Looking for a Kosovo solution (to Terry Boardman)
Steve Hillage
And may I thank you for our exhilarating exchange of views a few days ago.
My position remains the same :-
Despite all the historically fuelled suspicion surrounding NATO's
motivation, and despite the fact that all the ethnic groups in former
Yugoslavia (Kosovo Albanians included), I am totally opposed to Milosevic's
policy of brutal ethnic cleaning (the "hard hand" as he called it in 1987).
I believe that his policy is so vile and so dangerous that only his eventual
total defeat will stop it infecting Europe and the Middle East in the next
century.
Are you ready for a Russian nuclear-armed Milosevic in five/ten/twenty
year's time? Do you know about Lukashenko (Belarus dictaor and Milosevic
wanna-be)?
If the Western nations are not resolute in the face of Milosevic I think it
will set a bad historical precedent and actually encourage this new creed of
"National Communism".
I was not a virulent anti-communist during the cold war. I opposed the war
in Vietnam. I opposed the introduction of Cruise and Pershing missiles in
1983.
However I believe the historical situation has moved on, and in the case of
Kosovo I support the position of Blair.
While the Blair-hating left may howl in derision at someone like me actually
using the name of Blair in a positive way, I remain appalled and deeply
saddenned that the left has teamed up with the far right in a wholly
inexcusable defence of Serbia and Milosevic.
This is, as I have posted before, a bizarre echo of the behaviour of
communists after the Hitler/Stalin pact of 1939.
To reply to a couple of points in your last post :-
> The USA has a criminally violent government that is
> beholden to an anti-Slav so-called 'internationalist' view.
Why anti-Slav?
> I have said before in other posts that though the UN force (e.g. the Dutch)
> were inadequate in the Bosnian debacle, a UN force in Kosovo would HAVE to be
> credible. That is not beyond the wit of man. Where there is a will,
> there's a way. Instead of spending millions of man-hours and dollars on
> determining the best way to slaughter Serbs in a full-scale war,
> couldn't that energy be put into finding a peaceful way of resolving the
> problem and making the UN force credible. This is not naivete; it's
> realism. Yours is a counsel of despair.
I beg to differ. We've had numerous UN forces and initiatives in former
Yugoslavia , but the situation now is such that another UN fudge could
just leave Milosevic in a situation to start up again in a year or two,
having maybe engineered a nice little take-over of Montenegro to boot.
You talk of a UN force HAVING to be credible. I say that this impossible
without the full involvment of NATO. Please give details of an alternative.
Remember the UN force in South Lebanon - they failed to stop the Qana
massacre by Israel.
I feel unfortunately yours is the council of despair, and that my feeling
that taking an iron fist to Milosevic is realism and the least worst option.
> The UN is not the reason for NATO's blundering into this mess, as you
> put. If you check out the facts, you'll find that the West and
> especially the USA effectively undermined the UN at every step in the
> Balkans up to now - and why? Because it was decided that NATO (in which
> the US has more of a free hand) would have its way.
I think this is a paranoid position.
>> I do not think it is correct to trivialise the appalling suffering inflicted
>> on the Kosovar Albanians by the Serbs. Shame on you.
>
> But all you're talking about is who has committed the most atrocities,
> done the most killing. That is simplistic and no basis to understand
> this complex situation. This goes back decades and centuries. It's not
> just the last 10 or 20 years. You can't talk about Ireland and draw a
> line in say 1985 and say, now who's done the most killing since then -
> they're the baddies.
With respect Terry, you are still trivialising the matter. The crimes
committed under the Serb sign of the 4 c's are out of all proportion to
those committed by the other warring groups.
Sure the Ustashe of Croatia in WWII were total monsters and the Serbs were
victims, but the conflicts with Germany and Japan have now been settled.
Serbia has to lose its "Norman Bates" mentality and become part of the
modern world. I do think this is possible without Milosevic being defeated,
and seen to be defeated.
The situation surrounding the break up of Yugoslavia is new. The Berlin wall
is down yet we have an unreformed communist (and his wife) who has clung to
power by stirring up the old hatreds. This historically a new situation. The
disease of ultra-violence and denial suffered by the Serbs is a serious
disease and it could infect many other parts of Europe.
>> I am a simple anti-fascist.
>
> This seems to be the problem - and "simple anti-fascists" and other
> leftwingers, including unfortunately Ken Livingstone (for whom I have a
> lot of time on other issues) just apply simple black-and-white western
> leftist logic in these situations.
Unlike Tony Benn, Jeremy Corbyn etc who have a complex, incoherent
and ultimately hypocritical viewpoint. The Hitler/Stalin pact factor again.
> XYZ is a nationalist, the Serbs are nationalists, nationalism is atavistic and
> equals fascism or fascism in the making ergo he/they must be bad. We cannot go
> on applying these simple-minded, western, liberal universalist, abstract
> principles all over the world, ignoring the historical, religious, and
> cultural proclivities of local peoples.
This is patronising to the people of former Yugoslavia. The Balkans are part
of modern Europe. These "cultural proclivities" have been aroused and
provoked by Milosevic's strategy to hold on power.
Your point here is similar to they way pro-Apartheid supporters used to
speak about the "tribal" black South Africans.
Football hooliganism seems to be a "cultural proclivity" of Britain. Does
that excuse the way England supporters behaved in Marseille last year?
> It just blows up in our face time and
> again. Don't you see that? And this left wing liberal internationalist
> agenda has a brutal twin: rightwing western internationalism. I refer
> you to some of abelard's highly intelligent but utterly cold-hearted
> posts for that. Both of these internationalisms are based on the idea:
> "we know what's best for you," so "we're going to sort you out".
>
>>
>> If it was 1936 I would have been in favour of intervention by Britain and
>> France in the Spanish civil war - it might have stopped Hitler.
>
> He could have been stopped much more easily and with less violence in
> 1935 when he attempted to remilitarise the Rhineland. But Britain held
> France back.
But would this have also stopped Franco?
>> I certainly would have had no qualms in 1939 about fighting Hitler (unlike
>> the Communists who seriously compromised themselves due to the Hitler/Stalin
>> pact).
> I see you've come a long way from "Fish Rising" Steve.
>
> "Sometimes you need the black to see the white to find the core of Love
> and Beauty". Remember that? Does it embarrass you now? It shouldn't,
> because it's truth.
No embarrassment Terry. I studied Spanish Civil War at Canterbury University
and I used to love Orwell's book "Homage to Catalonia". I've held the same
attitude to WWII before, during and after the Fish Rising period.
With regard to the lyric you quote, I still have the same ideals and I do
not hold to a naive neo-Christian "good versus evil" point of view.
The lyric you quote represents the idea that the spriritual universe is
based on balance rather than a childish fantasy of good triumphing over
evil. This is a more "Eastern" point of view.
But in order to maintain that balance, choices still have to be made between
right and wrong in the real world. Philosophical apathy does not bring one
closer to God. Being really honest is the best thing we can ever aspire to.
I think you have woefully misinterpreted my "naive liberal" position.
>>
>> Let's stop beating about the bush.
>>
>> In the end of the day the military defeat of Milosevic and his cronies seems
>> to me like the only way to end this thing.
>
> This will signify a total lack of imagination, a complete moral
> bankruptcy after a century in which we should have learned *something*
> of how to avoid repeating this kind of lunacy.
Surely one of the main lessons is that fascism has to stamped out by
superior force otherwise it will propagate.
> Rambouillet was NOT a
> genuine attempt at peace; it was a con-trick to set the stage for a war.
>
> If this means actual ground
>> combat then so be it. What's the point in having an army if they can't fight
>> in a just war?
>
> The oldies never fail to send the young to the slaughter, do they? "If I
> was younger, I'd go" - this has never been any excuse.
I resent the accusation you make that I am an armchair general.
> "You know the Way - To Be
> A-ha, we're getting nearer..."
I also reject the implied accusation that I used to support escapist naive
Pollyanna rose-tinted idealism. I believe that one can hold a highly
developed spiritual viewpoint while also being fully part of the real world
where people piss shit and kill one another - and where severe choices have
to made about severe political questions, such as Kosovo/Yugoslavia.
>>
>> And by the way, Terry, I bet you anything you like that that damn video is
>> true.
>
> Steve, tell me, how do you KNOW it is true? Will you please tell me
> that? Your experience of the last 30 years should have taught you that
> in this world of increasingly virtual reality, all kinds of con-tricks
> are possible. How do you know it was not produced by the KLA or the CIA?
> I don't know that it was. I'm simply saying that I'm not going to let
> something like that stir me up to say "YES TONY GO FOR THEIR JUGULAR!!!"
>
>
>>You just don't want to believe it.
>
> If it is proved beyond reasonable doubt, as in a court of law, then I
> shall certainly believe it.
You're trivialising again. This is not a student dabate. It's about the
savage deaths of Kosovo Albanians, their society and culture at the hands of
hooded para-military fascist thugs, shielded by the Serbian army, state
apparatus and media.
> Ask yourself why.
>
> I think rather Steve, that you are too keen to believe it, so you can
> have your war and "punish those bastard Serbs". Please look into your
> heart and tell me that this desire for revenge is not there. I hope you
> can.
Honestly, Terry, it's not revenge. The Serbs haven't done anything to me!
It's just a cool assessment that the nation that has allowed this to happen
TOO MANY TIMES has to be completely stopped from letting it ever happen
again.
Bye bye and thanx for all the fish
Hillside Village
>
> With respect and gratitude,
> Terry
Steve Hillage
>
> With respect Terry, you are still trivialising the matter. The crimes
> committed under the Serb sign of the 4 c's are out of all proportion to
> those committed by the other warring groups.
>
> Sure the Ustashe of Croatia in WWII were total monsters and the Serbs were
> victims, but the conflicts with Germany and Japan have now been settled.
>
> Serbia has to lose its "Norman Bates" mentality and become part of the
> modern world. I do think this is possible without Milosevic being defeated,
> and seen to be defeated.
NB!!
I do NOT think this is possible without Milosevic being defeated, and seen
to be defeated.
>
> The situation surrounding the break up of Yugoslavia is new. The Berlin wall
> is down yet we have an unreformed communist (and his wife) who has clung to
> power by stirring up the old hatreds. This historically a new situation. The
> disease of ultra-violence and denial suffered by the Serbs is a serious
> disease and it could infect many other parts of Europe.
>
Steve
Steve Hillage
>
> Despite all the historically fuelled suspicion surrounding NATO's
> motivation, and despite the fact that all the ethnic groups in former
> Yugoslavia (Kosovo Albanians included)
all the ethnic groups in former Yugoslavia (Kosovo Albanians included) have
been guilty of extreme and unneccessary violence
Terry Boardman
Steve Hillage wrote:
>
> Welcome back Terry,
>
> And may I thank you for our exhilarating exchange of views a few days ago.
The feeling is mutual although I wouldn't use the word 'exhilarataing'
myself. I'm glad we have managed to keep the exchange 'civilised',
although I find it deeply worrying that after all the events of the 20th
century someone as sane and intelligent as yourself remains blind to the
machinations of the elites in control of US-UK Inc.
>
> My position remains the same :-
>
> Despite all the historically fuelled suspicion surrounding NATO's
> motivation, and despite the fact that all the ethnic groups in former
> Yugoslavia (Kosovo Albanians included), [something missing here, I think] I am totally opposed to Milosevic's
> policy of brutal ethnic cleaning (the "hard hand" as he called it in 1987).
I am too. The policy apparently stems from a blueprint drawn up in 1937
by one of the surviving 1914 Sarajevo assassins, Vaso Cubrilovic, who
had become a respected professor and remained a ferocious nationalist.
> I believe that his policy is so vile and so dangerous that only his eventual
> total defeat will stop it infecting Europe and the Middle East in the next
> century.
I think you are wrong here and misunderstand the developing nature of
history. What we have been seeing since the 1880s is the slow but
inexorable onset of a new wave in human affairs that can be called
cosmopolitanism or supranationalism. Needless to say, this has positive
and negative sides. My wife is Asian and very much enjoys living in
Britain, but her country and mine have clashed in the twentieth century
because of western imperialism, which arose as the shadow, the double of
the cosmopolitan impulse. The wave that has been on a *slow* retreat
throughout the 20th century is that which developed from the 16th to the
19th century, namely nationalism and all that goes with excessive
attachment to one's own people. This is not a question of good and bad.
The wave that brought us nationalism also brought us an attachment to
the Earth and all its splendours and a real interest in her, which
became natural science. Now you seem to think that nationalism which had
risen to a peak in the period 1880-1914 and remained strong until 1945
will simply continue on and "infect" the 21st century. But actually, it
will continually be forced to retreat before the impulse of
cosmopolitanism. This is the flow of history, which, like the wind,
needs to be read if we are to make sense of life and not get
shipwrecked. However, although nationalism will ever tend to weaken in
the next century, its resistance may well become desperate and even
vicious IF all the things bound up with attachment to one's own country
and culture are ridden over roughshod by the ever more triumphant and
ever more arrogant wave of supranational globalism. Fundamentalism can
be seen as a desperate and emotional reaction to the rapacious and
unfeeling activities of supranational corporate, institutional and
political globalisers. Just as patriotism can degenerate into fascism,
so supranational globalism can, indeed already is, degenerating into a
new kind of global fascism of the Brave New World - and it is to this
that you and others who think like you seem unfortunately blind. You
have forgotten one of the real, onr of the greatest prophets of England:
J.R.R.Tolkien and his "Lord Of The Rings", written under the shadow of
evil 1936-49: "One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One
Ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them, in the Land of
Mordor where the shadows lie." Tolkien was not just writing about Hitler
and Germany, but about a principle of evil, spiritual in nature, that is
the very spirit of unfreedom, of authoritarianism that has "infected"
this century from both left and right. It is this spirit that is working
to create Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and H.G.Wells' Shape of Things
To Come. This spirit does not invade like Hitler, it creeps in
insidiously into democratic societies and corrupts them with fear,
egotism, and lust. In the small town where I live, the houses all have
burglar alarms and the streets are covered with cameras to protect the
good citizens from their youth - the cameras were introduced just 7
years after the collapse of the totalitarian USSR, the enemy of freedom
we'd been fighting the Cold War against for 40 years!
What I'm saying, Steve, is that it is not the fascism of a Milosevic
that you and Vanessa Redgrave and Ken Livingstone need to be worried
about so much as the far bigger threat of the insidious creeping fascism
of the Brave New World. We need to see how those forces that work for
this new globalist fascism make use of the older nationalist fascisms to
achieve their ends. What I have said here, to me is a reality, no
far-fetched conspiracy theory, and is the result of a lot of
contemplation about modern history. Although I very much feel for the
plight of the ethnic Albanians - and I have put to you suggestions for
the ending of this conflict, which you have rejected - I know that
their plight is not new; such ill-treatment has been with us since at
least the Assyrians. What IS new is the Brave New World of the elite
globalisers who work predominantly in the English language and out of
the USA and the UK. It is this that I do not intend to lose sight of,
and this which the elite globalisers, who work through deception and
"virtuality", wish us to overlook in our justified concern for the
people of Kosovo.
>
> Are you ready for a Russian nuclear-armed Milosevic in five/ten/twenty
> year's time? Do you know about Lukashenko (Belarus dictaor and Milosevic
> wanna-be)?
If the West wants to avoid such a scenario, the best way would be for it
to spend some of the vast sums it spends on arms on completely
rethinking its economic priorities and values so that it can offer to
the world an economic life the rest of the world can respect. If it does
not, then we shall see all over the world only a succession of
Milosevics and Lukashenkos and other nationalist/fundamentalist leaders
of desperate rearguard actions against western arrogance.
>
> If the Western nations are not resolute in the face of Milosevic I think it
> will set a bad historical precedent and actually encourage this new creed of
> "National Communism".
ditto my previous remarks
>
> I was not a virulent anti-communist during the cold war.
I was, and still am. Bolshevism is totalitarian and denies individual
freedom.
I opposed the war
> in Vietnam.
So did I. US imperialism (military, economic and cultural) is
totalitarian and ultimately (though more slowly) denies individual
freedom. It has nothing to do with the true spirit of America.
I opposed the introduction of Cruise and Pershing missiles in
> 1983.
So did I.
>
> However I believe the historical situation has moved on, and in the case of
> Kosovo I support the position of Blair.
You say this, but as I hope I have made clear above, for you the
historical situation has actually NOT moved on. You are still fighting
the old anti-fascist battles of mid-century. You do not actually
perceive how the historical situation HAS moved on. Like many
leftwingers, you see a phenomenon, make a superficial judgment of it,
apply a universalist label to a whole range of different situations and
then charge off like Don Quixote crying "Death to Fascism!!!" This is
not the Spanish Civil War.
>
> While the Blair-hating left may howl in derision at someone like me actually
> using the name of Blair in a positive way, I remain appalled and deeply
> saddenned that the left has teamed up with the far right in a wholly
> inexcusable defence of Serbia and Milosevic.
I hope you will not include me with "the Blair-hating left". I do happen
to think that we have a PM with a very appropriate name: Blair-Blur - he
is a virtual politician. I do not take him for a man of substance; he is
a dangerous Pied Piper for Britain and we dance to his tune at our
peril. But I am not of the Left nor the Right and never have been.
>
> This is, as I have posted before, a bizarre echo of the behaviour of
> communists after the Hitler/Stalin pact of 1939.
Bizarre also is Vanessa Redgrave and Margaret Thatcher in agreement, bu
these are bizarre times, we all acknowledge.
>
> To reply to a couple of points in your last post :-
>
> > The USA has a criminally violent government that is
> > beholden to an anti-Slav so-called 'internationalist' view.
>
> Why anti-Slav?
The western elites see 3 cultural enemies in Europe to Anglo-American
dominance: France (enemy of the past - almost down and out), Germany
(enemy of the present - down but not yet out), Russia (enemy of the
future - not yet down or out). Remember you used to sing about the Age
of Aquarius? One of the reasons I have liked your "Fish Rising" was that
it celebrated the Piscean spirit (I am not Pisces myself, I hasten to
add), whereas most New Agers hold Pisces to be all but finished and
Aquarius to be just round the corner. This was always an astronomical
error, since the *astronomical* Age of Aquarius (via precession of
vernal point)is not due to begin until AD 2375. The *cultural* as
opposed to the *astronomical* Age of Aquarius, however, will not begin
until 1200 years later, in 3573, [The 1200 year period is determined by
the rotation through the 12 signs of the Zodiac of the Venus pentagram -
the pattern of conjuctions of Venus with the Sun] so the Age of Aquarius
is a long way off, but it is in that Age - the Age of Brotherhood - when
the Russians will come into their own. (Russian communism was a
premature prefiguring of this Age, and because it was premature, it was
baleful; it was also injected into Russia from the West and no homegrown
philosophy) Now, recall Francis Fukuyama and his infamous "End of
History" book (which most people have never read but know only the
title), published when the New World Order was announced by Bush.
Fukuyama is no isolated academic but someone with his ears
well-connected to the ground of the Anglo-American elite. What is
desired by the western elites of the west is that there shall be NO Age
of Aquarius, NO Age of Brotherhood, NO Russian spiritual contribution to
humanity. Russia must therefore be undermined and corrupted well in
advance. History must stop with the triumph of Anglo-American capitalist
consumerism: the One Ring.
>
> > I have said before in other posts that though the UN force (e.g. the Dutch)
> > were inadequate in the Bosnian debacle, a UN force in Kosovo would HAVE to be
> > credible. That is not beyond the wit of man. Where there is a will,
> > there's a way. Instead of spending millions of man-hours and dollars on
> > determining the best way to slaughter Serbs in a full-scale war,
> > couldn't that energy be put into finding a peaceful way of resolving the
> > problem and making the UN force credible. This is not naivete; it's
> > realism. Yours is a counsel of despair.
>
> I beg to differ. We've had numerous UN forces and initiatives in former
> Yugoslavia , but the situation now is such that another UN fudge could
> just leave Milosevic in a situation to start up again in a year or two,
> having maybe engineered a nice little take-over of Montenegro to boot.
>
> You talk of a UN force HAVING to be credible. I say that this impossible
> without the full involvment of NATO. Please give details of an alternative.
> Remember the UN force in South Lebanon - they failed to stop the Qana
> massacre by Israel.
Please read my above remarks about the UN again. I agree that if the
force is to be only another monitor or observer force, that will be
hopeless, but I assert that a credible UN force WILL be effective if it
is well-armed, *properly mandated* to use its arms by the Security
Council and includes a suitably sizeable Russian contingent as well as
contingents from non-NATO countries. Why is this beyond the wit of man
or of yourself?
>
> I feel unfortunately yours is the council of despair, and that my feeling
> that taking an iron fist to Milosevic is realism and the least worst option.
Taking an iron fist to Hitler did indeed cauterise the cancer in
Germany, although there are still neo-Nazis there, many far too young to
remember the War. But like many leftwingers you tar everything with the
same brush and ignore individual situations. Nazism, I maintain, was a
unique evil in those 12 years and required uniquely brutal reatment to
remove. Nazism was on a titanic scale beyond imagination almost, so that
a tacky little old-style butcher like Milosevic hardly compares.
Nevertheless, it is clear that despite the Allies' overkill in Germany,
fascism has NOT been exorcised worldwide, nor can it ever be by violence
or the iron fist as you call it. It is not realism to apply the tactics
of 1939-45 to Milosevic. It ignorance and lack of imagination
>
> > The UN is not the reason for NATO's blundering into this mess, as you
> > put. If you check out the facts, you'll find that the West and
> > especially the USA effectively undermined the UN at every step in the
> > Balkans up to now - and why? Because it was decided that NATO (in which
> > the US has more of a free hand) would have its way.
>
> I think this is a paranoid position.
Why do you think so? What is your basis for saying that NATO got into
the mess *because of the UN*? I have just been listening on Radio 4's
"The World Tonight" to David Owen, no enemy of the US, saying that
throughout the Bosnian crisis the US opposed and obstructed the UN.
>
> >> I do not think it is correct to trivialise the appalling suffering inflicted
> >> on the Kosovar Albanians by the Serbs. Shame on you.
> >
> > But all you're talking about is who has committed the most atrocities,
> > done the most killing. That is simplistic and no basis to understand
> > this complex situation. This goes back decades and centuries. It's not
> > just the last 10 or 20 years. You can't talk about Ireland and draw a
> > line in say 1985 and say, now who's done the most killing since then -
> > they're the baddies.
>
> With respect Terry, you are still trivialising the matter. The crimes
> committed under the Serb sign of the 4 c's are out of all proportion to
> those committed by the other warring groups.
I'm sorry Steve, it just won't do. You're only talking about quantities.
You must know that ALL groups in the former Yugoslavia have committed
heinous crimes against each other.
>
> Sure the Ustashe of Croatia in WWII were total monsters and the Serbs were
> victims, but the conflicts with Germany and Japan have now been settled.
The war between Britain and Ireland was 'settled' in 1922, but did that
mean that people forgot the crimes of the other side or ceased resenting
and desiring revenge?
>
> Serbia has to lose its "Norman Bates" mentality and become part of the
> modern world. I do think this is possible without Milosevic being defeated,
> and seen to be defeated.
If you want Milosoevic to be defeated, then seek to arrest him
personally for war crimes through due process of international law. The
"modern world" as you call it, operates on the basis of recognised law.
You cannot make and then break this law at whim as US-UK have done.
Serbia will not become part of your "modern world" until you eradicate
the Serbian Orthodox church, Serbian literature and poetry, Serbian
history and everything else that prevents the Serbs from turning into US
or UK citizens. Your proposal and the way you would treat Serbia, I'm
afraid is semi-fascist itself in tone. You want the Allies to do to
Serbia what they did to Germany and Japan in 1939-45. Is that it? I
suppose you will say, "if necessary, yes".
>
> The situation surrounding the break up of Yugoslavia is new. The Berlin wall
> is down yet we have an unreformed communist (and his wife) who has clung to
> power by stirring up the old hatreds. This historically a new situation. The
> disease of ultra-violence and denial suffered by the Serbs is a serious
> disease and it could infect many other parts of Europe.
It was the Nazis, building on Anglo-American theory and practice of
Social Darwinist eugenics, that spoke of peoples (Jews and Slavs) in
association with 'disease'. It is a vile concept.
>
> >> I am a simple anti-fascist.
> >
> > This seems to be the problem - and "simple anti-fascists" and other
> > leftwingers, including unfortunately Ken Livingstone (for whom I have a
> > lot of time on other issues) just apply simple black-and-white western
> > leftist logic in these situations.
>
> Unlike Tony Benn, Jeremy Corbyn etc who have a complex, incoherent
> and ultimately hypocritical viewpoint. The Hitler/Stalin pact factor again.
Benn does not have an incoherent or hypocritical position. He is one of
the *very* few politicians in this country who is not a yes-man and can
be relied upon to speak his mind, because he has no offices to chase
now. The result is that the media treat him like the court clown, to be
listened to seriously and then laughed at - one of the few politicians
who has intelligence and heart and will: a rare combination.
>
> > XYZ is a nationalist, the Serbs are nationalists, nationalism is atavistic and
> > equals fascism or fascism in the making ergo he/they must be bad. We cannot go
> > on applying these simple-minded, western, liberal universalist, abstract
> > principles all over the world, ignoring the historical, religious, and
> > cultural proclivities of local peoples.
>
> This is patronising to the people of former Yugoslavia. The Balkans are part
> of modern Europe.
It is not at all patronising. The problem is with what you seem to
imagine 'modern Europe' to be. Some bland universalist secular humanist
consumer society - or what? Why do you appear to demean local cultural
proclivities? I can't believe that you do.
These "cultural proclivities" have been aroused and
> provoked by Milosevic's strategy to hold on power.
>
> Your point here is similar to they way pro-Apartheid supporters used to
> speak about the "tribal" black South Africans.
There you go again - the leftwing habit - lumping diverse situations
together. My point is NOT similar at all and it is unthinking of you to
imply that I would have anything to do with pro-Apartheid supporters.
What kind of crude dualistic model of 'modern' and 'pre-modern' (local,
cultural etc is this?
>
> Football hooliganism seems to be a "cultural proclivity" of Britain. Does
> that excuse the way England supporters behaved in Marseille last year?
Seems like a neat point, but actually of course it's irrelevant.
Needless to say, such behaviour cannot be excused, and anyway, as you
must know, it is not a cultural proclivity of Britain. Dutch and German
fans are also feared, and Italian fans have been known to lose their
tempers once in a while! It may be that we introduced foreigners to this
particular grossness, but then we also introduced the world to the
grossness of the Industrial Revolution, and they all took to that.
Continentals were complaining about the peculiar violence and rowdiness
of the English in the Middle Ages, by the way.
>
> > It just blows up in our face time and
> > again. Don't you see that? And this left wing liberal internationalist
> > agenda has a brutal twin: rightwing western internationalism. I refer
> > you to some of abelard's highly intelligent but utterly cold-hearted
> > posts for that. Both of these internationalisms are based on the idea:
> > "we know what's best for you," so "we're going to sort you out".
> >
> >>
> >> If it was 1936 I would have been in favour of intervention by Britain and
> >> France in the Spanish civil war - it might have stopped Hitler.
Stopped Hitler doing what? He knew that in 1936 his military wasn't
strong enough to take on Britain and France. If they'd joined the
Spanish Civil War in '36, he'd have got out smartish.
Serbia is not Germany
Milosevic is not Hitler
The ethnic Albanians are not the Jews
> >
> > He could have been stopped much more easily and with less violence in
> > 1935 when he attempted to remilitarise the Rhineland. But Britain held
> > France back.
>
> But would this have also stopped Franco?
It might have. Who can say?
In any case, Franco shouldn't have been stopped by Britain and France.
He was also no Hitler. Franco was the destiny of Spain - it was up to
the Spanish to deal with him. Good grief Steve, must you meddle in
everyone's problems just because they threaten to carry the dreaded
F-word?
>
> >> I certainly would have had no qualms in 1939 about fighting Hitler (unlike
> >> the Communists who seriously compromised themselves due to the Hitler/Stalin
> >> pact).
>
> > I see you've come a long way from "Fish Rising" Steve.
> >
> > "Sometimes you need the black to see the white to find the core of Love
> > and Beauty". Remember that? Does it embarrass you now? It shouldn't,
> > because it's truth.
>
> No embarrassment Terry. I studied Spanish Civil War at Canterbury University
> and I used to love Orwell's book "Homage to Catalonia". I've held the same
> attitude to WWII before, during and after the Fish Rising period.
A pity. That would seem to mean little learnt during the last 25(?)
years.
>
> With regard to the lyric you quote, I still have the same ideals and I do
> not hold to a naive neo-Christian "good versus evil" point of view.
What do you mean by neo-Christian "good versus evil" point of view?
>
> The lyric you quote represents the idea that the spriritual universe is
> based on balance rather than a childish fantasy of good triumphing over
> evil. This is a more "Eastern" point of view.
Steve, I have spent 10 years of my life in the East and am married to an
Asian woman. As a child of the disillusioned hippy generation, I too
went East and went through Martial Arts, Zen, Taoism, Hinduism, Sufism
before I came "home" to the West after finally realising that the
religions and philosophies of "the East" have little understanding of
the West and its history and destiny. They know much about Eternity but
little about Time.
Anyone who knows anything about "the East" knows that the idea of good
triumphing over evil is everywhere in it. And anyone who knows anything
about "the East" would understand the Slavic people and the Serbian
people and would not hold the disdainful and dismissive attitude toward
them that you do.
Anyone who knows anything about the East would find more compassion in
his soul for those who suffer evil as well as for those who suffer
*from* it and would not speak so easily of "the iron first" etc etc.
He or she would understand that Europe too is a balance between the
western peoples (Iberia, Britain, France, Benelux), the peoples of the
Centre (Germanics, West Slavs, Hungarians) and of the East (eastern and
southern Slavs).
>
> But in order to maintain that balance, choices still have to be made between
> right and wrong in the real world. Philosophical apathy does not bring one
> closer to God. Being really honest is the best thing we can ever aspire to.
I wholeheartedly agree with all of that.
>
> I think you have woefully misinterpreted my "naive liberal" position.
I beg to differ and hope I have made clear why.
> >>
> >> Let's stop beating about the bush.
By all means, though if by that you mean that everything you've said
until now has been but candy floss, that would be unfortunate.
>> In the end of the day the military defeat of Milosevic and his
cronies seems
> >> to me like the only way to end this thing.
> >
> > This will signify a total lack of imagination, a complete moral
> > bankruptcy after a century in which we should have learned *something*
> > of how to avoid repeating this kind of lunacy.
I stand by this statement.
>
> Surely one of the main lessons is that fascism has to stamped out by
> superior force otherwise it will propagate.
I refer you back to my comments above about Hitler and Nazism. Superior
*material* force achieves nothing - only superior *spiritual* force is
effective. This much the East knows very well. And if someone were to
say "didn't America's superior material force defeat Japan's
much-vaunted spiritual force in WW2?" I would reply: "Japan's 'spiritual
force' was NO true spiritual force. It was a force of spiritual
possession and not a force of the individual spirit.
>
> > Rambouillet was NOT a
> > genuine attempt at peace; it was a con-trick to set the stage for a war.
> >
> > If this means actual ground
> >> combat then so be it. What's the point in having an army if they can't fight
> >> in a just war?
A just war? A modern society? Did I hear the same person utter these
words?
> >
> > The oldies never fail to send the young to the slaughter, do they? "If I
> > was younger, I'd go" - this has never been any excuse.
>
> I resent the accusation you make that I am an armchair general.
If you were an armchair general at least you might be able to ring up
some of your old colleagues and offer them advice as to the stupidity of
NATO's actions and they might listen. No, Steve, alas, I think you're
more of a wicker basket ex-private. :-)
>
> > "You know the Way - To Be
> > A-ha, we're getting nearer..."
>
> I also reject the implied accusation that I used to support escapist naive
> Pollyanna rose-tinted idealism.
I assure you that no such implication was made here. I quoted these
words because I do believe that you know - deep down we all know - the
Way To Be and that NATO's way is not IT. NATO's way will take us nearer
to catastrophe, as it did in 1914.
I believe that one can hold a highly
> developed spiritual viewpoint while also being fully part of the real world
> where people piss shit and kill one another - and where severe choices have
> to made about severe political questions, such as Kosovo/Yugoslavia.
I go along with that too, though I sense that what you mean by 'severe'
is 'killing people', in which case I demur.
>
> >>
> >> And by the way, Terry, I bet you anything you like that that damn video is
> >> true.
> >
> > Steve, tell me, how do you KNOW it is true? Will you please tell me
> > that? Your experience of the last 30 years should have taught you that
> > in this world of increasingly virtual reality, all kinds of con-tricks
> > are possible. How do you know it was not produced by the KLA or the CIA?
> > I don't know that it was. I'm simply saying that I'm not going to let
> > something like that stir me up to say "YES TONY GO FOR THEIR JUGULAR!!!"
> >
> >
> >>You just don't want to believe it.
> >
> > If it is proved beyond reasonable doubt, as in a court of law, then I
> > shall certainly believe it.
>
> You're trivialising again. This is not a student dabate. It's about the
> savage deaths of Kosovo Albanians, their society and culture at the hands of
> hooded para-military fascist thugs, shielded by the Serbian army, state
> apparatus and media.
It is not trivialising in such a case to mention process of law. You
speak of a 'modern society'. A modern society is a society governed by
law, not appeals to emotion and deceit.
Your stance is based essentially on emotion Steve - an emotion that is
one-sided. In all our correspondence I have seen precious little
recognition from you that the Kosovo Albanians have ever done anything
wrong.
---
With respect,
It is I who should thank you for the Fish,
Terry
Steve Hillage
May I thank you deeply for one of the most intelligent and stimulating
postings I've seen in over 5 years of cruising usenet.
I'm going away for a while and I don't really have time to reply to you in
detail. I've saved your posting on disc and I'll maybe sort out a complete
response later.
I'm extremely glad that you have distanced yourself from the knee-jerk hard
left NATO-hating position. Originally I thought you were on of the LM
brigade but now I realise that you are an independent freethinking person
who draws his own conclusions. I would like to think that I too have my own
individual point of view. I do not see my self as a typical soft-left
liberal.
In fact it is quite amazing that we agree on so much of the general
philosphical and historical perspective - with regard nationalism,
globalisation, the esoteric point of view etc. - and yet arrive at almost
diametrically opposing conclusions.
In the end we are both accusing each other of being naive.
Funny isn't it! Maybe it's just down to our individual psychology or even
our astrological make-up (I'm a double Leo).
The Kosovo affair is a mess - no doubt about that. But no matter how hard I
try I just cannot accept your fundamental argument that all sides in
Yugoslavia are villains and it is incorrect to single out the Serbs for
demonisation. Just like I just cannot accept that the alleged killers of
Stephen Lawrence were "just lads mucking about".
I sincerely believe that Milosevic has led the Serbs into a position where
they are a massive danger to the future of Europe and that their actions are
in a totally different league of vileness from all the other Yugo "tribes".
I think part of my position is based on my extensive time living and working
in France. I am extremely aware of the similarities of Le Pen's and Megret's
National Front fascism to Milosevic's position. I am also extremely aware
that there is a very prevalent anti-Anglo Saxon anti-globalisation leftist
view in France that uncannilly echos some of what you propose.
There is a grave danger that this leftist view and the brutally reactive
nationalist Milosovic type view will coalesce into something truly nasty.
Would you like to see France "do a Serbia"? You should be extremely careful
that you are not ever so slightly inching towards this in your own views.
And so in the end I find myself like Harry Enfield shouting out Oi! YOU!
Milosevic! That's enough! You will be forcibly stopped! Now!
I would say the same about Le Pen and the even more dangerous Megret. If
some assassin were to take either of these two out I wouldn't shed one tear.
I didn't properly explain my position about "Eastern" and "Western"
philosophical traditions and their attitudes to the balance of forces and
dark and light forces. Please accept that I have spent a lot of time in Bali
and also in Thailand and I do feel I have a pretty good handle on this.
And the secrets that we live and hope to find are living in "our mercury".
Onwards and Upwards :-)
Steve
Cliff Morrison
<ste...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
> And the secrets that we live and hope to find are living in "our mercury".
Use penicillin next time, 'tis said not to have the same side effects.
Draľen Poľarić
>CORRECTION TYPO 2!!!!
>
>
>>
>> Despite all the historically fuelled suspicion surrounding NATO's
>> motivation, and despite the fact that all the ethnic groups in former
>> Yugoslavia (Kosovo Albanians included)
>
>been guilty of extreme and unneccessary violence
Your post is extremely unneccessary and wrong. It is too simple, because
the matter is far too complicated than that.
--
-----------------------------
Dražen Požarić, Poreč, Croatia
Please, remove "_removethis" to e-mail me
Dos
"Draľen Poľarić" wrote:
>
> In article <7eldtd$2jk7$1...@quince.news.easynet.net>, Steve Hillage wrote:
> >CORRECTION TYPO 2!!!!
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Despite all the historically fuelled suspicion surrounding NATO's
> >> motivation, and despite the fact that all the ethnic groups in former
> >> Yugoslavia (Kosovo Albanians included)
> >
> >all the ethnic groups in former Yugoslavia (Kosovo Albanians included) have
> >been guilty of extreme and unneccessary violence
>
> Your post is extremely unneccessary and wrong. It is too simple, because
> the matter is far too complicated than that.
I suspect Steve is very aware of what is going on and about to leave
Europe.
Steve Hillage
As I said before, I don't have time at the moment to make a full reply to
your extremely fine post.
I just want to take up you first point, at the risk of being highly
controversial.
> I'm glad we have managed to keep the exchange 'civilised',
> although I find it deeply worrying that after all the events of the 20th
> century someone as sane and intelligent as yourself remains blind to the
> machinations of the elites in control of US-UK Inc.
Terry,
How do you know that I am not myself a fully paid up member of the elites?
On the other hand, how do I know that you are not consciously or
unconsciously representing the point of view of another even more heavy-duty
nasty elite than the one of which you speak?
You have mentioned Waco in previous posts - in your reply to Sac last night
you seem to sympathise with the American far-right militias.
In the end there is just too much paranoia.
Did you ever read The Illuminatus Trilogy and Cosmic Trigger by Robert Anton
Wilson?
You agreed with my point that in the end the highest thing we can aspire to
is to be totally honest.
I sincerely believe that your position is way too paranoid to be totally
honest.
On a more positive note :- for my sins I read the Observer today and found
an interesting article about globalisation by Anthony Giddens that touches
on some of the points you raised.
Ciao
Steve
Terry Boardman
>
> Dear Terry
>
> As I said before, I don't have time at the moment to make a full reply to
> your extremely fine post.
>
> I just want to take up you first point, at the risk of being highly
> controversial.
>
> > although I find it deeply worrying that after all the events of the 20th
> > century someone as sane and intelligent as yourself remains blind to the
> > machinations of the elites in control of US-UK Inc.
>
>
> How do you know that I am not myself a fully paid up member of the elites?
>
> On the other hand, how do I know that you are not consciously or
> unconsciously representing the point of view of another even more heavy-duty
> nasty elite than the one of which you speak?
And you accuse ME of being paranoid?! If this is Village humour, Stehe,
it fails :-(
> You have mentioned Waco in previous posts - in your reply to Sac last night
> you seem to sympathise with the American far-right militias.
See my other post to you about this. Have you been listening to too many
pernicious little voices inside your head, or maybe just one? One of the
main complaints about the Far Right conspiracy gang is that they imagine
NWO agents everywhere - and yet here you are saying "seem to
sympathise". This kind of thing - smear by association, seeing Far Right
sympathisers everywhere - isn't it also a kind of paranoia?
From the other posts you've read of mine - do you seriously think I
would 'sympathise' with the Far Right?
I note that your next sentence is the following:
> In the end there is just too much paranoia.
Could it be Steve, that *you* see fascists under the bed who are not
there? My way has always been the avoidance of extremes - of communism
and fascism. To me, these are both the ugly twin sons of Mother Realism:
matter-realism - the notion that only the world of the 5 senses is real.
>
> Did you ever read The Illuminatus Trilogy and Cosmic Trigger by Robert Anton
> Wilson?
I came across these through a friend in the mid-80s having bypassed them
when they appeared in the early 70s. I recognised Wilson as a genial
character of sorts, a kind of mischievous harlequin. He was onto
something, especially in his noticing the significance of the number 23,
but he never grounded it - perhaps because he's a writer not a scholar
and prefers ambiguity, it's better for sales after all. He sailed too
close to the dangerous whirlpool of Timothy Leary in my view, another
besotted by a misplaced Darwinism, a believer first in natural
substances and then techno-fixes as a way to earthly paradise. That
friend of mine was very much into him and we used to have some ding-dong
debates about Mr Leary. That friend of mine, unlike me, was very much
into extremes, and was lucky to escape a fatal heroin addiction.
> You agreed with my point that in the end the highest thing we can aspire to
> is to be totally honest.
>
> I sincerely believe that your position is way too paranoid to be totally
> honest.
I don't think we should in too much of hurry to say things like "I
sincerely believe that your position is...", especially when you hardly
know someone. I can honestly say Steve, that I am not paranoid, and
neither is my position, and I repeat: can you say that you have honestly
and thoroughly looked into the matter of the NWO? If all you know is the
extremes of Pat Robertson and Robert Anton Wilson, I'm not surprised you
have such a warped view of the issue. I hope you will be able to
contradict me on this.
>
> On a more positive note :- for my sins I read the Observer today and found
> an interesting article about globalisation by Anthony Giddens that touches
> on some of the points you raised.
Well, there you go....I heard Giddins give the annual Reith lecture last
night. Pretty bland and predictable stuff, but very little about the
downside of globalisation, rather a gung-ho celebration of it on
balance. His much-vaunted Third Way I find to be an insubstantial
illusion: a mere blending of left and right, but that's another matter.
Best wishes,
Terry
Steve Hillage
>>
>> Terry,
>>
>> How do you know that I am not myself a fully paid up member of the elites?
>>
>> On the other hand, how do I know that you are not consciously or
>> unconsciously representing the point of view of another even more heavy-duty
>> nasty elite than the one of which you speak?
>
> And you accuse ME of being paranoid?! If this is Village humour, Stehe,
> it fails :-(
Hold on there my son!
I was applying reductio ad absurdum.
I am trying to argue the case the conspiracy theories, no matter how well
founded, breed counter conspiracy theories like a mirror of a mirror if you
know what I mean.
This was the essential point of the Anton Wilson books - that once you
believe in a global conspiracy then you will see it everywhere like a kind
of self-fulfilling hallucination.
He then goes on to argue that this phenomenon is the psychological basis of
human belief systems and religions etc.
With regard to Leary he never did much for me - I always regarded him as a
bit of a fool. You may be interested to know that I am not and never have
been a believer in any drug-panacea theories, unlike your friend who was
into Wilson. Sufi saying :- "drugs are the mystical experience of the
ignorant".
>
> Could it be Steve, that *you* see fascists under the bed who are not
> there?
No Terry, this is not the case. Bruno Megret, Le Pen and Jorg Haider are
real bona-fide paid up bang-on-the-nose super scary fascists. You can rest
assured of that. Same goes for the American "end times" brigade.
Milosevic is a complete freak, but then they thought Hitler was a freak in
1923 just after the Munich putch.
> My way has always been the avoidance of extremes - of communism
> and fascism. To me, these are both the ugly twin sons of Mother Realism:
> matter-realism - the notion that only the world of the 5 senses is real.
It's really quite amazing how many areas there are where we completely
agree, such as the above.
> I don't think we should in too much of hurry to say things like "I
> sincerely believe that your position is...", especially when you hardly
> know someone. I can honestly say Steve, that I am not paranoid, and
> neither is my position, and I repeat: can you say that you have honestly
> and thoroughly looked into the matter of the NWO? If all you know is the
> extremes of Pat Robertson and Robert Anton Wilson, I'm not surprised you
> have such a warped view of the issue. I hope you will be able to
> contradict me on this.
I haven't read the Quigley books you mention, and, judging by your other
reply re-my quick website investigation, the debate, as to whether the NWO
question is a far-right fantasy or not, is elaborate and involved.
So in a way, although I may not be an authority on the subject I think I've
hit the nail on the head, at least in the identification of a hot topic of
debate.
I ask you, how familiar are you with the book "Late Great Planet Earth", the
theory of the rapture, Jack Vanimpe etc etc. You want conspiracy theories?
The NWO is just a mere part in what these guys are on about.
for example (from thousands of websites)
http://www.webcom.com/~haight/features/millenium/prophecy.html
Maybe I overstated my case when I first used the word "bullshite" with
reference to your view about the NWO.
Check that website if you want to see real bullshite. This is the bullshite
of which I speak.
I share my initials SH with a famous fictional detective.
Am I getting nearer?
Ciao
Steve
dinerbass
>
Anton
>Wilson?
Hi Steve,
I know I promised you I'd go away, but it seems we have a new point of
reference. I enjoy RAW's work, and particularly the titles you mentioned.
Although Illuminatus set out to lampoon conspiracy theory, the point he
makes in Trigger is that many of the wild fantasies he & Shea dreamed up
were actually coming true. I think his conclusion was that there is no
single grand-unified-field-conspiracy-of-everything, but a cocktail of
competing conspiracies and coincidences that will appear to each observer as
different according to the information received *up to that point*. Whether
an individual is prepared to modify their model upon the arrival of new
data, depends on the level of fundamentalist certainty within their
consciousness.
We can all accuse each other of paranoia, depending on which conspiracies we
believe. For me, belief is not a fixed absolute, but a model based on
information received up to this point. When new data arrives, it gets
applied to existing models. If it fits, then it may reinforce that model. If
it doesn't, then either the model gets modified to fit the data, or the data
gets dismissed as faulty and unreliable. The more confidence we have in a
model, then the less credibility we give to conflicting data.
It could be said that seeking the truth about the Balkans is like seeking
the truth about Roswell. Both are heavily bound up with power politics and
deception (ie conspiracy), and the only thing we can be certain of is that
there are vested interests that seek to distort that truth. The truth about
Roswell is of far less importance to most of us than the truth about the
Balkans, for reasons that are currently all too clear.
Coincidence can appear as conspiracy. I would regard it as coincidence that
you and NATO appear to share objectives in Yugoslavia rather than
conspiracy. I believe that you support the action because you believe it to
be in the interests of humanity, whereas NATO have a less benign motive. I
don't believe that you are in league with the mega-powerful business
interests who stand to gain from US protectorates in Yugoslavia, but you may
think I'm paranoid to consider that big business has much to gain from the
'New Colonialism'. Likewise, I oppose the NATO action because I believe that
action to be detrimental to the interests of humanity, and not because I am
in league with Milosevic and whatever his personal power play may be.
However, some conspiracies are very real. Cartels certainly conspire against
the consumer, the CBI conspires against workers, and trade unions (where
they remain) conspire against bosses. If you've read any of the books
claiming to expose the shady links between CIA / Mob / Vatican / P2 /
Dictator / Terrorist / Drug Barons then you may agree that stuff is going on
at that level. You will probably have read in this NG of KLA / Drug Running
/ CIA connections.
Another Cosmic Trigger related issue is the fooling of the public by master
fakers. In Cosmic Trigger III (My Life After Death) a key theme is the
Master Forger - people who create false realities for a gullible public for
fun and profit. The painter Elmyr and Orson Welles are his prime examples.
By convincing *experts* that it was a Picasso or a Van Gogh, Elmyr spun an
illusion for the art world that his paintings were genuine. Welles' famous
invaders-from-Mars broadcast literally got people on the run.
What could well be the master forgery of the 20th century, as far as shaping
the world goes, is the Picture that Fooled the World, by the award-winning
ITN news team. It has been mentioned many times in these debates, but seems
to be like water off a ducks back for NATO's supporters. I refer, of course,
to the image of an emaciated man who appears to be imprisoned behind barbed
wire. It cemented world opinion that Nazi-style concentration camps were
being run by the Bosnian Serbs, and the account of George Kenney, who
resigned from the US State Department in August 1992 in protest at the Bush
administration's policy towards the former Yugoslavia, indicates how not
only public opinion, but US policy was influenced by the fraud. For the
whole story, point your browser at
http://www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM102/LM102_ITN.html
For some, this type of forgery is the 'Good Lie'. For seekers of the truth,
it's a journalistic atrocity - maybe even a war crime.
The map is not the territory, the menu is not the meal.
Regards,
Ash.
Steve Hillage
Welcome back.
I think we have hit upon a rich seam of discussion here.
----------
In article <37115...@news1.vip.uk.com>, "dinerbass"
<dine...@arsenalfc.net> wrote:
>>In the end there is just too much paranoia.
>>
>>Did you ever read The Illuminatus Trilogy and Cosmic Trigger by Robert
> Anton
>>Wilson?
>
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> I know I promised you I'd go away, but it seems we have a new point of
> reference. I enjoy RAW's work, and particularly the titles you mentioned.
>
> Although Illuminatus set out to lampoon conspiracy theory, the point he
> makes in Trigger is that many of the wild fantasies he & Shea dreamed up
> were actually coming true. I think his conclusion was that there is no
> single grand-unified-field-conspiracy-of-everything, but a cocktail of
> competing conspiracies and coincidences that will appear to each observer as
> different according to the information received *up to that point*. Whether
> an individual is prepared to modify their model upon the arrival of new
> data, depends on the level of fundamentalist certainty within their
> consciousness.
Well put
>
> We can all accuse each other of paranoia, depending on which conspiracies we
> believe. For me, belief is not a fixed absolute, but a model based on
> information received up to this point. When new data arrives, it gets
> applied to existing models. If it fits, then it may reinforce that model. If
> it doesn't, then either the model gets modified to fit the data, or the data
> gets dismissed as faulty and unreliable. The more confidence we have in a
> model, then the less credibility we give to conflicting data.
I totally agree
>
> It could be said that seeking the truth about the Balkans is like seeking
> the truth about Roswell.
Yes! And if the great NWO conspiracy theory is to be considered in depth
the Roswell cover-up story is definitely related of it.
> Both are heavily bound up with power politics and
> deception (ie conspiracy), and the only thing we can be certain of is that
> there are vested interests that seek to distort that truth. The truth about
> Roswell is of far less importance to most of us than the truth about the
> Balkans, for reasons that are currently all too clear.
>
> Coincidence can appear as conspiracy. I would regard it as coincidence that
> you and NATO appear to share objectives in Yugoslavia rather than
> conspiracy.
Because I have been a lifelong anti-fascist my total opposition to Milosevic
is to be expected. What is more of a co-incidence is the NATO nations
switching horses away from giving succour to Milosevic because they wanted a
"strong man of the Balkans" to supporting the little guys in Kosovo, who
they had previously excluded from the Dayton agreement.
> I believe that you support the action because you believe it to
> be in the interests of humanity, whereas NATO have a less benign motive. I
> don't believe that you are in league with the mega-powerful business
> interests who stand to gain from US protectorates in Yugoslavia, but you may
> think I'm paranoid to consider that big business has much to gain from the
> 'New Colonialism'.
The possible accusation of paranoia is not that you "consider that big
business has much to gain from the 'New Colonialism'". The possible
accusation of paranoia is based on your assumption that this "New Colony"
will be very much worse than Kosovo or even Serbia have been up to now under
Milosevic.
The same applies to the NWO conspiracy theory. The question is not whether
or not there is a secret Cabal of nations and power groups that seek a "New
World Order". The real question is whether this secret Cabal is malefic or
in fact essentially benign.
Is it Darth Vader or is it Captain Kirk?
This is the area where I seek answers.
> Likewise, I oppose the NATO action because I believe that
> action to be detrimental to the interests of humanity, and not because I am
> in league with Milosevic and whatever his personal power play may be.
Fair enough
Accepted
Respect to you sir
Steve
Terry Boardman
>
Hello Steve,
Good post from dinnerbass, wasn't it?
> The same applies to the NWO conspiracy theory. The question is not whether
> or not there is a secret Cabal of nations and power groups that seek a "New
> World Order".
This IS the question.
The real question is whether this secret Cabal is malefic or
> in fact essentially benign.
This is also the question.
>
> Is it Darth Vader or is it Captain Kirk?
You are confusing myths here: if you *must* see this in terms of
Hollywood movies - personally I'd prefer not to - I'd say it's more a
question of rebels against the Empire as in Star Wars.
>
> This is the area where I seek answers.
Me too.
>
> > Likewise, I oppose the NATO action because I believe that
> > action to be detrimental to the interests of humanity, and not because I am
> > in league with Milosevic and whatever his personal power play may be.
My own position exactly.
Cheers,
Terry
Terry Boardman
>
> >>
> >> Terry,
> >>
> >> How do you know that I am not myself a fully paid up member of the elites?
> >>
> >> On the other hand, how do I know that you are not consciously or
> >> unconsciously representing the point of view of another even more heavy-duty
> >> nasty elite than the one of which you speak?
> >
> > And you accuse ME of being paranoid?! If this is Village humour, Stehe,
> > it fails :-(
>
> Hold on there my son!
>
> I was applying reductio ad absurdum.
>
> I am trying to argue the case the conspiracy theories, no matter how well
> founded, breed counter conspiracy theories like a mirror of a mirror if you
> know what I mean.
>
> This was the essential point of the Anton Wilson books - that once you
> believe in a global conspiracy then you will see it everywhere like a kind
> of self-fulfilling hallucination.
>
> He then goes on to argue that this phenomenon is the psychological basis of
> human belief systems and religions etc.
To this I can only say that amongst the information overkill age in
which we live, for me, the sword of right discrimination is everything.
>
> With regard to Leary he never did much for me - I always regarded him as a
> bit of a fool. You may be interested to know that I am not and never have
> been a believer in any drug-panacea theories, unlike your friend who was
> into Wilson. Sufi saying :- "drugs are the mystical experience of the
> ignorant".
I totally concur
> >
> > Could it be Steve, that *you* see fascists under the bed who are not
> > there?
>
> No Terry, this is not the case. Bruno Megret, Le Pen and Jorg Haider are
> real bona-fide paid up bang-on-the-nose super scary fascists. You can rest
> assured of that. Same goes for the American "end times" brigade.
>
> Milosevic is a complete freak, but then they thought Hitler was a freak in
> 1923 just after the Munich putch.
Yes, I can see most of that. My only concern was that you would allow
your justified opposition to such real fascists to make you see fascists
where they did not exist. However, I believe Blair and Co (and maybe
you) are wrong to see new Hitlers everywhere and rush to lable petty
dictators like Slobo Dan as new Hitlers. Hitler was a one-off - a unique
manifestation of evil. Look at the forms and symbolism of Nazism, its
peculiar viciousness, its Watch him giving his speeches, feel the
quality of his voice - he was possessed by something special - not all
the time, but at certain times, notably when making speeches.He had a
demonic power to move people through his voice that few have ever had.
Nazism, I have long felt (and I suppose you will feel I'm going off the
rails again here, but nevertheless) was an occult phenomenon, even
though Hitler, in his more "rational" moments disdained occultism. He
described himself as "a sleepwalker". He did not even know what was
working through him. When he was gassed in 1918, he claimed he'd had a
vision to save Germany and to become a politician. Those 12 years
1933-45 through the War, the Holocaust, and culminating with the A-bombs
(which had been designed to stop Hitler and therefore were, in a sense,
called up by him) were a unique and intense darkness, I feel. This is
why I feel that conventional academic books which attempt to explain
Hitler and the Nazis by the usual concoctions of abstract socio-economic
theories have never been satisfactory. They don't get to the ultimate
spiritual evil of Nazism.
>
> > My way has always been the avoidance of extremes - of communism
> > and fascism. To me, these are both the ugly twin sons of Mother Realism:
> > matter-realism - the notion that only the world of the 5 senses is real.
>
> It's really quite amazing how many areas there are where we completely
> agree, such as the above.
Why do you think it is so amazing?
>
> > I don't think we should in too much of hurry to say things like "I
> > sincerely believe that your position is...", especially when you hardly
> > know someone. I can honestly say Steve, that I am not paranoid, and
> > neither is my position, and I repeat: can you say that you have honestly
> > and thoroughly looked into the matter of the NWO? If all you know is the
> > extremes of Pat Robertson and Robert Anton Wilson, I'm not surprised you
> > have such a warped view of the issue. I hope you will be able to
> > contradict me on this.
>
> I haven't read the Quigley books you mention, and, judging by your other
> reply re-my quick website investigation, the debate, as to whether the NWO
> question is a far-right fantasy or not, is elaborate and involved.
>
> So in a way, although I may not be an authority on the subject I think I've
> hit the nail on the head, at least in the identification of a hot topic of
> debate.
Yes, it certainly is a hot topic. But what nail do you think you've hit?
I don't understand.
>
> I ask you, how familiar are you with the book "Late Great Planet Earth", the
> theory of the rapture, Jack Vanimpe etc etc. You want conspiracy theories?
> The NWO is just a mere part in what these guys are on about.
>
> for example (from thousands of websites)
>
> http://www.webcom.com/~haight/features/millenium/prophecy.html
>
> Maybe I overstated my case when I first used the word "bullshite" with
> reference to your view about the NWO.
>
> Check that website if you want to see real bullshite. This is the bullshite
> of which I speak.
Right, I'll certainly check it out and get back to you on it.
>
> I share my initials SH with a famous fictional detective.
Holmes is a problem for me, for while I can see the need for his
admirable attention to detail, his powers of observation and his
capacity to cut through crap, I can't help feeling he belongs to the
world or the age that was fading in 1900 - the age of scientific
rationalism and sense-based materialism that had dominated since the
17th century. He was a kind of concentrated extract of that mentality
(correct me if I'm wrong; I don't regard myself as an expert on the guy)
and therefore very English in that such qualities came to be very much
bound up with the English in just those centuries when England was
making its mark on the world. If the English continue to cleave
predominantly to the qualities of Holmes, they will not be able to enter
the new world of fluid imagination that has been opening up since 1900.
> Am I getting nearer?
I think so
Cheers,
Terry
Marc Living
di...@mikka.net.au (Steven D'Aprano) made the following submissions:
>>What could well be the master forgery of the 20th century, as far as shaping
>>the world goes, is the Picture that Fooled the World, by the award-winning
>>ITN news team.
>If this forgery is so important, why have I never heard of it? Is it not
>more likely that in fact this "forgery" was invented by the Serbs
>themselves as an attempt to discredit NATO,
You might have had a point there but for two problems:-
(a) ITN have admitted taking the picture; and
(b) ITN have admitted that it *doesn't* show what the world believed
it to show.
As you would have seen for yourself, had you followed the link in the
posting.
--
Marc Living (remove "BOUNCEBACK" to reply)
***********************************************
A freeman shall not be amerced for a small fault,
but after the manner of the fault, and for a
great fault after the greatness thereof.
************************************************
Steve Hillage
----------
In article <371233...@cableinet.co.uk>, Terry Boardman
<terence....@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> Steve Hillage wrote:
>> This was the essential point of the Anton Wilson books - that once you
>> believe in a global conspiracy then you will see it everywhere like a kind
>> of self-fulfilling hallucination.
>>
>> He then goes on to argue that this phenomenon is the psychological basis of
>> human belief systems and religions etc.
>
> To this I can only say that amongst the information overkill age in
> which we live, for me, the sword of right discrimination is everything.
I totally agree. This is why I find your adherence to catch-all theories of
NWO psycho-domination difficult to correlate with your evident appreciation
of honesty and, as you say, "right discrimination."
I know you don't like the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" argument, and I
know you feel my anti-fascist stance is another catch-all trap in which I
myself lose my own "right discrimination". You have made this very clear.
But with as much honesty as I can muster, I must repeat to you two points
that I have made before.
1. The American fundamentalist right is a formidable enemy of all that both
you and I hope for in the new century. This awesomely foul right wing force,
comprising many varied groups, is held together by a common belief in the
NWO conspiracy.
I therefore repeat my question :- If we assume that the secret NWO cartel
does indeed exist, is this NWO cartel neccessarily such a bad thing?
2. Milosevic and Milosevic's Serbia is an extremely dangerous phenomenon
that absolutely must be stopped. Not just contained - stopped. The only way
to stop it is with a resolute military force and unfortunately NATO is the
only suitable and available vehicle for stopping it.
Please remember that NATO and the West, as they did in Bosnia, are actually
assisting an oppressed MUSLIM minority. I regard this as a good thing and it
sends a powerful signal to the reactionary forces that seek to suppress
multi-culturalism accross the globe. This fact has not escaped the attention
of Isaraeli fascists like Ariel Sharon.
> However, I believe Blair and Co (and maybe
> are wrong to see new Hitlers everywhere and rush to lable petty
> dictators like Slobo Dan as new Hitlers.
I do not accept this accusation - see below.
> Hitler was a one-off - a unique
> manifestation of evil. Look at the forms and symbolism of Nazism, its
> peculiar viciousness, its Watch him giving his speeches, feel the
> quality of his voice - he was possessed by something special - not all
> the time, but at certain times, notably when making speeches.He had a
> demonic power to move people through his voice that few have ever had.
> Nazism, I have long felt (and I suppose you will feel I'm going off the
> rails again here, but nevertheless) was an occult phenomenon, even
> though Hitler, in his more "rational" moments disdained occultism. He
> described himself as "a sleepwalker". He did not even know what was
> working through him. When he was gassed in 1918, he claimed he'd had a
> vision to save Germany and to become a politician. Those 12 years
> 1933-45 through the War, the Holocaust, and culminating with the A-bombs
> (which had been designed to stop Hitler and therefore were, in a sense,
> called up by him) were a unique and intense darkness, I feel. This is
> why I feel that conventional academic books which attempt to explain
> Hitler and the Nazis by the usual concoctions of abstract socio-economic
> theories have never been satisfactory. They don't get to the ultimate
> spiritual evil of Nazism.
I agree with your point about Hitler's occult dimension. You have not seen
me joining in the Milosevic = Hitler debate.
The Serbs on the other hand show a certain similarity to the Germans under
Hitler in their wholesale denial of the vile excesses of their ethnic
cleansers.
But Milosevic is Milosevic. He must be stopped. Period. Not because he is
like Hitler but because he is Milosevic, the man whose obsessive pursuit of
absolute power has poisoned the Balkans and induced the Serbian nation to
travel backwards on the evolutionary road.
>> > My way has always been the avoidance of extremes - of communism
>> > and fascism. To me, these are both the ugly twin sons of Mother Realism:
>> > matter-realism - the notion that only the world of the 5 senses is real.
>>
>> It's really quite amazing how many areas there are where we completely
>> agree, such as the above.
>
> Why do you think it is so amazing?
Because we still so fundamentally disagree on the 2 points mentioned above.
>
>> Am I getting nearer?
>
> I think so
Maybe you're possibly being a little bit bit over optimistic here, Terry.
Ciao
Steve
>
> Cheers,
> Terry
Luca
>
Serbs will never abandon Kosovo, unless they are militarily defeated.
No president of Serbia would live to the next day if he signed
a surrender of Kosovo, or a significant autonomy for Albanians.
It is in the Serb nature to obstinately resist until their resistance
is broken down. They are acting now like cornered rats.
Otherwise, when they are left with a route to escape, they are not brave people,
they have only been succesful against unarmed Croatian, Slavic muslim and
Albanian people. As soon as Croats armed themselves, the Serbs broke all world
records in the speed of fleeing (to Serb-held Bosnia and Serbia). Around 150.000
of them fled (not being directly pushed like Albanians now) to Serbia in
FOUR days in August 1995. But, Serbs have nowhere else to go from Serbia, and
that's why they will stubbornly fight a possible ground invasion.
Much has been said of the Serb alliance with the WW winners, but the fact is
that they turned up on the winning side thanks to the coincidence that their
own enemies (Germans, Austrians, Turks, Croats) happened to be overall losers in
the World Wars. For God's sake, in the WW2 Serbs fought either on
the side of Stalin's communists, or in the units of dirty, long-bearded, savage,
dishevelled "Chetnik" royalists. It's hard to say which were worse!
The current intervention against Serbia is in fact a battle between good and
evil, between the western way of life and the eastern, backward, primitive,
narrowminded idea that peoples should stay separated on basis of their ethnic or
even tribal affiliation.
The West stands for prosperity, for higher social security, for the care for
elderly, for better communications, schooling, housing, for more efficient legal
system. The East, and the Serbs&Russians are its chief representatives in
Europe, stands for fanatism, intolerance, obsession with history and myths and
the "law of the jungle". Serbs generally just don't care for wealth, unless it
is gifted to them, or unless they take it away from someone by force.
dinerbass
> I recognised Wilson as a genial
>character of sorts, a kind of mischievous harlequin. He was onto
>something, especially in his noticing the significance of the number 23,
>but he never grounded it - perhaps because he's a writer not a scholar
>and prefers ambiguity, it's better for sales after all. He sailed too
>close to the dangerous whirlpool of Timothy Leary in my view, another
>besotted by a misplaced Darwinism, a believer first in natural
>substances and then techno-fixes as a way to earthly paradise. That
>friend of mine was very much into him and we used to have some ding-dong
>debates about Mr Leary. That friend of mine, unlike me, was very much
>into extremes, and was lucky to escape a fatal heroin addiction.
In defence of Dr Leary, I think his vibrant optimism does more good than
harm. Amongst what he shares with Robert Anton Wilson is the excitement of
the vast potential of humanity. It seems odd to say this in amongst the dark
and furious debate of war, but as Wilson would say : the optimistic mindset
has more chance of finding solutions than the pessimistic one, which has
already conceded defeat.
In these days of science in near-retreat (too dangerous, seems to be the
feeling) and a total negativity and distrust about humanity, then his ideas
about Space Migration, Increased Intelligence and Life Extension (SMILE)
should be inspiring us to greater things. Likewise with the expansion of
consciousness through various, er, technologies - many of which look to
remain off limits for some time to come.
Leary knew and admitted that he got too excited about some of his ideas, but
insisted that it was necessary to hit out with wild ideas because even
though some would go astray, some would hit the mark.
Even though he may have exaggerated the role of both 'neuro-transmitter
agents' and cyber-culture, we don't have to expect an 'earthly paradise' to
take advantages of the technologies at hand. The US establishment banged him
up - for longer than many murderers would serve - for possessing half a
joint. Like Willhelm Reich, he demonstrated the narrow borders of scientific
freedom in Western societies by overstepping the mark and getting virtually
crucified for it.
Heroin was never on Leary's list of 'evolutionary' drugs, as it only
comforts what Leary would describe as the 'Reptilian Brain'. He was more
interested in using what are sometimes called the psychedelics to break down
conditioned behaviour and to enable positive reprogramming. The prison
subjects he treated with carefully controlled use of LSD had a far lower
recidivism than usual, and his two 'laws' : the right for an individual to
experiment with their brain / alter their consciousness, and the right of an
individual not to have their conciousness altered without their consent are
a far cry from the govt policy of doing the reverse. While the CIA /
military gave people LSD without their knowledge or consent and under bad
conditions, Leary repeatedly emphasised the importance of control, set &
setting.
With uniformity such a crucial element of state control, its not surprising
that the authorities stamped on research that could liberate minds from
regulation, off-the-peg mindsets. This is the real Leary, not an mere
advocate of getting whacked-out for hedonistic quasi-spiritualist kicks.
As far as Leary's other great enthusiasm goes - computers - given the media
of this conversation and the ever expaning frontiers of the internet, we can
hardly disagree.
dinerbass
>Why should we listen to a word you say? It is quite obviou that you are
>merely a willing co-conspirer with the Serbs, making a feeble and
>transparent attempt to discredit the NATO forces.
I assure you that it is not necessary to be a 'member' of one side in a war
to oppose the other side. Should the day come when NATO turns its missiles
on the KLA or Albania, I will still stand in opposition to NATO's actions. I
restate my position: I oppose NATO's actions in the Balkans on the grounds
that the action will worsen the regional conflicts there, and not because of
any ideological or nationalist attachment to any Balkan state or its
leaders.
The reason why it is important that people listen to the arguments against
NATO's actions is that we in the West are drenched in NATO propaganda which
seeks to justify an illegal attack on a sovereign state on the grounds that
Serbia is a new Nazi Germany. Serbia has been demonised by the West for
years now, as Jews themselves were demonised and de-humanised by Hitler to
promote hatred & 'revenge'.
Fortunately, my country (Britain) still has democracy and free speech. The
behaviour of PM Blair suggests to me that this may not be the case for much
longer, especially given the enthusiasm of many people around here to forbid
any opposing voices.
>Clearly, as a member of the very conspiracy you are attempting to blame on
>the enemy, your claims are tainted and untrustworthy.
er, see my later response...
>>What could well be the master forgery of the 20th century, as far as
shaping
>>the world goes, is the Picture that Fooled the World, by the award-winning
>>ITN news team.
>
>If this forgery is so important, why have I never heard of it? Is it not
>more likely that in fact this "forgery" was invented by the Serbs
>themselves as an attempt to discredit NATO, like the Secret Police of old
>Imperial Russia forged the secret Protocols of Zion so they would have an
>excuse to murder more Jews? Or how the Nazis faked an invasion by Polish
>soldiers so they could "defend themselves" by retaliating?
{snip}
Sorry, the report from which the picture comes was made by British
Journalists for the ITN news corporation, and subsequently re-broadcast all
over the world. The report was designed to evoke memories and fears of
Nazi-style death camps, and was a major contribution to the myth that
Serbian people are genocidal Nazis. The refugee transit camp was certainly
not a pleasant place to be, but it was not a concentration camp, had no
perimeter fence, and the picture was obtained by the camera being placed
inside a fenced-in area containing agricultural machinery, but no people
except the journalists who sought a shocking story. The barbed wire was to
protect property, not to imprison people.
You are right that many horrific things are forged to justify military or
repressive policy, and this is another such example, but wrong to pin this
on people who had nothing to gain from it. Quite the reverse, as the bombs
currently destroying the peoples of Yugoslavia demonstrate.
>Oh what a dark and tangled web we weave. Me, I blame the Stone Cutters.
You mean the Freemasons? Do tell us of your theories on them.
Stephen Macdonald Luke
>Luca wrote:
>
>> Serbs will never abandon Kosovo, unless they are militarily defeated.
>> No president of Serbia would live to the next day if he signed
>> a surrender of Kosovo, or a significant autonomy for Albanians.
>I don't see why Serbs care whether Milosevic controls Kosovo or not.
>He doesn't represent them. As a dictator he only represents himself.
Many Serbs thought he was a dictator, but many also said he
represented them. Now, with the war, it would be both disloyal and bad
for ones health to oppose him publicly. But as for the Serb attitude
to Kosova, they have claimed it since the 14th century, or before,
lost it to the Ottomans who favored those Albanians and Bosnians who
converted to Islam, regained it after the first world war, largely
lost it due to Titos encouraging further Albanian settlement, and were
threatened with its loss when the Democratic Party won the Albanian
elections in 1992, with American state department support, and funding
from the hundreds of thousands of Albanian emigres in the US, and
Europe. The DP had a platform of seizing Kosovo, and parts of
Macedonia, Montenegro and Greece to form what they called 'Greater
Albania' or sometimes 'Original Albania'. This was when the KLA turned
from being a pipsqueak operation to getting Albanian government
support, Albanian training camps, and Albanian weapons, all under the
paternal eye of the US. The ambassador to Albania from the US was a
Mr. Ryerson, whose postings had mostly been in Latin America, if you
get my drift.
Even if it takes another 600 years the Serbs will regain Kosova.
Anyway, it is Yugoslav territory according to international law and
European protocols. The 'Greater Albanian' policy was a breach of the
Helsinki Act and the Paris Charter that applied to Albania due to its
membership of the European Security Conference. It also breached other
international accords by its aiding and abetting terrorism by the KLA.
The Yugoslavs, Greeks, Montenegrins and Macedonians know this very
well, and so do many Europeans as these matters were reported by the
BBC and Balkan media. Thus, even if the Serbs don't care for
Milosevic, they know that an independent Kosova with a 90% Albanian
population would be just one parliamentary vote away from union with
Albania. This situation was intolerable to Serbs and Yugoslavs. For
one thing, apart from cultural and political reasons, the area is very
rich in minerals and the Trepca mine in northern Kosova is very
important to the whole eastern bloc economy. No Yugoslav leader could
hand such a national prize over to the land grabbing Albanian
ultra-nationalists, even with Nato taking over their terrorism.
At this point I would say that both Yugoslavs and Kosovars have claims
on Kosova, but that the Yugoslav claim is significantly stronger
historically and legally. It is also, or was before the sanctions and
the bombing, backed up by a much stronger economy that would have lead
to stability and peace and development in the area. However that was
obviously not in the US agenda for the geo-political future of this
culturally proud, socialist sympathetic area of the globe.
>
>> The current intervention against Serbia is in fact a battle between good and
>> evil, between the western way of life and the eastern, backward, primitive,
>> narrowminded idea that peoples should stay separated on basis of their ethnic or
>> even tribal affiliation.
>> The West stands for prosperity, for higher social security, for the care for
>> elderly, for better communications, schooling, housing, for more efficient legal
>> system. The East, and the Serbs&Russians are its chief representatives in
>> Europe, stands for fanatism, intolerance, obsession with history and myths and
>> the "law of the jungle". Serbs generally just don't care for wealth, unless it
>> is gifted to them, or unless they take it away from someone by force.
>
>That's interesting, very interesting. :-)
Its monocultural prejudice if you ask me. And on that line, how would
Ngai Tahu react if non-iwi, especially those of european descent,
claimed Mt. Cook, due to being 80% of the population? The principle of
the Treaty is surely that, no matter how long ago, the ownership stays
with those it was illegitimately taken from. The question is, are all
or some of the Kosovars there legitimately, and even if so, do they
have a right to take the land away from Yugoslav ownership? Do pakeha
own Maori land through posession being 9/10ths of the law?
Steve Luke.
<sl...@es.co.nz>
'nothing is completely true...everything is perceived,
interpreted, and permitted.'
dinerbass
Milosevic
>is to be expected. What is more of a co-incidence is the NATO nations
>switching horses away from giving succour to Milosevic because they wanted
a
>"strong man of the Balkans" to supporting the little guys in Kosovo, who
>they had previously excluded from the Dayton agreement.
If NATO have "switched horses" as you say, (I wouldn't necessarily agree)
then this emphasises my point that their diplomatic and military
maneuverings are serving NATO's (New American Territories Overseas / North
Atlantic Terrorist Organisation) economic / strategic / geo-political
interests rather than any ideological commitment to saving people from
oppression. We only have to look at the US supportive role to countless
violent and obnoxious (perhaps you would say 'Fascistic') regimes from El
Salvador and Guatemala to Turkey and Croatia to the expose the myth of
humanitarianism. The Victim Culture and Emotional Correctness of our day do
well to rally the support of a under-informed public as well as more
enquiring oppression-hating and peace-loving folk like yourself.
Did you support the Sandinistas in the 80's? Their progressively-intentioned
program was supported by many oppression-haters in the West from the
anti-imperialist left to Oxfam, but they did a bit of what is now called
'ethnic cleansing' themselves. Many of the Miskito Indians they displaced
were driven into the arms of the Contras, who, with the military help of
Uncle Sam - including guys like William 'Racak-forger' Walker, and some
illegal mining of harbours (with British involvement) succeeded in degrading
the capability of the Sandinistas to feed their people and destroyed the
gains of the Nicaraguan revolution. Reagan's gang sold their terrorism as
'saving the people of Central America from domino-Communism', and so
enthusiastically did the US public buy it that they happily forgave Ollie
North & Ronnie for doing deals with the hated Iranian regime to fund that
war. Of course these days no such covert actions would be necessary - a
straightforward US bombing of Nicaragua would do the trick.
Anyway, what happened to the 'Islamic Fundamentalism' which was supposed to
be the biggest threat to the world since Hitler?
>> I believe that you support the action because you believe it to
>> be in the interests of humanity, whereas NATO have a less benign motive.
I
>> don't believe that you are in league with the mega-powerful business
>> interests who stand to gain from US protectorates in Yugoslavia, but you
may
>> think I'm paranoid to consider that big business has much to gain from
the
>> 'New Colonialism'.
>
>
>The possible accusation of paranoia is not that you "consider that big
>business has much to gain from the 'New Colonialism'". The possible
>accusation of paranoia is based on your assumption that this "New Colony"
>will be very much worse than Kosovo or even Serbia have been up to now
under
>Milosevic.
>
>The same applies to the NWO conspiracy theory. The question is not whether
>or not there is a secret Cabal of nations and power groups that seek a "New
>World Order". The real question is whether this secret Cabal is malefic or
>in fact essentially benign.
>
>Is it Darth Vader or is it Captain Kirk?
>
>This is the area where I seek answers.
19th century imperialism was 'justified' by Christian-driven claims such as
'civilising darkest Africa from the barbaric behaviour of the natives'. The
real reasons were to plunder resources, exploit labour, establish strategic
objectives, and then have a market to sell the European-manufactured goods
back to. The Christian morality of the that era is equivalent to the
Emotional Correctness morality of our era, but the local divisions enhanced
& exploited by the colonialists remain serious problems to this day. Some
analysts will even point to the Rwanda nightmare as a hangover of imperial
influence. Similarly, the last decade has seen the ethnic divisions in
Yugoslavia exploited and inflamed by the West to establish influence & now
colonies, whilst blaming it all on 'Nazi Serbia'.
Captain Kirk is a totem of 'decent America' and Bill Kirkton and 'Bones'
Albright are happy to read the script, but when the USS Enterprise finally
switches off its tractor beams and lands in Kosovo, it won't be the natives
they'll be working for.
WW1 was an imperialist rumble, with Germany sore at being deprived of the
colonies and empires of its rivals, but in 1914 it was sold to the Rupert
Brooke's as a glorious struggle against a tyrannical Kaiser. WW2 was
unfinished business, with the rise of Hitler a result of the crushing
humiliation visited on Germany by the victorious allies of WW1. Serbs see
the Luftwaffe's bombs today as chapter three in this awful story, and are at
pains to remind us whose nationalism sided with the Nazis (Croat, Albanian)
and whose nationalism defended their soil and contributed to Hitler's defeat
(Serb). Defeated German troops in Italy in WW2 told their allied captors
they didn't mind, because they'd been told that after Germany's defeat, the
US would join with Germany against their Russian (Slav) enemies. Too true;
Nazis were recruited Dr Strangelove-style into the US military, and the
moment the cold war ended and the wall came down the US & Germany start
disassembling Yugoslavia, starting with the sponsorship of the *openly*
Serb-hating and Jew-hating Tudjman in Croatia.
Of course, the carpet-coverage of refugees' suffering obscures all such
deeper analysis as our discussion, but the gang of red-misted warmongers at
The Observer gave their game away this Sunday (by the way, Andrew Marr makes
me puke as much as the alleged criminals, murderers and rapists in Kosovo):
Patrick Wintour, Ed Vulliamy, Tim Judah & Paul Beaver :
"They [NATO Politicians] know other factors are working against them. The
plight of the Kosovo refugees is likely to slip from the TV screens now that
the humanitarian agencies are getting to grips with the crisis."
These fucking murderous bastards *want* the refugees to suffer, they *want*
as many horror stories and chopped-up victims as possible (Vulliamy is a big
ally of ITN against Deichman & LM), so they can justify their demands to
pound Serbia to dust. They must be cursing the damned relief agencies for
their work.
For now, I rest my case that NATO/USUK/NWO is highly malign. For them,
history started the other week with the first arrivals of refugees at the
Kosovo border.
Marc Living
(Luca) made the following submissions:
>round 150.000
>of them fled (not being directly pushed like Albanians now) to Serbia in
>FOUR days in August 1995.
Not being directly pushed? All those Croat troops had just turned up
to wave them goodbye eh?
LOL.
(PS, I see (in today's Times) that the Croat commander has just been
indicted for war crimes.)
dinerbass
reading anything but condradicting things just for the hell of it.
Reminds me of the old "Nothing is true, including this statement" gag.
I'd throw that tissue away if I were you - it's getting a bit messy. And to
think I spent all that time carefully answering your posting. Ho hum.
So what about the Stonecutters then?
>I hope you don't believe everything you read. Especially on the
>Internet. Even more in the Newsgroups. Its all a tissue of lies, and the
>biggest lie of all is that its all a tissue of lies.
>Steven D'Aprano
Nikola Stojanovic
--
------------------------------------------------
STOP NATO KILLERS!
------------------------------------------------
Luca wrote in message <7eu3gn$kid$1...@as102.tel.hr>...
>Luca ha scritto:
>>
>Serbs will never abandon Kosovo, unless they are militarily defeated.
>No president of Serbia would live to the next day if he signed
>a surrender of Kosovo, or a significant autonomy for Albanians.
>It is in the Serb nature to obstinately resist until their resistance
>is broken down. They are acting now like cornered rats.
>
>Otherwise, when they are left with a route to escape, they are not brave
people,
>they have only been succesful against unarmed Croatian, Slavic muslim and
>Albanian people. As soon as Croats armed themselves, the Serbs broke all
world
>records in the speed of fleeing (to Serb-held Bosnia and Serbia). Around
150.000
>of them fled (not being directly pushed like Albanians now) to Serbia in
>FOUR days in August 1995. But, Serbs have nowhere else to go from Serbia,
and
>that's why they will stubbornly fight a possible ground invasion.
>
>Much has been said of the Serb alliance with the WW winners, but the fact
is
>that they turned up on the winning side thanks to the coincidence that
their
>own enemies (Germans, Austrians, Turks, Croats) happened to be overall
losers in
>the World Wars. For God's sake, in the WW2 Serbs fought either on
>the side of Stalin's communists, or in the units of dirty, long-bearded,
savage,
>dishevelled "Chetnik" royalists. It's hard to say which were worse!
>
Terry Boardman
>
> ----------
> In article <371233...@cableinet.co.uk>, Terry Boardman
> <terence....@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Steve Hillage wrote:
>
> >> believe in a global conspiracy then you will see it everywhere like a kind
> >> of self-fulfilling hallucination.
> >>
> >> He then goes on to argue that this phenomenon is the psychological basis of
> >> human belief systems and religions etc.
> >
> > To this I can only say that amongst the information overkill age in
> > which we live, for me, the sword of right discrimination is everything.
>
> NWO psycho-domination difficult to correlate with your evident appreciation
> of honesty and, as you say, "right discrimination."
Steve, your use of the phrase 'catch-all theories' is the problem here.
What you call 'NWO psycho-domination' is not a catch-all theory in the
sense that genetic determinism is now becoming. Secongly, since I have
said that for me discrimination is everything, you err if you think I
would subscribe to a 'catch-all' theory of the NWO. For example, if one
takes into account the idea of reincarnation and karma, and therefore
that individuals are bringing into this life impulses from a previous
life or lives, then a simple materialist understanding of the NWO as
power manipulation by individuals deemed to have only one life would be
insufficient. Redneck fundamentalists do not reckon with this or indeed
with much else beside literalist interpretations of the Bible and their
own nationalist/chauvinist prejudices. I cannot therefore be said to
subscribe to 'catch-all' theories of the NWO. That is just a simplistic
label which again does not do justice to the complexity of the
phenomenon.
>
> I know you don't like the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" argument, and I
> know you feel my anti-fascist stance is another catch-all trap in which I
> myself lose my own "right discrimination". You have made this very clear.
>
> But with as much honesty as I can muster, I must repeat to you two points
> that I have made before.
>
> 1. The American fundamentalist right is a formidable enemy of all that both
> you and I hope for in the new century.
Yes, but I have argued in another post to you that it is nowhere as near
as formidable as that represented by what stands behind the NWO. In
saying what you say, you are like a man who is prepared to face down a
sabre-toothed tiger which is forcing him backwards towards a giant
mammoth of which he is unaware.
> This awesomely foul right wing force,
> comprising many varied groups, is held together by a common belief in the
> NWO conspiracy.
I would dispute this. I would say rather that it is held together by a
common possession by a hatred of all that is universal, in other words
by a hatred of the spirit. Because the NWO does indeed have a universal
aspect (although I would argue a false and perverted one) they see it as
one of the main faces of their enemy.
>
> I therefore repeat my question :- If we assume that the secret NWO cartel
> does indeed exist, is this NWO cartel neccessarily such a bad thing?
And I repeat to you my request to study it for yourself, and not just
make assertions about it or ask sandcastle-in-the-air-questions about
it. When you go deep enough into it (putting aside the playful
jesterings of an R.A.Wilson) you will be able to answer the question for
yourself clearly, I am confident of that.
>
> 2. Milosevic and Milosevic's Serbia is an extremely dangerous phenomenon
> that absolutely must be stopped. Not just contained - stopped. The only way
> to stop it is with a resolute military force and unfortunately NATO is the
> only suitable and available vehicle for stopping it.
Many things in this world should be stopped which are far more dangerous
than Milosevic, who at present is only trying to apply to his country
the wicked principle of ethnic homogeneity, which was implanted into
Southern, Central, and Eastern Europe by the West in 1919-21.
Ultimately, this principle can only be combatted by an increase of
spiritual knowledge and personal moral insight, not by bombs. It should
be obvious to you that the annihilation of Hitler's Germany in living
memory by such overwhelming force has not eradicated the problem - far
from it: Rwanda, Tibet, Indonesia, Guatemala, Yugoslavia are evidence
of that. NATO's action may result in 'stopping' Milosevic; it will do
little to 'stop' the problem - which is deeply bound up with
materialism. Far more dangerous for the world than Milosevic, for
example, is the burden of debt hung round the necks of so many millions
of people by the rich countries.
>
> Please remember that NATO and the West, as they did in Bosnia, are actually
> assisting an oppressed MUSLIM minority. I regard this as a good thing and it
> sends a powerful signal to the reactionary forces that seek to suppress
> multi-culturalism accross the globe. This fact has not escaped the attention
> of Isaraeli fascists like Ariel Sharon.
I am not convinced of this; it sounds like wishful liberal thinking. The
Muslim world is already so suspicious of the West and knows that the
elites fof the West care not a fig for religion despite their honeyed
words that they will remain suspicious of western motives.
> > However, I believe Blair and Co (and maybe
> > are wrong to see new Hitlers everywhere and rush to lable petty
> > dictators like Slobo Dan as new Hitlers.
>
> I do not accept this accusation - see below.
>
> > Hitler was a one-off - a unique
> > manifestation of evil. Look at the forms and symbolism of Nazism, its
> > peculiar viciousness, its Watch him giving his speeches, feel the
> > quality of his voice - he was possessed by something special - not all
> > the time, but at certain times, notably when making speeches.He had a
> > demonic power to move people through his voice that few have ever had.
> > Nazism, I have long felt (and I suppose you will feel I'm going off the
> > rails again here, but nevertheless) was an occult phenomenon, even
> > though Hitler, in his more "rational" moments disdained occultism. He
> > described himself as "a sleepwalker". He did not even know what was
> > working through him. When he was gassed in 1918, he claimed he'd had a
> > vision to save Germany and to become a politician. Those 12 years
> > 1933-45 through the War, the Holocaust, and culminating with the A-bombs
> > (which had been designed to stop Hitler and therefore were, in a sense,
> > called up by him) were a unique and intense darkness, I feel. This is
> > why I feel that conventional academic books which attempt to explain
> > Hitler and the Nazis by the usual concoctions of abstract socio-economic
> > theories have never been satisfactory. They don't get to the ultimate
> > spiritual evil of Nazism.
>
> I agree with your point about Hitler's occult dimension. You have not seen
> me joining in the Milosevic = Hitler debate.
True.
> The Serbs on the other hand show a certain similarity to the Germans under
> Hitler in their wholesale denial of the vile excesses of their ethnic
> cleansers.
How can you say wholesale denial? Have you spoken to them all? Just
because they are not all besieging Milosevic's house baying for his
blood doesn't mean they deny the vile excesses of ethnic cleansing. I'm
sure you don't think Bishney is the only 'good Serb', do you?
How can you also say the Germans wholesale denied Hitler's activities?
How much did they actually know of what was going on at Dachau and the
camps in Germany? How much do you know of what is going on at Porton
Down and other M.o.D. research establishments? Have you ever lived under
a totalitarian regime, and experienced the all-pervading fear in such a
society? How can you so casually judge and condemn whole nations in this
way?
>
> But Milosevic is Milosevic. He must be stopped. Period. Not because he is
> like Hitler but because he is Milosevic, the man whose obsessive pursuit of
> absolute power has poisoned the Balkans and induced the Serbian nation to
> travel backwards on the evolutionary road.
I concur with this, except to say that he should not be stopped in this
way, but by due process of international law. There is abundant evidence
going back 10 years to show the world that the man is unfit to be in his
position and deserves punishment.
>
> >> > My way has always been the avoidance of extremes - of communism
> >> > and fascism. To me, these are both the ugly twin sons of Mother Realism:
> >> > matter-realism - the notion that only the world of the 5 senses is real.
> >>
> >> It's really quite amazing how many areas there are where we completely
> >> agree, such as the above.
> >
> > Why do you think it is so amazing?
>
> Because we still so fundamentally disagree on the 2 points mentioned above.
I look forward to your next agreements or disagreements.
> >
> >> Am I getting nearer?
> >
> > I think so
>
> Maybe you're possibly being a little bit bit over optimistic here, Terry.
I perfer to live in hope! :-)
Cheers,
Terry
spaceghosts
> Serbs will never abandon Kosovo, unless they are militarily defeated.
> No president of Serbia would live to the next day if he signed
> a surrender of Kosovo, or a significant autonomy for Albanians.
> It is in the Serb nature to obstinately resist until their resistance
> is broken down. They are acting now like cornered rats.
I don't see why Serbs care whether Milosevic controls Kosovo or not.
He doesn't represent them. As a dictator he only represents himself.
> The current intervention against Serbia is in fact a battle between good and
> evil, between the western way of life and the eastern, backward, primitive,
> narrowminded idea that peoples should stay separated on basis of their ethnic or
> even tribal affiliation.
> The West stands for prosperity, for higher social security, for the care for
> elderly, for better communications, schooling, housing, for more efficient legal
> system. The East, and the Serbs&Russians are its chief representatives in
> Europe, stands for fanatism, intolerance, obsession with history and myths and
> the "law of the jungle". Serbs generally just don't care for wealth, unless it
> is gifted to them, or unless they take it away from someone by force.
That's interesting, very interesting. :-)
Terry Boardman
>
> > I recognised Wilson as a genial
> >character of sorts, a kind of mischievous harlequin. He was onto
> >something, especially in his noticing the significance of the number 23,
> >but he never grounded it - perhaps because he's a writer not a scholar
> >and prefers ambiguity, it's better for sales after all. He sailed too
> >close to the dangerous whirlpool of Timothy Leary in my view, another
> >besotted by a misplaced Darwinism, a believer first in natural
> >substances and then techno-fixes as a way to earthly paradise. That
> >friend of mine was very much into him and we used to have some ding-dong
> >debates about Mr Leary. That friend of mine, unlike me, was very much
> >into extremes, and was lucky to escape a fatal heroin addiction.
>
> In defence of Dr Leary, I think his vibrant optimism does more good than
> harm. Amongst what he shares with Robert Anton Wilson is the excitement of
> the vast potential of humanity.
Thanks to my friend, I have read most of Leary's written output up to
about 1984. I did this so I could cope the better in discussions with my
friend. What I noticed was a Luciferic (light-bearing) spirit in him
that was of siren nature and full of the arrogance of Lucifer too in his
contempt for human beings at an earlier stage of development. He had
little feeling or respect for the past, only for the future - such was
the danger of his almost excarnatory optimism. One had the feeling he
couldn't abide being a human being in this form and longed to move on
from it. I found his scientistic jargon inhuman and pompous.
It seems odd to say this in amongst the dark
> and furious debate of war, but as Wilson would say : the optimistic mindset
> has more chance of finding solutions than the pessimistic one, which has
> already conceded defeat.
I would prefer to dispense with indulging in either optimism or
pessismism too much and stick to Realism, which is far more than both.
>
> In these days of science in near-retreat (too dangerous, seems to be the
> feeling)
That's not my perception. A spiritual struggle is going on between those
seeking to carry forward the Positivist torch of the scientific
Revolutions of the 17th-20th centuries - the neo-Darwinistst and
biologists seem to be carrying all before them, and those who know now
that that Positivism bears much responsibility for the mess we're now
in. There's consequently a reaction and a falling back to old atavisms,
half-understood Eastern, Celtic, pagan stuff etc. Some people in the New
Age are trying to find a modern way forward that avoids both these two
poles; some scientists are trying the same, but it's an uphill struggle.
We need a new science - with heart, that does not seek to "put Nature on
the rack", as Francis Bacon wanted.
and a total negativity and distrust about humanity, then his ideas
> about Space Migration, Increased Intelligence and Life Extension (SMILE)
> should be inspiring us to greater things.
I don't think the first of these is connected with the other two. That
was the American on-on-ON out-out-OUT!!!! consciousness of the wagon
train just expanded into space. Pointless migrating into space if we
just take our trash with us and repeat the same nonsense up there. The
whole space exploration drive appears to me as a perverted
materialisation of the inner need to cross a *spiritual* threshold.
Likewise with the expansion of
> consciousness through various, er, technologies - many of which look to
> remain off limits for some time to come.
Consciousness cannot be expanded *in a healthy way* through technologies
(if you're thinking of drugs for example). There is no point in
expanding consciousness if the human Self is not engaged, if it is done
FOR you. New technologies result from expanded consciousness.
<snip>
> Heroin was never on Leary's list of 'evolutionary' drugs, as it only
> comforts what Leary would describe as the 'Reptilian Brain'.
Yes I realise that.
He was more
> interested in using what are sometimes called the psychedelics to break down
> conditioned behaviour and to enable positive reprogramming. The prison
> subjects he treated with carefully controlled use of LSD had a far lower
> recidivism than usual, and his two 'laws' : the right for an individual to
> experiment with their brain / alter their consciousness, and the right of an
> individual not to have their conciousness altered without their consent are
> a far cry from the govt policy of doing the reverse. While the CIA /
> military gave people LSD without their knowledge or consent and under bad
> conditions, Leary repeatedly emphasised the importance of control, set &
> setting.
I recognise the libertarian impulse of his two principles, but don't you
think it was bound to get out of hand and immature people would
experiment in irresponsible ways, control, set, and setting would go out
of the window (sometimes followed by the imbibers!) - often with
disastrous results. With such a powerful exterior force as LSD, Leary
was in too much of a hurry, and the people were too young and too
impatient. "We want the world and we want it NOW!!" - Remember that?
>
> With uniformity such a crucial element of state control, its not surprising
> that the authorities stamped on research that could liberate minds from
> regulation, off-the-peg mindsets. This is the real Leary, not an mere
> advocate of getting whacked-out for hedonistic quasi-spiritualist kicks.
Leary went from natural and chemical stimulants to techno-stimulants,
from Scylla to Charybdis, you might say. I instinctively feel that
neither of these is a healthy path, because neither involves the heart.
The one seizes the nervous system; the other seizes the will.
>
> As far as Leary's other great enthusiasm goes - computers - given the media
> of this conversation and the ever expaning frontiers of the internet, we can
> hardly disagree.
Just because we're conversing now by computer doesn't mean we have to
see it as the next step in human evolution and start talking about the
inevitability of artificial intelligence, cyborg evolution, computers
replacing human beings and all that ultra-techno-optimism.
Thanks for your posts on this and other subjects. I find them very
thoughtful and stimulating.
Cheers,
Terry
Steve Hillage
>> ----------
>> In article <371233...@cableinet.co.uk>, Terry Boardman
>> <terence....@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
> Steve Hillage wrote:
>>
>> I therefore repeat my question :- If we assume that the secret NWO cartel
>> does indeed exist, is this NWO cartel neccessarily such a bad thing?
>
> And I repeat to you my request to study it for yourself, and not just
> make assertions about it or ask sandcastle-in-the-air-questions about
> it. When you go deep enough into it (putting aside the playful
> jesterings of an R.A.Wilson) you will be able to answer the question for
> yourself clearly, I am confident of that.
Point taken Terry, but....
You see, this whole line of discussion has been triggered by the Kosovo
situation. You seem to me to be solidly against NATO's action largely
because you feel NATO is acting as an agent of the NWO project of which you
speak.
I have repeatedly challenged you on this by pointing to the American
far-right's NWO obsession. You have repeatedly countered by saying that the
NWO project of which you speak is not really the same as that railed against
by the American far-right, who look at the question with rigid reactionary
stupidity.
OK. I accept this.
But I still want you to answer my question, rather than suggesting I read
some difficult-to-obtain books.
I want you to list out some of the chief reasons why you yourself regard the
NWO project as malefic.
I want you to try and seriously shake up my support for the NATO action,
because you haven't said anything that alters my mind up to now, much as I
have enjoyed this stimulating dialogue with you.
>>
>> Please remember that NATO and the West, as they did in Bosnia, are actually
>> assisting an oppressed MUSLIM minority. I regard this as a good thing and it
>> sends a powerful signal to the reactionary forces that seek to suppress
>> multi-culturalism accross the globe. This fact has not escaped the attention
>> of Isaraeli fascists like Ariel Sharon.
>
> I am not convinced of this; it sounds like wishful liberal thinking. The
> Muslim world is already so suspicious of the West and knows that the
> elites fof the West care not a fig for religion despite their honeyed
> words that they will remain suspicious of western motives.
I think you are quite wrong to dismiss this important point. It's nothing to
do with "wishful liberal thinking". Ever since the Bosnia crisis Le Pen, in
France, who wishes to "ethnically cleanse" France of its Arab/North African
immigrants, has been trying to whip up support for Slobo and Serbia saying
that this is a Christian country trying to stop independent Muslim states in
Europe. Alan Clark said a similar thing in the Commons today.
I think the fact that NATO is not siding with the traditional Christian
imperialist establishment is significant.
This strikes me as the sort of thing Cecil Rhodes would definitely not agree
with.
>
>> The Serbs on the other hand show a certain similarity to the Germans under
>> Hitler in their wholesale denial of the vile excesses of their ethnic
>> cleansers.
>
> How can you say wholesale denial? Have you spoken to them all? Just
> because they are not all besieging Milosevic's house baying for his
> blood doesn't mean they deny the vile excesses of ethnic cleansing. I'm
> sure you don't think Bishney is the only 'good Serb', do you?
Bishney is also in denial. But he displays a certain humility that I find
touching. He strikes me as really confused but definitely not a malevolent
person.
> How can you also say the Germans wholesale denied Hitler's activities?
> How much did they actually know of what was going on at Dachau and the
> camps in Germany?
Maybe not Dachau, Terry - but KristelNacht - Yes! They all knew about that!
Seriously, though, I'm obviously not talking about every single German, or
every single Serb - I mean an observable general tendency.
> How much do you know of what is going on at Porton
> Down and other M.o.D. research establishments? Have you ever lived under
> a totalitarian regime, and experienced the all-pervading fear in such a
> society? How can you so casually judge and condemn whole nations in this
> way?
If even Romania could have shaken of communist tyranny why not Serbia?
What's wrong with the Serbs? I can't honestly say I have much sympathy with
them on this particular question. Opposition movement? - bah humbug!
Psychotic Nationalism? - they're Expert at that. Pre-eminent in the field!
>> But Milosevic is Milosevic. He must be stopped. Period. Not because he is
>> like Hitler but because he is Milosevic, the man whose obsessive pursuit of
>> absolute power has poisoned the Balkans and induced the Serbian nation to
>> travel backwards on the evolutionary road.
>
> I concur with this, except to say that he should not be stopped in this
> way, but by due process of international law. There is abundant evidence
> going back 10 years to show the world that the man is unfit to be in his
> position and deserves punishment.
Now this, Terry, is a rather silly comment IMHO.
How the hell are the forces of the "due process of international law"
supposed to get hold of the bastard?
Surely the only way he could be brought to book or arrested is by some kind
of military action by an external force.
If he was removed by an internal coup the chances are that he would be
bumped off before he could spill too many beans on Arkan's mafia, other
indicted war criminals, and numerous other criminal activities.
Are you starting to finally come round to being a bit more sympathetic to
the NATO action?
Bye now
Max respect
Steve
Ashley Campbell
Terry Boardman wrote in message <3713D6...@cableinet.co.uk>...
>dinerbass wrote:
>>
<snip loads of brilliant and elloquently argued stuff from both>
>Thanks for your posts on this and other subjects. I find them very
>thoughtful and stimulating.
>
>Cheers,
>Terry
However both of you found your way into nz.politics, long may you stay.
I stumbled on to this particular thread by chance, and have been mesmerised
by the profundity and logic of your arguments, and the eloquence with which
you express them.
Thank you.
Ashley
Steve Hillage
----------
In article <37137...@news1.vip.uk.com>, "dinerbass"
<dine...@arsenalfc.net> wrote:
Dear dinerbass
I think the chain of logic should run thus :-
1. The Western media and the Serbian media lie.
2. Therefore we cannot trust the information we receive from the media.
3. So we cannot reasonably trust all the mass of stories about "Serb
atrocities", rape camps etc.
4. But by the same token can we reasonably dismiss them?
My point is this :-
Why are the implacable oppoenents of NATO's action SO DAMN SURE that the
atrocity stories are false? Why are they CONVINCED that, for example, the
BBC video from April 1st was invalid?
There has been such a giant mass of evidence of unique brutality by the
Serbs since 1987 that even if 95% was untrue the remaining 5% is, for me,
still major information that stands up even if all the lies are taken into
account.
Remember, the Western European nations up until late 91 opposed the break up
of Yugoslavia, and Milosevic was treated in a respectful way based on the
notion that the Balkans needed a "strong man".
Respect, as always
Steve Hillage
dinerbass
>From a Simpsons
Of course, I remember it - and there was I thinking you were about to throw
a Balkan Freemasonic conspiracy into the ring.
Stephen Macdonald Luke
>
>----------
>In article <37137...@news1.vip.uk.com>, "dinerbass"
><dine...@arsenalfc.net> wrote:
>
>Dear dinerbass
>
>I think the chain of logic should run thus :-
>
>1. The Western media and the Serbian media lie.
>
>2. Therefore we cannot trust the information we receive from the media.
>
>3. So we cannot reasonably trust all the mass of stories about "Serb
>atrocities", rape camps etc.
>
>4. But by the same token can we reasonably dismiss them?
>
>My point is this :-
>
>Why are the implacable oppoenents of NATO's action SO DAMN SURE that the
>atrocity stories are false? Why are they CONVINCED that, for example, the
>BBC video from April 1st was invalid?
>
>There has been such a giant mass of evidence of unique brutality by the
>Serbs since 1987 that even if 95% was untrue the remaining 5% is, for me,
>still major information that stands up even if all the lies are taken into
>account.
>
>Remember, the Western European nations up until late 91 opposed the break up
>of Yugoslavia, and Milosevic was treated in a respectful way based on the
>notion that the Balkans needed a "strong man".
Not everyone opposing the bombing claims the Yugoslav government
doesnt lie. I think it will if it has to because thats its duty. If
the enemy is lying, and truth becomes a weapon of war, then one must
lie also, and hope this is understood by moralists who tend not to
have the defence responsibilities of military organisations and
governments.
The brutal actions of Yugoslavs seem in response to a war situation,
be it a hot war or a cold war. Their enemies are also brutal. There
may be no short term solution.
I would suggest that a focus on shared values, such as land rights and
sovereignty and heritage, would be more productive than trying to
force ones particular monocultural values on those who don't have
them, and don't want them......after all, we don't want to lose our
identity for the benefit of others...so why should they?
Who owns land anyway?
Marc Living
<ste...@easynet.co.uk> made the following submissions:
>Why are the implacable oppoenents of NATO's action SO DAMN SURE that the
>atrocity stories are false? Why are they CONVINCED that, for example, the
>BBC video from April 1st was invalid?
Your analysis is wrong, hence your confusion. It is more correct to
say that the opponents of NATO's action are not sure that the stories
are true. There is a difference.
That is because of our tradition that the burden of proving
accusations is on the accuser. Your test however seeks to make the
accused prove his innocence. There is no tradition of j'accuse in the
English tradition (don't know about the Scottish), and people are
considered to be innocent until *proven* guilty.
And not being sure that the allegations are true, it is considered to
be wrong to pass sentence (of death, in many cases) on the people of
Serbia.
Clear now?
>There has been such a giant mass of evidence of unique brutality by the
>Serbs since 1987 that even if 95% was untrue the remaining 5% is, for me,
>still major information that stands up even if all the lies are taken into
>account.
This is an old tactic in court. Bung up a whole load of spurious
allegations in the hope that the jury will say "there's no smoke
without fire". Unfortunately it still works sometimes.
>Remember, the Western European nations up until late 91 opposed the break up
>of Yugoslavia, and Milosevic was treated in a respectful way based on the
>notion that the Balkans needed a "strong man".
Most of Western Europe was, indeed, against the break-up of
Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, they were persuaded by Germany to recognise
the unilateral secessions of Slovenia and Croatia.
Their initial misgivings have been *more* than justified.
Steve Hillage
----------
In article <3714DA...@mikka.net.au>, Steven D'Aprano
<di...@mikka.net.au> wrote:
> dinerbass wrote:
>>
>> Now I understand you Steven, you're just having a laugh, not actually
>> reading anything but condradicting things just for the hell of it.
>
> Guilty as charged.
>
>> So what about the Stonecutters then?
>
> From a Simpsons episode where it is revealed that the ancient and secret
> society of Stonecutters is responsable for *everything*. They supressed
> the electric car and the reusable teabag, they're in contact with
> aliens, they pull all the strings and call all the shots. One of the
> best episodes.
>
>
>> > Its all a tissue of lies, and the
>> > biggest lie of all is that its all a tissue of lies.
>
> Of all my statements, this is the only one I stand by. Just because
> there are falsehoods and lies, doesn't mean everything is falsehoods and
> lies. Fifty years ago, intelligent, reasonable Americans and British
> could not believe reports from escaping Jews about the situation in
> Europe under the Nazis - they thought it was at best exaggeration and at
> worst deliberate propoganda. Instead the truth was even more horrifing
> than even the escaped Jews imagined in their worst nightmares.
>
> And before you jump to the wrong conclusion, I am not suggesting that
> the Serbs are commiting the horrific industrialised mass-extermination
> of the Nazi death camps. I am merely making the suggestion that what can
> appear to be propoganda is often nothing less than the truth.
This is point I also have been, in my rather clumsy way, trying to make.
Very elegantly put
Respect
Steve Hillage
>
>
> --
> Steven D'Aprano
Jason Clifford
> 2. Therefore we cannot trust the information we receive from the media.
>
> 3. So we cannot reasonably trust all the mass of stories about "Serb
> atrocities", rape camps etc.
>
> 4. But by the same token can we reasonably dismiss them?
No but before we can commence a war based upon them evidence that the
stories really are true has to be brought to the UN Security Council which
is the only body authorised under International Law to sanction the use of
force against a sovereign state.
> Why are the implacable oppoenents of NATO's action SO DAMN SURE that the
> atrocity stories are false? Why are they CONVINCED that, for example, the
> BBC video from April 1st was invalid?
I cannot speak for anyone else but for myself, I am not sure that the
attrocity stories are false. I am now however sure that they are true and
therefore I cannot the use of military force against Yugoslavia by the
armed forces of my country and of NATO.
I have already stated that I believe that the video that the BBC
partially published on April 1st is probably genuine evidence of a mass
murder in the town of Veliko Krusa on the 24th or 25th of March by Serb
paramilitaries.
> There has been such a giant mass of evidence of unique brutality by the
> Serbs since 1987 that even if 95% was untrue the remaining 5% is, for me,
> still major information that stands up even if all the lies are taken into
> account.
The problem here is that the mass of evidence is no greater than that
against any other side in the civil wars in Slovenia, Croatia or Bosnia
and Herzegovina. Indeed it has since transpired that some of the most
emotive evidence (the `mortar attack' against the Sarajevo market place
and the ITN `concentration camp' footage to name just two instances) was
in fact innacurate and, in the case of the Sarajevo incident was actually
committed by the Bosnian Moslem side.
> Remember, the Western European nations up until late 91 opposed the break up
> of Yugoslavia, and Milosevic was treated in a respectful way based on the
> notion that the Balkans needed a "strong man".
The break up of Yugoslavia was opposed because it was widely recognised
that such a break up would quickly descend into civil war along ethnic
lines with exactly the consequences we have since seen.
Jason Clifford http://www.dlsl.demon.co.uk/
Linux Consultancy and Support Services
PC and Server systems with Linux/FreeBSD
Terry Boardman
>
>
> >> ----------
> >> In article <371233...@cableinet.co.uk>, Terry Boardman
> >> <terence....@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> > Steve Hillage wrote:
> >>
> >> I therefore repeat my question :- If we assume that the secret NWO cartel
> >> does indeed exist, is this NWO cartel neccessarily such a bad thing?
> >
> > And I repeat to you my request to study it for yourself, and not just
> > make assertions about it or ask sandcastle-in-the-air-questions about
> > it. When you go deep enough into it (putting aside the playful
> > jesterings of an R.A.Wilson) you will be able to answer the question for
> > yourself clearly, I am confident of that.
>
> Point taken Terry, but....
>
> You see, this whole line of discussion has been triggered by the Kosovo
> situation. You seem to me to be solidly against NATO's action largely
> because you feel NATO is acting as an agent of the NWO project of which you
> speak.
Quite.
> I have repeatedly challenged you on this by pointing to the American
> far-right's NWO obsession.
Although the far right's obsession has nothing to do with whether or
not the NATO action is in line with the NWO agenda. You were under the
impression that the NWO concept was *created* by the Far Right. I hope
you are beginning to realise that this is not so.
You have repeatedly countered by saying that the
> NWO project of which you speak is not really the same as that railed against
> by the American far-right, who look at the question with rigid reactionary
> stupidity.
>
> OK. I accept this.
>
> But I still want you to answer my question, rather than suggesting I read
> some difficult-to-obtain books.
Does this mean you are not prepared to read the material? If so, well,
there is plenty of stuff on the Net Steve, which is not by the Far
Right.
>
> I want you to list out some of the chief reasons why you yourself regard the
> NWO project as malefic.
>
> I want you to try and seriously shake up my support for the NATO action,
> because you haven't said anything that alters my mind up to now, much as I
> have enjoyed this stimulating dialogue with you.
Re. your request here, please see the end of this post.
You go on and on about the crimes of the Serbs, saying that they are far
greater than anybody else's and that justifies NATO's actions against
them. OK, I can understand that argument from history. But why then do
you ignore the far greater accumulated global crimes of the USA and UK
since 1945 in pursuit of their self-interest? The evidence, both
military and economic, is massive against them. The elites which guide
their foreign policy have not changed at all in essence, since it is
immaterial - and has been since WW2 - which party is in power,
essentially the same policy lines are followed. Knowing this history,
why do you persist in believing that these Powers should suddenly turn
whiter than white and accept that they are acting for humanitarian
reasons? Of course it is always possible that human beings can change
and become decent even after a long period of wickedness, but do you
really think this has happened in this case? I do not believe you could
be so naive.
>
> >>
> >> Please remember that NATO and the West, as they did in Bosnia, are actually
> >> assisting an oppressed MUSLIM minority.
They are also assisting a terrorist drug-running organisation. On BBC R4
News tonight (I'm almost tempted to say One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest)
because there was an interesting report from one Sean Waterman (not a
regular Beeb R4 person, I'd say; maybe the good fairies smuggled him in)
which went into the background of the KLA. There was an interview with
a Swedish official from the National Criminal Intelligence there and he
said that last year alone they had seized 150kg of heroin worth £100
million smuggled in Europe by ethnic Albanians. 80% of Albanian emigre
drug money, he said, went to support the KLA. The feature described how
the KLA grew out of the Marxist nationalist Kososvo Liberation movement
that sprang up straight after the death of Tito, funded by Enver Hoxha
(that paragon of liberal virtue) in Tirana. The goal then and now is a
greater Albania that INCLUDES the Albanians from Montenegro, Macedonia,
and Greece. The violence of the Kosovo Albanian movement in the 80s was
what led to the equally stupid Serb overreaction by Milosevic in 1989
when he suspended the *considerable* degree of autonomy Kosovo Albanians
already had. The Albanians responded by themselves refusing to cooperate
with the govt - by withdrawing their kids from schools, etc. and trying
to set up a parallel state without actually declaring independence. In
other words, the whole process that started the unravelling of
Yugoslavia was the stupid and chauvinistic demands of the Albanian
Kosovar political agitators (I do not say all the people) and their
supporters for independence and a Greater Albania before Milosevic ever
came on the scene. Milosevic was able to stir up the Serbs in Kosovo in
1989 *because* the Serbs there were being treated so badly by the
Albanians and felt they were being forced out of their own 'holy land'.
1989 was the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Field of Blackbirds etc
etc to which The Slob appealed, and you know the rest.
Now what do you make of all this?
Let me tell you - 1991-95 and especially when the Bosnian Serbs were
destroying Sarajevo, that once lovely multiethnic community, I couldn't
help feeling that Serbia was reaping a certain karma for its part in
starting the First World War. The Serbs then had longed to lead the
Union of South Slavs, which became Yugoslavia under their leadership and
their king in 1918 - and then look at what happened to it 70 odd years
later: it fell apart because of them, or so it seemed. The Serbs had
worked to destroy the multiethnic community of Austria-Hungary, and now
they were destroying their own multiethnic community. So I certainly
didn't have a great deal of sympathy for them, to be honest, but that
was before I discovered about the role of the Albanians and their
Greater Albania. I still don't have much sympathy for the Serbs; God
knows some Serbs have committed enough crimes in the 90s, but I
recognise now that it is not right just to stop at 1989 and go no
further back. The Albanians today may be reaping the whirlwind of their
own foolishness in following their hotheaded leaders of the 80s with
their dreams of a Greater Albania.
I regard this as a good thing and it
> >> sends a powerful signal to the reactionary forces that seek to suppress
> >> multi-culturalism accross the globe. This fact has not escaped the attention
> >> of Isaraeli fascists like Ariel Sharon.
I disagree. It tells reactionary forces in the Muslim world for instance
that the Christians are stupid enough to fight against themselves and
may create the circumstances that will allow even more Muslim
fundamentalism to enter Europe than presently exists - and compared to
Muslim fundamentalism - US Far Right fundamentalism is a picnic
(Okhlahoma excepted). The Algerians, Iranians, Iraqis,
Egyptians,Afghans, and Israelis know that only too well. It wasn't
Christian Fundamentalist rednecks who were in charge of the White House
these last 40 years by the way - it was the "liberal internationalists"
of the CFR (post 1945) and Trilateral Commission (post 1974) - yes, even
under Nixon, Reagan and Bush, and if you doubt that - check out the
membership composition of every US cabinet and national security council
since WW2. It was the friends of David Rockefeller who took the US into
Vietnam, who bombed Cambodia and let in the Khmer Rouge and then
supported the Khmer Rouger after 1978, who went into Nicaragua, Panama,
the Gulf etc etc - the ones who mouth support for the UN, IMF, World
Bank and the other liberal internationalist institutions of Pax
Americana. Compared to THESE people and the violence they have wielded
over the last 40 years, Pat Robertson & Co are just a bunch of
fairground toughs. You have your priorities skew-wiff Steve.
> >
> > I am not convinced of this; it sounds like wishful liberal thinking. The
> > Muslim world is already so suspicious of the West and knows that the
> > elites fof the West care not a fig for religion despite their honeyed
> > words that they will remain suspicious of western motives.
>
> I think you are quite wrong to dismiss this important point. It's nothing to
> do with "wishful liberal thinking". Ever since the Bosnia crisis Le Pen, in
> France, who wishes to "ethnically cleanse" France of its Arab/North African
> immigrants, has been trying to whip up support for Slobo and Serbia saying
> that this is a Christian country trying to stop independent Muslim states in
> Europe.
> Alan Clark said a similar thing in the Commons today.
I have nothing against Albania being an independent Muslim state in
Europe. I would like to see it in the EU (a proper EU, that is, not its
present proto-totalitarian form) and also Turkey, which I have always
wanted to see in the EU despite, yes despite its treatment of the Kurds.
What I would NOT like to see is the growth or spread of any kind of
Muslim fundamentalism in Europe.
> I think the fact that NATO is not siding with the traditional Christian
> imperialist establishment is significant.
You don't see that NATO IS the traditionalist Christian imperial
establishment. Remember how the Western Crusaders sacked Orthodox
Constantinople in 1204? The West (=Rome + son-of-Rome Protestantism) has
always despised and hated Orthodoxy, as much if not more than Islam.
>
> This strikes me as the sort of thing Cecil Rhodes would definitely not agree
> with.
First you need to know what Cecil Rhodes did agree with! :-)
>
> >
> >> The Serbs on the other hand show a certain similarity to the Germans under
> >> Hitler in their wholesale denial of the vile excesses of their ethnic
> >> cleansers.
> >
> > How can you say wholesale denial? Have you spoken to them all? Just
> > because they are not all besieging Milosevic's house baying for his
> > blood doesn't mean they deny the vile excesses of ethnic cleansing. I'm
> > sure you don't think Bishney is the only 'good Serb', do you?
>
> Bishney is also in denial. But he displays a certain humility that I find
> touching. He strikes me as really confused but definitely not a malevolent
> person.
>
> > How can you also say the Germans wholesale denied Hitler's activities?
> > How much did they actually know of what was going on at Dachau and the
> > camps in Germany?
>
> Maybe not Dachau, Terry - but KristelNacht - Yes! They all knew about that!
The Germans bore the cross of evil for the whole of western humanity -
that's how I see the years 1933-45. I'm not going to stand apart and
point the finger at them and say: "there's the locus of evil. It's not
OUR people!" To do that would be to behave as Europeans did for so long
to the Jews for the sin of killing Jesus.
And before you accuse me of contradiction, saying I point the finger at
the NWO mob, I say they are OUR problem - the problem of our
English-speaking community and that has to do with OUR particular
relationship to materialism.
> Seriously, though, I'm obviously not talking about every single German, or
> every single Serb - I mean an observable general tendency.
ditto my remarks above
>
> > How much do you know of what is going on at Porton
> > Down and other M.o.D. research establishments? Have you ever lived under
> > a totalitarian regime, and experienced the all-pervading fear in such a
> > society? How can you so casually judge and condemn whole nations in this
> > way?
>
> If even Romania could have shaken of communist tyranny why not Serbia?
Romania did so belatedly only in company with the other ex-com countries
who were all at it so to speak. You misjudge Yugoslavia. Belgrade is not
Bucharest or Sofia; it is far more 'modern' and has been for a long
time. Ceaucescu and his gang were far worse than Milosevic, although I
grant you that Ceaucescu didn't make problems for foreigners and
neighbouring states like Slob has. See Michel Chossudovsky's articles on
the Web for how Yugoslavia was forced into economic depression by the
West in the 80s and especially after 1989 in order to conform to
western-style economic liberalisation.
> What's wrong with the Serbs? I can't honestly say I have much sympathy with
> them on this particular question. Opposition movement? - bah humbug!
That is grossly unfair of you and demeaning of the thousands who -
without any support from the West - opposed Slob in the winter of 1996
>
> Psychotic Nationalism? - they're Expert at that. Pre-eminent in the field!
Please do not become psychotically anti-Serb!
>
> >> But Milosevic is Milosevic. He must be stopped. Period. Not because he is
> >> like Hitler but because he is Milosevic, the man whose obsessive pursuit of
> >> absolute power has poisoned the Balkans and induced the Serbian nation to
> >> travel backwards on the evolutionary road.
> >
> > I concur with this, except to say that he should not be stopped in this
> > way, but by due process of international law. There is abundant evidence
> > going back 10 years to show the world that the man is unfit to be in his
> > position and deserves punishment.
>
> Now this, Terry, is a rather silly comment IMHO.
>
> How the hell are the forces of the "due process of international law"
> supposed to get hold of the bastard?
Would you have called Judas Iscariot "a bastard"?
If Milosevic were tried in abstentia under international law as a war
criminal and found guilty, I think that would carry some weight. Until
now only a few minions from the Bosnian War have been tried. Why do you
think mighty NATO, in control of Bosnia, did not even bother to arrest
Mladic and Karadzic? What would have been the result if they had been
tried and found guilty? I'll tell you - there would be no Kosovo War
today.
>
> Surely the only way he could be brought to book or arrested is by some kind
> of military action by an external force.
What has changed since WW1 I ask myself? Like taking a steam hammer to
crush a hornet's nest. What do we have the wonderful SAS for - which
we're always boasting about? I would have no objection to them being
sent in - IF they were going in with a mandate from THE International
community after a trial. If Milosvic were found guilty before a
genuinely international tribunal, THE international community (not just
the USA and puppets) would be in a good position to demand his handover
- and if that were refused, then Yugoslavia should be quarantined until
its people hand him over or get rid of him themselves.
And this is only me thinking, Steve. I'm sure there are plenty of
people, more expert than myself, who could come up with more imaginative
solutions. The solution of your NATO bovver boy "comrades" has NO
imagination whatsoever.
They wanted their war at Rambouillet, they have rejected successive
Serbian, Papal, and Russian attempts at peacemaking. They will no doubt
reject the latest German attempt, because Joshka Fischer does seem at
least to be something of an independent thinker. They are warmongers,
Steve. The worst bulldog side of Britain is now coming out in Blair;
he's got the bit between his teeth, and the British are at their ugliest
in that mood. He will destroy Yugoslavia rather than admit he is wrong -
just like Lloyd George.
>
> If he was removed by an internal coup the chances are that he would be
> bumped off before he could spill too many beans on Arkan's mafia, other
> indicted war criminals, and numerous other criminal activities.
They too should be tried.
>
> Are you starting to finally come round to being a bit more sympathetic to
> the NATO action?
Absolutely not! If it were possible, I'm more convinced than ever that
it's a thoroughly wicked enterprise.
I won't say that I accept unreservedly the claim that NATO jets killed
those Albanians today - how could I, after everything I've said about
NATO propaganda and the need not to jump to conclusions. We don't yet
know, but I hope for your sake, it turns out not to be true, because all
you gung-ho NATO crusaders will have that blood on your consciences for
supporting Clinton and puppet Blair's criminal actions.
As for your question about the malefic nature of the NWO above, I'm
going to e-mail you a magazine article I wrote on the subject last
month. It's too long for an NG. I hope you'll take the trouble to read
it and I'll look forward to your comments.
Best fishes to you as always,
Terry
Terry Boardman
>
> Terry Boardman wrote in message <3713D6...@cableinet.co.uk>...
> >dinerbass wrote:
> >>
> <snip loads of brilliant and elloquently argued stuff from both>
>
> >thoughtful and stimulating.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Terry
>
>
> I stumbled on to this particular thread by chance, and have been mesmerised
> by the profundity and logic of your arguments, and the eloquence with which
> you express them.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Ashley
Thank you Ashley. Amidst all the insults and astral aggro that flies
around in Usenet, it's a tonic to read a post like yours.
Cheers,
Terry
Gary Dale
> Why are the implacable oppoenents of NATO's action SO DAMN SURE that the
> atrocity stories are false? Why are they CONVINCED that, for example, the
> BBC video from April 1st was invalid?
Nobody said they were sure. The BBC footage is plausible evidence of
what is suggested. The problem is that the propaganda war is so
important it has created an extraordinary motivation to mislead,
exaggerate or decieve. Propaganda can easily be more important
than a few casualties here and there, perhaps in this war more than
previous wars.
Recently Clinton said that the atrocities should not be allowed to
continue. But the atrocities credited to NATO seem to be mounting
daily, and whilst they have not reached Dresden-like proportions
(euphemistically called 'de-housing' at the time), they are going
for softer civilian targets: railway lines, factories, post office,
bridges, oil depots and refinaries, heating plants. Much of the
killing will be silent: like Iraq a combination of bombs and
sanctions to bring the population to its knees.
But we are not 'at war' with them.
Rambouillet
Gary Dale wrote:
> Recently Clinton said that the atrocities should not be allowed to
> continue. But the atrocities credited to NATO seem to be mounting
> daily
Yes.
> and whilst they have not reached Dresden-like proportions
> (euphemistically called 'de-housing' at the time), they are going
> for softer civilian targets: railway lines, factories, post office,
> bridges, oil depots and refinaries, heating plants.
The military, economic and civil infrastructure of Yugoslavia.
The people will end up like the people of Iraq, no clean water, no fuel,
no medicine, no hope and a president that still oppresses people.
The people that get their information from the idiot box - XXX million -
plus don't know that Serbia in 1913 and 1914 conquered Kosovo fighting
Bulgaria and Macedonia.
1941 Hungary occupied and took Vojvodina, Bulgaria got most of
Macedonia, Albania protected by Italy took a slice of Kosovo.
Later the albanian SS Division "Skanderbeg" drove thousands of Serbs out
of Kosovo and committed atrocities.
After the war Rankovic under Tito oppressed, tortured and murdered the
Albanians in Kosovo. He was replaced 1966 and 1974 Tito granted Kosovo
autonomy.
> Much of the killing will be silent: like Iraq a combination of bombs and
> sanctions to bring the population to its knees.
>
> But we are not 'at war' with them.
Nato is a DEFENCE force. Yugoslavia didn't attack a Nato member and the
UN Security Council didn't sanction the attack
on Yugoslavia.
Let us get real. Nato declared war against Yugoslavia.
Why ?
The official line is that Yugoslavia didn't sign the "Rambouillet
Accord".
Apart from the fact that we don't know the text of the treaty, not
signing it doesn't constitute an attack against a Nato member.
The best source I could find was
http://www.state.gov/www/regions/eur/fs_990301_rambouillet.html
I have learned that neither the government of US, Germany, France, Italy
and Belgium etc. know the full content of the "Rambouillet Accord".
Where is the complete text?
The war on citizens of Yugoslavia in Kosovo is like the one waged
against citizens of Turkey in Kurdistan.
Nato isn't bombing Istanbul!
And as every sane person knows the destruction of Yugoslavia doesn't
help the people in Kosovo.
Steve Hillage
>>
>> Are you starting to finally come round to being a bit more sympathetic to
>> the NATO action?
>
> Absolutely not! If it were possible, I'm more convinced than ever that
> it's a thoroughly wicked enterprise.
> I won't say that I accept unreservedly the claim that NATO jets killed
> those Albanians today - how could I, after everything I've said about
> NATO propaganda and the need not to jump to conclusions. We don't yet
> know, but I hope for your sake, it turns out not to be true, because all
> you gung-ho NATO crusaders will have that blood on your consciences for
> supporting Clinton and puppet Blair's criminal actions.
>
> As for your question about the malefic nature of the NWO above, I'm
> going to e-mail you a magazine article I wrote on the subject last
> month. It's too long for an NG. I hope you'll take the trouble to read
> it and I'll look forward to your comments.
>
> Best fishes to you as always,
>
> Terry
Dear Terry
Thankyou once again for taking the time to explain your position to me in a
reasonable and friendly manner. Bearing in mind that this war or neo-war
situation inflames emotions, and also bearing in mind the historical gravity
of these events I really appreciate a reasoned debate as opposed to dogma
and rant.
I am utterly appalled by the refugee bombing. Nothing else to say on that.
NATO seems to have been caught with its propaganda pants down.
I await your e-mailed article which I will read with care and attention.
Until then, I still see NATO's wrongdoings as cock-up rather than
conspiracy.
Peace
Steve
Steve Hillage
>
>> >> I regard this as a good thing and it
>> >> sends a powerful signal to the reactionary forces that seek to suppress
>> >> multi-culturalism accross the globe. This fact has not escaped the
>> >> attention of Isaraeli fascists like Ariel Sharon.
>
> I disagree. It tells reactionary forces in the Muslim world for instance
> that the Christians are stupid enough to fight against themselves and
> may create the circumstances that will allow even more Muslim
> fundamentalism to enter Europe than presently exists - and compared to
> Muslim fundamentalism - US Far Right fundamentalism is a picnic
> (Okhlahoma excepted).
You are in danger of exposing an anti-Muslim prejudice here. You seem to be
more concerned by Muslim fundamentalism than by the Judeo-Christian far
right. I am of the opposite persuasion. Perhaps this is the chief area of
disagreement between you and me, as I'm a bit of a T.E.Lawrence influenced
Arabophile.- hence my frequent mentions of Le Pen etc.
> The Algerians, Iranians, Iraqis,
> Egyptians,Afghans, and Israelis know that only too well. It wasn't
> Christian Fundamentalist rednecks who were in charge of the White House
> these last 40 years by the way - it was the "liberal internationalists"
> of the CFR (post 1945) and Trilateral Commission (post 1974) - yes, even
> under Nixon, Reagan and Bush, and if you doubt that - check out the
> membership composition of every US cabinet and national security council
> since WW2. It was the friends of David Rockefeller who took the US into
> Vietnam, who bombed Cambodia and let in the Khmer Rouge and then
> supported the Khmer Rouger after 1978,
I agree with you that these were bad bad moves.
> who went into Nicaragua, Panama,
also bad
> the Gulf etc etc -
The Gulf :- not quite so bad.
> the ones who mouth support for the UN, IMF, World
> Bank and the other liberal internationalist institutions of Pax
> Americana. Compared to THESE people and the violence they have wielded
> over the last 40 years, Pat Robertson & Co are just a bunch of
> fairground toughs. You have your priorities skew-wiff Steve.
I theenk not gringo! I theenk that for you ze penny hazza notta dropped!
Funny though - you and I seem to have got locked into a kind of fascism
world-cup competition! My fascist are worse than your fascists! or vice
versa.
>> > I am not convinced of this; it sounds like wishful liberal thinking. The
>> > Muslim world is already so suspicious of the West and knows that the
>> > elites fof the West care not a fig for religion despite their honeyed
>> > words that they will remain suspicious of western motives.
>>
>> I think you are quite wrong to dismiss this important point. It's nothing to
>> do with "wishful liberal thinking". Ever since the Bosnia crisis Le Pen, in
>> France, who wishes to "ethnically cleanse" France of its Arab/North African
>> immigrants, has been trying to whip up support for Slobo and Serbia saying
>> that this is a Christian country trying to stop independent Muslim states in
>> Europe.
>> Alan Clark said a similar thing in the Commons today.
>
> I have nothing against Albania being an independent Muslim state in
> Europe. I would like to see it in the EU (a proper EU, that is, not its
> present proto-totalitarian form) and also Turkey, which I have always
> wanted to see in the EU despite, yes despite its treatment of the Kurds.
> What I would NOT like to see is the growth or spread of any kind of
> Muslim fundamentalism in Europe.
I certainly agree with you here. All the Muslims that I know are really
pretty mild individuals. They have an unresolved problem over women's rights
but philosophically they are a pretty tolerant bunch. The fundamentalist are
their equivalent of, say, Ian Paisley. The best way that the world can stop
the march of Islamic fundamentalism is to resolve the Israel / Palestine
question. At the moment I have the feeling that the Kosovo conflict will
perhaps have a positive influence here, and that NATO's position as
supporters of a Muslim side is going to help.
>
>
>> I think the fact that NATO is not siding with the traditional Christian
>> imperialist establishment is significant.
>
> You don't see that NATO IS the traditionalist Christian imperial
> establishment.
No I don't really see this.
> Remember how the Western Crusaders sacked Orthodox
> Constantinople in 1204? The West (=Rome + son-of-Rome Protestantism) has
> always despised and hated Orthodoxy, as much if not more than Islam.
In which case why have so many West European royal families intermarried
with Greeks and Russians? What about the French and their ties with Romania
and the Maronites?
Sorry, I really do not agree with your contention that Anglo-Saxon and
Gallic foreign policy is imbued with a deep hatred of the Orthodox branch of
Christianity. Germany perhaps, but not the other major players.
>
>>
>> This strikes me as the sort of thing Cecil Rhodes would definitely not agree
>> with.
>
> First you need to know what Cecil Rhodes did agree with! :-)
I await your emailed information
Peace
Steve
macdiarmid
Stephen Macdonald Luke <sl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> The brutal actions of Yugoslavs seem in response to a war situation,
> be it a hot war or a cold war. Their enemies are also brutal. There
> may be no short term solution.
> I would suggest that a focus on shared values, such as land rights and
> sovereignty and heritage, would be more productive than trying to
> force ones particular monocultural values on those who don't have
> them, and don't want them......after all, we don't want to lose our
> identity for the benefit of others...so why should they?
That's about it, I'd say. In war, take the word of an ex-soldier,
as in dogfights you don't have time to observe rules; you bite where you
see flesh. Much of the illtreatment of one set of civilians is forced by
the illtreatment of another set. For if you don't you'll get more of the
same. Terrorism is a powerful weapon of war often used to defend the
innocent, albeit often unsuccessfully since the innocent die and the
guilty start up again somewhere else..
Coming home to find your home burnt, your family raped and
murdered, what do you do? You start down the road reloading your gun,
don't you...?
As for cultural differences I'm not even a Christian but I find
Catholicism repugnant. So how must it be to live next door to wogs
mutilating their children, throwing blankets for life over nineyear old
girls, treating Ma like the family dog and slitting the throats of a
dozen goats in the street to express ineffable delight at a visit from a
distant uncle?
Then there's the niggers....
Watch Kosovo carefully. Much of it is the blueprint for Europe's
ethnic cleansing still to come. Multiracial societies have never worked.
--
--
macdiarmid
You are now entering the democratic Muslim city of Bradford. No alcohol is to be consumed and all adult females must wear hats and long skirts. In the event of gunfire lie flat. All bombs contain anthrax, may Allah preserve you.
dinerbass
Terry Boardman wrote in message <3713D6...@cableinet.co.uk>...
Sure, his language wasn't everyone's cup of tea. Personally it amused rather
than irritated me, but maybe I've got a warped sense of humour. You may be
right about his arrogance and contempt of early stages. It might be a kind
of "Then a fool. Now a wiser fool" reflection on the process of growing up.
I don't think arrogance is always necessarily a bad thing, as it doesn't
have to include disrespect for others. How many great scientists, artists,
sports-meisters, philosophers etc do amazing things for the world because
they had the arrogance to believe they could do what no-one else could. I
suppose this could be called healthy competition.
I've no disrespect for the people of the past, but I see nothing great about
mud huts, plague and squalor. I believe we can feed, clothe, house,
maintain, educate, employ, entertain and enrich everyone on the planet, plus
a load more - *if* we get our shit together - and without buggering up the
planet.
I believe this can be done by advancing productive forces through economic,
political, social and technological development. Don't ask me for the
details, but if we have that goal in mind than at least we have a target. If
people have all the above, they've no reason to go to war, unless they're
being duped by power-crazed lunatics, but this is what the hoped-for
political development would address.
If this political hope for the future is 'Luciferic' then I think the guy's
had a bad press, and I can understand why Aleister Crowley joked about being
the "wickedest man in the world" - taking the piss out of Christian myths.
Mind you, the establishment (was it Rothermere/Beaverbrooke?) demonised him,
with the help of Dennis Wheatley who stabbed AC in the back after AC had
tought Wheatley everything Wheatley knew. And what about about Crowley's
alleged "occult" services to the same British establishment during the war?
And what did Wheatley, Ian Fleming and Michael Bentine know about that, and
Hess's mysterious arrival? Shows how the British state treats its WW2
allies, really.
Anyway, a more 'reasonable' criticism of that vision would be that it sounds
idealistic and unrealistic. Maybe now, Maybe not in decades or hundreds of
years. It was once thought that humans would die if they travelled more than
25 mph.
> It seems odd to say this in amongst the dark
>> and furious debate of war, but as Wilson would say : the optimistic
mindset
>> has more chance of finding solutions than the pessimistic one, which has
>> already conceded defeat.
>
>I would prefer to dispense with indulging in either optimism or
>pessismism too much and stick to Realism, which is far more than both.
The basis for a preference for optimism (which doesn't always come easy) is
rooted in reality and pragmatic experience. I don't know whether this is
optimism or confidence, but with when solving software problems - e.g.
support, if with a seemingly hopeless problem I can get in a state of mind
where I believe a solution possible, rather than hopeless, either intuition
and/or a focussed logic can often kick in, and an successful idea would
strike in a flash. If this is indulgence the punters certainly didn't seem
to mind!
I must admit though, when it comes to the grim reality of this war, Realism
seems a more appropriate state of mind. Optimism seems absurd and Pessimism
too depressing. Even so, if anyone tries to think of ways to stop it, there
can be no harm in believing the task to be possible.
>>
>> In these days of science in near-retreat (too dangerous, seems to be the
>> feeling)
>
>That's not my perception. A spiritual struggle is going on between those
>seeking to carry forward the Positivist torch of the scientific
>Revolutions of the 17th-20th centuries - the neo-Darwinists and
>biologists seem to be carrying all before them, and those who know now
>that that Positivism bears much responsibility for the mess we're now
>in. There's consequently a reaction and a falling back to old atavisms,
>half-understood Eastern, Celtic, pagan stuff etc. Some people in the New
>Age are trying to find a modern way forward that avoids both these two
>poles; some scientists are trying the same, but it's an uphill struggle.
>We need a new science - with heart, that does not seek to "put Nature on
>the rack", as Francis Bacon wanted.
Interesting. A friend (bit of a 'pagan') reckons the Celts saw disease as
'tiny animals invading the body', which is what we now recognise as
Virus's/Bacteria, and that we may have known quite a few things that got
lost in the Dark ages. He blames Christianity for everything.
How is Positivism responsible for the mess? Which particular mess were you
thinking of?
The problem I have with the traditional scientific 'Torch' is that it only
points its beam into various corners of the room - those considered OK by
the consensus-reality - what I call the Scully Syndrome. Anything 'spooky'
is effectively too uncool to be taken seriously, 'cos "Science" has decreed
them off limits, and by definition, to try and understand them is
'unscientific'. The official line is to ignore them. Unless of course (with
Scully) it's Christianity, when the whole regulation "scientific" mind set
goes out the window and old men with beards sitting in the clouds is
suddenly fine. No questions asked.
What I was probably thinking about with the "science in near-retreat" is
Genetic Engineering. We hear much of the dangers of this, but little about
the possibilities of finding cures for cancer, AIDS and death.
I'm afraid I find the green lobby rather reactionary, with their Pol Pot
visions of enforced living in harmonious mud-huts about as appealing as NATO
visions of enforced humanitarianism.
> and a total negativity and distrust about humanity, then his ideas
>> about Space Migration, Increased Intelligence and Life Extension (SMILE)
>> should be inspiring us to greater things.
>
>I don't think the first of these is connected with the other two. That
>was the American on-on-ON out-out-OUT!!!! consciousness of the wagon
>train just expanded into space. Pointless migrating into space if we
>just take our trash with us and repeat the same nonsense up there. The
>whole space exploration drive appears to me as a perverted
>materialisation of the inner need to cross a *spiritual* threshold.
Surely the drive comes from our desire to explore and push back frontiers.
Maybe technology will find ways of unfolding space & time so we can zip
about the universe without the drag of actually having to *travel*.
Admittedly, we should get our shit together first. Long way to go there, and
that's where the other two parts of the 'formula' come in. Increased
Intelligence would, according to Leary, include spiritual development and
Life Extension would help that - especially if that development takes, as I
suspect, decades of work. The other thing about Life Extension is that that
it gives time for individuals to develop as multi-discplined scientists,
rather than the narrow, sectional specialists that current economic
realities seem to demand. Multi discipline science is essential for long
term progress in my view, to get a way from scientists who know more and
more about less and less. Lets face it, there's just too much to know, and
that's where his later cyber visionary ideas come in.
Thus are the three linked.
> Likewise with the expansion of
>> consciousness through various, er, technologies - many of which look to
>> remain off limits for some time to come.
>
>Consciousness cannot be expanded *in a healthy way* through technologies
>(if you're thinking of drugs for example). There is no point in
>expanding consciousness if the human Self is not engaged, if it is done
>FOR you. New technologies result from expanded consciousness.
If you want to dig a trench, it's quicker with a JCB than a spade, but
healthier with the spade. Hardly anyone's got time to sit in an asana for 32
years waiting for enlightenment, and if you see, for example, yoga &
meditation as more honest methods then I'd agree. I don't think that kind of
progress can come in a pill / brain machine, but the device can improve the
'productivity' of the hard work. That's why I think Leary saw drugs as
technologies, in a kind of Marxist enhancing-the-forces-of-production sense.
A machine has no wealth-creating potential on its own, like a drug has no
spiritual value on its own, but in the hands of a skilled operator...
That's why the solely hedonistic users that Leary had to come to terms with
just have a laugh and that's that - and if they try getting all spiritual
without any bona fide development of the 'Self' they just come out with
crap. Bit like most religions.
><snip>
>> Heroin was never on Leary's list of 'evolutionary' drugs, as it only
>> comforts what Leary would describe as the 'Reptilian Brain'.
>
>Yes I realise that.
>
>
> He was more
>> interested in using what are sometimes called the psychedelics to break
down
>> conditioned behaviour and to enable positive reprogramming. The prison
>> subjects he treated with carefully controlled use of LSD had a far lower
>> recidivism than usual, and his two 'laws' : the right for an individual
to
>> experiment with their brain / alter their consciousness, and the right of
an
>> individual not to have their consciousness altered without their consent
are
>> a far cry from the govt policy of doing the reverse. While the CIA /
>> military gave people LSD without their knowledge or consent and under bad
>> conditions, Leary repeatedly emphasised the importance of control, set &
>> setting.
>
>I recognise the libertarian impulse of his two principles, but don't you
>think it was bound to get out of hand and immature people would
>experiment in irresponsible ways, control, set, and setting would go out
>of the window (sometimes followed by the imbibers!) - often with
>disastrous results. With such a powerful exterior force as LSD, Leary
>was in too much of a hurry, and the people were too young and too
>impatient. "We want the world and we want it NOW!!" - Remember that?
People's irresponsibility is always an argument against freedom. There are
risks everywhere there are thrills: driving fast cars, or cars fast,
climbing mountains, taking LSD, and the Jim Morrison approach to life is
certainly destructive, though brightly burning. I think Leary later
recognised that the kids didn't have the discipline or direction required to
get beyond the hedonism. He'd probably have been better off including his
ideas as part of a more sober scientific or "occult" programs (same thing,
different methods) for the more
seriously-minded to explore than evangelising to impatient kids. No offence
to impatient kids. I just wish Aleister Crowley had been around for
Hoffman's elixir, but then you might see him as *even* more dangerous than
Leary, who admired AC.
As one of the maybe more sussed of today's millions of ravers once said to
me : "With exctasy you love everybody on saturday, but on monday it's the
same old shit. With acid you get hard facts." Those hard facts can be
dangerous and/or exciting and/or terrifying and/or liberating (eg when
McGoohan's "Number 6" finally discovers who 'Number 2' is in 'The Prisoner')
but truth is the truth and when you strip away all the masks, it might hurt.
It links in with all the war propaganda debate too, as our whole notion is
"what is real?" in terms of what is going in the war zone is a construct
unique to each of us and inside our heads. What is "out there" is not what
is "in here" - what we are percieving is a movie played to ourselves in our
skulls based on the models our internal software builds. The data comes in
via a welter of unreliable sources (filters), and we enforce or rebuild our
models according to our knowledge and/or prejudices. Data that doesn't fit
either gets rejected or used to rebuild models, depending on levels of
fundamentalist certaintly. That's why it's such a painfull reality shift to
try and accept that what you had thought was "true" is now "not true", and
vice-versa. - Junk News = Junk Views.
Leary (and Wilson) 's point was that techniques are available to reduce that
level of fundamentalist certainty and 'loosen' the programming. A linguistic
way of loosening that programming might be to discuss the Kosovo War without
using that highly electrified term "The Serbs" and replacing it with the
word "The State" - which describes the Nation State of Yugoslavia, in two
wars, first with an internal opponent (the civil war) and then with an
external opponent called NATO who have joined the State's internal opponent.
(the NATO war). It seems (to me) to make it look different. There's a
similar role for The Regugees. The Observer is frightened of them falling
from the TV screens - all thats left to watch is the bombing of (all)
Yugoslav civilians. For weeks and weeks?
"Theatres of War", eh? Are they taking the piss when they say that?
>> With uniformity such a crucial element of state control, its not
surprising
>> that the authorities stamped on research that could liberate minds from
>> regulation, off-the-peg mindsets. This is the real Leary, not an mere
>> advocate of getting whacked-out for hedonistic quasi-spiritualist kicks.
>
>Leary went from natural and chemical stimulants to techno-stimulants,
>from Scylla to Charybdis, you might say. I instinctively feel that
>neither of these is a healthy path, because neither involves the heart.
>The one seizes the nervous system; the other seizes the will.
It could be argued that they both influence both the nervous system and the
will. Leary's Cyber-Linkup (excuse the language).
But even forgetting about the neuro-agents and computers, the principle of
freeing your own mind from state control still stands. It's a kind of an
anarchist political objective which, along with opposition to the
authoritarianism and warmongery of your own government, defines anarchism as
a state of mind rather than a political program.
>> As far as Leary's other great enthusiasm goes - computers - given the
media
>> of this conversation and the ever expanding frontiers of the internet, we
can
>> hardly disagree.
>
>Just because we're conversing now by computer doesn't mean we have to
>see it as the next step in human evolution and start talking about the
>inevitability of artificial intelligence, cyborg evolution, computers
>replacing human beings and all that ultra-techno-optimism.
The following cyber-scenarios are best considered as scifi plots rather than
any kind of serious idea. It's less hassle that way.
With all the information-doubling going off the graph now, no one human has
a whelks chance in a supernova of getting to grips with it all to try and
find out what's really going on. So, we build a massive computer system (the
internet) and feed in all the info we've got. Big database, but no brain.
This is where the cyber sci-fi visions comes in. Neuro-electronic link-up,
as Leary might say. A frequent objection to AI this that it ignores the
spiritual component - but then maybe we'll find out how that works one day.
Or we get to plug ourselves in William Gibson style.
Another cyber sci-fi scenario - Communism II. The market moved quicker than
the planners because of zilch communication systems and zilch levels of
productive forces. Capitalism's dynamic is in the information moving around
in the barter system. Socialism needs to be able to beat that to compete. If
Capitalism manages to lurch forward a bit further, instead of blowing itself
up, it might one day be possible to accurately model the production /
consumption of the economy and from there plan things properly. Don't ask me
what "properly" is, I just know I would let Blair do it.
dinerbass
>I think the chain of logic should run thus :-
>
>1. The Western media and the Serbian media lie.
>
>
>3. So we cannot reasonably trust all the mass of stories about "Serb
>atrocities", rape camps etc.
>
>4. But by the same token can we reasonably dismiss them?
>
>
>atrocity stories are false? Why are they CONVINCED that, for example, the
>BBC video from April 1st was invalid?
To Steve Hillage,
I think Steve Luke struck the nail (or at least a nail) with his 'Nothing is
true" sig.
At the end of the day, we assign probabilities to things. Or rather we
should, if we're honest. I think that whatever one's point of view, it's
infuriating to be faced with an argument that assigns probabilities of zero
or one to things. As a recent poster said - "I am not a binary
construct." There are grey areas of doubt and uncertaintly, and the
fundamentalist mindset cannot process these, and will either despise the
"wibbly doubter", or round up/down that grey area to a zero or one for them,
and put the simplified, low-resolution result back into the mouth of the
other guy. This is the source of much of the slagging that goes on here.
You're a musician - imagine taking a 1 bit sample of a sound - wouldn't
sound too good compared to a 16 bit.
Referring again to Steve Luke's posting, the truth (1st casualty of war) is
also a weapon of war. If one side is lying, the other may feel it has to as
well. If one side really believes in something (and war is the ultimate
physical and violent expression of belief) then there tends to be a feeling
that it can hardly pussyfoot around playing by polite rules while the other
guy's
peppering it. You have to either expose their lies or maybe make up some of
your own. Under these conditions we have to recognise that we risk being
mistaken if we assign a probability of one to anything unsubstantiated.
There is a 'balance of propaganda'. Imagine a pair of scales representing
the 'info' and opinion available to us. For every kilogram of coverage on TV
and in newspapers that backs up NATO (long atrocity-laden speeches by Blair
/ Clinton / Cook / Short, hours of refugee 'grief-porn', NATO briefings,
trembly-voiced journalists, opinion, conjecture & rumour all reported as
proven fact and then exaggerated and printed in 132-point type (The Sun),
KLA statements taken as an 'independent source') - on the other side of the
scales are a few grammes of data that questions and challenges NATO - a
couple of minutes a week interviewing a Serbian spokesman, a passing mention
of 'loony' MPs like Benn, Clark & Dayell, and desperate phonecalls from
ordinary Serbs in Belgrade and Novi Said getting ignored by presenters at
Sky.
So, with the scales of opinion touching the floor on one side, those
opposing NATO (that's opposing NATO on the grounds of inevitable escalation
and increased death, chaos and suffering, to everybody out there, and *not*
supporting 'genocide', 'ethklen' or rape, do you understand?) are just
attempting to tip the balance the other way so that the majority might
reduce the *certainty* of belief in, eg, the Sun's 'Rape Factory' headlines.
Rape is such a horrific crime that our instincts (I certainly speak for my
instincts) demand the strongest possible retribution for perpetrators of
that crime. (Note: the *perpetrators* of that crime - not innocent people on
a train somewhere else in the country.) If only, if only, if only NATO
hadn't gone to war, I believe that these women, if they are telling the
truth, would not have had to endure this horror of horrors.
Yesterday I bought The Sun, The Mail and The Telegraph to see what the 'Rape
Factory' story was about. I re-read each story over ten times to see if the
witnesses mentioned a rape factory. In the editions of the newspapers I
read, the witnesses didn't - it seems to be either Robin Cook, or the
newspapers that coined the phrase. If a reader assigned a probability of one
to the truth of Mr Cook's statement ("Officials acknowledged that Mr Cook
did not have independent evidence to back the claims of systematic rape by
Serb forces." - Daily Telegraph 14/4/1999), then their inclinations to "Do
Something" in terms sending in troops would almost certainly be raised.
If a politician wants to build support for a war, one of the best ways is to
accuse the enemy of being a nation of rapists. I'm sure any historians could
support this notion with examples. I'm not saying that these crimes have not
been comitted, I'm saying that Robin Cook has his reasons for trying to
persuade us to assign a probability of one to his hitherto unverified claims
of rape factories.
I don't know if any contributers to these NGs of this have ever been falsely
accused of a sex crime. How serious are false allegations of sex crimes? In
domestic law, is allegation treated as fact? Please note I am not assigning
a probability of zero to the individual testimonies of the women involved in
this story. In addition, evidence of criminal acts against women is
different from evidence of a state policy of rape as a specific weapon of
war. Later yesterday, The London Evening Standard (14/4/1999) carried a
report suggesting that Milosevic's military strategy included rape as a
method of destroying albanian social structures. The report appeared to
assign a probablity of one to this idea, which if true, represents a
unimaginably repulsive military strategy and a savage warcrime, which would
surely be a PR disaster for the protaganists, to put it mildly.
In direct answer to your question - "But by the same token can we reasonably
dismiss them?" we can neither honestly automatically dismiss reports nor
accept them. What we cannot do is to treat allegations as fact and then risk
a war with no limits over it. I asked before what price you'd be prepared to
pay in terms of lives and scale of war, and I think I may have been told
that I was being silly. I'm not being silly, I'm very afraid.
We are being prepared for a ground war. The only criticism of the war in the
papers is that we should have prepared for a ground war in the first place.
So, it's taken many words to carefully deal with the "SO DAMN SURE"
part of your posting. Speaking for myself, I hope I have made it clear to
you Steve, that I am not at all damn sure of anything, other than the
terrible risk of turning a Civil War into a European War, and maybe worse.
The only other thing I'm damn sure about is that NATO military *and*
diplomatic activity in the Yugoslavia brings nothing but disaster and misery
to all peoples of Yugoslavia.
>There has been such a giant mass of evidence of unique brutality by the
>Serbs since 1987 that even if 95% was untrue the remaining 5% is, for me,
>still major information that stands up even if all the lies are taken into
>account.
You speak again of the "unique brutality of the Serbs". I recall that I and
others have already written you thousands of words on this. It doesn't seem
fair that that those of us who fear NATO's behaviour and completely distrust
their motives have to keep answering and re-answering the same questions
again and again, whilst in return we hardly ever seem to any of our
questions answered : eg
If poor human rights in Yugoslavia requires a war with Yugoslavia, who's
next? How far are you prepared to go with this one? What are you going to do
about Turkey? The repression of Kurds must make you as sick the repression
of Albanians, if not more so.
The evaporation of the UN and International Law means that *any* country
(there are dozens/hundreds) designated by the US as having poor human rights
can be bombed or invaded, just-like-that (as long as they can't fight back).
This is the precedent set.
>Remember, the Western European nations up until late 91 opposed the break
>up of Yugoslavia, and Milosevic was treated in a respectful way based on
the
>notion that the Balkans needed a "strong man".
Re: the 'strong man' - didn't I touch on that in my previous posting? See
also the various postings about Germany's relationship with Croatia, and
also consider Britain's squalid deal over the Maastricht opt-out.
I think the Big Myth is that Milosevic and Serbia had anything to gain from
the breakup of Yugoslavia. The West broke it up, whether maliciously or
foolishly, and chaos ensued as everyone scrambled to protect themselves and
their interests.
What always struck me during the Bosnian war, is that, to my ears (with no
previous familiarity with the nuances of accents in Yugoslavia), is that the
Croat leader's accent sounded to me somewhat German, the Serb leaders's
accents sounded to me somewhat Russian, and the Muslim side's leaders
accents sounded to me somewhat American. Hallucination, coincidence or
conspiracy?
Regards,
dinerbass.
dinerbass
Ashley Campbell wrote in message <7f1t92$pb03$1...@titan.xtra.co.nz>...
>
>Terry Boardman wrote in message <3713D6...@cableinet.co.uk>...
>>dinerbass wrote:
>>>
><snip loads of brilliant and elloquently argued stuff from both>
>
>>Thanks for your posts on this and other subjects. I find them very
>>thoughtful and stimulating.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Terry
>
dinerbass
in the middle of a crucial statement.
It does change the meaning rather drastically, unless the overall direction
of the text makes the mistake so obvious, that the reader corrects the typo
as they go along.
However, it is likely most people found the posting too long, obscure and
wierd to get to the last sentence, which should of course read :
"... Don't ask me what "properly" is, I just know I would not let Blair do
it."
~~~
"... Don't ask me what "properly" is, I just know I would let Blair do it."
Terry Boardman
>
> >>
> >> Are you starting to finally come round to being a bit more sympathetic to
> >> the NATO action?
> >
> > Absolutely not! If it were possible, I'm more convinced than ever that
> > it's a thoroughly wicked enterprise.
> > I won't say that I accept unreservedly the claim that NATO jets killed
> > those Albanians today - how could I, after everything I've said about
> > NATO propaganda and the need not to jump to conclusions. We don't yet
> > know, but I hope for your sake, it turns out not to be true, because all
> > you gung-ho NATO crusaders will have that blood on your consciences for
> > supporting Clinton and puppet Blair's criminal actions.
> >
> > As for your question about the malefic nature of the NWO above, I'm
> > going to e-mail you a magazine article I wrote on the subject last
> > month. It's too long for an NG. I hope you'll take the trouble to read
> > it and I'll look forward to your comments.
> >
> > Best fishes to you as always,
> >
> > Terry
>
>
> Thankyou once again for taking the time to explain your position to me in a
> reasonable and friendly manner. Bearing in mind that this war or neo-war
> situation inflames emotions, and also bearing in mind the historical gravity
> of these events I really appreciate a reasoned debate as opposed to dogma
> and rant.
>
> I am utterly appalled by the refugee bombing. Nothing else to say on that.
But will you, like the mainstream media, go on calling for this bloody
crooked crusade to continue? I fear you will...
> NATO seems to have been caught with its propaganda pants down.
I'm glad that you realise that NATO has been wearing 'propaganda pants'.
In a 'democracy' propaganda is even more important than in a
dictatorship, because in dictatorships, people can more easily
understand that what they are hearing is propaganda; they become bored
and ignore it, or hear but don't listen. In democracies, where all is
supposed to be done by the will of the people and justified by endless
opinion polls (which are the pox on the face of democracy in my
opinion), the powers-that-be have to massage opinion constantly to be
able to justify their actions. This is done by the cleverest of media
subterfuges (though mistakes are made, I'll grant).
>
> I await your e-mailed article which I will read with care and attention.
>
> Until then, I still see NATO's wrongdoings as cock-up rather than
> conspiracy.
Do you KNOW that it is cock-up? Do you KNOW that it is conspiracy? Until
you have more evidence either way, why assert that you "still see" it as
cock-up? In the East where people are still more accustomed to the idea
of spiritual realities, and where the material world was long regarded
as illusion, there is more understanding of the fact that power is
exercised from behind invisible supersensory veils, and therefore there
is more openness (also more gullibility) to notions of conspiracy. One
sees this in the *Eastern* Orthodox countries too. In the more
materialistic West, where the idea of spirituality has become illusion,
and spirit and soul have all but been abolished in mainstream society,
if I don't see it in front of nose or on my techno-screen (TV,
microscope, telescope), it doesn't exist. The notion of conspiracies
that veil themselves is ridiculed and lampooned. This attitude guards
against gullibility, but falls prey to self-deception and ignorant
blindness. Then the lampooners are surprised and discomfited when
suddenly their loved ones are called up to take part in the agenda of
their masters and killed in somewhere faraway place of which they knew
nothing...
Study the attitudes of the British to WW1. Study the diamterically
opposite ways in which the Japanese and Americans fought WW2: the
reliance in Japan on what was mistakenly thought to be 'pure spirit',
the reliance in the US on what was mistakenly thought to be the sheer
power of 'pure matter'.
People in the West, especially England, convinced that they are
'individuals', and rejecting all generalities are often utterly blind to
the degree that they are conditioned by our own national temperament and
its predilections - even while they are preparing the extinction of
individuality in the new religion of Neo-Darwinist genetics.
'God be with you' has become 'bye - why?
Terry
Steve Hillage
----------
In article <37165A...@cableinet.co.uk>, Terry Boardman
<terence....@cableinet.co.uk> wrote:
> Steve Hillage wrote:
>>
>> I am utterly appalled by the refugee bombing. Nothing else to say on that.
>
> But will you, like the mainstream media, go on calling for this bloody
> crooked crusade to continue? I fear you will...
Well, in the parliament of my mind the story goes like this :-
NATO miscalculated thinking that Slobo would back down after a couple of
weeks bombing. Slobo possibly encouraged this error as a form of
"rope-a-dope", to gain an alibi for a Kosovo "final solution".
No peace agreement is possible without some form of guarantee that the
Kosovo Albanians can return home. Also the KLA needs to be neutralised and
the "Greater Albania" nonsense firmly rejected (Rambouillet provided for a
KLA disarmament - a point that has been somewhat overlooked by the anti-NATO
people).
For this to happen there needs to be an international military peacekeeping
force that is able to stand up to the Serbs, who are, we all agree, a pretty
ruthless bunch when their nationalism is provoked.
Who can make up this force if it isn't at least in part involving NATO? -
Big question.
How are we going to get Slobo to comply with the peacekeeping force ? - Big
question.
What are we going to do if he continues to vehemently reject any outside
force? - Big question.
What are your current thoughts?
One thing the NATO bombing "accident" has made me realise is that the
atrocity debate, which I gleefully participated in, is ultimately futile.
I think the big questions I listed above are the key things we need to
discuss.
>
>> NATO seems to have been caught with its propaganda pants down.
>
> I'm glad that you realise that NATO has been wearing 'propaganda pants'.
> In a 'democracy' propaganda is even more important than in a
> dictatorship, because in dictatorships, people can more easily
> understand that what they are hearing is propaganda; they become bored
> and ignore it, or hear but don't listen. In democracies, where all is
> supposed to be done by the will of the people and justified by endless
> opinion polls (which are the pox on the face of democracy in my
> opinion), the powers-that-be have to massage opinion constantly to be
> able to justify their actions. This is done by the cleverest of media
> subterfuges (though mistakes are made, I'll grant).
>>
>> I await your e-mailed article which I will read with care and attention.
>>
>> Until then, I still see NATO's wrongdoings as cock-up rather than
>> conspiracy.
>
> Do you KNOW that it is cock-up? Do you KNOW that it is conspiracy?
That is very 23 influenced sentence, Terry (with reference to your posting
to dinerbass).
The thing is none of us really know. We have to base our opinions mostly on
informed guesses. It's a fact about democracy.
They'll have to get me first! And you!
Extinction of individuality - no way Jose!
God be with you
Steve
Terry Boardman
>
> ----------
> In article <37165A...@cableinet.co.uk>, Terry Boardman
With respect, Steve, you have avoided the question. But I'll get back to
this post just as soon as I can.
> >
> >> NATO seems to have been caught with its propaganda pants down.
> >
> > I'm glad that you realise that NATO has been wearing 'propaganda pants'.
> > In a 'democracy' propaganda is even more important than in a
> > dictatorship, because in dictatorships, people can more easily
> > understand that what they are hearing is propaganda; they become bored
> > and ignore it, or hear but don't listen. In democracies, where all is
> > supposed to be done by the will of the people and justified by endless
> > opinion polls (which are the pox on the face of democracy in my
> > opinion), the powers-that-be have to massage opinion constantly to be
> > able to justify their actions. This is done by the cleverest of media
> > subterfuges (though mistakes are made, I'll grant).
> >>
> >> I await your e-mailed article which I will read with care and attention.
> >>
> >> Until then, I still see NATO's wrongdoings as cock-up rather than
> >> conspiracy.
> >
> > Do you KNOW that it is cock-up? Do you KNOW that it is conspiracy?
>
> That is very 23 influenced sentence, Terry (with reference to your posting
> to dinerbass).
To be cryptic, I feel the answer to most things these days lies in the
riddle of that number, which I've done a lot of thinking about. I'd like
to talk to you about it one day; no time now.
All the best,
Terry
Terry Boardman
>
> Hi again
> >
> >> >> I regard this as a good thing and it
> >> >> sends a powerful signal to the reactionary forces that seek to suppress
> >> >> multi-culturalism accross the globe. This fact has not escaped the
> >> >> attention of Isaraeli fascists like Ariel Sharon.
> >
> > I disagree. It tells reactionary forces in the Muslim world for instance
> > that the Christians are stupid enough to fight against themselves and
> > may create the circumstances that will allow even more Muslim
> > fundamentalism to enter Europe than presently exists - and compared to
> > Muslim fundamentalism - US Far Right fundamentalism is a picnic
> > (Okhlahoma excepted).
>
> You are in danger of exposing an anti-Muslim prejudice here.
And you are in danger of assuming that I have one to expose.
> You seem to be
> more concerned by Muslim fundamentalism than by the Judeo-Christian far
> right.
The Far Right is no monopoly of Judaeo-Christians. Far Right
fundamentalism is the reaction of those who resist the inexorable wave
of cosmopolitanism in our time. It is the reaction of those whose
materialism is so far gone that they can only identify with a particular
group of humanity, instead of seeing that the real human being is
spiritual and not bound to anything physical, either gender, genes, or
geography. "My Kingdom is not of this world". Reflect on what this might
mean: not an Earth-denying asceticism, but a simple statement of fact
about the essence of Man. (Man, manas, mind). The Sun 'belongs' to all;
land (in the sense that it defines and nurtures cultures) but to a few.
Remember the Far Right have existed since the late 19th century, when
the poisonous ideas of Social Darwinism began to infect the minds of men
like Gobineau and Houston Chamberlain. The Far Right have only recently
taken up the anti-NWO cause, for reasons which I explained to you in an
earlier post.
I am of the opposite persuasion. Perhaps this is the chief area of
> disagreement between you and me, as I'm a bit of a T.E.Lawrence influenced
> Arabophile.- hence my frequent mentions of Le Pen etc.
Why was TE an Arabophile? I sense there are deep karmic reasons for his
destiny with the Arabs, and also possibly with Allenby, but these are
only hunches; I have not gone into it. Why are *you* an Arabophile? Why
do we make particular connections with foreign cultures? My own destiny
has taken me to East Asia, the realm of Buddha, Shinto, Confucius, and
the Tao.
I'd be interested to know what is your understanding of the historical
and cultural phenomenon of Islam? Why did it explode so violently out of
Arabia when it did? What cultural phenomena did it destroy? What did it
create? What maintain? Above all, why has it not spread much beyond the
lands of origianl conquests? Why does it remain a religion of the
*Middle* region of Eurasia/Africa - the place which is also home and
birthplace to Judaism and Christianity? Why has it not spread to America
and East Asia? It has had enough time.
>
> > The Algerians, Iranians, Iraqis,
> > Egyptians,Afghans, and Israelis know that only too well. It wasn't
> > Christian Fundamentalist rednecks who were in charge of the White House
> > these last 40 years by the way - it was the "liberal internationalists"
> > of the CFR (post 1945) and Trilateral Commission (post 1974) - yes, even
> > under Nixon, Reagan and Bush, and if you doubt that - check out the
> > membership composition of every US cabinet and national security council
> > since WW2. It was the friends of David Rockefeller who took the US into
> > Vietnam, who bombed Cambodia and let in the Khmer Rouge and then
> > supported the Khmer Rouger after 1978,
>
> I agree with you that these were bad bad moves.
>
> > who went into Nicaragua, Panama,
>
> also bad
>
> > the Gulf etc etc -
>
> The Gulf :- not quite so bad.
>
> > the ones who mouth support for the UN, IMF, World
> > Bank and the other liberal internationalist institutions of Pax
> > Americana. Compared to THESE people and the violence they have wielded
> > over the last 40 years, Pat Robertson & Co are just a bunch of
> > fairground toughs. You have your priorities skew-wiff Steve.
>
> I theenk not gringo! I theenk that for you ze penny hazza notta dropped!
What *are* you trying to say?
>
> Funny though - you and I seem to have got locked into a kind of fascism
> world-cup competition! My fascist are worse than your fascists! or vice
> versa.
Steve, you were the one who defined yourself in an earlier post with the
stark simple phrase: "I am a simple anti-fascist". I do not see the NWO
gang as 'fascists' in the conventional mid-20th century sense of the
term, because they are not really concerned with blood, despite working
predominantly out of English-speaking culture. Perhaps 'totalitarian'
would be a better word. Though that too has certain limited
connotations... Fascism is a particular kind of Far Rightism.
>
> >> > I am not convinced of this; it sounds like wishful liberal thinking. The
> >> > Muslim world is already so suspicious of the West and knows that the
> >> > elites fof the West care not a fig for religion despite their honeyed
> >> > words that they will remain suspicious of western motives.
> >>
> >> I think you are quite wrong to dismiss this important point. It's nothing to
> >> do with "wishful liberal thinking". Ever since the Bosnia crisis Le Pen, in
> >> France, who wishes to "ethnically cleanse" France of its Arab/North African
> >> immigrants, has been trying to whip up support for Slobo and Serbia saying
> >> that this is a Christian country trying to stop independent Muslim states in
> >> Europe.
> >> Alan Clark said a similar thing in the Commons today.
Point taken.
> >
> > I have nothing against Albania being an independent Muslim state in
> > Europe. I would like to see it in the EU (a proper EU, that is, not its
> > present proto-totalitarian form) and also Turkey, which I have always
> > wanted to see in the EU despite, yes despite its treatment of the Kurds.
> > What I would NOT like to see is the growth or spread of any kind of
> > Muslim fundamentalism in Europe.
>
> I certainly agree with you here. All the Muslims that I know are really
> pretty mild individuals.
How many Muslim fundamentalists do you know? How many Christian
fundamentalists? One can also know many 'mild' Christians. The Algerian
fundamentalists and the Taliban don't seem so 'mild' to me.
> They have an unresolved problem over women's rights
> but philosophically they are a pretty tolerant bunch. The fundamentalist are
> their equivalent of, say, Ian Paisley.
Ditto remarks on Algeria and Taliban, *much* less *mild* than Paisley!
> The best way that the world can stop
> the march of Islamic fundamentalism is to resolve the Israel / Palestine
> question.
No, you're wrong. Islamic fundamentalism is a world-historical
phenomenon, a reaction to the perceived aggression of western
cosmopolitan and atheistic imperialism. It will continue long after the
Palestine problem has been solved - always depending of course on HOW
that problem is solved.
At the moment I have the feeling that the Kosovo conflict will
> perhaps have a positive influence here, and that NATO's position as
> supporters of a Muslim side is going to help.
> >
> >
> >> I think the fact that NATO is not siding with the traditional Christian
> >> imperialist establishment is significant.
> >
> > You don't see that NATO IS the traditionalist Christian imperial
> > establishment.
>
> No I don't really see this.
>
> > Remember how the Western Crusaders sacked Orthodox
> > Constantinople in 1204? The West (=Rome + son-of-Rome Protestantism) has
> > always despised and hated Orthodoxy, as much if not more than Islam.
>
> In which case why have so many West European royal families intermarried
> with Greeks and Russians? What about the French and their ties with Romania
> and the Maronites?
You should be more accurate. The powers behind the West don't give a fig
for monarchy. What destroyed the Russian monarchy was WW1 and the
Bolsheviks, and how did that come about? Bolshevism was a *Western*
disease transplanted into Russia by the British and the Germans and
financed by the Americans 1917-1920.
>
> Sorry, I really do not agree with your contention that Anglo-Saxon and
> Gallic foreign policy is imbued with a deep hatred of the Orthodox branch of
> Christianity. Germany perhaps, but not the other major players.
I think you're wrong about Germany and do not see the deeper historical
forces working behind the surface phenomena. You have to go right back
to the days of the Germanic Scandinavian Rus who became the first rulers
of Russia to see that something very deep has been working out in the
complex relationship between the Germanic and Slavic peoples. These two
peoples, despite their great difficulties at times (Teutonic Knights,
1941-5) need to work together and their greatest souls have known that,
have understood each other. It is the West that fundamentally does not
comprehend Russia and has sought to undermine it since at least the
Crimean War; how could it understand Russia? *Conventional* western
thinking has no real comprehension of the East, I feel.
Poisson, mon brave, poisson
Press on, brave heart, press on
Terry
Ferg
Steve Hillage <s7...@easynet.co.uk> wrote in article
<7f4p5d$1scg$1...@quince.news.easynet.net>...
> Hi again
> >
> >> >> I regard this as a good thing and it
> >> >> sends a powerful signal to the reactionary forces that seek to
suppress
> >> >> multi-culturalism accross the globe. This fact has not escaped the
> >> >> attention of Isaraeli fascists like Ariel Sharon.
> >
> > I disagree. It tells reactionary forces in the Muslim world for
instance
> > that the Christians are stupid enough to fight against themselves and
> > may create the circumstances that will allow even more Muslim
> > fundamentalism to enter Europe than presently exists - and compared to
> > Muslim fundamentalism - US Far Right fundamentalism is a picnic
> > (Okhlahoma excepted).
>
>
> You are in danger of exposing an anti-Muslim prejudice here. You seem to
be
> more concerned by Muslim fundamentalism than by the Judeo-Christian far
> right. I am of the opposite persuasion. Perhaps this is the chief area of
> disagreement between you and me, as I'm a bit of a T.E.Lawrence
influenced
> Arabophile.- hence my frequent mentions of Le Pen etc.
Remember the mujaheddeen started bringing their nastiness to Bosnia after
it became apparent the European powers were doing nothing to help the
defenceless bosnian muslim civilians against serb aggression.
In this case it might actually curb the growth of fundamentalism if muslim
populations can rely on more moderate protectors, such as NATO.
Ashley Campbell
Now that I've expressed my undying admiration for your intellects and skill
at crafting the English language, may I join in?
dinerbass wrote in message <37162...@news1.vip.uk.com>...
>
>
>Terry Boardman wrote in message <3713D6...@cableinet.co.uk>...
>>dinerbass wrote:
>>>
>>> > I recognised Wilson as a genial
>>> In defence of Dr Leary, I think his vibrant optimism does more good than
>>> harm. Amongst what he shares with Robert Anton Wilson is the excitement
>of
>>> the vast potential of humanity.
>>
>>Thanks to my friend, I have read most of Leary's written output up to
>>about 1984. I did this so I could cope the better in discussions with my
>>friend. What I noticed was a Luciferic (light-bearing) spirit in him
>>that was of siren nature and full of the arrogance of Lucifer too in his
>>contempt for human beings at an earlier stage of development. He had
>>little feeling or respect for the past, only for the future - such was
>>the danger of his almost excarnatory optimism. One had the feeling he
>>couldn't abide being a human being in this form and longed to move on
>>from it. I found his scientistic jargon inhuman and pompous.
>
>
I have just had an interesting, flattering and profoundly uneasy experience.
I have just come home having spent two hours in the pub with a workmate -
with whom I have connected before, but could not profess to know closely -
pouring her heart out to me about her fear that her husband would kill her
if she left him again.
Several times during the conversation, as she was telling me about her
history with her husband, I was thinking " *I* would have left then" "*I*
would not have put up with that" "*I* would have told him what I thought".
Oh so superior. Oh so intelligent. Oh so advanced.
Earlier stage of development????
All arrogant people (and I, include myself at times in that definition) see
others as being at an 'earlier stage of development'. I have just spent two
hours talking with a woman who married a man when she was at an 'earlier
stage of development'.
Thank God I didn't, that's all I can say. I could have so easily.
The contracts we are able to enter into at each stage of development, and
are confident about choosing, have an element of randomness about them. The
unlucky ones then have to live with the poor choices. Their poor choices do
not reflect their lack of worth - they are simply choices they made under
certain conditions, and with which they have to go on living under vastly
different conditions.
And the arrogance of the intelligent and confident, who were lucky enough
to be blessed with the talents to avoid life's really big pitfalls, is not
something to be proud of.
On a global or and individual level.
Likewise, optimism *is* a wonderful thing - except when it is unsafe. My
workmate asked me could I see any *safe* option. Which both flattered and
concerned me - flattered that she asked, concerned because I have no concept
of her reality.
But I had to say to her that maybe her choice was among several unsafe
options, and she simply had to choose the least unsafe.
Optimism, in such a situation, would be a very dangerous thing.
Again, maybe it would be so globally.
Cliff Morrison
<fergu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Steve Hillage <s7...@easynet.co.uk> wrote in article
> <7f4p5d$1scg$1...@quince.news.easynet.net>...
> > Hi again
> > >
> > >> >> I regard this as a good thing and it
> > >> >> sends a powerful signal to the reactionary forces that seek to
> suppress
> > >> >> multi-culturalism accross the globe. This fact has not escaped the
> > >> >> attention of Isaraeli fascists like Ariel Sharon.
> > >
> > > I disagree. It tells reactionary forces in the Muslim world for
> instance
> > > that the Christians are stupid enough to fight against themselves and
> > > may create the circumstances that will allow even more Muslim
> > > fundamentalism to enter Europe than presently exists - and compared to
> > > Muslim fundamentalism - US Far Right fundamentalism is a picnic
> > > (Okhlahoma excepted).
> >
> >
> > You are in danger of exposing an anti-Muslim prejudice here. You seem to
> be
> > more concerned by Muslim fundamentalism than by the Judeo-Christian far
> > right. I am of the opposite persuasion. Perhaps this is the chief area of
> > disagreement between you and me, as I'm a bit of a T.E.Lawrence
> influenced
> > Arabophile.- hence my frequent mentions of Le Pen etc.
>
> Remember the mujaheddeen started bringing their nastiness to Bosnia after
> it became apparent the European powers were doing nothing to help the
> defenceless bosnian muslim civilians against serb aggression.
>
> In this case it might actually curb the growth of fundamentalism if muslim
> populations can rely on more moderate protectors, such as NATO.
Ah. Like the concern NATO leaders have so consistently shown
for the populations of Algeria, Indonesia and Iraq?
Steve Hillage
Thankyou for your well-written and stimulating post.
In answer to your key question :-
----------
In article <37162...@news1.vip.uk.com>, "dinerbass"
<dine...@arsenalfc.net> wrote:
> In direct answer to your question - "But by the same token can we reasonably
> dismiss them?" we can neither honestly automatically dismiss reports nor
> accept them. What we cannot do is to treat allegations as fact and then risk
> a war with no limits over it. I asked before what price you'd be prepared to
> pay in terms of lives and scale of war, and I think I may have been told
> that I was being silly. I'm not being silly, I'm very afraid.
What price? I am not in the body-count business. Obviously if in order to
bomb Serb military vehicles NATO planes end up hitting refugee convoys this
is not a price worth paying.
It is quite obvious as well that NATO appear to have made the classic
mistake of underestimating the enemy :- NATO miscalculated thinking that
Slobo would back down after a couple of weeks bombing. Slobo possibly
encouraged this error as a form of "rope-a-dope", to gain an alibi for a
Kosovo "final solution". (I have made this point in other posts).
The point I have been making re-conspiracy and co-incidence is related to
the old saying "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not
trying to get you" :- just because the media on both sides are full of lies
doesn't mean that Milosevic and his vile Serb nationalism don't deserve a
military defeat.
The problem is, as many predicted, is that lobbing cruise missiles and
airstrikes at the Serbs doth not a military defeat makes, at least not in
the short term.
> We are being prepared for a ground war. The only criticism of the war in the
> papers is that we should have prepared for a ground war in the first place.
I am not at all sure about the "ground invasion". I think it could lead to
10,000+ military casualties and many thousands of civilian deaths.
I am with Blair's public pronouncements on this one.
> So, it's taken many words to carefully deal with the "SO DAMN SURE"
> part of your posting. Speaking for myself, I hope I have made it clear to
> you Steve, that I am not at all damn sure of anything, other than the
> terrible risk of turning a Civil War into a European War, and maybe worse.
> The only other thing I'm damn sure about is that NATO military *and*
> diplomatic activity in the Yugoslavia brings nothing but disaster and misery
> to all peoples of Yugoslavia.
As posted elsewhere, I believe these are the big questions :-
No peace agreement is possible without some form of guarantee that the
Kosovo Albanians can return home. Also the KLA needs to be neutralised and
the "Greater Albania" nonsense firmly rejected (Rambouillet provided for a
KLA disarmament - a point that has been somewhat overlooked by the anti-NATO
people).
For this to happen there needs to be an international military peacekeeping
force that is able to stand up to the Serbs, who are, we all agree, a pretty
ruthless bunch when their nationalism is provoked.
Who can make up this force if it isn't at least in part involving NATO? -
Big question.
How are we going to get Slobo to comply with the peacekeeping force ? - Big
question.
What are we going to do if he continues to vehemently reject any outside
force? - Big question.
>
>>There has been such a giant mass of evidence of unique brutality by the
>>Serbs since 1987 that even if 95% was untrue the remaining 5% is, for me,
>>still major information that stands up even if all the lies are taken into
>>account.
>
> You speak again of the "unique brutality of the Serbs". I recall that I and
> others have already written you thousands of words on this. It doesn't seem
> fair that that those of us who fear NATO's behaviour and completely distrust
> their motives have to keep answering and re-answering the same questions
> again and again, whilst in return we hardly ever seem to any of our
> questions answered : eg
>
> If poor human rights in Yugoslavia requires a war with Yugoslavia, who's
> next? How far are you prepared to go with this one? What are you going to do
> about Turkey? The repression of Kurds must make you as sick the repression
> of Albanians, if not more so.
This old argument of why Serbia, why not also Turkey, East Timor etc etc etc
is really rather futile.
The counter-argument is that just because many international "crimes" are
not dealt with it doesn't mean that all such "crimes" need not be dealt
with.
Adding to this argumentative stalemate is the fact that NATO has already
been active in the Balkans since the Bosnia crisis, so it was already caught
up in the Balkan spiders web.
>
> The evaporation of the UN and International Law means that *any* country
> (there are dozens/hundreds) designated by the US as having poor human rights
> can be bombed or invaded, just-like-that (as long as they can't fight back).
> This is the precedent set.
The legal question is not as clear-cut as that, sir. The Security council
voted down 12-3 the Russian motion censuring NATO. Kofi Annan has pointedly
NOT brought up this legality question as has also been using the "g" word
(genocide).
>>Remember, the Western European nations up until late 91 opposed the break
>>up of Yugoslavia, and Milosevic was treated in a respectful way based on
> the
>>notion that the Balkans needed a "strong man".
>
>
> Re: the 'strong man' - didn't I touch on that in my previous posting? See
> also the various postings about Germany's relationship with Croatia, and
> also consider Britain's squalid deal over the Maastricht opt-out.
>
> I think the Big Myth is that Milosevic and Serbia had anything to gain from
> the breakup of Yugoslavia.
Milosevic stood and still stands to gain an ethnically pure "Greater Serbia"
(including Serbian Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro).
He stands to gain supreme an unchallenged power for his doctrine of
"National Communism".
He stands to gain from a "Slavic Union" of Serbia, Belarus, Russia.
> The West broke it up, whether maliciously or
> foolishly, and chaos ensued as everyone scrambled to protect themselves and
> their interests.
>
> What always struck me during the Bosnian war, is that, to my ears (with no
> previous familiarity with the nuances of accents in Yugoslavia), is that the
> Croat leader's accent sounded to me somewhat German, the Serb leaders's
> accents sounded to me somewhat Russian, and the Muslim side's leaders
> accents sounded to me somewhat American. Hallucination, coincidence or
> conspiracy?
I wish this whole damn Kosovo war business was just a hallucination!
respect
steve
>
> Regards,
>
> dinerbass.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Stephen Macdonald Luke
>In article <37158260...@newsch.es.co.nz>,
> Stephen Macdonald Luke <sl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>snip
> Much of the illtreatment of one set of civilians is forced by
>the illtreatment of another set. For if you don't you'll get more of the
>same. Terrorism is a powerful weapon of war often used to defend the
>innocent, albeit often unsuccessfully since the innocent die and the
>guilty start up again somewhere else..
>snip
> Watch Kosovo carefully. Much of it is the blueprint for Europe's
>ethnic cleansing still to come. Multiracial societies have never worked.
>
I think they can work, at least to the extent that the ethnic
differences are successfully assimilated. This means that in core
values the ethnic groups see themselves as identical, though different
in history and other relatively minor things. But where core values
are in conflict, and there is no common ground, then it is just a
timebomb.
Of course cultures and ethnicity can change, but their nature as
stable, recursive and reflective, self-perpetuating structures,
suggests that change will be slow, especially in low-tech societies
where change is not the norm. Yet if members of a high-tech society
insist that their way of looking at things should automatically
prevail over another society with a more stable, rigid and historic
identity structure, then is that not bigotry and racism as bad if not
worse than that which the high tech moralists condemn? A code of
universal human rights that has to be inflicted at gunpoint seems a
form of disguised empire building. I prefer people who are honest
about what they want, why they want it, and what they'll pay for it.
I wonder if the people supporting Nato think they'll be able to
brainwash the Serbs into being normal nice american hamburger and
consumer goods addicts.....or whether they're planning to kill them
all as a more realistic plan.....now where have I heard of that
before? :-)
dinerbass
>Several times during the conversation, as she was telling me about her
>history with her husband, I was thinking " *I* would have left then" "*I*
>would not have put up with that" "*I* would have told him what I thought".
>Oh so superior. Oh so intelligent. Oh so advanced.
>
>Earlier stage of development????
>All arrogant people (and I, include myself at times in that definition) see
>others as being at an 'earlier stage of development'. I have just spent two
>hours talking with a woman who married a man when she was at an 'earlier
>stage of development'.
Did she say that she was at 'an earlier stage of development'? Are you
suggesting that anyone who has a decision they later regret is necessarily
disrespected by others who have not had such an experience?
>Thank God I didn't, that's all I can say. I could have so easily.
>The contracts we are able to enter into at each stage of development, and
>are confident about choosing, have an element of randomness about them. The
>unlucky ones then have to live with the poor choices. Their poor choices do
>not reflect their lack of worth - they are simply choices they made under
>certain conditions, and with which they have to go on living under vastly
>different conditions.
I agree with what you say about choices, but surely the only person we can
make genuine judgements about - moral, intellectual, or whatever is ourself.
If a someone laughs or cringes or despairs at a decision they made x years
ago they can choose whether to say "so what, wasn't my fault" or "that was
an error". Trying to map your own value-system onto someone else's reality
always ends in trouble.
I don't know what 'stages of development' you are referring to but as we
live and experience things we have the opportunity of revising existing
models according to new data. Key events may cause 'quantum leaps' if they
shock us sufficiently to break old programs and build drastically new ones
(eg 'Road-to-Damascus' type events, terror, or wars), but the everyday
accumulation
of experience is going on all the time.
>And the arrogance of the intelligent and confident, who were lucky enough
>to be blessed with the talents to avoid life's really big pitfalls, is not
>something to be proud of.
Maybe some of those 'talents' have to be learned. We're not only what we're
born with. However 'robotic' much of our behavoiur is, we have our free
will, within external boundaries.
>On a global or and individual level.
>
>Likewise, optimism *is* a wonderful thing - except when it is unsafe. My
>workmate asked me could I see any *safe* option. Which both flattered and
>concerned me - flattered that she asked, concerned because I have no
concept
>of her reality.
You're helping your friend by just by listening to her. You may be able to
help her more than you think.
A long time ago I used to think that the great thing about pessimism is that
you're never disappointed. Looking back, it's certainly a optimistic view of
pessimism. (Could this be 'incurable' optimism?)
I disagree with the way you seem to feel that self-confidence or self-belief
is automatically at some else's expense. It's only a 'chin-up' state of
mind. We don't
automatically create victims just by having a thought. If you think you're
criticising her in your mind then remind yourself what you understand about
choices.
Just because sometimes people hurl their egos around too much, it doesn't
mean we should or could dispense with ego. It's part of being a mammalian
vertebrate. I see self-confidence as the positive side of the ego (what Tim
Leary called the 'second neural circuit'). It seems that your friend has a
problem because she's involved with someone with too much terratorial ego -
this is the downside of ego, and in global poltics it's called imperialism.
The USA has a bad case of this.
>But I had to say to her that maybe her choice was among several unsafe
>options, and she simply had to choose the least unsafe.
>
>Optimism, in such a situation, would be a very dangerous thing.
>
>Again, maybe it would be so globally.
>
Obviously I can't really comment on your friend's predicament, but I'm not
sure if I made the connection is to the danger of (global) optimism. Have I
missed something? Is it that reality is too bad to dare be hopeful about?
What was the Pandora's Box story? After all the troubles had escaped into
the world, one thing was left - Hope.
Cliff Morrison
<ste...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>. Also the KLA needs to be neutralised and
> the "Greater Albania" nonsense firmly rejected (Rambouillet provided for a
> KLA disarmament - a point that has been somewhat overlooked by the anti-NATO
> people).
And more than just overlooked by the USUK/NATO policy makers?
Jason Clifford
> The official line is that Yugoslavia didn't sign the "Rambouillet
> Accord".
> Apart from the fact that we don't know the text of the treaty
The full text of the rejected treaty is available at
http://www.kosovar.org/ - this is the version that the US Information
Agency (part of their State Dept.) says was the final version rejected by
Yugoslavia but accepted (subject to future `technical revisions') by the
KLA.
macdiarmid
Serbs? Brainwash Serbs? Like in Klingons? You jest. They have been
fighting to keep the southeastern gates of Christian Europe closed
against the Islamic invaders for seven hundred years. The Russians think
of them as our lot think of football stars and will never let them walk
alone. Never!
NATO? Think pussycats, man. Once the Bear stands up........
--
--
macdiarmid
Historicide is the intentional besmirching of the history of a person, group or nation as has been done to Germany over the Holocaust myth.
Jason Clifford
> the "Greater Albania" nonsense firmly rejected (Rambouillet provided for a
> KLA disarmament - a point that has been somewhat overlooked by the anti-NATO
> people).
Rambouillet requires that the Serbs be immediately disarmed whereas the
KLA will only be disarmed at some indeterminate future time.
> For this to happen there needs to be an international military peacekeeping
> force that is able to stand up to the Serbs, who are, we all agree, a pretty
> ruthless bunch when their nationalism is provoked.
>
> Who can make up this force if it isn't at least in part involving NATO? -
> Big question.
The UN. In case you have not notices there are over 160 member states to
the UN and most have professional military forces available. Such
countries include India and Ireland.
> How are we going to get Slobo to comply with the peacekeeping force ? - Big
> question.
What exactly to you mean by comply? If you mean how do we deal with Serb
and Albanian paramilitaries who may seek to carry on the violence the
answer is simple. The peace keeping force must have authority to use all
neccesary force to keep the peace and if that means returning fire so be
it - self defence is justification.
Otherwise paramilitaries should be treated as what they are - criminals.
> What are we going to do if he continues to vehemently reject any outside
> force? - Big question.
He has vehemently rejected demands for a NATO or NATO-led force, which is
the same thing. The Yugoslavian government has made numerous statements
that a non-biased peace keeping force would be accepted.
> The counter-argument is that just because many international "crimes" are
> not dealt with it doesn't mean that all such "crimes" need not be dealt
> with.
There was no evidence of international crimes prior to NATO's actions.
What were we "dealing with"?
> Adding to this argumentative stalemate is the fact that NATO has already
> been active in the Balkans since the Bosnia crisis, so it was already caught
> up in the Balkan spiders web.
And as a party to the war NATO cannot be considered impartial which is a
prerequisite for any legitimate peace keeping force.
> The legal question is not as clear-cut as that, sir. The Security council
> voted down 12-3 the Russian motion censuring NATO.
I have published the press release about this. The votes of 5 members were
void under the UN Charter as they are parties to the conflict. Many of the
others stated that they rejected the motion as it was improperly drafted.
> Kofi Annan has pointedly
> NOT brought up this legality question as has also been using the "g" word
> (genocide).
Kofi annan did refer to the lack of authorisation for this NATO action in
the first few days.
It is not surprising that he used the word "genocide". He has no
independant source of information and so can only react to media reports.
Unfortunately our media are only now starting
> Milosevic stood and still stands to gain an ethnically pure "Greater Serbia"
> (including Serbian Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro).
For all that he is a ruthless dictator, Milosevic has not sought to remove
any of the 25 ethnic communities from Yugoslavia.
In case you have not noticed Macedonia is not part of Yugoslavia.
If those in Republica Srpska decide by referendum to secceed from Bosnia -
where they feel that they are ethnically discriminated against - would you
support their right to do so?
> He stands to gain from a "Slavic Union" of Serbia, Belarus, Russia.
Yugoslavia now has no choice but to enter the "Slavic Union" as it is very
clear that NATO has decided to destroy Yugoslavia. I don't think that
Yugoslavia would have chosen to join such an alliance except that they now
recognise that it is necessary to be part of a super-power as the UN is no
longer relevant to world peace and security.
> I wish this whole damn Kosovo war business was just a hallucination!
So do we all but it is not. Every day NATO steps up it's campaign and now
the situation is so bad that the Pentagon is refusing to release
information on the targets we are striking as it has turned out to be true
that we are attacking civilian targets.
Ashley Campbell
dinerbass wrote in message <37177...@news1.vip.uk.com>...
>
>>Several times during the conversation, as she was telling me about her
>>history with her husband, I was thinking " *I* would have left then" "*I*
>>would not have put up with that" "*I* would have told him what I thought".
>>Oh so superior. Oh so intelligent. Oh so advanced.
>>
>>Earlier stage of development????
>
>
>>All arrogant people (and I, include myself at times in that definition)
see
>>others as being at an 'earlier stage of development'. I have just spent
two
>>hours talking with a woman who married a man when she was at an 'earlier
>>stage of development'.
>
>
>Did she say that she was at 'an earlier stage of development'? Are you
>suggesting that anyone who has a decision they later regret is necessarily
>disrespected by others who have not had such an experience?
>
First question: No. But when I read that phrase in your earlier posts, I
realise that was what I had, fleetingly, been thinking. And I recognise it
in the arrogant, dismissive attitude of many people to others as per the
"What a loser" concept.
Second question: No, not by all. But by some, definitely. I see it all the
time. X does not have the resources to cope I have, therefore X must be a
lesser person than me.
>>Thank God I didn't, that's all I can say. I could have so easily.
>
>
>>The contracts we are able to enter into at each stage of development, and
>>are confident about choosing, have an element of randomness about them.
The
>>unlucky ones then have to live with the poor choices. Their poor choices
do
>>not reflect their lack of worth - they are simply choices they made under
>>certain conditions, and with which they have to go on living under vastly
>>different conditions.
>
>
>I agree with what you say about choices, but surely the only person we can
>make genuine judgements about - moral, intellectual, or whatever is
ourself.
>If a someone laughs or cringes or despairs at a decision they made x years
>ago they can choose whether to say "so what, wasn't my fault" or "that was
>an error". Trying to map your own value-system onto someone else's reality
>always ends in trouble.
>
>I don't know what 'stages of development' you are referring to but as we
>live and experience things we have the opportunity of revising existing
>models according to new data. Key events may cause 'quantum leaps' if they
>shock us sufficiently to break old programs and build drastically new ones
>(eg 'Road-to-Damascus' type events, terror, or wars), but the everyday
>accumulation
>of experience is going on all the time.
I was referring to emotional development, and the ability to cope with scary
choices, of whatever sort, be they in relationships, jobs, travel, personal
development. The knowledge that you are a person with the ability to be
independent, to handle life's slings and arrows ... the knowledge that you
don't have to hide from difficult situations and that they won't destroy
you.
It appears to me that some people are lucky enough to develop this
knowledge, self-awareness and self-confidence early on in life. Very often
they appear not to realise how difficult the last two, especially, are to
develop later on in life. And such people can often, it appears to me be
extraordinarily arrogant in their judgements of others (and let's face it,
we all make judgements).
I related this to my workmate because I know how others judge her - lovely
but a bit dizzy, seems to be the consensus. And I was just relating how, by
not knowing where she's at, and the forces acting on her development of an
independent self, my other workmates are doing her an enormous disservice.
>
>>And the arrogance of the intelligent and confident, who were lucky enough
>>to be blessed with the talents to avoid life's really big pitfalls, is not
>>something to be proud of.
>
>
>Maybe some of those 'talents' have to be learned. We're not only what we're
>born with. However 'robotic' much of our behavoiur is, we have our free
>will, within external boundaries.
>
>>On a global or and individual level.
>>
>>Likewise, optimism *is* a wonderful thing - except when it is unsafe. My
>>workmate asked me could I see any *safe* option. Which both flattered and
>>concerned me - flattered that she asked, concerned because I have no
>concept
>>of her reality.
>
>
>You're helping your friend by just by listening to her. You may be able to
>help her more than you think.
>
>A long time ago I used to think that the great thing about pessimism is
that
>you're never disappointed. Looking back, it's certainly a optimistic view
of
>pessimism. (Could this be 'incurable' optimism?)
>
>I disagree with the way you seem to feel that self-confidence or
self-belief
>is automatically at some else's expense.
I don't believe it is automatically. I believe it is often
It's only a 'chin-up' state of
>mind.
Not always.
We don't
>automatically create victims just by having a thought. If you think you're
>criticising her in your mind then remind yourself what you understand about
>choices.
>
>Just because sometimes people hurl their egos around too much, it doesn't
>mean we should or could dispense with ego.
Couldn't agree with you more. A healthy ego is vital to truly enjoying life.
It's part of being a mammalian
>vertebrate. I see self-confidence as the positive side of the ego (what Tim
>Leary called the 'second neural circuit'). It seems that your friend has a
>problem because she's involved with someone with too much terratorial ego -
>this is the downside of ego, and in global poltics it's called imperialism.
>The USA has a bad case of this.
>
Interesting. Yes, I can see this.
>>But I had to say to her that maybe her choice was among several unsafe
>>options, and she simply had to choose the least unsafe.
>>
>>Optimism, in such a situation, would be a very dangerous thing.
>>
>>Again, maybe it would be so globally.
>>
>
>Obviously I can't really comment on your friend's predicament, but I'm not
>sure if I made the connection is to the danger of (global) optimism. Have I
>missed something? Is it that reality is too bad to dare be hopeful about?
>
No, not at all. I was just pointing out that in *some* circumstances,
optimism can be dangerous, can lead to dangerous decision-making. In such
circumstances realism - an acknowledgement that none of the choices provides
for "happy-ever-after" and all of them involve some unpleasantenss - is more
likely to lead to decision-making that minimises harm and results in the
best outcome.
Steve Hillage
----------
In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.990416...@gateway.ukpost.com>,
Jason Clifford <ja...@dlsl.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> For this to happen there needs to be an international military peacekeeping
>> force that is able to stand up to the Serbs, who are, we all agree, a pretty
>> ruthless bunch when their nationalism is provoked.
>>
>> Who can make up this force if it isn't at least in part involving NATO? -
>> Big question.
>
> The UN. In case you have not notices there are over 160 member states to
> the UN and most have professional military forces available. Such
> countries include India and Ireland.
This is the 64000 dollar question isn't it?
I find your suggestion naive. Look at Lebanon - Israel just completely
ignores the UN force (from Fiji, Ireland etc I believe. Look at the way the
pathetic Dutch bunch were overruled nay co-opted at Srebrenica.
The force has to credible in the eyes of the Kosovar Albanians, otherwise
they will continue to feel threatened by the Serbs.
>> How are we going to get Slobo to comply with the peacekeeping force ? - Big
>> question.
>
> What exactly to you mean by comply? If you mean how do we deal with Serb
> and Albanian paramilitaries who may seek to carry on the violence the
> answer is simple. The peace keeping force must have authority to use all
> neccesary force to keep the peace and if that means returning fire so be
> it - self defence is justification.
But how, then, would you persuade the refugees to go back??
I wish I could agree with your approach, Jason, but I find it really naive.
> Otherwise paramilitaries should be treated as what they are - criminals.
>
>> What are we going to do if he continues to vehemently reject any outside
>> force? - Big question.
>
> He has vehemently rejected demands for a NATO or NATO-led force, which is
> the same thing. The Yugoslavian government has made numerous statements
> that a non-biased peace keeping force would be accepted.
Could it be that they just agree to a peacekeeping force that they can
overrule and ignore. Despite the fact that Kosovo has only been part of
Serbia since 1912, the Serbs are very adamant that this is their ancient
ancestral land and will accept no coercion by any outside military force.
Without any possibility of coercion the peacekeeping force is a lame duck
and the Albanian refugees will not return and the KLA will not stop
fighting.
No-one said it was easy.
Respect
Steve Hillage
Terry Boardman
>
> Terry Boardman wrote in message <3713D6...@cableinet.co.uk>...
> >dinerbass wrote:
> >>
> >> > I recognised Wilson as a genial
> >> >character of sorts, a kind of mischievous harlequin. He was onto
> >> >something, especially in his noticing the significance of the number 23,
> >> >but he never grounded it - perhaps because he's a writer not a scholar
> >> >and prefers ambiguity, it's better for sales after all. He sailed too
> >> >close to the dangerous whirlpool of Timothy Leary in my view, another
> >> >besotted by a misplaced Darwinism, a believer first in natural
> >> >substances and then techno-fixes as a way to earthly paradise. That
> >> >friend of mine was very much into him and we used to have some ding-dong
> >> >debates about Mr Leary. That friend of mine, unlike me, was very much
> >> >into extremes, and was lucky to escape a fatal heroin addiction.
> >>
> >> In defence of Dr Leary, I think his vibrant optimism does more good than
> >> harm. Amongst what he shares with Robert Anton Wilson is the excitement
> of
> >> the vast potential of humanity.
> >
> >Thanks to my friend, I have read most of Leary's written output up to
> >about 1984. I did this so I could cope the better in discussions with my
> >friend. What I noticed was a Luciferic (light-bearing) spirit in him
> >that was of siren nature and full of the arrogance of Lucifer too in his
> >contempt for human beings at an earlier stage of development. He had
> >little feeling or respect for the past, only for the future - such was
> >the danger of his almost excarnatory optimism. One had the feeling he
> >couldn't abide being a human being in this form and longed to move on
> >from it. I found his scientistic jargon inhuman and pompous.
>
> Sure, his language wasn't everyone's cup of tea. Personally it amused rather
> than irritated me, but maybe I've got a warped sense of humour. You may be
> right about his arrogance and contempt of early stages. It might be a kind
> of "Then a fool. Now a wiser fool" reflection on the process of growing up.
> I don't think arrogance is always necessarily a bad thing,
It is always a 'bad' thing to my mind
as it doesn't
> have to include disrespect for others. How many great scientists, artists,
> sports-meisters, philosophers etc do amazing things for the world because
> they had the arrogance to believe they could do what no-one else could. I
> suppose this could be called healthy competition.
Yes, I know, but that arrogance rebounds upon themselves eventually. It
is an ignorant emotion; I would say it closes one off from others and
works against relationship and the understanding of interdependence.
>
> I've no disrespect for the people of the past, but I see nothing great about
> mud huts, plague and squalor.
Of course not, but you cannot symbolise the totality of the past merely
by those things any more than you can symbolise the totality present by
Big Macs, form-filling, and punk rock - obviously. And the Pyramids, and
the writings of Chuang Tzu, and the nature knowledge of the American
Indians - what of them: one could go on and on...
I believe we can feed, clothe, house,
> maintain, educate, employ, entertain and enrich everyone on the planet, plus
> a load more - *if* we get our shit together - and without buggering up the
> planet.
I agree totally, but it is not our shit that we need to get together,
but our hearts and minds, love and imagination. Forgive me, but I feel I
must do what little I can to stand against the pollution of language and
thought by crude metabolically-oriented Americanisms, even when uttered
by one as obviously intelligent and humane as yourself. Did you know
that every time someone uses the words b----r up etc he is resonating
albeit unconsciously with the slanderous insult the mediaeval Church
used to persecute the Bogomils and Cathars, whom they accused of sodomy?
The word is a corruption of Bogomil ("people of God" in old Bulgarian, I
believe).
>
> I believe this can be done by advancing productive forces through economic,
> political, social and technological development. Don't ask me for the
> details, but if we have that goal in mind than at least we have a target. If
> people have all the above, they've no reason to go to war, unless they're
> being duped by power-crazed lunatics, but this is what the hoped-for
> political development would address.
Again, I totally agree.
>
> If this political hope for the future is 'Luciferic' then I think the guy's
> had a bad press, and I can understand why Aleister Crowley joked about being
> the "wickedest man in the world" - taking the piss out of Christian myths.
What Christian myths are you thinking of. I'm not aware that Crowley had
any greater insight into the essence of *Christianity* than other
intellectuals of his time who understandably were opposed to
*Churchianity*.
> Mind you, the establishment (was it Rothermere/Beaverbrooke?) demonised him,
I think he demonised himself perfectly well enough
> with the help of Dennis Wheatley who stabbed AC in the back after AC had
> tought Wheatley everything Wheatley knew. And what about about Crowley's
> alleged "occult" services to the same British establishment during the war?
> And what did Wheatley, Ian Fleming and Michael Bentine know about that, and
> Hess's mysterious arrival? Shows how the British state treats its WW2
> allies, really.
The relationship of the British Establishment to occult forces in
manifest ways is something that certainly hasn't been sufficiently
brought to light, but the carpet ends are lifted from time to time.
>
> Anyway, a more 'reasonable' criticism of that vision would be that it sounds
> idealistic and unrealistic. Maybe now, Maybe not in decades or hundreds of
> years.
If it's Leary's vision you mean, then I'd say that it was inextricably
permeated with materialism. What he maintained was his essentially
youthful and positive attitude to life. This was good - but it lived
more within his will, within his destiny, or karma if you will.
Unfortunately, he came with that idealism into a society which was very
much imbued with materialist concepts, and found in his destiny this
time round no other concepts with which to work. Hence all the stuff
about 'circuits', axions, inputs, outputs, neuro-this and neuro-that. He
was basically working with a machine analogy.
Let me quote this: from Cosmic Trigger (chapter on Octave of Energy):
"this emerging synthesis evades entirely the usual dichotomy of
"spiritual" versus "material", being purely geometric-energetic. It is
thus in the same philosophical catgeory as the unitary systems of the
East (Zen, Taoism, Vedanta etc.) and outside the dualisms of Greek logic
and Christian theology. Any attempt to describe as "mystical" or as
"materialistic" misses the real point of Leary's work."
It evades it by simply ignoring concepts of spirituality altogether. It
is a doctrine of materialism based only on sense data. "Geometry" is
concerned with measuring the physical earth. Euclidian geometry cannot
comprehend dynamic systems. Projective geometry (ill-named) can do that
better. The concepts of energy referred to by RAW are based on
developments primarily in INorganic physics from the 17th to 20th
centuries - this is only quarter of sense-world reality. We are now in
the 20th century entering the first part of the organic world, the world
of liquid flow, which the old alchemists designated by the term 'water'.
A whole new science will be needed to comprehend this world. two more
whole sciences,epistemologies even, not just academic disciplines, will
be required to comprehend the sense-world phenomena in the two stages
after that - namely the realm of 'air' and of 'fire'.
Leary and RAW have only just graduated from an epistemology based on
*mineral* thinking. Their mistake was to think that therefore they'd got
everything figured out.
Furthermore, the Eastern systems were not unitary. There is nothing
unitary about the Tao; it is a system of twoness, interrelating perhaps
but still clearly twofold. Indian philosophy, unlike that of the Sinic
world, is marked by both by a sense of the Divine Ego and also of a
plurality of divinities. I will not say Christian theology, but
Christianity is far deeper than just 'dualism'. It was only with the 4th
century that dualism set in particularly strongly in the thought of the
Christian Church.
It was once thought that humans would die if they travelled more than
> 25 mph.
That was erroneous obviously, but it was also thought that it would have
a negative effect on the nervous system. Can this be denied? Can we deny
that we are a hyper-stressed out society obsessed with speed - a
development which began in the 1820s? Or that electricity has become an
even greater foot upon society's accelerator. It is electricity that is
driving us crazy, and that is a force, not of Nature, but of subnature.
We think we understand it, because we can use it and have a few concepts
to control it, but do we understand what it is in essence? I doubt it.
>
> > It seems odd to say this in amongst the dark
> >> and furious debate of war, but as Wilson would say : the optimistic
> mindset
> >> has more chance of finding solutions than the pessimistic one, which has
> >> already conceded defeat.
> >
> >I would prefer to dispense with indulging in either optimism or
> >pessismism too much and stick to Realism, which is far more than both.
>
> The basis for a preference for optimism (which doesn't always come easy) is
> rooted in reality and pragmatic experience. I don't know whether this is
> optimism or confidence, but with when solving software problems - e.g.
> support, if with a seemingly hopeless problem I can get in a state of mind
> where I believe a solution possible, rather than hopeless, either intuition
> and/or a focussed logic can often kick in, and an successful idea would
> strike in a flash. If this is indulgence the punters certainly didn't seem
> to mind!
Can I crave your indulgence once more and ask why intuition or logic
need to "kick in" - do you see? We use crude gravity bound terms for
spiritual realities like thoughts. I understand what you're saying here
about optimism and I broadly share it. Where I would be more careful
perhaps is to let my optimism drive me into an American-style contempt
for pain and suffering and a wish to abolish them. Wisdom does not arise
through optimism, but through transmuted pain and suffering. Americans
and young people in general may not like that, but the accumulated
experiences of countless cultures over the ages suggests to me that it
is true.
Which is why I also agree with your next remark:
>
> I must admit though, when it comes to the grim reality of this war, Realism
> seems a more appropriate state of mind. Optimism seems absurd and Pessimism
> too depressing. Even so, if anyone tries to think of ways to stop it, there
> can be no harm in believing the task to be possible.
>
> >>
> >> In these days of science in near-retreat (too dangerous, seems to be the
> >> feeling)
> >
> >That's not my perception. A spiritual struggle is going on between those
> >seeking to carry forward the Positivist torch of the scientific
> >Revolutions of the 17th-20th centuries - the neo-Darwinists and
> >biologists seem to be carrying all before them, and those who know now
> >that that Positivism bears much responsibility for the mess we're now
> >in. There's consequently a reaction and a falling back to old atavisms,
> >half-understood Eastern, Celtic, pagan stuff etc. Some people in the New
> >Age are trying to find a modern way forward that avoids both these two
> >poles; some scientists are trying the same, but it's an uphill struggle.
> >We need a new science - with heart, that does not seek to "put Nature on
> >the rack", as Francis Bacon wanted.
>
> Interesting. A friend (bit of a 'pagan') reckons the Celts saw disease as
> 'tiny animals invading the body', which is what we now recognise as
> Virus's/Bacteria, and that we may have known quite a few things that got
> lost in the Dark ages. He blames Christianity for everything.
>
> How is Positivism responsible for the mess? Which particular mess were you
> thinking of?
Positivism is not the same as "being optimistic" in general. It was the
doctrine that felt that the materialistic science that had developed in
the West since Bacon and Descartes had got everything sussed, and that
therefore things could only get better. The result of course was
1914-18.
>
> The problem I have with the traditional scientific 'Torch' is that it only
> points its beam into various corners of the room - those considered OK by
> the consensus-reality - what I call the Scully Syndrome. Anything 'spooky'
> is effectively too uncool to be taken seriously, 'cos "Science" has decreed
> them off limits, and by definition, to try and understand them is
> 'unscientific'. The official line is to ignore them. Unless of course (with
> Scully) it's Christianity, when the whole regulation "scientific" mind set
> goes out the window and old men with beards sitting in the clouds is
> suddenly fine. No questions asked.
Neither of these obviously is the way forward in themselves, but neither
would it be appropriate to reject both in their entirety. We must learn
what applies to what.
>
> What I was probably thinking about with the "science in near-retreat" is
> Genetic Engineering. We hear much of the dangers of this, but little about
> the possibilities of finding cures for cancer, AIDS and death.
The idea that there can be material cures for AIDS and cancer and then
we can forget about such diseases is fallacious. I think we are coming
to see that the cause of many physical illnesses such as these two is
psychosomatic, that is, spiritual, whereas the cause for many mental
illnesses is physical. of course, AIDS can be transmitted physically,
but AIDS is but a symptom, in my view, of a deeper psycho-social malaise
in our society. The same with cancer. The first has to do with the
attack on the ego; the second with the breakdown of forms in the wider
sense.
>
> I'm afraid I find the green lobby rather reactionary, with their Pol Pot
> visions of enforced living in harmonious mud-huts about as appealing as NATO
> visions of enforced humanitarianism.
Yes, I think so too, though there are many in the Green movement that
are far from being so antediluvian.
>
> > and a total negativity and distrust about humanity, then his ideas
> >> about Space Migration, Increased Intelligence and Life Extension (SMILE)
> >> should be inspiring us to greater things.
> >
> >I don't think the first of these is connected with the other two. That
> >was the American on-on-ON out-out-OUT!!!! consciousness of the wagon
> >train just expanded into space. Pointless migrating into space if we
> >just take our trash with us and repeat the same nonsense up there. The
> >whole space exploration drive appears to me as a perverted
> >materialisation of the inner need to cross a *spiritual* threshold.
>
> Surely the drive comes from our desire to explore and push back frontiers.
The irony of materialism is that the materialists don't actually
understand or appreciate the material world. Their endless urge to
explore it is an endlessly frustrated desire to get beyond it, which
they can never do in their way. Those who really appreciate the material
world are those like William Blake and the painter Turner and the
Japanese in general who really "pay attention" to the material world in
all its forms.
You say "our" desire, but of course you're meaning only westerners,
aren't you? Non-western peoples did not have much of this desire,
because they were not wrestling with the western mind-body split to such
an extent.
> Maybe technology will find ways of unfolding space & time so we can zip
> about the universe without the drag of actually having to *travel*.
Technology will never do this in other than an unsatisfactory 'virtual'
way.
> Admittedly, we should get our shit together first.
Each to his own, thank you. :-)
Long way to go there, and
> that's where the other two parts of the 'formula' come in. Increased
> Intelligence would, according to Leary, include spiritual development and
> Life Extension would help that - especially if that development takes, as I
> suspect, decades of work. The other thing about Life Extension is that that
> it gives time for individuals to develop as multi-discplined scientists,
> rather than the narrow, sectional specialists that current economic
> realities seem to demand. Multi discipline science is essential for long
> term progress in my view, to get a way from scientists who know more and
> more about less and less. Lets face it, there's just too much to know, and
> that's where his later cyber visionary ideas come in.
I agree about multidiscipline science, but I see the need rather for a
spiritual science which can research karma and reincarnation. Leary's
Life Extension and other such Californian immortality options are
predicated on ignorance of reincarnation and ultimately fear of death,
which is fear of spirituality. We would waste a lot less time if youth
were not assaulted and sidetracked by so much rubbish. I was 29 before I
found my way.
>
> Thus are the three linked.
>
> > Likewise with the expansion of
> >> consciousness through various, er, technologies - many of which look to
> >> remain off limits for some time to come.
> >
> >Consciousness cannot be expanded *in a healthy way* through technologies
> >(if you're thinking of drugs for example). There is no point in
> >expanding consciousness if the human Self is not engaged, if it is done
> >FOR you. New technologies result from expanded consciousness.
>
> If you want to dig a trench, it's quicker with a JCB than a spade, but
> healthier with the spade. Hardly anyone's got time to sit in an asana for 32
> years waiting for enlightenment, and if you see, for example, yoga &
> meditation as more honest methods then I'd agree. I don't think that kind of
> progress can come in a pill / brain machine, but the device can improve the
> 'productivity' of the hard work. That's why I think Leary saw drugs as
> technologies, in a kind of Marxist enhancing-the-forces-of-production sense.
> A machine has no wealth-creating potential on its own, like a drug has no
> spiritual value on its own, but in the hands of a skilled operator...
> That's why the solely hedonistic users that Leary had to come to terms with
> just have a laugh and that's that - and if they try getting all spiritual
> without any bona fide development of the 'Self' they just come out with
> crap. Bit like most religions.
Yes, but the use of 'technologies', 'pills' 'devices' etc is all
predicated on a frenetic culture driven by speed and angst about Time
and fear of the Big D.
>
> ><snip>
> >> Heroin was never on Leary's list of 'evolutionary' drugs, as it only
> >> comforts what Leary would describe as the 'Reptilian Brain'.
> >
> >Yes I realise that.
> >
> >
> > He was more
> >> interested in using what are sometimes called the psychedelics to break
> down
> >> conditioned behaviour and to enable positive reprogramming. The prison
> >> subjects he treated with carefully controlled use of LSD had a far lower
> >> recidivism than usual, and his two 'laws' : the right for an individual
> to
> >> experiment with their brain / alter their consciousness, and the right of
> an
> >> individual not to have their consciousness altered without their consent
> are
> >> a far cry from the govt policy of doing the reverse. While the CIA /
> >> military gave people LSD without their knowledge or consent and under bad
> >> conditions, Leary repeatedly emphasised the importance of control, set &
> >> setting.
You surely see how he naively played into the hands of the CIA/military
and therefore had a responsibility for corrupting and degrading the
tremendous spiritual idealism of that generation. They had been
witnessing the evils of the years 1933-45 "from above" as they came into
incarnation and were determined to do something about it.
> >
> >I recognise the libertarian impulse of his two principles, but don't you
> >think it was bound to get out of hand and immature people would
> >experiment in irresponsible ways, control, set, and setting would go out
> >of the window (sometimes followed by the imbibers!) - often with
> >disastrous results. With such a powerful exterior force as LSD, Leary
> >was in too much of a hurry, and the people were too young and too
> >impatient. "We want the world and we want it NOW!!" - Remember that?
>
> People's irresponsibility is always an argument against freedom. There are
> risks everywhere there are thrills: driving fast cars, or cars fast,
> climbing mountains, taking LSD, and the Jim Morrison approach to life is
> certainly destructive, though brightly burning.
It is what I would call light-bearing - Luciferic, ultimately
self-obsessed.
I think Leary later
> recognised that the kids didn't have the discipline or direction required to
> get beyond the hedonism. He'd probably have been better off including his
> ideas as part of a more sober scientific or "occult" programs (same thing,
> different methods) for the more
> seriously-minded to explore than evangelising to impatient kids. No offence
> to impatient kids.
I'm sure you are very right about that. I take your point about freedom
and irresponsibility - but that's true in a general way for everyone and
always has been. I was thinking more in a specific historical way,
namely that that was a special time in the 60s with a special generation
which could indeed have changed the world (and with hindsight, may still
be said to have, though more slowly). There was a special opportunity
then, and it was wasted through obeisance to the Unholy Trinity of sex,
drugs, rock 'n' roll. Would Crowley have approved? Probably. In this
sense, Leary was a pernicious influence, I feel, in suborning youth into
drugs. I certainly do not accept the line that the 60s idealism and
progressivism was all down to drugs, even though these did play their
part.
Look, the key to see is that the Ego is under assault - from drugs, from
Eastern gurus, from western biogenetic scientists and philosophers, from
overpowering technology - from all directions. Jacques Lusseyran
described this well. Do you know his writings? Just to get through the
obstacle course to 21 and still believe in yourself and that you exist
and have a value and a meaning and something to do with the rest of life
is becoming so indescribably difficult for young people. The selfish ego
is rightly disparaged; the Ego is foolishly condemned along with it - we
are committing spiritual suicide in the West. I'm afraid I see Leary -
for all his optimism (there were also optimistic life-affirming Nazis)
as ultimately one of the Kvorkians, and not one of the true healers.
I just wish Aleister Crowley had been around for
> Hoffman's elixir, but then you might see him as *even* more dangerous than
> Leary, who admired AC.
Most definitely. People admire these characters like they admire Jesse
James or Bonnie and Clyde - rebels against the system. Not seeing the
trap of dualism, they fall in either with the rebels or with the system.
I prefer neither to fall for the temptations of the rebels or to fall in
behind the commands of the system. They are both unbalanced.
>
> As one of the maybe more sussed of today's millions of ravers once said to
> me : "With exctasy you love everybody on saturday, but on monday it's the
> same old shit. With acid you get hard facts." Those hard facts can be
> dangerous and/or exciting and/or terrifying and/or liberating (eg when
> McGoohan's "Number 6" finally discovers who 'Number 2' is in 'The Prisoner')
> but truth is the truth and when you strip away all the masks, it might hurt.
Ecstasy and acid - if we go into those names, feel their meanings, then
what they signify will become clear. What young people seek
unconsciously is the principle of initiation, which was certainly
dangerous and existed in all previous societies. It needed careful
preparation. Theirs is a longing, often unbeknown to themselves, for
spiritual experience - misplaced, and often misguided by others.
>
> It links in with all the war propaganda debate too, as our whole notion is
> "what is real?" in terms of what is going in the war zone is a construct
> unique to each of us and inside our heads. What is "out there" is not what
> is "in here" - what we are percieving is a movie played to ourselves in our
> skulls based on the models our internal software builds.
On the other hand, we can say that what is out there IS within here:
hatred, anger, murder, escape, deviousness, will to power etc
I resist firmly all technological analogies for the human being. No
clockwork, no steam engines, no dynamos, no electro-magnetics, no
switchboards, no computers.
The data comes in
> via a welter of unreliable sources (filters), and we enforce or rebuild our
> models according to our knowledge and/or prejudices. Data that doesn't fit
> either gets rejected or used to rebuild models, depending on levels of
> fundamentalist certaintly. That's why it's such a painfull reality shift to
> try and accept that what you had thought was "true" is now "not true", and
> vice-versa. - Junk News = Junk Views.
>
Agreed.
<snip>
>
> "Theatres of War", eh? Are they taking the piss when they say that?
>
Forgive me, but I find "our internal software" just as inappropriate.
> >> With uniformity such a crucial element of state control, its not
> surprising
> >> that the authorities stamped on research that could liberate minds from
> >> regulation, off-the-peg mindsets. This is the real Leary, not an mere
> >> advocate of getting whacked-out for hedonistic quasi-spiritualist kicks.
See my remarks above re. rebels and the system.
> >Leary went from natural and chemical stimulants to techno-stimulants,
> >from Scylla to Charybdis, you might say. I instinctively feel that
> >neither of these is a healthy path, because neither involves the heart.
> >The one seizes the nervous system; the other seizes the will.
>
> It could be argued that they both influence both the nervous system and the
> will. Leary's Cyber-Linkup (excuse the language).
Yes, OK, but like computers - without involving the middle term - the
heart. We're back to 23 here you see.
> But even forgetting about the neuro-agents and computers, the principle of
> freeing your own mind from state control still stands. It's a kind of an
> anarchist political objective which, along with opposition to the
> authoritarianism and warmongery of your own government, defines anarchism as
> a state of mind rather than a political program.
Yes, I agree with that, but I'd prefer a term like 'ethical
indidvidualism'.
> media
> can
> >> hardly disagree.
> >
>
>
>
> consumption of the economy and from there plan things properly. Don't ask me
> what "properly" is, I just know I would not let Blair do it.
Production-consumption: again, no middle term, no heart, which in an
economic sense corresponds to distribution. Please see my comments on 23
and the political process. I'm afraid I'll pass on both your sci-fi
scenarios.
I wonder whether we shouldn't move this thread over to somewhere like
alt.consciousness?
Cheers,
Terry
dinerbass
>It appears to me that some people are lucky enough to develop this
>knowledge, self-awareness and self-confidence early on in life. Very often
>they appear not to realise how difficult the last two, especially, are to
>develop later on in life. And such people can often, it appears to me be
>extraordinarily arrogant in their judgements of others (and let's face it,
>we all make judgements).
I think this is an important point, which I'll respond to the long-way round
by putting it into context with Tim Leary's model of consciousness. This
model consists of eight 'circuits' as he called them at the time - four
terrestrial and four spiritual. As we, the life-forms on this planet,
'advance' (and we should not be afraid to use that word) from reptiles, to
mammals, to humans, then to social humans and beyond, new 'layers' or
'circuits' of the brain have developed. Leary claimed that correspondingly,
individual humans develop through these layers as they live and grow.
The First (reptile or infant brain) is concerned with safety, nourishment
and comfort.
The Second (mammalian or toddler brain) is the ego we're discussing -
defence, territory and dominant/submissive pack behaviour
The Third (human or language-brain) is the symbol-manipulator associated
with language and reason
The Fourth (social human or adult brain) deals with sexual & social
'morality' - ie the accepted game-rules or 'laws' of sexual & social
behaviour
Fith to Eighth circuits are 'extra-terrestrial' (as Leary would say) or
perhaps 'spiritual', but they're not so easy to describe or relevant enough
here.
The core 'programs' for each circuit get imprinted, or hard-wired at various
points from infancy to adolescence. The type of imprint we recieve
(according to Leary) will determine or at least influence an individual's
personality/behavior for that circuit.
So depending on the imprint that outside factors imposed on us as a toddler,
we either get lucky or we don't - so, yes, it's unfair. However, as long as
we have free will, we can try to do the best with what we have. I don't
think it stops with the childhood imprint, as confidence can come and go
through life. After a long, crushing relationship I had to start building my
self-confidence from scratch - and while I have confidence with work, I have
no confidence with travel. Some people can pick winning horses, some people
can run faster. It's all unfair.
>> It's only a 'chin-up' state of mind.
>
>Not always.
True. It depends whether whether the ego is being defensive (standing proud
and looking after yourself) or aggressive (looking for trouble). We need the
first, but not the second.
>>too much terratorial ego -
>>this is the downside of ego, and in global poltics it's called
imperialism.
>>The USA has a bad case of this.
Another thing the USA has is an inflamed moral component, (fourth circuit)
which believes it's own value-system is superior to everyone else's, who
must be dominated and 'brought into the fold'. Combined with the terratorial
aggression and the sheer strength it's a lethal mix.
I was just pointing out that in *some* circumstances,
>optimism can be dangerous, can lead to dangerous decision-making. In such
>circumstances realism - an acknowledgement that none of the choices
provides
>for "happy-ever-after" and all of them involve some unpleasantenss - is
more
>likely to lead to decision-making that minimises harm and results in the
>best outcome.
Yes, and I suppose the optimism of those who thought that more war could
make less war shows this. Almost everything that can be useful can be
dangerous - from water to scissors, from fire to airoplanes.
a pleasure to speak with you, Ashley. ;-)
regards
dinerbass
Seppo Renfors
>
> On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, Steve Hillage wrote:
>
> > KLA disarmament - a point that has been somewhat overlooked by the anti-NATO
> > people).
>
> KLA will only be disarmed at some indeterminate future time.
>
> > force that is able to stand up to the Serbs, who are, we all agree, a pretty
> > ruthless bunch when their nationalism is provoked.
> >
> > Who can make up this force if it isn't at least in part involving NATO? -
> > Big question.
>
> the UN and most have professional military forces available. Such
> countries include India and Ireland.
>
> > question.
>
> and Albanian paramilitaries who may seek to carry on the violence the
> answer is simple. The peace keeping force must have authority to use all
> neccesary force to keep the peace and if that means returning fire so be
> it - self defence is justification.
I think the correct question was put. After all Slobo hasn't
complied with any undertakings so far. The Serb paramilitary is
under his control, if not direct at the very least indirectly.
>
> Otherwise paramilitaries should be treated as what they are - criminals.
>
> > What are we going to do if he continues to vehemently reject any outside
> > force? - Big question.
>
> He has vehemently rejected demands for a NATO or NATO-led force, which is
> the same thing. The Yugoslavian government has made numerous statements
> that a non-biased peace keeping force would be accepted.
Yeah.... a CIVILIAN peace keeping force, with NO GUNS. Oh sure,
like that would help at all! It will not slow down his
expansionist ideas one bit!
>
> > The counter-argument is that just because many international "crimes" are
> > not dealt with it doesn't mean that all such "crimes" need not be dealt
> > with.
>
> There was no evidence of international crimes prior to NATO's actions.
> What were we "dealing with"?
Are you kidding or are you getting paid to say stupid things like
that? What about the 8000 muslims (civilian) massacred in Bosnia.
>
> > Adding to this argumentative stalemate is the fact that NATO has already
> > been active in the Balkans since the Bosnia crisis, so it was already caught
> > up in the Balkan spiders web.
>
> And as a party to the war NATO cannot be considered impartial which is a
> prerequisite for any legitimate peace keeping force.
NATO is as impartial as needs be. Obvioulsy you have forgotten
the reason for them being involved in the first place.
>
> > The legal question is not as clear-cut as that, sir. The Security council
> > voted down 12-3 the Russian motion censuring NATO.
>
> I have published the press release about this. The votes of 5 members were
> void under the UN Charter as they are parties to the conflict. Many of the
> others stated that they rejected the motion as it was improperly drafted.
Hmmm, can't say I'm familiar enough with the rules, but this does
not sound correct. The UN Security council has a real problem in
that any nation on the council has a right to Veto any action.
This gets used very frequently and it is very hard to get
anything past the council because of it.
>
> > Kofi Annan has pointedly
> > NOT brought up this legality question as has also been using the "g" word
> > (genocide).
>
> Kofi annan did refer to the lack of authorisation for this NATO action in
> the first few days.
>
> It is not surprising that he used the word "genocide". He has no
> independant source of information and so can only react to media reports.
> Unfortunately our media are only now starting
The term is correct with the UN definition of it.
>
> > Milosevic stood and still stands to gain an ethnically pure "Greater Serbia"
> > (including Serbian Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro).
>
> For all that he is a ruthless dictator, Milosevic has not sought to remove
> any of the 25 ethnic communities from Yugoslavia.
Doesn't Albanians in Kosovo and/or the muslims count????? Why
LIE??
>
> In case you have not noticed Macedonia is not part of Yugoslavia.
...not yet at least. In fact YU is nowadays pretty well only
Serbia. Montenegro is for all practica purposes is "annexed" to
Serbia, as they have military control in Montenegro. There will
be an attempt to drive the Albanians out of there too, IF slobo
is allowed to carry on. The Nationalist fervor he has built up
will not allow the Albanians to remain in YU.
>
> If those in Republica Srpska decide by referendum to secceed from Bosnia -
> where they feel that they are ethnically discriminated against - would you
> support their right to do so?
You mean of the kind of "vote" as in Srebrenica, like who's got
the most bullets?
>
> > He stands to gain from a "Slavic Union" of Serbia, Belarus, Russia.
>
> Yugoslavia now has no choice but to enter the "Slavic Union" as it is very
> clear that NATO has decided to destroy Yugoslavia. I don't think that
> Yugoslavia would have chosen to join such an alliance except that they now
> recognise that it is necessary to be part of a super-power as the UN is no
> longer relevant to world peace and security.
Aaaaha.... like the Russians did in Poland in WW2.... stop just a
bit short and wait for the Germans to finish of any resitanse
before walking in and taking over the whole lot. Well perhaps the
Russians will install a puppet there and keep them in control a
bit more than they can do for themselves.... that is *after* NATO
has pulverised them into submission first.
>
> > I wish this whole damn Kosovo war business was just a hallucination!
>
> So do we all but it is not. Every day NATO steps up it's campaign and now
> the situation is so bad that the Pentagon is refusing to release
> information on the targets we are striking as it has turned out to be true
> that we are attacking civilian targets.
The statement.. "that we are attacking civilian targets" I can
only gather that you mean the unintend bombing of the refugee
convoy and the accidental bombing of the train. I hope your
remuneration is good as good as was for Lord Haw Haw in WW2 who
also spread misinformation -they hanged him.
--
SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
------------------------------------------------------------------
" Don't resent getting old. A great many are denied that
privilege "
---------------------------------------------------------------
William J Evans
>
> > Why are the implacable oppoenents of NATO's action SO DAMN SURE that the
> > atrocity stories are false? Why are they CONVINCED that, for example, the
> > BBC video from April 1st was invalid?
>
> what is suggested. The problem is that the propaganda war is so
> important it has created an extraordinary motivation to mislead,
> exaggerate or decieve. Propaganda can easily be more important
> than a few casualties here and there, perhaps in this war more than
> previous wars.
>
> Recently Clinton said that the atrocities should not be allowed to
> continue. But the atrocities credited to NATO seem to be mounting
> daily, and whilst they have not reached Dresden-like proportions
> (euphemistically called 'de-housing' at the time), they are going
> for softer civilian targets: railway lines, factories, post office,
> bridges, oil depots and refinaries, heating plants. Much of the
> killing will be silent: like Iraq a combination of bombs and
> sanctions to bring the population to its knees.
>
> But we are not 'at war' with them.
Correction. A state of war does officially exist between Yugoslavia and
NATO. Belgrade declared that state of war after the first NATO bombing
run.
NATO should terminate that state by a full blown invasion of Yugoslavia,
re-establishing order and rebuilding all civil services which have been
destroyed, and then holding UN supervised elections for a new Govt
democratically elected.
AUSSTU
Jason Clifford wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Steve Hillage wrote:
>
> > 2. Therefore we cannot trust the information we receive from the media.
> >
> > 3. So we cannot reasonably trust all the mass of stories about "Serb
> > atrocities", rape camps etc.
> >
> > 4. But by the same token can we reasonably dismiss them?
>
> No but before we can commence a war based upon them evidence that the
> stories really are true has to be brought to the UN Security Council which
> is the only body authorised under International Law to sanction the use of
> force against a sovereign state.
>
> > Why are the implacable oppoenents of NATO's action SO DAMN SURE that the
> > atrocity stories are false? Why are they CONVINCED that, for example, the
> > BBC video from April 1st was invalid?
>
> I cannot speak for anyone else but for myself, I am not sure that the
> attrocity stories are false. I am now however sure that they are true and
> therefore I cannot the use of military force against Yugoslavia by the
> armed forces of my country and of NATO.
>
> I have already stated that I believe that the video that the BBC
> partially published on April 1st is probably genuine evidence of a mass
> murder in the town of Veliko Krusa on the 24th or 25th of March by Serb
> paramilitaries.
The consistent and overwhelming testimony of the million plus Kosovo refugees is
proof enough that large scale attrocities are continuing. If you wait for the
pictures and videotape evidence to come out it will be too late as it was in World
War II where naive people ignored eyewitness testimony of German Concentration
camps only to be horrified when they saw the truth after it was too late.
>
>
> > There has been such a giant mass of evidence of unique brutality by the
> > Serbs since 1987 that even if 95% was untrue the remaining 5% is, for me,
> > still major information that stands up even if all the lies are taken into
> > account.
>
> The problem here is that the mass of evidence is no greater than that
> against any other side in the civil wars in Slovenia, Croatia or Bosnia
> and Herzegovina. Indeed it has since transpired that some of the most
> emotive evidence (the `mortar attack' against the Sarajevo market place
> and the ITN `concentration camp' footage to name just two instances) was
> in fact innacurate and, in the case of the Sarajevo incident was actually
> committed by the Bosnian Moslem side.
>
> > Remember, the Western European nations up until late 91 opposed the break up
> > of Yugoslavia, and Milosevic was treated in a respectful way based on the
> > notion that the Balkans needed a "strong man".
>
> The break up of Yugoslavia was opposed because it was widely recognised
> that such a break up would quickly descend into civil war along ethnic
> lines with exactly the consequences we have since seen.
Jason Clifford
> Correction. A state of war does officially exist between Yugoslavia and
> NATO. Belgrade declared that state of war after the first NATO bombing
> run.
A state of war is not defined by whether the parties to it have declared
war but rather by the actions they take. Systematic bombing campaign =
war
Jason Clifford
> The consistent and overwhelming testimony of the million plus Kosovo
> refugees is proof enough that large scale attrocities are continuing.
The number of refugees is about half of what you have claimed and their
claims are not, generally, consistent. They are also, for the most part,
third hand repeating of such claims rather than first hand accounts.
> If you wait for the pictures and videotape evidence to come out it will
> be too late as it was in World War II where naive people ignored
> eyewitness testimony of German Concentration camps only to be horrified
> when they saw the truth after it was too late.
But jumping in too early and later finding that the claims were not true
is just as bad.
The simple fact is that prior to March 23rd when it became absolutely
clear that NATO was to commence war within 24 hours upon Yugoslavia they
had not been doing anything other than waging civil war against a
seccessionist terror organisation.
Jason Clifford
> Yeah.... a CIVILIAN peace keeping force, with NO GUNS. Oh sure,
> like that would help at all! It will not slow down his
> expansionist ideas one bit!
The only non-civilian peace keeping force that is being put forward is
NATO based. While that remains the position Yugoslavia will not accept.
Representatives of the Yugoslavian government went on record in the first
week of our war against them that Yugoslavia would welcome a non-NATO
peace keeping force.
> > There was no evidence of international crimes prior to NATO's actions.
> > What were we "dealing with"?
>
> Are you kidding or are you getting paid to say stupid things like
> that? What about the 8000 muslims (civilian) massacred in Bosnia.
No, I am not kidding. We are dealing with Kosovo now. Bosnia is no longer
the issue and has not been the issue for over 2 years.
> > And as a party to the war NATO cannot be considered impartial which is a
> > prerequisite for any legitimate peace keeping force.
>
> NATO is as impartial as needs be. Obvioulsy you have forgotten
> the reason for them being involved in the first place.
"as impartial as needs be"? Exactly what does that mean?
NATO is a direct party to the war. We have clearly taken sides in the
civil war in Kosovo and cannot be considered impartial in the affair. That
is a key requirement of any legitimate peace keeping force.
I do note that NATO leaders no longer refer to a peace keeping force. Now
we simple wish to install a large NATO military force in Kosovo. We no
longer bother to claim that it will be a peace keeping force.
> Hmmm, can't say I'm familiar enough with the rules, but this does
> not sound correct. The UN Security council has a real problem in
> that any nation on the council has a right to Veto any action.
> This gets used very frequently and it is very hard to get
> anything past the council because of it.
The rules for the UN Security Council are quite simple and are detailed
specifically in the UN Charter, which I have also published at
http://www.kosovar.org/.
Only 5 members of the UN Security Council can vetoe any vote. They are the
UK, the USA, France, China and Russia (taken over from the Soviet Union's
vote). These are the permenent members of the Council
The other 10 members of the council do not have such a vote. These members
serve on the Council for a 2 year period only (although 3 of them serve
for only 1 year)
For any Resolution to be adopted by the UN Security Council requires that
at least 9 members support and vote for it including ALL of the 5
permanent members of the Council.
The UN Charter specifically requires members of the UN Security Council
who are direct parties to an issue before the Council to abstain from
voting on that issue.
> > For all that he is a ruthless dictator, Milosevic has not sought to remove
> > any of the 25 ethnic communities from Yugoslavia.
>
> Doesn't Albanians in Kosovo and/or the muslims count????? Why
> LIE??
I should have been clear and stated that "prior to NATO's actions..."
The decision to remove all Albanians is not acceptable. They must be
permitted to return to their homes. Nothing NATO is doing is facilitating
this.
By far the most likely outcome now, regardless of the nonsense spouted by
Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, is the partition of Kosovo.
> > In case you have not noticed Macedonia is not part of Yugoslavia.
>
> ....not yet at least.
Not at all. Macedonia used to be part of Yugoslavia but they secceeded
peacefully. Macedonia is now an internationally recognised independant
state under the title "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or FYROM for
short. The FYRO part is there because Greece refused to allow the
recognition without it as the name Macedonia has specific importance to a
lot of people in the part of Greece bordering onto the country and Greece
did not want trouble.
> In fact YU is nowadays pretty well only
> Serbia. Montenegro is for all practica purposes is "annexed" to
> Serbia, as they have military control in Montenegro. There will
> be an attempt to drive the Albanians out of there too, IF slobo
> is allowed to carry on. The Nationalist fervor he has built up
> will not allow the Albanians to remain in YU.
The Montenegrans have consistently refused to support Slobodan Milosevic
yet they clearly assert their wish (even in the face of NATO pressure to
do otherwide) to remain part of Yugoslavia for now.
> > If those in Republica Srpska decide by referendum to secceed from Bosnia -
> > where they feel that they are ethnically discriminated against - would you
> > support their right to do so?
>
> You mean of the kind of "vote" as in Srebrenica, like who's got
> the most bullets?
No, I mean the kind of vote that is based on the ballot box. Now, as you
have chosen to comment on the question why don't you offer an answer?
> > > I wish this whole damn Kosovo war business was just a hallucination!
> >
> > So do we all but it is not. Every day NATO steps up it's campaign and now
> > the situation is so bad that the Pentagon is refusing to release
> > information on the targets we are striking as it has turned out to be true
> > that we are attacking civilian targets.
>
> The statement.. "that we are attacking civilian targets" I can
> only gather that you mean the unintend bombing of the refugee
> convoy and the accidental bombing of the train. I hope your
> remuneration is good as good as was for Lord Haw Haw in WW2 who
> also spread misinformation -they hanged him.
Oil refineries are a civilian target as are television on civil radio
stations and their broadcasting attenae. People's homes are civilian
targets.
Chemical factories are a civilian target, and are specifically banned as a
military target by the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions
of 1977 as such factories contain dangerous forces and are likely to cause
serious harm to civilians and the environment.
Given the extent to which the Pentagon is going to refuse access to any of
the available evidence surrounding the 2 incidents in which refugee
convoys were bombed by NATO fighters last week on Wednesday many of us are
wondering just how damning that evidence is of what is happening in the
skies over Kosovo. Reports that a UK Harrier pilot specifically warned off
the USAF pilot in one of those incidents adds to the worry that many of us
feel.
Please be aware that I am not blind to your rediculous attempts to try and
attack those of us who oppose NATO's illegal and ill considered war
against Yugoslavia by seeking to portray is a Lord Haw Haw type
characters.
You are quite wrong. We are, for the most part, concerned citizens of NATO
countries who cannot stand by and be silent while our government's destroy
the very basis for international peace and order that grew out of the
experiences of those who lived through WWII.
Dave Joll
>No, I am not kidding. We are dealing with Kosovo now. Bosnia is no longer
>the issue and has not been the issue for over 2 years.
The civilians of Srebrenica, murdered in cold blood by the Serbs,
are still dead. Bosnia very much *is* the issue and will remain
so until these murderers, now committing the same crimes in
Kosovo, are brought to justice.
Craig Harris
Jason Clifford <ja...@dlsl.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<Pine.LNX.4.10.990420...@gateway.ukpost.com>...
> On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
> > Hmmm, can't say I'm familiar enough with the rules, but this does
> > not sound correct. The UN Security council has a real problem in
> > that any nation on the council has a right to Veto any action.
> > This gets used very frequently and it is very hard to get
> > anything past the council because of it.
>
> The rules for the UN Security Council are quite simple and are detailed
> specifically in the UN Charter, which I have also published at
> http://www.kosovar.org/.
It's an excellent site. Great work
> Only 5 members of the UN Security Council can vetoe any vote. They are
the
> UK, the USA, France, China and Russia (taken over from the Soviet Union's
> vote). These are the permenent members of the Council
>
> The other 10 members of the council do not have such a vote. These
members
> serve on the Council for a 2 year period only (although 3 of them serve
> for only 1 year)
All non-permanents serve for 2 year periods. However, only five non-perms
are replaced every year (staggered elections). Five seats become vacant
each year (what seats they are depend on the geogrpahical groupings which
occupy them).
> For any Resolution to be adopted by the UN Security Council requires that
> at least 9 members support and vote for it including ALL of the 5
> permanent members of the Council.
Unless one of the permanent members abstains, which is neither a veto nor
an endorsement.
> The UN Charter specifically requires members of the UN Security Council
> who are direct parties to an issue before the Council to abstain from
> voting on that issue.
That's not strictly correct. The UN Charter only prevents parties to a
dispute who are SC members voting on matters before the Council which have
been raised under Chapter VI - Pacific Settlement of Disputes and Article
52 of the Charter.
I note that the copy of the defeated Russian resolution on your website
requested Council action under Chapters VII and VIII of the Charter.
Therefore all members were allowed to participate in the vote under the UN
Charter and all the votes counted.
That the vote went ahead indicates that it was, procedurally, in accordance
with the Charter.
AUSSTU
Jason Clifford wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Apr 1999, AUSSTU wrote:
>
> > The consistent and overwhelming testimony of the million plus Kosovo
> > refugees is proof enough that large scale attrocities are continuing.
>
> The number of refugees is about half of what you have claimed and their
> claims are not, generally, consistent. They are also, for the most part,
> third hand repeating of such claims rather than first hand accounts.
>
> > If you wait for the pictures and videotape evidence to come out it will
> > be too late as it was in World War II where naive people ignored
> > eyewitness testimony of German Concentration camps only to be horrified
> > when they saw the truth after it was too late.
>
> But jumping in too early and later finding that the claims were not true
> is just as bad.
>
> The simple fact is that prior to March 23rd when it became absolutely
> clear that NATO was to commence war within 24 hours upon Yugoslavia they
> had not been doing anything other than waging civil war against a
> seccessionist terror organisation.
You are one sorry hopeless individual if you do not believe large scale
attrocities are being committed in Kosovo. No don't think the 12 year old boy
who saw his parents killed and the 13 year old girl who told about their house
being bombed killing her brother are lying. I'm sorry I can't help give you a
brain to see these facts, are a heart to have compasion for the Kosovo
Albanians or the courage to speak up against Serb attrocities.
Perhaps you should go down the yellow brick and find the wizard of OZ to help
you. As long as their are people like you to make up the apologies, Dictators
like Milosovic will feel they can get away with their crimes against humanity.
You are guilty of aiding and abetting a war criminal.
Jason Clifford
> All non-permanents serve for 2 year periods. However, only five non-perms
> are replaced every year (staggered elections). Five seats become vacant
> each year (what seats they are depend on the geogrpahical groupings which
> occupy them).
<snip>
> That's not strictly correct. The UN Charter only prevents parties to a
> dispute who are SC members voting on matters before the Council which have
> been raised under Chapter VI - Pacific Settlement of Disputes and Article
> 52 of the Charter.
I stand corrected - thank you. I will update the relevant document on the
web site so as to correct it accordingly within the next 24 hours.
Again thanks for the correction. I am trying to ensure that the
information on the web site is correct so that informed debate can be
facilitated and I do not want to mis-represent any document on the site.
Again I would like to remind anyone reading this thread that many
documents relating to the Kosovo issue can be found at
http://www.kosovar.org/ and I welcome anyone who has a relevant document
or commentary to submit it. I will include it so long as it is relevant,
not demonstably false and does not incite violence or racial hatred.
Gary Dale
>The Nationalist fervor he has built up will not allow the Albanians to remain in YU.
So why has Labour MP Alice Mahon just come back from Belgrade saying she
spoke to voluntary 'human shields' on a bridge that included ordrinary
Serbs and....Albanians? And why has Serbia taken so many refugees from
Bosnia, if it was so hell-bent on an enthnically pure state? And why
did Bosnian Muslims under Fikret Abdic fight in alliance with Bosnian
Serbs against the Bosnian government, if this was all about the struggle
for an ethnically pure 'greater Serbia'? Or is it more that your are
talking out of your arse?
Gary Dale
>that any nation on the council has a right to Veto any action.
>This gets used very frequently and it is very hard to get
>anything past the council because of it.
Yeah, like the long history of the US rejecting the international
consensus behind a two-state settlement for Palestine and the special
protection if afforded Israel to carry out....erm....'ethnic cleansing'.
The only law the US follows and enforces is the law of the jungle, and
that is the only significant law Belgrade has broken. The rest is a
propaganda, a pile of BS or both. The UN is nice to rubber stamp US
foreign policy, when it suits, but insofar as it is not a US-subservient
body, it can be sidelined or deliberately rendered useless so it is
not a 'real problem' for the US at all.
Stephen Macdonald Luke
Hmmm. Very Star Wars.. So who are the legitimate owners of Kosova, and
why are the other claims not so strong? And why should the legitimate
authorities not repress insurrection and foreign invasion? If you know
who shot Bambi feel free to include that also.
Cliff Morrison
> You are guilty of aiding and abetting a war criminal.
How can that be, when NATO despite all their bombing still won't admit to
waging a war of aggression, let alone actually declare it? Where does
that, by your own stated criteria, put you with regard to the actions of
Clinton, Blair, NATO, KLA and the CIA? As an accessory to international
terrorism, perhaps?
Neil Gardner
Serbian television has been showing a video report from the Kosovo village
of Izbica, where Nato recently reported sighting a newly-dug mass grave.
The TV correspondent spoke to two local Kosovo-Albanians who denied that
there were any such graves, and one of whom angrily condemned the "lies" of
the American TV company, CNN.
The reporter said that the village was so small and remote that Nato had
deliberately picked it out for a false report, in the belief that no-one
would travel there to verify its claims.
The reporter argued that Nato's report of up to 150 graves did not tally
with the village's population of only 70 people.
The camera showed ploughed fields around the small village, set in rolling
hills, which were juxtaposed with aerial photos, which Nato had said showed
the new graves.
The reporter suggested the Nato photographs had been created using "computer
animation".
'Albanians return to Kosovo'
Refugees are fleeing Nato bombs, not Yugoslav soliders, says Tanjug
The TV has also been showing video of Kosovo-Albanian refugees who, it said,
have returned to their home villages in Kosovo's Podujevo region.
According to the Yugoslav state news agency, Tanjug, more than 20,000
refugees earlier "fled before the Nato bombs and in the face of
manipulations by the terrorists, carried out under orders of the
aggressors".
"Responding to the call of the authorities who guaranteed them safety, the
ethnic Albanians ... came in a column along the Pristina-Podujevo road."
Serbian TV and radio news bulletins on Tuesday were again dominated by
reports of overnight Nato air attacks, with footage of bomb blasts and
ruined buildings.
'TV under threat'
On Monday evening, the TV reported that it was itself again under threat of
Nato attack. It broadcast a news conference given by Federal Information
Minister Goran Matic to foreign and local journalists in which he appealed
to the outside world to safeguard the Serbian media.
"Radio and Television of Serbia [RTS] is being threatened today. They [Nato]
are threatening it because they think that the RTS has indoctrinated the
foreign press agency correspondents. You know very well that this is not
correct."
'Historic church damaged'
More condemnation of the Nato campaign
Tanjug also reported on Tuesday that Nato had dropped missiles in the
vicinity of a 16th Century monastery at Rakovica, in the suburbs of
Belgrade. The church with its collection of religious art was badly damaged.
"The cultural heritage of the Serbian people and of other peoples in
Yugoslavia, including monuments in Belgrade, has been irretrievably
threatened and destroyed in almost month-long bombardments," the agency said
in its English-language report.
Tuesday's visit of the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch
Aleksiy II, to Belgrade was widely reported.
Tanjug reported that Aleksiy had arrived in Belgrade to "demonstrate his
solidarity with the Serbian people and all Yugoslav peoples that share the
tragedy caused by Nato bombings".
Film director condemns Nato
The Nato campaign was condemned by well-known Yugoslav film director, Emir
Kusturica, in an interview published on Tuesday by the Bosnian Serb news
agency SRNA.
"My standpoint is clear. Serbian is my native language. I believe that
Yugoslavia should have been preserved through joint internal and external
efforts," Mr Kusturica said.
Nato's air attacks were a "great mistake and tragedy ... after which Europe
will not be the same".
Cartoons
Serbian TV has been showing anti-Nato cartoons in between its programmes.
One of these, in English, shows Yugoslavia as a vast cemetery with the words
"Bombs Liberate" written above the entrance gate in an echo of the "Labour
Liberates" sign above the gates to Nazi death camps. The cartoon is
accompanied by the words: "Nato's final solution - stop it".
The people acting as human shields on Serbia's bridges have been displaying
a new badge, in addition to the target sign.
This is a small red plastic heart with the initials "PVO", or anti-aircraft
defence, written on it. The heart flashes in the dark, as shown on a Serbian
TV report on Monday night.
Jason Clifford
> You are one sorry hopeless individual if you do not believe large scale
> attrocities are being committed in Kosovo. No don't think the 12 year old boy
> who saw his parents killed and the 13 year old girl who told about their house
> being bombed killing her brother are lying.
I have already stated that I do not deny that attrocities are being
carried out by both sides in Kosovo.
I have not seen the first hand reports your detail. Where are they
detailed?
> I'm sorry I can't help give you a
> brain to see these facts, are a heart to have compasion for the Kosovo
> Albanians or the courage to speak up against Serb attrocities.
I have compassion for the Kosovo Albanians which is one of the reasons I
have been condemning NATO leaders for going ahead with this war without
making any preparations to provide humanitarian assistance to the hundreds
of thousands of refugees we knew would be coming as a result.
Do try and remember that not one blanket or tent or other aid was sent for
12 days. As far as NATO is concerned the Kosovo Alabanians' suffereing is
irrelevant.
Had NATO not been intent upon war we could have had a peace agreement at
Rambouillet.
Larry Botkin
It's like trying to tell the people of Nazi Germany that Hitler was insane.
He was their Furher.
spaceghosts
>
> Nato's evidence: Created by computer, says Serb TV
>
> Serbian television has been showing a video report from the Kosovo village
> of Izbica, where Nato recently reported sighting a newly-dug mass grave.
> The TV correspondent spoke to two local Kosovo-Albanians who denied that
> there were any such graves, and one of whom angrily condemned the "lies" of
> the American TV company, CNN.
I'm afraid the "reportings" of Serbian TV don't carry much weight.
They run a political agenda, rather than a news agency prepared to
report what is the truth. This could be easily accomplished by
letting independent international news reporters investigate these
claims of "computer animation" etc.
Cliff Morrison
<lbo...@uswest.net> wrote:
> It all comes down to this...nobody believes anything the Serbs have to say.
Really?
But you do appear to believe all that Blair, Clinton, Albright and Cook
say... how trusting!
Or plain daft.
> It's like trying to tell the people of Nazi Germany that Hitler was insane.
> He was their Furher.
Afaics, the Serbians aren't sheep as you imply; indeed, it may well be
only NATO's aggression and hatred against all Serbians that has enabled
Milosevic to stay in power.
It is, however, the USUK war-groupies who seem to have lost whatever
critical ability they might once have had, and unquestioningly endorse the
excesses of their corrupt, megalomanic 'leaders'.
Cliff Morrison
You trust the big Western media to be objective, impartial and free of
political agenda?
ROFL!
Gary Dale
>I'm afraid the "reportings" of Serbian TV don't carry much weight.
>They run a political agenda,
Unlike NATO which is following an agenda from God himself.
>rather than a news agency prepared to
>report what is the truth. This could be easily accomplished by
>letting independent international news reporters investigate these
>claims of "computer animation" etc.
NATO have proved to be extremely cagey about giving out information;
and they have spewed out the most extraordinary garbage passing as
'fact' over the past 28 days.
spaceghosts
>
> >I'm afraid the "reportings" of Serbian TV don't carry much weight.
> >They run a political agenda,
> Unlike NATO which is following an agenda from God himself.
God? Sorry, don't believe in such things. But I get the point.
Serbian TV is not the equivalent of NATO. Well actually, it is,
you could say, but it shouldn't be. It promotes itself as a
news agency, but it doesn't seek to promote the truth, it seeks
to promote Milosevic. For this I can't trust anything they say.
I must have some other form of verification before I can believe
it.
> >rather than a news agency prepared to
> >report what is the truth. This could be easily accomplished by
> >letting independent international news reporters investigate these
> >claims of "computer animation" etc.
> NATO have proved to be extremely cagey about giving out information;
What do you expect? For them to broadcast their intentions so
Milosevic can have advanced warning? This serves no purpose apart
from giving Milosevic an upper-hand.
> and they have spewed out the most extraordinary garbage passing as
> 'fact' over the past 28 days.
Like what for example?
--
"Make the most you can of the Indian hemp seed and sow it everywhere."
- George Washington, 1794
spaceghosts
> > > Nato's evidence: Created by computer, says Serb TV
> > > Serbian television has been showing a video report from the Kosovo village
> > > of Izbica, where Nato recently reported sighting a newly-dug mass grave.
> > > The TV correspondent spoke to two local Kosovo-Albanians who denied that
> > > there were any such graves, and one of whom angrily condemned the "lies" of
> > > the American TV company, CNN.
> > I'm afraid the "reportings" of Serbian TV don't carry much weight.
> > They run a political agenda, rather than a news agency prepared to
> > report what is the truth. This could be easily accomplished by
> > letting independent international news reporters investigate these
> > claims of "computer animation" etc.
> You trust the big Western media to be objective, impartial and free of
> political agenda?
> ROFL!
Sure, to an extent. There are always incidents of bias among
journalists.
But I trust my intelligence to pick it up, because it is always obvious
if
you have half a brain. I see no evidence of any mass conspiracy among
"Western Media". For example, Fox News and CNN are competitors. Yet,
they
report basically the same stuff. If at least one of them was producing
intentionally false reports, wouldn't there be a large incentive for the
other agency to report this and thus receive more viewers because they
would gain the trust of the public for telling the truth. Any so-called
"Business Interests" by advertisers would be far outweighed by the
public
interest. They need the public for their primary purpose which is
advertising
their product.
spaceghosts
> > It's like trying to tell the people of Nazi Germany that Hitler was insane.
> > He was their Furher.
> Afaics, the Serbians aren't sheep as you imply; indeed, it may well be
> only NATO's aggression and hatred against all Serbians that has enabled
> Milosevic to stay in power.
I think the situation of the Albanians is far more important than
Milosevic's hold on power in Yugoslavia. Just sitting back and
doing nothing isn't going to get him to stop commiting a brutal
assault on the Albanian public in Kosovo. I personally don't see
Air-power alone as an answer to gettin him to stop either. IMO
I think the US should go full-fledged into a ground campaign.
If they were committed - no half ass job - they would suceed
very comfortably. But the American public would have to prepared
to accept loses, cause there will be loses.
Marc Living
<apa...@wave.co.nz> made the following submissions:
>Neil Gardner wrote:
>> Nato's evidence: Created by computer, says Serb TV
>> Serbian television has been showing a video report from the Kosovo village
>> of Izbica, where Nato recently reported sighting a newly-dug mass grave.
>> The TV correspondent spoke to two local Kosovo-Albanians who denied that
>> there were any such graves, and one of whom angrily condemned the "lies" of
>> the American TV company, CNN.
>I'm afraid the "reportings" of Serbian TV don't carry much weight.
>They run a political agenda, rather than a news agency prepared to
>report what is the truth. This could be easily accomplished by
>letting independent international news reporters investigate these
>claims of "computer animation" etc.
How could Yugoslavia do that? The film is in the possession of NATO -
not Serbia. NATO would have to be willing to release it to independent
agencies.
If you mean that news reporters should be allowed into the area to
check for graves, that really wouldn't establish the truth one way of
the other - since, if none are discovered, it will simply be alleged
that the bodies have been moved.
--
Marc Living (remove "BOUNCEBACK" to reply)
***********************************************
A freeman shall not be amerced for a small fault,
but after the manner of the fault, and for a
great fault after the greatness thereof.
************************************************
Jason Clifford
> I'm afraid the "reportings" of Serbian TV don't carry much weight.
Generally I would agree that Yugoslavian TV should not be trusted but an
interesting comment was made on Sky News this afternoon that the
Yugoslavian TV has been remarkably honest and frank about what is
happening an every single attrocity they have accused NATO of has turned
out to be true even though NATO initially made absolute denials of them.
> They run a political agenda, rather than a news agency prepared to
> report what is the truth. This could be easily accomplished by
> letting independent international news reporters investigate these
> claims of "computer animation" etc.
The claims of "computer animation" and touching up photos (which is
actually a reasonably standard proceedure used to highlight a particular
aspect you want others to notice) are that NATO is doing this.
Have you noticed NATO offering the media free access to run such an
investigation? Of course not. Military intelligence (please no jokes) is
protected from public scruteny under the Official Secrets Act in the UK
and similar legislation in other countries.
Jason Clifford
> It all comes down to this...nobody believes anything the Serbs have to say.
Just as "nobody" believed when they claimed we had bombed Aleksinac? The
Red Cross went there and discovered the truth. They had to send in 1000
matresses and 5000 blankets as well as other necessities for those whose
homes had been destroyed (http://www.icrc.org/). NATO then admitted that
we had caused some damage to Aleksinac.
Just as "nobody" believed when they claimed that we had bombed a civilian
train on a bridge hitting it twice which NATO denied and then had to admit
to? Yes, as stated by the military advisor on Sky News, the first missile
is excusable perhaps but NOT the second one.
Just as "nobody" believed when they claimed that NATO bombs had hit
civilian housing in Pristina and NATO absolutely denied the claim? It then
turned out that our bombs had indeed hit those homes and even western
journalists were able to verify this.
Just as "nobody" believed when they claimed that NATO had bombed two
refugee convoys to which NATO claimed that the Yugoslavian air force had
somehow managed to get planes in the air and bomb them? What a surprise!
We now admit that we did bomb the refugees although the Pentagon is
seeking to deny it and wont release the cockpit video evidence.
I suppose "nobody" beleives that we are bombing chemical plants and other
sites containing "dangerous forces" in direct violation of the Geneva
Conventions and no one believes that we are targetting other civilian
targets now?
The military expert on Sky News made the comment that RTS (Serb TV and
Radio) has been remarkably honest about what is happening while NATO has
consistently lied and been caught lying.
dinerbass
>But I trust my intelligence to pick it up, because it is always obvious
>if
>you have half a brain. I see no evidence of any mass conspiracy among
>"Western Media". For example, Fox News and CNN are competitors. Yet,
>they
>report basically the same stuff.
Be careful whom you accuse of being cerebrally challenged, particularly when
you make judgements without actually collecting the facts first.
Journalists are often very uncritical, they 'go with the flow', the flow of
outrage. Outrage is now a weapon of war, and the best manipulators of
outrage stand to gain much - independence, for example.
Here's how outrage-management helped some sides and not others in the
Bosnian War.
( The International Action Center's : www.iacenter.org)
THE BOSNIAN TRAGEDY by Sara Flounders, International Action Center, 1995
This extract is part of the forthcoming book, NATO in the Balkans: Voices in
Opposition
Casting the Serbs as fascists
How did the Serbs come to be viewed as fascists in this developing conflict?
This characterization has now become an accepted fact, an issue beyond
debate. It makes U.S. motives seem unimpeachable and on the side of good
against evil. An April 1993 interview by Jacques Merlino, associate director
of French TV 2, with James Harff, director of Ruder Finn Global Public
Affairs, a Washington, D.C.-based public relations firm, explains the role
of the corporate media in shaping a political issue.
Harff bragged of his services to his clients, the Republic of Croatia, the
Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the parliamentary opposition in Kosovo,
an autonomous region of Serbia. Merlino described how Harff uses a file of
several hundred journalists, politicians, representatives of humanitarian
associations, and academics to create public opinion.
Harff explained: "Speed is vital ... it is the first assertion that really
counts. All denials are entirely ineffective." In the interview, Merlino
asked Harff what his proudest public relations endeavor was.
Harff responded: "To have managed to put Jewish opinion on our side. This
was a sensitive matter, as the dossier was dangerous looked at from this
angle. President Tudjman was very careless in his book, ‘Wastelands of
Historical Reality.’ Reading his writings one could accuse him of
anti-Semitism. [Tudjman claimed the Holocaust never happened—S.F.] In Bosnia
the situation was no better: President Izetbegovic strongly supported the
creation of a fundamentalist Islamic state in his book, ‘The Islamic
Declaration.’
"Besides, the Croatian and Bosnian past was marked by real and cruel
anti-Semitism. Tens of thousands of Jews perished in Croatian camps, so
there was every reason for intellectuals and Jewish organizations to be
hostile toward the Croats and the Bosnians. Our challenge was to reverse
this attitude and we succeeded masterfully.
"At the beginning of July 1992, New York Newsday came out with the article
on Serb camps. We jumped at the opportunity immediately. We outwitted three
big Jewish organizations—the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation League, The
American Jewish Committee and the American Jewish Congress. In August, we
suggested that they publish an advertisement in the New York Times and
organize demonstrations outside the United Nations.
"That was a tremendous coup. When the Jewish organizations entered the game
on the side of the [Muslim] Bosnians we could promptly equate the Serbs with
the Nazis in the public mind. Nobody understood what was happening in
Yugoslavia. The great majority of Americans were probably asking themselves
in which African country Bosnia was situated. "By a single move, we were
able to present a simple story of good guys and bad guys which would
hereafter play itself. We won by targeting the Jewish audience. Almost
immediately there was a clear change of language in the press, with use of
words with high emotional content such as ethnic cleansing, concentration
camps, etc., which evoke images of Nazi Germany and the gas chambers of
Auschwitz. No one could go against it without being accused of revisionism.
We really batted a thousand in full."
Merlino: "But between 2 and 5 Aug. 1992 when you did this you had no proof
that what you said was true. All you had were two Newsday articles." Harff:
"Our work is not to verify information. We are not equipped for that. Our
work is to accelerate the circulation of information favorable to us, to aim
at judiciously chosen targets. We did not confirm the existence of death
camps in Bosnia, we just made it widely known that Newsday affirmed it. ...
We are professionals. We had a job to do and we did it. We are not paid to
moralize."
>Sure, to an extent. There are always incidents of bias among
>journalists.
>But I trust my intelligence to pick it up, because it is always obvious
>if
>you have half a brain. I see no evidence of any mass conspiracy among
>"Western Media". For example, Fox News and CNN are competitors. Yet,
>they
>report basically the same stuff. If at least one of them was producing
>intentionally false reports, wouldn't there be a large incentive for the
>other agency to report this and thus receive more viewers because they
>would gain the trust of the public for telling the truth. Any so-called
>"Business Interests" by advertisers would be far outweighed by the
>public
>interest. They need the public for their primary purpose which is
>advertising
>their product.
>
-
>"Make the most you can of the Indian hemp seed and sow it everywhere."
> - George Washington, 1794
What was the thing he said about seperating male & femalie plants?
Gary Dale
ml>check for graves, that really wouldn't establish the truth one way of
ml>the other - since, if none are discovered, it will simply be alleged
ml>that the bodies have been moved.
You underestimate the inventiveness of the Western media.
Gary Dale
> It's like trying to tell the people of Nazi Germany that Hitler was insane.
> He was their Furher.
New Labour and Clinton have their own coterie of sycophants and Lewinsky
wannabes - though to be fair it is a narrow circle.
What's striking is the contempt for demoracy and debate behind the ultra-
narrow, know-nothing New Labour consensus. You'd think that bombing a country
was some sort of trivial decision, well below, say, having a Welsh parliament
or other non-issues which are debated ad nauseaum. Instead it is just presented
as a fait accompli, and the government demonstrates contempt for parliament,
never mind the people. Watching Donald Dewer challenged on this, he just
ignored the issue and tried to bury it in a avalance of moral rhetoric
about rape. And when someone like Alex Salmond makes the meekest of
criticism, he is treated as a blasphemer and squashed with a fundamentalists
intolerance worthy of the Dark Ages.
Blair's crusade is a Jihad, and as such he is accountable to no-one because
he takes instructions from God Himself.
spaceghosts
>
> On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, spaceghosts wrote:
>
> > I'm afraid the "reportings" of Serbian TV don't carry much weight.
>
> Generally I would agree that Yugoslavian TV should not be trusted but an
> interesting comment was made on Sky News this afternoon that the
> Yugoslavian TV has been remarkably honest and frank about what is
> happening an every single attrocity they have accused NATO of has turned
> out to be true even though NATO initially made absolute denials of them.
Interesting yes, though the way in which they present them is
questionable.
Though there could be some basis of truth in those reports, though
totally
wasted with stockpiles of propaganda stacked on top.
> > They run a political agenda, rather than a news agency prepared to
> > report what is the truth. This could be easily accomplished by
> > letting independent international news reporters investigate these
> > claims of "computer animation" etc.
> The claims of "computer animation" and touching up photos (which is
> actually a reasonably standard proceedure used to highlight a particular
> aspect you want others to notice) are that NATO is doing this.
> Have you noticed NATO offering the media free access to run such an
> investigation? Of course not. Military intelligence (please no jokes) is
> protected from public scruteny under the Official Secrets Act in the UK
> and similar legislation in other countries.
Indeed. However this so-called Evidence can only be taken as their
word until it can be verified, I accept that. The point is that NATO
hasn't shown to be non-trust-worthy. Civilian destruction and the like
isn't so-called "Military Intelligence" IMO.
--
spaceghosts
> > It all comes down to this...nobody believes anything the Serbs have to say.
> Just as "nobody" believed when they claimed that we had bombed a civilian
> train on a bridge hitting it twice which NATO denied and then had to admit
> to? Yes, as stated by the military advisor on Sky News, the first missile
> is excusable perhaps but NOT the second one.
When are people going to realise this is a war. Innocent people are
going to suffer. Sad but true.
Cliff Morrison
> When are people going to realise this is a war. Innocent people are
> going to suffer. Sad but true.
That is also Blair's intention in Britain.
He does not seem at all sad about it though.
Jason Clifford
> > > It all comes down to this...nobody believes anything the Serbs have to say.
> > Just as "nobody" believed when they claimed that we had bombed a civilian
> > train on a bridge hitting it twice which NATO denied and then had to admit
> > to? Yes, as stated by the military advisor on Sky News, the first missile
> > is excusable perhaps but NOT the second one.
>
> When are people going to realise this is a war. Innocent people are
> going to suffer. Sad but true.
I realise that very clearly. I also realise that this is the truth about
the 200,000 refugees who were suffering during the civil war in Kosovo
between the KLA and the Yugoslavians.
Jason Clifford
> > Generally I would agree that Yugoslavian TV should not be trusted but an
> > interesting comment was made on Sky News this afternoon that the
> > Yugoslavian TV has been remarkably honest and frank about what is
> > happening an every single attrocity they have accused NATO of has turned
> > out to be true even though NATO initially made absolute denials of them.
>
> Interesting yes, though the way in which they present them is
> questionable.
> Though there could be some basis of truth in those reports, though
> totally wasted with stockpiles of propaganda stacked on top.
Does that detract from the reality that every single attrocity that
Yugoslavian state TV has accused NATO of has turned out to be completely
true?
They have made false claims regarding their own "victories" but have been
remarkably direct and honest about their losses as well.
All in all, their TV has shown our leaders to be liars which I find very
worrying.
> > The claims of "computer animation" and touching up photos (which is
> > actually a reasonably standard proceedure used to highlight a particular
> > aspect you want others to notice) are that NATO is doing this.
> > Have you noticed NATO offering the media free access to run such an
> > investigation? Of course not. Military intelligence (please no jokes) is
> > protected from public scruteny under the Official Secrets Act in the UK
> > and similar legislation in other countries.
>
> Indeed. However this so-called Evidence can only be taken as their
> word until it can be verified, I accept that. The point is that NATO
> hasn't shown to be non-trust-worthy. Civilian destruction and the like
> isn't so-called "Military Intelligence" IMO.
NATO has repeatedly lied in issuing absolute denials of the attrocities we
have been accused of by the Yugoslavians. NATO has repeatedly made false
accusations - genocide, systematic separation of all young men, executions
of all Kosovo Albanian leaders, that Rugova did not meet with Yugoslavian
government officials as he is dead, etc.
I am afraid that I cannot consider NATO - or the political leaders of the
UK, US or Germany - to be at all trustworthy given their immediate record
of lying, mis-representation and blatent statements designed to stir up
racial hatred against the Serbs.
Civilian destruction is most certainly not a valid subject for the
exercise of the powers afforded by the Official Secrets Act, and similar
legislation in other NATO countries. You are absolutely right about that.
Do you not find it of great concern, given this fact, that the evidence
surrounding our attacking 2 refugee convoys in Kosovo last week is still
being withheld under the protection afforded the military in the US by
such legislation?
Now NATO has acted to ensure that no further such news can be broadcast
within Yugoslavia thus making it immensly more difficult to obtain reports
of such attacks against civilian targets - a practice we have just
escalated in further direct violation of international law including the
Geneva Conventions.