What would it take for Russia to be #1?
Posted 20 April 2004 - 09:19 AM
Equal opportunity policy which gives all females and indigenous
people an equal opportunity to be appointed before males has
resulted in a huge increase in women in places of responsibility,
especially in Govt depts and it shows out, which then is of
greater use to the central managers to enforce policy which are
based on saving money today not doing the job best which would save money in the longer term.
we will have to wait and see about the new Spanish Govt, the new Pres. said he would withdraw troop by June IF the UN wasnt in charge, which is unlikely.
If he is acting already to withdraw them it is a change from what he said and could be because the UN has indicated it cannot do so because there isnt the security for them to do so.
The point I made still stands, whether they withdraw now or in June, they are still liable to return just as staying on in order to
serve there on behalf of the UN, they are still going to serve the NWO either way.
One could interpret the UN view that it is not secure, even though Bush wants them in there, as an incentive to get more ruthless in order to crush the Iraqi defenders untill there is sufficient security. After all given the mess, as planned, the UN will not want to release Uncle Sam and get bogged down in the quicksand instead, would be bad for its image, create a sense of failure.
The Passion: is more of the background to the spirit of Roman Catholisicm than Christianity. It is party true of course , given that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb to come but it is more about calling back the doolins than anything else.
It is purely catholic if you read Pat Buchcanan's review of the movie and only a catholic such as he would appreciate it, and Pat is a graduate of the Jesuit College at Georgetown.
So I cannot agree with you Woj.
The gospels dont magnify and drag out the suffering as the movie has. The greatest foundation of the Christian faith is the
Doctrines of doing penance, self-infliction chastizing the flesh etc,
making sacifices to go on pilgimages to kiss some nail (there were nine different places in the world where a nail claimed to have been one of the three that nailed Jesus to the cross were
treasured and visited -fundraising- not to mention a piece of the last supper bread etc), celebasy (outwardly for many) the list goes on all in vane, as Luther discovered after trying to become spiritual through all this un-Biblical nonsense, that salvation is by grace (gift- because of the sacrifice and resurrection) not by works. Luther tried so hard by punishing his body that he used to faint!
Roman Catholicism is based on tradition not scripture, it is largely extra-Biblical and thus not Christianity. The traditions are Babylonian. The same statues of the queen of heaven with male child in arms were in Rome when Constantine made Christianity a state religion (blasphemous) and in Sth America when the
Conquistadors arrived, they of course were flabergasted to find the exact statue there already and thought that Satan was playing games with them. They didnt know the half of it.
Pliny: the creation of dependancy of the citizenry upon its govt
is the byproduct of the debt banking system and national debt
made the govt depenant on the banker, so this is another
factor that shows that socialism is the creation of the capitalist
banker, further reason why Marx wouldnt attack the banker and his methods.
Posted 20 April 2004 - 09:54 AM
See the siamese twins joined at the head. All the experience against the Palestininas is what the Coalition forces is using to
manage the liberation of the Iraqi people.
Ambulances must be potential WMD for the Coalitiojn Forces to shoot them up.
Posted 20 April 2004 - 11:02 AM
Best movie which action took place in South America was German motion visionary movie about G.W. Bush, I saw it on Polish TV . It was made in eighties. Unfortunately I don
Posted 20 April 2004 - 11:48 AM
****So I cannot agree with you Woj.****
But I can with you Bader. As a Slav I believe in the reincarnation of soul ; Slavs philosophy of rebirth of the soul in one or more successive existences in human bodies.
So your *resurrection* my be particular accidence of *reincarnation*;
Soul may return to the same , previous body. No problem to me.
Posted 20 April 2004 - 12:14 PM
I guess 'coming out of the jungle' is not one of the options allowed by the lion. Only if you fail economically and you establish some sort of 'life in the herd' are you allowed to survive for propaganda purposes. Castro got 45 years in power and counting...
Posted 20 April 2004 - 12:22 PM
I noticed that, but it wasn't me who said it. I guess it was the point of the movie that only a lion far away in time and space could have commited such despicable acts. Never the good-old Quakers and even less America...
Posted 20 April 2004 - 12:54 PM
Woj, I think you're seeing Bush everywhere. Though his essence is captured in the main character, the movie, "Aguirre," takes place in 16th century Peru. You can even see Iraq in his quest for "El Dorado," but no more...
We can say Aguirre is the perfect characterization of the lion, and how he drags everybody into doom. There's another character, Guzman, who's given the dubious title of Emperor. He may be taken to be the puppet regimes in the world...
Aguirre, the Wrath of God
BY ROGER EBERT
On this river God never finished his creation.
The captured Indian speaks solemnly to the last remnants of a Spanish expedition seeking the fabled El Dorado, the city of gold. A padre hands him a Bible, ``the word of God.'' He holds it to his ear but can hear nothing. Around his neck hangs a golden bauble. The Spanish rip it from him and hold it before their eyes, mesmerized by the hope that now, finally, at last, El Dorado must be at hand. ``Where is the city?'' they cry at the Indian, using their slave as an interpreter. He waves his hand vaguely at the river. It is further. Always further.
Werner Herzog's ``Aguirre, the Wrath of God'' (1973) is one of the great haunting visions of the cinema. It tells the story of the doomed expedition of the conquistador Gonzalo Pizarro, who in 1560 and 1561 led a body of men into the Peruvian rain forest, lured by stories of the lost city. The opening shot is a striking image: A long line of men snakes its way down a steep path to a valley far below, while clouds of mist obscure the peaks. These men wear steel helmets and breastplates, and carry their women in enclosed sedan-chairs. They are dressed for a court pageant, not for the jungle.
When Pizarro fears that his expedition is a folly, he selects a small party to spend a week exploring farther up-river. If they find nothing, he says, the attempt will be abandoned. This smaller party is led by the aristocrat Don Pedro de Ursua, with Aguirre (Kinski) as his second in command. Also in the party, along with soldiers and slaves, are a priest, Gaspar de Carvajal; the fatuous nobleman Fernando de Guzman; Ursua's wife, Flores; Aguirre's daughter Inez, and a black slave named Okello, who sadly tells one of the women, ``I was born a prince, and men were forbidden to look on me. Now I am in chains.''
Herzog does not hurry their journey, or fill it with artificial episodes of suspense and action. What we feel above all is the immensity of the river and the surrounding forest--which offers no shore to stand on because the waters have risen and flooded it. Consider how Herzog handles an early crisis, when one of the rafts is caught in a whirlpool. The slaves row furiously, but the raft cannot move. Herzog's camera stays across the river from the endangered rafters; their distress seems distant and insoluble. Aguirre contemptuously dismisses any attempt to rescue them, but a party is sent out to try to reach them from the other side. In the morning, the raft still floats in place; everyone on it is dead.
How did they die? I have an idea, but so do you. The point is that death is the destiny of this expedition. Ursua, the leader, is put under arrest. Aguirre arranges the selection of Guzman as their new leader. Soon both are dead. Guzman's last meal is fish and fruit, which as acting ``emperor'' he eats greedily while his men count out a few kernel of corn apiece. A horse goes mad, he orders it thrown overboard, and men mutter darkly that it would have supplied meat for a week. Guzman's dead body is found soon after. [This 'Guzman' represents every puppet for the powers that be behind them.]
Aguirre rules with a reign of terror. He stalks about the raft with a curious lopsided gait, as if one of his knees will not bend. There is madness in his eyes. When he overhears one of the men whispering of plans to escape, he cuts off his head so swiftly that the dead head finishes the sentence it was speaking. Death occurs mostly offscreen in the film, or swiftly and silently, as arrows fly softly out of the jungle and into the necks and backs of the men. The film's final images, among the most memorable I have ever seen, are of Aguirre alone on his raft, surrounded by corpses and by hundreds of chattering little monkeys, still planning his new empire.
Posted 20 April 2004 - 01:05 PM
AGUIRRE, THE WRATH OF GOD
(Werner Herzog, 1972).
For him, the Spanish Conquest, so blithely related in our history books, is a symbol of insane self-destruction. The subjugation of the Indians, the maintenance of the trappings of European royalty in the midst of the most threatening wilderness, Aguirre's gradual equation of his own will with the wrath of the Divine will - all these combine to create a mood of strangeness, terror, and helplessness in the face of evil. In contrast to the more conventional idea of civilization freeing us from "the jungle," Herzog's savage parable portrays the quest of such civilization as cruelty and madness, and the jungle as an impersonal and immortal force that will swallow all who pretend to conquer it.
Posted 20 April 2004 - 01:30 PM
OK, I'm providing more reviews on the movie for those who got the time.
You can see clearly the puppet role of the Church in the Conquest of Paradise, the role of converting those ungrateful savages...:confused: The complicity between Lion and Church is clear...
<<<There's plenty of social comment as well; the Catholic Church doesn't come off well in the least. When some friendly natives approach the raft, Brother Gaspar presents one with a Bible, saying it contains the Word of God. When the native cautiously puts it to his ear and says he hears nothing, Gaspar runs him through with a sword for his blasphemy and says, "These savages are hard to convert,"...>>>
Posted 20 April 2004 - 02:04 PM
At first were many meaningless words as ;
****Democracy rests upon popular participation in government, constitutionalism upon disclosure of and openness about the affairs of government. In this sense, constitutionalism is a prerequisite of successful democracy, since the people cannot participate rationally in government unless they are adequately informed of its workings. The Constitution was written during the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, by 55 delegates to a Constitutional Convention that was called ostensibly to amend the Articles of Confederation (1781
Posted 21 April 2004 - 09:35 AM
After Blair they will believe anything you tell them.
Keep that review of Bush- pushing further and further to greater failure (madness). >
That's the fate of the lions: to drag everybody else and themselves into doom. If there's any consolation is that they'll meet their justice. They will be devoured by the jungle...
"The centerpiece of the story is the figure of Aguirre, played with crazed demonism by Klaus Kinski. He's terrifying in the part -- his lips contort underneath cold blue eyes that convey a ruthlessness that slips, not so slowly, into insanity. By placing him and his arrogant delusions about himself and the environment he finds himself in, Herzog seems to be criticizing the entirety of Western culture, from imperialism to Nazism to the American occupation of Vietnam. Aguirre and those who follow him are ultimately destroyed by their own delusions of grandeur; in the end, the world they're confronting is simply too large and complex to be encompassed by their petty plans and ambitions."
Posted 21 April 2004 - 12:36 PM
Reminding of civil war I posted for two reason;
first ; that if Abraham Lincoln, US president accepted killing own citizens to maintain country integrity , is not different from Yugoslavian leader Slobodan Milosevic. I expect that one day Slobodan
Posted 21 April 2004 - 07:22 PM
Clinton could act better.
LIke the Caesars, right through the Popes who still holds the
Roman Emporer title, is this madness.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
IMperialism to Nazism, to Viet Nam and on to the Oil. It is
Western society but the pupeteers are international with national underlings so the pervading view is deflecting away from the
Lion society who rule through western systems they put in place.
Hate the British, hate the Germans, hate the Americans, hate the Jews, hate the Arabs etc is the same divide and rule as Woj points out with democracy.
The underlings are in the Royal Institute of International Affairs the British sister to the Committee of Foreign Relations and the other well known kults. They cant do anything without money.
Who has the power over the worlds money?
Not the Britain, not the US, not any Arab state, not Germany, not Israel.
The Union: Tupper Saussy's book Rulers of Evil shows the Vatican had the US sown up from day one, so a division on the continent was not acceptable. The world believes it was about slavery, which was not the reason just a contemporary
issue. Lies more lies.
Posted 22 April 2004 - 02:55 AM
<IMperialism to Nazism, to Viet Nam and on to the Oil. It is
Western society but the pupeteers are international with national underlings so the pervading view is deflecting away from the
Lion society who rule through western systems they put in place.
Hate the British, hate the Germans, hate the Americans, hate the Jews, hate the Arabs etc is the same divide and rule as Woj points out with democracy.>
That's right. The Puppeteer is the guy who runs the world jungle. But at first sight--and that's why so many people don't see it--it's the Puppets who this or that as if they were independent. Make no mistake: Nothing moves without the Puppeteer. He's the guy behind the curtains. The strings he uses are those of money, and are also invisible at first sight. Meanwhile the little children watching the show at entertained by the bad guys: Americans, Jews, Arabs, etc. It's a very amusing play if you think about it...
OK, now can we turn toward a lesson in politics? I promise passing grades to everyone...
It's about the Distribution of Power, which can be called "How to Distribute the Lion Share" or simply "How to Cut the Pie"...
I'd argue for the following form of system in which Pliny, as well as Bader and I would fit. But Woj's Superman wouldn't. A good lion is possible but definitely not the fox...
"Individuals are free not only to compete, but also to cooperate, which they do since there are clear incentives to cooperate. Individuals may do whatever they want, join and leave whatever sub-groups they want, and make whatever agreements they want. Anarchists argue that such voluntary cooperation with others should result in a peaceful, ruleful, orderly system."
IN DEFENSE OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT
Part I: The Best Distribution of Power
By Steve Kangas
In the Great American Debate, two questions stand paramount. How large should government be? And how should power be distributed, both within government and the market?
Virtually all political ideologies define themselves by how they answer these two questions. This chapter will address the second question first --how power should be distributed in any organization, be it public or private. The next section will address the proper size and role of government.
How distribution of power is one of the main topics of political science. Control of any institution can take only one of the following five forms:
No one rules (anarchy)
One-person rule (dictatorship)
Minority rule (aristocracy)
Majority rule (democracy)
All rule (unanimity)
As you can see, there is a spectrum here, with no one controlling an institution at one end, to everyone controlling it at the other. Let-s take a closer look at each possibility:
In principle, there are two kinds of anarchy. Chaos results when there is an unregulated fight to survive or win, with victory going to the fittest or luckiest. Almost no one advocates this as a form of society, since it is overly destructive and costly, even to the winners. Spontaneous order, on the other hand, is when everyone is a "self-ruler" in a smooth-running system. *Individuals are free not only to compete, but also to cooperate, which they do since there are clear incentives to cooperate. Individuals may do whatever they want, join and leave whatever sub-groups they want, and make whatever agreements they want*. Anarchists argue that such voluntary cooperation with others should result in a peaceful, ruleful, orderly system. But critics argue that even this type of anarchy --like the anarchic community of nations-- is still unstable and often given to violent, unregulated competitions like war. We-ll take a closer look at these arguments later.
(to be continued...)
Posted 22 April 2004 - 02:15 PM
Located at the city of Agra, the Taj Mahal is one of the most beautiful masterpieces of architecture in the world. Agra, situated about 200 km south of New Delhi, was the Capital of the Mughals (Moguls), the Muslim Emperors who ruled Northern India between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries. The Mughals were the descendents of two of the most skilled warriors in history: the Turks and the Mongols. The Mughal dynasty reached its highest strength and fame during the reign of their early Emperors, Akbar, Jehangir, and Shah Jehan.
It was Shah Jehan who ordered the building of the Taj, in honor of his wife, Arjumand Banu who later became known as Mumtaz Mahal, the Distinguished of the Palace. Mumtaz and Shah Jehan were married in 1612 and, over the next 18 years, had 14 children together. The Empress used to accompany her husband in his military campaigns, and it was in 1630, in Burhanpur, that she gave birth to her last child, for she died in childbirth. So great was the Emperor love to his wife that he ordered the building of the most beautiful mausoleum on Earth for her.
Although it is not known for sure who planned the Taj, the name of an Indian architect of Persian descent, Ustad Ahmad Lahori, has been cited in many sources. As soon as construction began in 1630, masons, craftsmen, sculptors, and calligraphers were summoned from Persia, the Ottoman Empire, and Europe to work on the masterpiece. The site was chosen near the Capital, Agra on the southwest bank of the River Yamuna. The architectural complex is comprised of five main elements: the Darwaza or main gateway, the Bageecha or garden, the Masjid or mosque, the Naqqar Khana or rest house, and the Rauza or the Taj Mahal mausoleum. The actual Tomb is situated inside the Taj.
The unique mughal style combines elements of Persian, Central Asian, and Islamic architecture. Most impressive are the black and white chessboard marble floor, the four tall minarets (40 m high) at the corners of the structure, and the majestic dome in the middle. On closer look, the lettering of the Quran verses around the archways appears to be uniform, regardless of their height. The lettering spacing and density has been customized to give this impression to the beholder. Other illusionary effects have been accounted for in the geometry of the tomb and the tall minarets. The impressive pietra dura artwork includes geometric elements, plants and flowers, mostly common in Islamic architecture. The level of sophistication in artwork becomes obvious when one realizes that a 3 cm decorative element contains more than 50 inlaid gemstones. http://www.britannic...hal&ct=&fuzzy=N
Not bad gratification of Muslim wife.
Posted 22 April 2004 - 02:37 PM
Cut nonmilitary spending- 41%
Cut other military spending 10%
Take on additional debt 9%
Raise taxes 26 %
Additional requests should be denied 14%
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users