconian
11
provisions, enacted in response to political violence in the 1970's,
fostered an
environment in Northern Ireland in which human rights were routinely
violated. The
laws gave the security forces in Northern Ireland expansive powers to
stop, question,
search, arrest, detain, and interrogate persons suspected of
terrorist activity."<

Only worse.

>As far as I can see, the United States is making one ****ing hell of
a mess, and good luck changing it if its not done now. This hold-
without-reason is a violation of every thing and every fight everyone
before us has tried to accomplish. Back to square one. <

"It's now or never," like the song.;)


>But wait... there was one attack.. by a country more than half way
cross the world from the US, without the resources that the States
have ... something isn't right. And the USA is also rather weapon-
happy, the country as a whole is enough to cause world-wide paranoia
OF THE US GOVT - not its people - for the simple reason it is
everywhere on the globe, eating up monkeys and their bananas. <

It's because of ECONOMICS. The bananas must marketed under the name Chiquita or Dole. Then the monkeys get the peels--if they are lucky...;)
  • 0

#4600 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 22 December 2004 - 07:26 AM

Howdy DonQ:

Liberalism was the means to move traditional
values off the map, over time. Communist revolution is about removing them over night.

Your comment "Money should flow freely out of the Lions share back to where it came from, the people."

Money originates in the banks computers, is borrowed by govts businesses and people. It does eventually get back to the bank as receipts and savings and as interest and loan repayments.

If you are talking about tax money, the govt has to tax you to at
least pay the bank loans back, as long as you are happy for them to borrow it as debt against your future income/time.

MOney doesnt originate as savings which the banks depend on to lend. Thats a lie. Banks will say that they lend deposits and most people immediately think, oh yeah thats our savings we deposit in our accounts. Thats not it. They lend new money created by computer figures, at multipals against one dollar of your savings or what income you bank in your business account.
As loans are paid off that money you pay in is cancelled. When you get a loan approved they DEPOSIT it in your account, just like you have put in the money as a saving. They lent you your depsit didnt they?

Every day banks are cancelling money and creating new money
and you can guess that if the rate of cancelling is greater than the rate of creating them it will swallow itself up and disappear.
Thus its an inflationary system and inflation destroys saving over time, which means we have to work longer and harder to keep pace, and isnt that exactly what is happening?

WE fight the boss, we fight the govt, the boss fights the govt and the worker and we cant win and the reason is obvious.

As long as nationalism prevailed the people had a chance of bring
govt into line and returned to survitude. But now the govts have surrendered to global regimes we can change govt every week
but we acnt change global regimes unless several govts form a
coop market and reject the international banking racket. Best chance is Sth America.

Moving away from govt towards corporates/privatisation means the costs either arrive at your wallet via taxes (public sector) or
prices (private sector), we still pay.

Compare Iraq with Nthn Ireland?! Even the press didnt recognise Jerry Adams as a bin Laden.

You want to see what the debt money system does to society, industry, agriculture, families and national entities, read this one:

www.americaspolicy.org/reports/2004/0412coffee.html
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru