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

#1321 Buttersideup

Buttersideup

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10450 posts

Posted 23 October 2003 - 01:36 AM

*looks around*



Damn, shorter posts, guess I will read back :D
  • 0

#1322 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 23 October 2003 - 02:12 AM

<I have a simplistic answer..work more..talk/write less and oh, start ditching all the false, non scientific, conspiracy theories they take up too much of the brain power. At least that is the impression I get reading the many articles here. >

One reason you may see so much talk/writing around here is that this is a *forum*. Other than that people turn to Pravda because it opens its arms to us. It's like Pravda's saying, "Give me your discontent, your frustrated, your pissed-off, your misfit, because we are the last hope.";)
  • 0

#1323 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 23 October 2003 - 02:22 AM

<Damn, shorter posts, guess I will read back >

Either that or speed reading. Though I don't find it that long, just drop other readings, television, wife and kids--and enjoy.

PS: In truth, we try to make this thread an enlightening, constructive and even fun way to fix the world. I know lions just attack on sight without any arguments whatsover--other than they are hungry--but we are better behaved...;)
  • 0

#1324 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 23 October 2003 - 02:33 AM

I've seen some--mostly those in the flag-waving, gas-guzzling SUVs--that claim to care about democracy in Iraq. But I won't fully believe them until they wear the T-shirts that go, "I love Bagdhad"...
  • 0

#1325 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 23 October 2003 - 02:50 AM

>>>Cool, but what's the real solution then?<<<

<The solution, IMHO, lies in the field of the humanities.>

Howdy Pliny
Then Humanism doesn't sound far off, right?

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

<Understanding ourselves is of the utmost importance. I am afraid that studying chemical and electrical functions of the body does not give us greater understanding of humanity for that is not all we are. Our current tack is not improving our lot. Social Statistics regarding our welfare are plummeting. People demanding rights without responsibilty, failed personal relationships, inability to relate to each other, divorce up, marriage down, dysfuntional families, homeless people on the streets, crime up, lack of respect for private property and other people - need I go on. Just one more, lying politicians that get slimier all the time.>

It sound like the jungle to me. Hey are talking the same thing?

<So the first thing to do is realize the basic premise which society is operating on regarding people - basically, we are animals,
is wrong. The more people think this to be true the more they act like them.>

Sometimes the ones who deny any connection with animals display some aggressive and power struggle up there with the predators. Conversely most animals display cooperative behavior that it would worth it of imitation by humans, like Kropotkin noticed.

<There has to be honesty and integrity and honor and truth which is more of what man is than his body. Restoring more of that in each of us would vastly improve our lot.>

Make it compatible with survival--unlike capitalism and communism--and people may start showing some of those qualities.

<Anyway, things don't just happen. They are planned. We are very subtly being led and our attention is being focused in the direction we are supposed to go and I don't believe it is for our benefit.>

No way.

<Ideally, honesty, integrity, honor and truth would be more important than food, clothing and shelter because the former would probably provide the latter and we would have a more accurate world view not just one from those with a vested interest. >

Both are very important, for without food some may be tempted lose all those qualities, as Nature shows...;)
  • 0

#1326 Madam X

Madam X

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 405 posts

Posted 23 October 2003 - 03:16 AM

Please..if only the human could be so loving to their off spring as most in the animal kingdom..protection of the unborn and newly born being amoung the most interesting observation.
I also think one would ascribe to the heirachy of needs scale to understand the human ascent to the ideal. It would be difficult, not impossible, if one were staving and freezing to be thinking in terms of honesty, integrity, honor and truth but then the human can be an amazing creature, you know with free will and all.
  • 0

#1327 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 23 October 2003 - 04:11 AM

<Please..if only the human could be so loving to their off spring as most in the animal kingdom..protection of the unborn and newly born being amoung the most interesting observation.
I also think one would ascribe to the heirachy of needs scale to understand the human ascent to the ideal. It would be difficult, not impossible, if one were staving and freezing to be thinking in terms of honesty, integrity, honor and truth but then the human can be an amazing creature, you know with free will and all.>

Welcome Madam
Many humans are capable of that ascent. However under the current laws--the laws of the jungle--predator-like behavior--particularly aggressiveness and power struggle--are often the rule, at least for those at the top end of the food chain--eg, the 'corporate ladder.' Also some other animals traits are displayed--especially camouflage--among some homo sapiens. These usually go into politics...;)

Yet there seems to be hope as the motherly love you describe may be practiced among some more developed humans, where they don't need a strong alpha male to run the pack...;)

'There's no lion in Scandinavia, just maybe a lioness...

I'd have some cautious optimism, the reason being is that something can go wrong unless we stop the lion or dominator model.

In this analysis Ms Eisler (I like what I've read from her so far) argues that the dominator can be "tamed," such as is the case in Scandinavia. Another interesting point of the article is the sex-spirituality link which I totally favor. Though I embrace Gandhi's nonviolence, I'm not enthusiastic about repressing sexuality...

LONDON: You referred to the shift that took place as we moved from a social order based on partnership and equality to one based on domination and violence. Your research suggests that this shift was one of the defining moments of our history as a species. How did you come to that realization?

EISLER: Well, it was really through the process of simple observation, free from what I think of as "the blinkers" that have impeded scientists from seeing the whole picture. My model is one that takes a dynamic view of human society and culture, and what I began to see in my historical research were patterns that had not been visible before -- connections between different elements of social systems. For example, I saw that in tribal societies and in highly advanced industrialized societies, the more that society was rigidly male-dominated, the more it went along with a strong-man-rule approach in the family and the state, and the more it accepted institutionalized social violence -- from child-beating and wife-beating to warfare -- as part of the social system.

As you move to the other side of the spectrum -- say, for example, the Scandinavian bloc countries in our time where you have a much more equal partnership between men and women -- you find a guidance-system of more stereotypically feminine values. There is funding for "women's work" -- taking care of children, caring for people's health, caring for the environment. There is economic and political democracy. It is not coincidental that the first peace academies came out of the Scandinavian bloc countries. Why? Because they are oriented more to the partnership configuration.

This model has been very useful to many people around the world for getting beyond the old categories which don't help us, such as capitalist vs. communist, the developed world and the developing world, and so on.'
  • 0

#1328 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 23 October 2003 - 04:27 AM

Ok, let's see what science got to tell us...;)

"Who wants to
vote for someone whose primary goal is to keep his ratings up?"

'The trouble with grade-school animal behaviorism of the kind Wolf
tossed at Gore, it turns out, is that, scientifically speaking,
the alpha male is not all he has been cracked up to be, and probably
isn't whom you want leading your country anyway. According to
Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, a distinguished primatologist and the author
of the recently published book "Mother Nature," the popular notion
of the alpha male as the ape who gets to have sex with all the
females and swagger past all the other males is something of a myth,
a projection of the hopes and wishes of evolutionary biologists who,
at least in the early days of the science, were mostly ?lite males.
"The male hope is that there is one `best male,' " Hrdy said the
other day. "And, of course, in the back of his mind, there is always
the fantasy `It's me.'" Actually, according to Hrdy, the alpha male
in a primate troop can be a far more compromised figure. In recent
years, DNA evidence has proved what some female primatologists had
long suspected: that female apes were slipping out from under the
noses of their supposedly dominant males and getting together with
apes fromthe other side of the tracks. A female langur monkey who
seeks out sex with more than one male may be doing so in order to
blur the paternity of her offspring, and thus discourage any male,
whether alpha, beta, or delta, from harming offspring that might
be his. Pulling a fast one on the alpha male is eminently sensible,
and, apparently, he falls for it every time.

In any case, alpha males, who cling to power and act with
expediency for selfish ends, don't make the best leaders. "Voting
for an alpha male is such a dumb idea," Hrdy said. "Who wants to
vote for someone whose primary goal is to keep his ratings up?"'

http://www.rebeccame...5_comm_wolf.htm
  • 0

#1329 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 23 October 2003 - 07:53 PM

<i've never understood some people's fixation on SUV's. like they're undemocratic?>

Are you saying it from a socialist perspective? If you are, I may grant you a point...;)

"If we want to change the nature of the system--including its tendency to destroy the environment and its drive towards war--we need to change the way production is organized, not point moralistic fingers at SUV drivers or other consumers."

Are SUVs the reason for Bush-s Iraq war?
By Phil Gasper

AT THE massive January 18 antiwar demonstration in San Francisco, demonstrators from a group called Environmentalists Against the War carried placards blaming Sports Utility Vehicles for the U.S. war drive against Iraq. "If War is Inevitable, Start Drafting SUV Drivers Now!" said one sign. Another showed a picture of a Ford Explorer and an oil drum, with the slogan "Axle of Evil."

SUVs have come under attack from environmentalists and other left-wing activists over the past few years--and not only because these vehicles have become a status symbol for yuppies flaunting their wealth.

Most SUVs are inefficient gas guzzlers that produce disproportionately high amounts of carbon dioxide, the main cause of global warming. According to the Sierra Club, SUVs "spew out 43 percent more global-warming pollution and 47 percent more air pollution than an average car."

And in his recent book High and Mighty, journalist Keith Bradsher reports that SUVs "roll over too easily, killing and injuring occupants at an alarming rate, and are dangerous to other road users, inflicting catastrophic damage to cars that they hit and posing a lethal threat to pedestrians."

Last month, Jeffrey Runge, administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said that some SUVs are so dangerous he wouldn-t ride in them "if they were the last vehicles on earth."

But some critics have gone further. In January, the Detroit Project--a group spearheaded by columnist Arianna Huffington--produced two TV ads blasting SUV drivers for damaging national security, on the grounds that money spent on gas for the vehicles goes to Middle Eastern oil-producing states that fund terrorists.

The ads were partly intended to mock those silly government public service announcements that claim drug users fund terrorism. But intentionally or not, the Detroit Project ads promote a racist stereotype that Middle Easterners are terrorists.

Underlying both the Detroit Project and the sentiments of demonstrators who carried anti-SUV signs at the January 18 demonstration is the belief that the Bush administration-s war on Iraq is motivated in part by a need to grab Iraq-s oil resources so SUV drivers can keep their vehicles on the road.

But pointing the finger at SUVs is wrong for two reasons. In the first place, this faults consumers, rather than auto manufacturers and oil companies, for the fact that SUVs are inefficient. We desperately need more efficient methods of transportation. But the big auto and oil companies contribute millions of dollars to both Democrats and Republicans to prevent the passage of tougher fuel efficiency requirements and air pollution standards.

In addition, the U.S. "automobile-industrial complex" has worked hard to undermine public transit and research into renewable energy. And because auto companies earn 80 percent of their profits from SUVs and other light trucks, they advertise them relentlessly to convince people to buy them. If we-re going to draft anybody first, perhaps it should be the auto and oil executives.

But there-s a second misconception behind the idea that this is a war for SUV drivers. It is undoubtedly true that a large part of the Bush administration-s motivation for going to war with Iraq is increasing U.S. control over Middle Eastern oil resources. But this isn-t primarily to satisfy the needs of U.S. consumers.

Oil is the most important commodity in the world, vital for both industry and the military. Even when consumer demand was much lower, Washington still wanted to control the world-s oil supplies. In the 1940s, the State Department described the Middle East-s oil as "a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history." This is the reason why the U.S. has intervened repeatedly in the Middle East over the past half century.

Capitalist economies aren-t driven by consumer demand, but by the need of capitalists to make profits. If we want to change the nature of the system--including its tendency to destroy the environment and its drive towards war--we need to change the way production is organized, not point moralistic fingers at SUV drivers or other consumers.

http://www.socialist...38_06_SUV.shtml
  • 0

#1330 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 24 October 2003 - 06:37 AM

"If only humans could be so loving to their off-spring as most in the animal kingdom"

The presumption is that most humans aren't.
The philosophical premise is that the negative aspects of human nature rules and not the better part of human nature.
Question provoked thus is- should humans have been motivated by total instinct and not freedom of choice, ie robotic.

"...start ditching all the false non-scientific conspiracy theories
that take up too much brain power."

There are numerous qualifying factors here- eg the amount of brain power, conspiracies that are theoretical or actual,
scientific and non-scientific, false or true.
Perhaps it is easier to ask- is Animal Farm pure fiction and
imagination of a depiction of the real world? And then if the
latter, has this arrived by pure chance of by design?

Further query-
If human nature is dominated by the negative side what make conspiracy by the same species so unlikely?
  • 0

#1331 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 24 October 2003 - 06:33 PM

It makes sense to me. Something we should remind to the alpha-apes out there...;)

Bonobo Sex and Society

The behavior of a close relative challenges assumptions about male supremacy in human evolution

by
Frans B. M. de Waal

At a juncture in history during which women are seeking equality with men, science arrives with a belated gift to the feminist movement. Male-biased evolutionary scenarios-- Man the Hunter, Man the Toolmaker and so on--are being challenged by the discovery that females play a central, perhaps even dominant, role in the social life of one of our nearest relatives. In the past few years many strands of knowledge have come together concerning a relatively unknown ape with an unorthodox repertoire of behavior: the bonobo.

(snip)

The species is best characterized as female-centered and egalitarian and as one that substitutes sex for aggression. Whereas in most other species sexual behavior is a fairly distinct category, in the bonobo it is part and parcel of social relations--and not just between males and females. Bonobos engage in sex in virtually every partner combination (although such contact among close family members may be suppressed). And sexual interactions occur more often among bonobos than among other primates. Despite the frequency of sex, the bonobo's rate of reproduction in the wild is about the same as that of the chimpanzee. A female gives birth to a single infant at intervals of between five and six years. So bonobos share at least one very important characteristic with our own species, namely, a partial separation between sex and reproduction.

A Near Relative
This finding commands attention because the bonobo shares more than 98 percent of our genetic profile, making it as close to a human as, say, a fox is to a dog. The split between the human line of ancestry and the line of the chimpanzee and the bonobo is believed to have occurred a mere eight million years ago. The subsequent divergence of the chimpanzee and the bonobo lines came much later, perhaps prompted by the chimpanzee's need to adapt to relatively open, dry habitats...

(snip)

Not too long ago the savanna baboon was regarded as the best living model of the human ancestor. That primate is adapted to the kinds of ecological conditions that prehumans may have faced after descending from the trees. But in the late 1970s, chimpanzees, which are much more closely related to humans, became the model of choice. Traits that are observed in chimpanzees--including cooperative hunting, food sharing, tool use, power politics and primitive warfare--were absent or not as developed in baboons. In the laboratory the apes have been able to learn sign language and to recognize themselves in a mirror, a sign of self-awareness not yet demonstrated in monkeys.

Although selecting the chimpanzee as the touchstone of hominid evolution represented a great improvement, at least one aspect of the former model did not need to be revised: male superiority remained the natural state of affairs. In both baboons and chimpanzees, males are conspicuously dominant over females; they reign supremely and often brutally. It is highly unusual for a fully grown male chimpanzee to be dominated by any female.

Enter the bonobo. Despite their common name--the pygmy chimpanzee--bonobos cannot be distinguished from the chimpanzee by size. Adult males of the smallest subspecies of chimpanzee weigh some 43 kilograms (95 pounds) and females 33 kilograms (73 pounds), about the same as bonobos. Although female bonobos are much smaller than the males, they seem to rule.

(snip)

Love, Not War
My own interest in bonobos came not from an inherent fascination with their charms but from research on aggressive behavior in primates. I was particularly intrigued with the aftermath of conflict. After two chimpanzees have fought, for instance, they may come together for a hug and mouth-to-mouth kiss. Assuming that such reunions serve to restore peace and harmony, I labeled them reconciliations.

Any species that combines close bonds with a potential for conflict needs such conciliatory mechanisms. Thinking how much faster marriages would break up if people had no way of compensating for hurting each other, I set out to investigate such mechanisms in several primates, including bonobos. Although I expected to see peacemaking in these apes, too, I was little prepared for the form it would take.

more...

http://songweaver.co...fo/bonobos.html
  • 0

#1332 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 26 October 2003 - 07:19 PM

<Bush gives economic and scientific reasons he won't ratify the insane Kyoto treaty. Putin does likewise but jokes about the advantages of warming up Russia and not having to spend so much money on fur coats. Take that Greenpeacers and PETA geeks. >

The stupid hungry lions couldn't care less about the fate of Nature or that of the little animals.

Perhaps they should be caged and tamed if we are to survive...;)

http://images.google...0&svnum=10&hl%3<br%20/>Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN
  • 0

#1333 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 26 October 2003 - 07:33 PM

Conspiracy theories are the study of how clever and devious
humans treat other humans. We do it not out of attraction
of their appearance and opulence but out of disgust at their
violation of every decent value and repect for the human species.
Needles to say they are of the lower limits of use of human intellect and passions that places them just above the animals.

If as much formal research and education went into how these
"sub" humans operate as goes into animals the future of both humans and animals would be bright.
The purpose of Animal Farm was along these lines rather than
convincing people we were only basically animals anyway.
  • 0

#1334 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 26 October 2003 - 08:04 PM

<Conspiracy theories are the study of how clever and devious
humans treat other humans. We do it not out of attraction
of their appearance and opulence but out of disgust at their
violation of every decent value and repect for the human species.
Needles to say they are of the lower limits of use of human intellect and passions that places them just above the animals.>

Howdy Bader
You saw the picture of the trainer whipping the lion? I like to see myself as such instead of a 'conspiracy' buff which the lions would readily apply to us. We *know* and we got *proof* there's a lion--just look above two of them refusing to sign a treaty for saving humanity *and* failing to supply any alternative solution. They work to satisfy their interests and those of the vultures. A very predator-like behavior, I may add...;)

<If as much formal research and education went into how these
"sub" humans operate as goes into animals the future of both humans and animals would be bright.
The purpose of Animal Farm was along these lines rather than
convincing people we were only basically animals anyway.>

Orwell may have been using metaphoric language but Kropotkin was very much placing a direct connection between *cooperation* in the animal kingdom and humans. This is particularly important in rebutting the arguments of Darwinians, which promote *competition*. How ironic that the lions does *not* want competition--coming in the form of cooperation--from the little animals.:confused:

Other than that, I see no conflict between evolutionists and creationists. The real conflict comes between spiritual people and materialist people--who often seek refuge in religion, as if the pursuit of God and Gold was one and the same thing...;)
  • 0

#1335 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 26 October 2003 - 09:13 PM

This Forum of Evolutionary Psychology has lots of answers for people who believe in Evolution. There are many interesting articles on many topics (the 'lie,' etc). Here's one on laughter...

'Zimmerman believes that her findings confirm a hypothesis that laughter originated in primates, as a universal signal of wellbeing in a playful situation to help regulate social interactions, the report says.'

http://groups.yahoo....y/message/27472

I do believe that *love and laughter*--as it was pointed out before in an article about Pavlov's programming not working when love and laughter was present--may be the last great hope...:)
  • 0

#1336 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 26 October 2003 - 11:01 PM

"The cosmic model of God ruling over nature and humans is reproduced in the social model of an elite class ruling over other men and women."

"Even the most ruthless leader depends on the cooperation and voluntary submission of his subjects."

The last quote shows that the Lion can only rule with the manufactured consent of the little animals. If they only got together...

The interesting take of this summary though is that an interaction of power-- real democracy--is healthy...

"All power relationships are interactive, mutually modulating, reciprocal."

more...

http://www.fragments...2/reciprgp.html
  • 0

#1337 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 27 October 2003 - 10:05 AM

Howdy DonQ,
A conspiracy buff is into exposing the Lion.
Conspiracy theory-Lion theory are escapists notions to some.
To whip a Lion is about the equal of a flee kicking an elephant,
still we can make a 'crack' as often as we can to our hearts content and trust that the 'pen' is mightier than the sword.

Refusing to sign treaties: I am not familiar with the Kyoto
agreement but I as inclined to think that it is one of many that have been written by Lion slaves and are in reality a baited trap.
For what ever reason Bush and Putin as really abstaining we will never know perhaps.
Our Govt has just tried introducing a tax on cow flatulance as if
more money for the govt to use in research will stop cows farting.
The opposition it got from farmers one of the greatest producing groups in the country has forced it to back off. Talk about flat earth mentallity. Its a joke. It come from the Kyoto agreement.
The globalist Corps I believe have captured the environmental
movement as a pre-emptive strike.
have you seen the Bio-diversity treay, which the U.N. tried to
get the U.S. Senate to sign without reading it?
Has countries divided up into vast areas for animals to roam as in the wild, humans forbidden, human only areas and corridors
linking them. On top of that they want the population of the earth reduced by about two thirds by 2040.
Any volunteers for helping out because natural attrition, aids,
Bush wars and depleted uranium isn't going to achieve this.
I didn't know Joseph Mengles had so many children. You say something about predator behaviour?

What are we looking at here, nature worship or animism?

I am interested in coops because of it value for free enterprize
first, because it can counter the effects of the Lion second and
nothing to do with animals. There is cooperation and competition in both the animal and human worlds, we both burn energy by oxygen and have two eyes looking forward, so do fish. The link that matters is the responsible husbandry and use.

I see big conflicts between evolutionism and creationism, (as much as between socialism and free enterprize) and is the basis of the real conflict between the spirtually minded and the materialistic minded.
The spiritual world is also divided and has no grounds for steriotyping as in the case of religion. Even communism has been equated as a form of religion. A previous quote of yours from the Apostle Peter re the enemy likened to a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour spoke of false doctrine that looked like the real thing but was a deception to destroy peoples faith, shows that
there are conflicts within the spiritual and religious worlds. Even the spiritual and the religious are held to be quite seperate by some people.
I just found in my dictionary that Animalism is an obsession with anything that is physical as opposed to the spiritual or intellectual
on the one hand and also the belief that humans are no better than animals. It would aso qualify as a religion.

There are many forms of escape/refuge, material, spiritual/religious and intellectual. The Lion doesn't mind which one, on this count we cant say he gives us no freedom of choice, the more divided the easier it is for him.

"The cosmic model of God ruling over..... is reproduced...in an elite class"
This is a straw effigy of the character of God. It's not hard to find
another character from the same reference material that the elite class ruling represents. In fact in making reference to the Lion,
one can be both or either referring to that would-be ''supreme'' being or his elite and lesser puppeteers and slaves. But if one excludes this dimension from reality then there can be no agreement in certain areas. However the ground left to fight a common enemy is still very large and enough to keep one fully occupied.

"All power relationships are interactive, mutually modulating, reciprical." is a good summary, I would prefer to use the word
''interests'' than power, as it would seem to me that it is from these that power of some kind arises- where democracy is functioning at the individual level.
That statement might infer equality but it doesn't follow as being automatic.
  • 0

#1338 james

james

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 27 October 2003 - 10:18 AM

America is a very powerful country.

Because of america's pre occupation with the islamic
world, today, Russia's islamic friends have found significant influence in america's policy making circles.

They are using this influence to make america punish
Russia and Europe, so that russia and europe go into a bloc against America, that would destroy all three great powers.

Russia's islamic friends are destroying russia, leveraging ADL's paranoia of white people and Russia's communist past to push
america into a hostile stance against russia. At the same time, they are fanning flames in russia to force russia to reciprocate the stance, moving the world towards destruction in the process.

The muslims are destroying the ADL, russia, america, europe and china through this confrontation, leaving the islamic world ever powerful.
Instead of america enormous might used against
Russia, why shouldn't russia befriend america and use this might for its
good..

Ever since the collapse of communism, Russia has no
conflict with America.

Why shouldnt we be fighting each other, when we can
benefit from each other.

You have to realize that the muslims, will constantly
try to sour relations between America and russia, they have people on both sides to do it for them.

Friendship with america, won't be easy, but its the
only way to avoid destruction. We will need to swallow our pride and ego, and realize that friendship between russia and america will not go well for people, who benefit from their hostility.

friendship with america would be hard for russia, but russia doesnt have a choice
.
You can see all slav nations taking apart like yugoslavia, while muslims score their victories over both the russians and americans..or america and russia can join hands against a common enemy to prevent their
destruction.

Russia needs to go into a broad alliance comprising Greece, Phillipines, america
europe and china to confront the common islamic threat, that all these countries face.

All slav nations, the germans, the french, and the chinese should reach out to america in friendship, prevent their own destruction,
and make the muslims out to destroy the world, completely impotent by ignoring the muslims and pursuing a friendship with america,
europe and china..

a friendship that instead of war, famine, and cold, would bring wealth, plenty and warmth to the region.

Muslims benefit from friction between russia, europe, china and america..they constantly push all the great nations into war, to
make a living out of it..we need to fail the muslims.

Russia, china, europe and america need to move forward
as sovereign friends, sharing the same goals for the world, however respecting each others sovereignity and not meddling in each others internal affairs.

Why should we let our enemies, use america to destroy
russia, when we can be friends with america, benefit from it and weaken our enemies.
  • 0

#1339 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 27 October 2003 - 08:26 PM

<America is a very powerful country.

Because of america's pre occupation with the islamic
world, today, Russia's islamic friends have found significant influence in america's policy making circles.

They are using this influence to make america punish
Russia and Europe, so that russia and europe go into a bloc against America, that would destroy all three great powers.>

Forgive me but it looks to me like a lot of politics: If lion A joins in lion B they can beat lion C. But we must be wary of D, E & F for they are up to no good. Of course the root of all evil is lion C.

The question being: What's in it for the Little Animals?

This is a real solution though: Abandon the Law of the Jungle...;)

U.S. Invasion of Iraq was Guided by 'Law of the Jungle,' U.N Chief Says
By Joe Davidson, BET.com Political Columnist

Posted October 10, 2003 (UNITED NATIONS) -- Kofi Annan was of determined mind and sharp tongue.

In a meeting with BET.com and other African Americans earlier this week, the secretary-general of the United Nations gave President Bush a good verbal spanking for making the world a more dangerous place.

Dapper and soft-spoken as always, the Ghanaian-born UN chief avoided mentioning the United States or President Bush by name when issuing his most pointed comments. But his diplomatic approach did not hide a calculated escalation of his criticism of the Bush administration's war against Iraq, nor the certainty of his target.

"The house of man will never be secure while billions live in the basement, or while a few in the penthouse act as they please," he said in his remarks over lunch.

That's exactly what the United States did from its sole super-power penthouse when it defied the nations of the world by invading Iraq.

President Bush said the invasion was necessary to enforce U.N. resolutions against Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Yet, because the U.N. did not authorize military action against Iraq, the U.S.-led invasion was illegitimate by international standards.

"If individual nations discount the legitimacy provided by the U.N., and feel that they can and must use force unilaterally and pre-emptively," Annan continued, "the world will become even more dangerous."

The pre-emptive invasion sets a precedent that other nations can use to attack others without provocation. Imagine the death, destruction and chaos if the two Koreas, Pakistan and India, Ethiopia and Eritrea decided to launch a war against the other with no more reason than the UnitedStates had to wage war on Iraq.

The UnitedStates had not been hit by Iraq. There was no imminent threat of that. And every day it becomes increasingly clear that the weapons of mass destruction Bush administration officials insisted Saddam Hussein had -- and was ready to use --simply don't exist.

"This is a real challenge to international law," Annan said of the Bush invasion. "And if it were to be adopted, it would really be a law, a *law of the jungle*."

Annan wasn't through. If other countries did adopt the U.S. policy of pre-emption, "we would soon be faced with the proliferation of unilateral and lawless use of force, which would make the world much more dangerous," he added.

Though Americans generally are thought to have little interest in foreign affairs, Annan's remarks found a receptive audience of Black Americans ready to support the U.N.'s work. Those attending the gathering at the U.N. were not big-name Black leaders, but are part of an important, if not widely know, element of a broad Black leadership. The participants included university professors, a fraternity president and the president of a national organization of social workers.

They were organized by Edward "Buzz" and Alice Palmer, the Chicago husband-and-wife team that directs The People Program. The non-profit program organizes meetings among civic and religious leaders, journalists, academics, business people and international public officials. The program's aim, according to its literature, is to "chart a course of action for fair minded international human rights measures, particularly with respect to race and xenophobia."

Buzz Palmer said he began organizing meetings like Tuesday's session after convincing U.N. officials that it "needed to do serious outreach to the African American community."

Malcolm X advocated making U.S. racism a human rights issue at the U.N. African Americans, including Ralph Bunche, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, and Paul Robeson, the singer, actor and international activist, were forceful proponents of the U.N.'s formation.

"Ralph Bunche and other African Americans played vital roles in drafting the charter and creating the multilateral framework," Annan reminded us.

It's that multilateral framework that the U.S. action shattered -- leaving Washington isolated from other nations and the U.N. -- on shaky grounds. While individual nations have an inherent right to self-defense against an attack, broader threats require collective
action, Annan said. International law, he explained, "has rested on this premise for the past 58 years. Now we are being told by certain governments that this system is not adequate."

Annan appealed to the gathering's participants to "raise their voices" in support of the rule of law, something the U.S. invasion ignored. "The choice is not between multilateralism and
unilateralism," he added. "It's between cooperation and catastrophe."

http://www.bet.com/a...98-8539,00.html
  • 0

#1340 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 27 October 2003 - 09:25 PM

<A conspiracy buff is into exposing the Lion.
Conspiracy theory-Lion theory are escapists notions to some.
To whip a Lion is about the equal of a flee kicking an elephant,
still we can make a 'crack' as often as we can to our hearts content and trust that the 'pen' is mightier than the sword.>

Howdy Bader
The pen is mightier than the sword and it can lead the lion to taming. (He can't be defeated militarily without great catastrophe).

<Refusing to sign treaties: I am not familiar with the Kyoto
agreement but I as inclined to think that it is one of many that have been written by Lion slaves and are in reality a baited trap.
For what ever reason Bush and Putin as really abstaining we will never know perhaps.>

I suspect the reason though: Big Bucks. If they had offered an alternative I would have believed, but not even the word "save" has ever come out of our leaders. Remember the Black Sheep judges the lion by his paws and teeths and his roaring...;)

<I see big conflicts between evolutionism and creationism, (as much as between socialism and free enterprize) and is the basis of the real conflict between the spirtually minded and the materialistic minded.
The spiritual world is also divided and has no grounds for steriotyping as in the case of religion. Even communism has been equated as a form of religion. A previous quote of yours from the Apostle Peter re the enemy likened to a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour spoke of false doctrine that looked like the real thing but was a deception to destroy peoples faith, shows that
there are conflicts within the spiritual and religious worlds. Even the spiritual and the religious are held to be quite seperate by some people.
I just found in my dictionary that Animalism is an obsession with anything that is physical as opposed to the spiritual or intellectual
on the one hand and also the belief that humans are no better than animals. It would aso qualify as a religion.>

If anything I'd imagine God along Epicurean lines. Since so far I'm a human I worry about humans. If I ever become a divinity:confused: I'd worry about heavenly issues...

I pose some question at the end...

Lactantius, a Christian apologist from the 3rd century A.D., devoted chapters 4, 8 through 10, and 15 and part of 17 of "On the Anger of God" to attacking the Epicurean doctrine that a perfect being would never display anger or suffer any other emotional disturbances.

(snip)

CHAPTER 8 -- OF RELIGION.

'But religion is overthrown if we believe Epicurus speaking thus:

"For the nature of gods must ever in itself of necessity enjoy immortality together with supreme repose, far removed and withdrawn from our concerns; since, exempt from every pain, exempt from all dangers, strong in its own resources, not wanting aught of us, it is neither gained by favours nor moved by anger."
Now, when he says these things, does he think that any worship is to be paid to God, or does he entirely overthrow religion? For if God confers nothing good on any one, if He repays the obedience of His worshipper with no favour, what is so senseless, what so foolish, as to build temples, to offer sacrifices, to present gifts, to diminish our property, that we may obtain nothing? But (it will be said) it is right that an excellent nature should be honoured. What honour can be due to a being who pays no regard to us, and is ungrateful? Can we be bound in any manner to him who has nothing in common with us? "Farewell to God," says Cicero, "if He is such as to be influenced by no favour, and by no affection of men. For why should I say 'may He be propitious? for He can be propitious to no one." What can be spoken more contemptible with respect to God? Farewell to Him, he says, that is, let Him depart anti retire, since He is able to profit no one.

But if God takes no trouble, nor occasions trouble to another why then should we not commit crimes as often as it shall be in our power to escape the notice of men? and to cheat the public laws? Wherever we shall obtain a favourable opportunity of escaping notice, let us take advantage of the occasion: let us take away the property of others, either without bloodshed or even with blood, if there is nothing else besides the laws to be reverenced.

While Epicurus entertains these sentiments, he altogether destroys religion; and when this is taken away, confusion and perturbation of life will follow. But if religion cannot be taken away without destroying our hold of wisdom, by which we are separated from the brutes, and of justice, by which the public life may be more secure, how can religion itself be maintained or guarded without fear? For that which is not feared is despised, and that which is despised is plainly not reverenced. Thus it comes to pass that religion, and majesty, and honour exist together with fear; but there is no fear where no one is angry. Whether, therefore, you take away from God kindness, or anger, or both, religion must be taken away, without which the life of men is full of folly, of wickedness, and enormity. For conscience greatly curbs men, if we believe that we are living in the sight of God; if we imagine not only that the actions which we perform are seen from above, but also that our thoughts and our words are heard by God.

But it is profitable to believe this, as some imagine, not for the sake of the truth, but of utility, since laws cannot punish conscience unless some terror from above hangs over to restrain offences. Therefore religion is altogether false, and there is no divinity; but all things are made up by skilful men, in order that they may live more uprightly and innocently. This is a great question, and foreign to the subject which we have proposed; but because it necessarily occurs, it ought to be handled, however briefly.'

So religion curbs men... But religious men undertook the Crusades and the Conquest of America and the present wars. *Where's God?*

http://www.epicurus.net/anger.html

"All power relationships are interactive, mutually modulating, reciprical."

<is a good summary, I would prefer to use the word
''interests'' than power, as it would seem to me that it is from these that power of some kind arises- where democracy is functioning at the individual level.
That statement might infer equality but it doesn't follow as being automatic.>

Do we pursue equality or options? If we pursue options we may have a healthy power competition between cooperative and noncooperative enterprises...
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru