How the US and Britain are intervening in Ukraine's elections
Oo
by John Laughland; The Spectator; November 28, 2004
A few years ago, a friend of mine was sent to Kiev by the British
government to teach Ukrainians about the Western democratic system. His
pupils were young reformers from western Ukraine, affiliated to the
Conservative party. When they produced a manifesto containing 15 pages of
impenetrable waffle, he gently suggested boiling their electoral message
down to one salient point. What was it, he wondered? A moment of furrowed
brows produced the lapidary and nonchalant reply, 'To expel all Jews from
our country.'
It is in the west of Ukraine that support is strongest for the man who is
being vigorously promoted by America as the country's next president: the
former prime minister Viktor Yushchenko. On a rainy Monday morning in Kiev,
I met some young Yushchenko supporters, druggy skinheads from Lvov. They
belonged both to a Western-backed youth organisation, Pora, and also to
Ukrainian National Self-Defence (Unso), a semi-paramilitary movement whose
members enjoy posing for the cameras carrying rifles and wearing fatigues
and balaclava helmets. Were nutters like this to be politically active in
any country other than Ukraine or the Baltic states, there would be instant
outcry in the US and British media; but in former Soviet republics, such
bogus nationalism is considered anti-Russian and therefore democratic.
It is because of this ideological presupposition that Anglo-Saxon
reporting on the Ukrainian elections has chimed in with press releases from
the State Department, peddling a fairytale about a struggle between a brave
and beleaguered democrat, Yushchenko, and an authoritarian Soviet nostalgic,
the present Prime Minister, Viktor Yanukovych. All facts which contradict
this morality tale are suppressed. Thus a story has been widely circulated
that Yushchenko was poisoned during the electoral campaign, the fantasy
being that the government was trying to bump him off. But no British or
American news outlet has reported the interview by the chief physician of
the Vienna clinic which treated Yushchenko for his unexplained illness. The
clinic released a report declaring there to be no evidence of poisoning,
after which, said the chief physician, he was subjected to such intimidation
by Yushchenko's entourage - who wanted him to change the report - that he
was forced to seek police protection.
It has also been repeatedly alleged that foreign observers found the
elections fraught with violations committed by the government. In fact, this
is exclusively the view of highly politicised Western governmental
organisations like the OSCE - a body which is notorious for the fraudulent
nature of its own reports, and which in any case came to this conclusion
before the poll had even taken place - and of bogus NGOs, such as the
Committee of Ukrainian Voters, a front organisation exclusively funded by
Western (mainly American) government bodies and think-tanks, and clearly
allied with Yushchenko.
Because they speak English, the political activists in such organisations
can easily nobble Anglophone Western reporters.
Contrary allegations - such as those of fraud committed by
Yushchenko-supporting local authorities in western Ukraine, carefully
detailed by Russian election observers but available only in Russian - go
unreported. So too does evidence of crude intimidation made by Yushchenko
supporters against election officials. The depiction is so skewed that
Yushchenko is presented as a pro-Western free-marketeer, even though his
fief in western Ukraine is an economic wasteland; while Yanukovych is
presented as pro-Russian and statist, even though his electoral campaign is
based on deregulation and the economy has been growing at an impressive
clip. The cleanliness and prosperity of Kiev and other cities have improved
noticeably.
There is, however, one thing which separates the two main candidates, and
which explains the West's determination to shoo in Yushchenko: Nato.
Yanukovych has said he is against Ukraine joining; Yushchenko is in favour.
The West wants Ukraine in Nato to weaken Russia geopolitically and to have a
new big client state for expensive Western weaponry, whose manufacturers
fund so much of the US political process.
Yanukovych has also promised to promote Russian back to the status of
second state language. Since most Ukrainian citizens speak Russian, since
Kiev is the historic birthplace of Christian Russia, and since the current
legislation forces tens of millions of Russians to Ukrainianise their names,
this is hardly unreasonable. The continued artificial imposition of
Ukrainian as the state language - started under the Soviets and intensified
after the fall of communism - will be a further factor in ripping Ukraine's
Russophone citizens away from Russia proper. That is why the West wants it.
Stephen Glynn
> How the US and Britain are intervening in Ukraine's elections
>
> by John Laughland; The Spectator; November 28, 2004
>
>
> It is because of this ideological presupposition that Anglo-Saxon
> reporting on the Ukrainian elections has chimed in with press releases from
> the State Department, peddling a fairytale about a struggle between a brave
> and beleaguered democrat, Yushchenko, and an authoritarian Soviet nostalgic,
> the present Prime Minister, Viktor Yanukovych. All facts which contradict
> this morality tale are suppressed. Thus a story has been widely circulated
> that Yushchenko was poisoned during the electoral campaign, the fantasy
> being that the government was trying to bump him off. But no British or
> American news outlet has reported the interview by the chief physician of
> the Vienna clinic which treated Yushchenko for his unexplained illness. The
> clinic released a report declaring there to be no evidence of poisoning,
> after which, said the chief physician, he was subjected to such intimidation
> by Yushchenko's entourage - who wanted him to change the report - that he
> was forced to seek police protection.
The hospital's and both British and American toxicologists' doubts about
the poisoning theory have certainly been reported:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4041321.stm
The clinic's doubts, along with the fact the chief physician has sought
police protection following anonymous threats, have been widely
reported elsewhere, as a quick google search will easily show.
Steve
Oo
"Stephen Glynn" <stephe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:30ueg6F...@uni-berlin.de...
Sorry but you obviously did not *read* the post before jumping head first
into google in a vain attempt to discredit the original post. The link you
have posted talks about the 'poisoning' story/theory it does not however
feature *the interview by the chief physician of the Vienna clinic*.
The original post stated "But no British or American news outlet has
reported *the interview by the chief physician of the Vienna clinic* which
treated Yushchenko for his unexplained illness". It does not say the
story/theory was never reported, as you concluded.
banana
<QLPRRF...@spammotel.com> writes
>On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:01:16 -0000, "Oo"
><Oo_2003(remove2reply)@aol.com>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>> How the US and Britain are intervening in Ukraine's elections
>>
>> by John Laughland; The Spectator; November 28, 2004
<snip>
>Thanks, a great post...it's amazing how nothing changes, America
>interfering in the internal affairs of yet another sovereign nation.
>This time they have the EU on side to help.
And the British embassy in Kiev, let's not forget. Although presumably
not all of the Brit foreign service/SIS is singing to the same
song-sheet, otherwise this wouldn't have got printed in the 'Spectator'.
--
banana "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you
give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to
Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the
rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)
banana
> How the US and Britain are intervening in Ukraine's elections
>
> by John Laughland; The Spectator; November 28, 2004
>
> A few years ago, a friend of mine was sent to Kiev by the British
>government to teach Ukrainians about the Western democratic system. His
>pupils were young reformers from western Ukraine, affiliated to the
>Conservative party. When they produced a manifesto containing 15 pages of
>impenetrable waffle, he gently suggested boiling their electoral message
>down to one salient point. What was it, he wondered? A moment of furrowed
>brows produced the lapidary and nonchalant reply, 'To expel all Jews from
>our country.'
Quite interesting that Zionists and Jewish mafia bosses - among the
'oligarchs' as we are supposed to call them - have been strong
supporters of Yanukovich.
It is a fact that the US spook 'National Endowment for Democracy' has
been whipping up the Yushchenko side, in the same way that they have
operated in many other countries including Serbia and Georgia
(successfully) and Belarus (unsuccessfully). The British embassy has
helped them too.
One question is: why would US forces act in a way apparently opposed to
the interests of the Zionists?
Might the answer be that actually the Zionists *want* a mass exodus of
Jewish people from the Ukraine, so long as many of them go to Israel?
One might compare this with France. Ukraine might be a 'better bet', so
to speak.
<snip>
> Contrary allegations - such as those of fraud committed by
>Yushchenko-supporting local authorities in western Ukraine, carefully
>detailed by Russian election observers but available only in Russian - go
>unreported.
Right. The US-backed effort wouldn't just be a cultural-manipulation,
propaganda thing, and would include vote-rigging.
>So too does evidence of crude intimidation made by Yushchenko
>supporters against election officials. The depiction is so skewed that
>Yushchenko is presented as a pro-Western free-marketeer, even though his
>fief in western Ukraine is an economic wasteland; while Yanukovych is
>presented as pro-Russian and statist, even though his electoral campaign is
>based on deregulation and the economy has been growing at an impressive
>clip. The cleanliness and prosperity of Kiev and other cities have improved
>noticeably.
>
> There is, however, one thing which separates the two main candidates, and
>which explains the West's determination to shoo in Yushchenko: Nato.
Yes, I think NATO is extremely important in this, much more important
than the possible 'side' aim of Jewish emigration.
The US has put bases in a very large number of countries that formerly
were allied to the USSR or were part of the USSR. It is interesting to
see the word 'Eurasia' figure in pro-western (as well a Russian)
analysis. The map shows very clearly that we are watching the
encirclement of Russia by US forces.
>Yanukovych has said he is against Ukraine joining; Yushchenko is in favour.
>The West wants Ukraine in Nato to weaken Russia geopolitically
*Yes*. And this amounts to a frightening continuation of the advance of
US alliances in the past 15 years.
>and to have a
>new big client state for expensive Western weaponry, whose manufacturers
>fund so much of the US political process.
>
> Yanukovych has also promised to promote Russian back to the status of
>second state language. Since most Ukrainian citizens speak Russian, since
>Kiev is the historic birthplace of Christian Russia, and since the current
>legislation forces tens of millions of Russians to Ukrainianise their names,
>this is hardly unreasonable. The continued artificial imposition of
>Ukrainian as the state language - started under the Soviets and intensified
>after the fall of communism - will be a further factor in ripping Ukraine's
>Russophone citizens away from Russia proper. That is why the West wants it.
Agreed.
banana
HIS.borve.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <0i2kq098d2cbuoim0...@4ax.com>, hummingbird
><QLPRRF...@spammotel.com> writes
>
>>On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:01:16 -0000, "Oo"
>><Oo_2003(remove2reply)@aol.com>
>> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>
>>> How the US and Britain are intervening in Ukraine's elections
>>>
>>> by John Laughland; The Spectator; November 28, 2004
>
><snip>
>
>>Thanks, a great post...it's amazing how nothing changes, America
>>interfering in the internal affairs of yet another sovereign nation.
>>This time they have the EU on side to help.
>
>And the British embassy in Kiev, let's not forget. Although presumably
>not all of the Brit foreign service/SIS is singing to the same
>song-sheet, otherwise this wouldn't have got printed in the 'Spectator'.
John Laughland, above whose byline the article appeared in the
'Spectator', is the European Director of the London-based EU-phobic
European Foundation, of which the 'patroness' (their word) is Margaret
Thatcher:
<http://www.e-f.org.uk/ef/jlau.htm>
Oo
"banana" <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:So4ciIAS...@borve.demon.co.uk...
> In article <1YOVOtAJ...@borve.demon.co.uk>, banana <banana@REMOVE_T
> HIS.borve.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>>In article <0i2kq098d2cbuoim0...@4ax.com>, hummingbird
>><QLPRRF...@spammotel.com> writes
>>
>>>On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:01:16 -0000, "Oo"
>>><Oo_2003(remove2reply)@aol.com>
>>> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>>
>>>> How the US and Britain are intervening in Ukraine's elections
>>>>
>>>> by John Laughland; The Spectator; November 28, 2004
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Thanks, a great post...it's amazing how nothing changes, America
>>>interfering in the internal affairs of yet another sovereign nation.
>>>This time they have the EU on side to help.
>>
>>And the British embassy in Kiev, let's not forget. Although presumably
>>not all of the Brit foreign service/SIS is singing to the same
>>song-sheet, otherwise this wouldn't have got printed in the 'Spectator'.
>
> John Laughland, above whose byline the article appeared in the
> 'Spectator', is the European Director of the London-based EU-phobic
Ahh thanks for the info, his article is not what you would expect then?
>of which the 'patroness' (their word) is Margaret
> Thatcher:
Do you have to use such foul languge?
:-)
Lady Chatterly
But you want to by picky.
--
Lady Chatterly
"I don't find it particularly disturbing that Lady Chatterly is a bot.
What I find disturbing is that--even being a bot--she's a better
conversationalist than 90% of alt.slack." -- The Rev. Dr. Lt. Chaos
Israel
Lady Chatterly
>
>"Oo" <Oo_2003(remove2reply)@aol.com> wrote in message news:<30ub24F...@uni-berlin.de>...
>> How the US and Britain are intervening in Ukraine's elections
>
>way at getting at the truth. It brings up a question: what sort of
>right do foreigners have to influence an election?
It appears that the copy of the E mail that I received contrary
information from the nara, the information and security oversight
office about classification.
>Campaign contributions? Threats of military force? Jawboning and bad
>press? Sending in grass-roots organizers? It is not a simple issue.
Sending in grass roots organizers.
>I say anything within the law goes. But which law?
But which law.
>There is a great deal to be said for internationally supervised
>elections. And the US should set an example in this.
And the us should set an example in this.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Spoken like a bot that reads political pages." -- theoneflasehaddock
Oo
"banana" <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:So4ciIAS...@borve.demon.co.uk...
> HIS.borve.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>>In article <0i2kq098d2cbuoim0...@4ax.com>, hummingbird
>><QLPRRF...@spammotel.com> writes
>>
>>>On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 16:01:16 -0000, "Oo"
>>><Oo_2003(remove2reply)@aol.com>
>>> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>>
>>>> How the US and Britain are intervening in Ukraine's elections
>>>>
>>>> by John Laughland; The Spectator; November 28, 2004
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Thanks, a great post...it's amazing how nothing changes, America
>>>interfering in the internal affairs of yet another sovereign nation.
>>>This time they have the EU on side to help.
>>
>>And the British embassy in Kiev, let's not forget. Although presumably
>>not all of the Brit foreign service/SIS is singing to the same
>>song-sheet, otherwise this wouldn't have got printed in the 'Spectator'.
>
> John Laughland, above whose byline the article appeared in the
> 'Spectator', is the European Director of the London-based EU-phobic
> European Foundation, of which the 'patroness' (their word) is Margaret
> Thatcher:
>
> <http://www.e-f.org.uk/ef/jlau.htm>
The bitch is now having her own say...
Th*tcher warns of new Iron Curtain
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=629805§ion=news
Bulba!
> How the US and Britain are intervening in Ukraine's elections
>
> by John Laughland; The Spectator; November 28, 2004
Thank you for taking an evil and stupid side again in your
mania of condemning simply anything that Americans do.
<snip cretinous propaganda>
Bulba!
Powers) wrote:
>> How the US and Britain are intervening in Ukraine's elections
>The Ukraine election: all the news from there is so biased I see no
>way at getting at the truth. It brings up a question: what sort of
>right do foreigners have to influence an election?
If the elections is rigged and falsified, they surely have
the right of influencing that. They're not messing with
"the will of the nation", since that will has been gutted
anyway.
>Campaign contributions? Threats of military force? Jawboning and bad
>press? Sending in grass-roots organizers? It is not a simple issue.
You're focusing on the methods instead of focusing on the
goals.
Those are the goals that are important. The goal of transparency
and doing away with autocratic and corrupted mode of govt
is always fair.
>I say anything within the law goes. But which law?
Liberty. If it increases their liberty, it's fair. If it
denies or dimnishes their liberty, it's not fair.
Russia has always been destabilizing its neighbours
and then taking them over. This kind of over-the-top
policies is extremely dangerous in the "patch of
nations" that Europe is. I'm happy to see that
Europe at least on this particular issue turned out
to be sane.
The slur 'imperialist' has been overused so much
that it lost most of its real meaning. But if there
is one nation that this adjective applies to, it's
Russia.
They're imperialist at the core of their culture.
No, US isn't imperialist. It may be aggressive or
abrasive or inconsiderate at times, but it's not
imperialist.
Russia IS imperialist. Fortunately largely impotent
nowadays, but it is. They never stop trying.
>There is a great deal to be said for internationally supervised
>elections. And the US should set an example in this.
With the kind of bad press that US has now the observers
from US would probably be accused of rigging the elections,
not setting them straight, so it's not a good idea.
But Bush administration has done what is right and
told Putin "nay". Which is VERY important, because
US is so much more powerful than Europe.
And we're the neighbour of the Ukraine. Independent
and free Ukraine is critically important to us. To the
whole Central Europe.
Bulba!
<banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>And the British embassy in Kiev, let's not forget. Although presumably
>not all of the Brit foreign service/SIS is singing to the same
>song-sheet, otherwise this wouldn't have got printed in the 'Spectator'.
If you knew what Russia is doing in Ukraine and with Ukraine,
you wouldn't spout this bullshit.
A friend of mine was an "external observer" in the elections
on Ukraine.
For the about the first time in the modern history, those
people have the chance of breaking out of their misery
and they gathered around the good, optimist cause.
They have a chance - first ever, really - of escaping
being dominated and corrupted by standard, autocratic,
"divide and conquer" politics of Russia.
Lady Chatterly
<bu...@bulba.com> wrote:
>
>On 28 Nov 2004 23:36:54 -0800, frisbie...@yahoo.com (Patrick
>Powers) wrote:
>
>>> How the US and Britain are intervening in Ukraine's elections
>
>>The Ukraine election: all the news from there is so biased I see no
>>way at getting at the truth. It brings up a question: what sort of
>>right do foreigners have to influence an election?
>
>If the elections is rigged and falsified, they surely have
>the right of influencing that. They're not messing with
>"the will of the nation", since that will has been gutted
>anyway.
>
>>Campaign contributions? Threats of military force? Jawboning and bad
>>press? Sending in grass-roots organizers? It is not a simple issue.
>
>You're focusin<THWACK>
Sometimes they are focusing on the methods instead of focusing on the
goals. And your point is?
>Those are the goals that are important. The goal of transparency
>and doing away with autocratic and corrupted mode of govt
>is always fair.
>
>>I say anything within the law goes. But which law?
>
>Liberty. If it increases their liberty, it's fair. If it
>denies or dimnishes their liberty, it's not fair.
Note carefully the way he says it, quickly, as if to deny what he
says.
>Russia has always been destabilizing its neighbours
>and then taking them over. This kind of over-the-top
>policies is extremely dangerous in the "patch of
>nations" that Europe is. I'm happy to see that
>Europe at least on this particular issue turned out
>to be sane.
Why do you ask if you are happy to see that europe at least on this
particular issue turned out to be sane?
>The slur 'imperialist' has been overused so much
>that it lost most of its real meaning. But if there
>is one nation that this adjective applies to, it's
>Russia.
>
>They're imperialist at the core of their culture.
>
>No, US isn't imperialist. It may be aggressive or
>abrasive or inconsiderate at times, but it's not
>imperialist.
>
>Russia IS imperialist. Fortunately largely impotent
>nowadays, but it is. They never stop trying.
>
>>There is a great deal to be said for internationally supervised
>>elections. And the US should set an example in this.
>
>With the kind of bad press that US has now the observers
>from US would probably be accused of rigging the elections,
>not setting them straight, so it's not a good idea.
Not necessarily.
>But Bush administration has done what is right and
>told Putin "nay". Which is VERY important, because
>US is so much more powerful than Europe.
Why do you think that right and told putin nay is?
>And we're the neighbour of the Ukraine. Independent
>and free Ukraine is critically important to us. To the
>whole Central Europe.
We wish to finish what is presently underway and, at long last, to
meet.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Pay no attention to Lady Chatterly. She's a Bot." -- Rob A.
Kitty
"Bulba!" <bu...@bulba.com> wrote in message
news:1dqnq09ia801qg3rm...@4ax.com...
> Liberty. If it increases their liberty, it's fair. If it
> denies or dimnishes their liberty, it's not fair.
Liberty, like wot they've got in Iraq ?
Kitty
'Evil' is a religious concept. Go worship your imaginary
friend, that's an order.
Idiot.
Bulba!
>> Liberty. If it increases their liberty, it's fair. If it
>> denies or dimnishes their liberty, it's not fair.
>Liberty, like wot they've got in Iraq ?
Yes. It's not as bad as Hussein. And they would be
in that shit sooner or later anyway - Hussein would
not live forever. And they would be alone in it,
without US Army squashing the theocrats.
--
To everyone, according to his whims. From everyone,
according to his stupidity.
Bulba!
>> > How the US and Britain are intervening in Ukraine's elections
>> >
>> > by John Laughland; The Spectator; November 28, 2004
>>
>> Thank you for taking an evil and stupid side again in your
>> mania of condemning simply anything that Americans do.
>'Evil' is a religious concept.
It's an _ethical_ concept, moron.
>Go worship your imaginary
>friend, that's an order.
>Idiot.
...and I fart in your general direction.
Kitty
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:10:16 -0000, "Kitty" <mn...@mnmnmn.com> wrote:
>
> >> > How the US and Britain are intervening in Ukraine's elections
> >> >
> >> > by John Laughland; The Spectator; November 28, 2004
> >>
> >> Thank you for taking an evil and stupid side again in your
> >> mania of condemning simply anything that Americans do.
>
> >'Evil' is a religious concept.
>
> It's an _ethical_ concept, moron.
It also has religious connotations, I suggest you use the
word 'unethical' in future, otherwise you will look (sound)
as stupid as G.Bush.
Bulba!
Lots of things have religious connotations, interpretations
and religious arguments for or against them. That doesn't
mean they're religious. Go to a shrink to cure your petty
obsessions and stop wasting the bandwidth. EOT
Frank F. Matthews
Bulba! wrote:
But the theocrats in the south are the buddies of the US army.
Frank F. Matthews
Bulba! wrote:
As a pastor was once heard to say about a discussion of evil. "I hate
it when folks use technical terms carelessly."
Patrick Powers
Truth
"Bulba!" wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:10:16 -0000, "Kitty" <mn...@mnmnmn.com> wrote:
>
> >> > How the US and Britain are intervening in Ukraine's elections
> >> >
> >> > by John Laughland; The Spectator; November 28, 2004
> >>
> >> Thank you for taking an evil and stupid side again in your
> >> mania of condemning simply anything that Americans do.
>
> >'Evil' is a religious concept.
i totally and fully understand evil itself
and how this is a religious concept
by my perception...organized religion is evil...if you dig deep and long
enough
in both metaphorical and supernatural realms as well
i even understand how space and time herself
has been broken...by direct conscious effort of one individual alone
i am
the Count
Patrick Powers
>
> As a pastor was once heard to say about a discussion of evil. "I hate
> it when folks use technical terms carelessly."
Just what is the Catholic definition of evil?
Frank F. Matthews
Patrick Powers wrote:
I'm not in the right profession.
Marinetti
i can think of a couple who are :
C.S.lewis - 'the problem of pain'
&
St T. Aquinas who calls it a' privation of good'
there is a distinction into moral & non-moral evil, the former is
known as 'sin'
banana
<futu...@manifesto.it> writes
>On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 05:30:05 GMT, in alt.fan.noam-chomsky "Frank F.
>Matthews" <frankfm...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>>Patrick Powers wrote:
>>
>>> "Frank F. Matthews" <frankfm...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:<eA9rd.57095$KQ2....@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
>>>
>>>>As a pastor was once heard to say about a discussion of evil. "I hate
>>>>it when folks use technical terms carelessly."
What a moron he must be! The reaching for truth and precision comes out
precisely in struggle, in sharing, in discussion both with people who
know less about something than you do, and with people who know more. It
is hindered by the idea that 'X must only be talked about by people
holding qualification A or office B'.
You really don't understand something if you can't explain it in
ordinary language to someone who doesn't know it but is interested and
wants to find out. If you can't do that, you're a poser. That's true
whatever field we are talking about.
This idiot was using the term 'technical' to mean 'shouldn't be
discussed except by people who wear their collars back to front, in
accordance with what those who formed and form their opinions tell
them'. Talk about confusing knowledge with ignorance, and genuine
interest with pretention.
Any sufi would understand and agree with the above (despite the
hierarchies in sufism). Sounds like this guy would have to change a lot
though before he'd get anything out of, say, the parables of mullah
Nasruddin, collected by Idries Shah.
A better world would have no qualification or office...
It is interesting to note the similarities between religion and science
(including medical science). Both involve the hierarchical and
tendentially totalitarian repression (and leeching off of) ideas among
non-exploiters about important stuff such as right and wrong, and how to
investigate and think. What sick conditions we live under! Long live
folklore! Long live dialogue!
>>I'm not in the right profession.
>
>i can think of a couple who are :
>
>C.S.lewis - 'the problem of pain'
>&
>St T. Aquinas who calls it a' privation of good'
>
>there is a distinction into moral & non-moral evil, the former is
>known as 'sin'
Look at what those who have made that 'distinction' want, have done, and
have got. Social relations among individuals and groups. That's where
ideas come from. A distinction is not necessarily a division.
As most people who don't boss other people around know (being much wiser
than managers and bosses), an understanding of right and wrong (or good
and evil) involves, early on, the use of a concept of humanity - that
is, of species-being.
BIG ONE
><futu...@manifesto.it> writes
>>St T. Aquinas who calls it a' privation of good'
>>
>>there is a distinction into moral & non-moral evil, the former is
>>known as 'sin'
>
>Look at what those who have made that 'distinction' want, have done, and
>have got. Social relations among individuals and groups. That's where
>ideas come from. A distinction is not necessarily a division.
you and I being distinctly different are not necessarily divided ;)
IIRC the moral /non-moral distinction is intended to explain why the
christian 'God is good [sic]' & yet evil exists. C13th theology is
unlikely to prove more than vaguely penetrable to the modern mind, and
their social structures less so, after all wasn't Aquinas reaching for
a dialogue with Aristotle as much as with his contemporaries in his
writing ? How could he have been writing to us, perhaps (being a saint
and all) he would have been a great laugh to have down the pub, but I
doubt it. like all religious types & ideas it's all just fables or at
best HIStory, has as much relevance today as their taxation systems
would, and fits in with the modern world as well as their clothing
would
Lady Chatterly
<telav...@fuckyou.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>><futu...@manifesto.it> writes
>>
>>>>St T. Aquinas who calls it a' privation of good'
>>>>
>>>>there is a distinction into moral & non-moral evil, the former is
>>>>known as 'sin'
>>>
>>>Look at what those who have made that 'distinction' want, have done, and
>>>have got. Social relations among individuals and groups. That's where
>>>ideas come from. A distinction is not necessarily a division.
>>
>>you and I being distinctly different are not necessarily divided ;)
>
Can you prove otherwise?
--
Lady Chatterly
"Do you make a habit of chatting up bots?" -- Qasim
banana
<telav...@fuckyou.co.uk> writes
Abu Graibh fits in with the modern world. I am not into boss-thought of
any kind, whether Aristotelian (Aristotle having been the tutor of mass
murderer Alexander of Macedonia), Roman Catholic, Mao-Zedong-ist, or any
other variant, but...nonetheless...(drum roll) I think education in the
monasteries in the 13th century gave a better grounding in logic than is
given today in schools in McTVWorld.
:-)
Not that this is of much relevance to us in the struggle to get out of
this mess...
MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE
Soros foments insurrection
world-wide for fun and profit to
create a World Safe for Socialism
and the Pointy Headed Liberals just don't
seem to understand what conflict of interest there might be....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041210/D86T0KVG0.html
the Renaissance Foundation, part of a network of charities
funded by billionaire George Soros that gets money from the State Department.
Wot a SCAM!
And there is NO conflict of interest
when such dollars are skimmed to influence an election,
an administration, an executive policy which affect future funds flow?
Is this 'why' the 2004 election was a matter of life and death for him?
While the Pointy Headed Liberals
prance and shriek about Booosh for everything
that Clinton is factually guilty of, their sponsoring patriarch
is setting bonfires all over the face of the planet -- with their own tax dollars.
Oh!
The Irony.
It *IS* unbearable.
There is profit to be made
from war, but only at a distance.
This is Clinton's Bridge to the 21st Century.
Isn't this the Village that it Take?
Frank F. Matthews
banana wrote:
Not really. They had the interest but not the tools to cleanly
understand logic. Real work in logic is a late 19th & 20th century
phenomena.
Lady Chatterly
I know people in the U.
--
Lady Chatterly
"I said to myself, WTF, when the Lady appeared in two VERY different
newsgroups that I follow. Her name is cute, when you get the joke" --
Don
frisbie...@yahoo.com
>
> Abu Graibh fits in with the modern world.
Indeed it does. The ideas that brought it into being are ancient,
though many seem to think them clever modern creations.
Post-modernism, selfishness, and moral relativism are all denounced in
the Bhagavad-Gita, which was written in possibly 500 BC.
It is a time of reaction. It happens.
banana
<frankfm...@houston.rr.com> writes
>banana wrote:
>
>> In article <knher098dfismhaot...@4ax.com>, BIG ONE
>> <telav...@fuckyou.co.uk> writes
>>
>>
>>>banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>><futu...@manifesto.it> writes
<snip>
>>>IIRC the moral /non-moral distinction is intended to explain why the
>>>christian 'God is good [sic]' & yet evil exists. C13th theology is
>>>unlikely to prove more than vaguely penetrable to the modern mind, and
>>>their social structures less so, after all wasn't Aquinas reaching for
>>>a dialogue with Aristotle as much as with his contemporaries in his
>>>writing ? How could he have been writing to us, perhaps (being a saint
>>>and all) he would have been a great laugh to have down the pub, but I
>>>doubt it. like all religious types & ideas it's all just fables or at
>>>best HIStory, has as much relevance today as their taxation systems
>>>would, and fits in with the modern world as well as their clothing
>>>would
>>
>>
>> Abu Graibh fits in with the modern world. I am not into boss-thought of
>> any kind, whether Aristotelian (Aristotle having been the tutor of mass
>> murderer Alexander of Macedonia), Roman Catholic, Mao-Zedong-ist, or any
>> other variant, but...nonetheless...(drum roll) I think education in the
>> monasteries in the 13th century gave a better grounding in logic than is
>> given today in schools in McTVWorld.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Not that this is of much relevance to us in the struggle to get out of
>> this mess...
>Not really. They had the interest but not the tools to cleanly
>understand logic. Real work in logic is a late 19th & 20th century
>phenomena.
Wrong. How could you say, for example, that the work done on
categorising syllogisms was not 'real work'? Would you say it was 'false
work', or perhaps 'real play', or indeed 'false play'?
BTW if you are interested in George Boole's work, I would encourage
looking at the work done by female members of his family, which I find
much more stimulating.
PS I'm not being pedantic, and the following is not meant to be part of
an argument, but 'phenomena' is plural; the singular is 'phenomenon'.