Those Bloody Liberals
Cosmic Gnome
historical moment as the development of capitalism, the rise of European
colonialism, the Atlantic slave trade and race 'science'. Liberalism was
always implicated in these processes, from Locke to Tocqueville. US liberals
of the Progressive era were generally explicit imperialists and white
supremacists, none less than the paladin of 'liberal internationalism',
Woodrow Wilson. What you refer to as the "bombing Left" is part of the same
history. Large parts of the developing left and labour movements in the 19th
Century partook of the colonial triumphalism and associated doctrines such
as 'social Darwinism'. The regnant view was that much of the human race was
bound for extinction if it wasn't possible to civilize them. Thus Karl
Kautsky argued in 1882 that: "In so far as they cannot be assimilated by
modern culture, the wild peoples will have to disappear from the surface of
the earth."
Left-wing apologists for imperialism also borrowed a chauvinistic version of
humanitarianism from the liberals, namely the idea that - as Eduard
Bernstein put it - the "savages" under colonial rule were "without exception
better off than they were before". The Fabians similarly believed that
self-rule was as useless to non-white people as "a dynamo to a Caribbean"
and that for their own benefit it was necessary to impose the "grandmotherly
tyranny" of colonialism. Labour's 1919 manifesto, radical in so many other
ways, continued to enjoin Britain's duty to the "non-adult races". The
Russian Revolution, and ensuing national liberation struggles often fought
under the impress of some kind of marxism, put those explicitly advocating
empire on the back foot: they had to change the terms of their argument, and
they did so with reference to the exigencies of containing communism. Even
then, the racial and colonial aspects of American dominance took a while to
be suppressed. The USSR was itself considered an "oriental despotism"
resulting, according to George F Kennan, from "a century-long contact with
the Asiatic hordes" whose effects had only been concealed by the
"Westernised upper crust of the Tsarist elite". Of especial concern was the
commie attempt to weaken the power of Western states in colonised nations,
which produced a fear of "premature independence" for those not yet
adequately schooled in the arts of government by whitey, who might prove
easy meat for the Muscovite menace.
What we have seen since 1990 is the restoration of formerly discredited
paternalistic pleas for empire. Michael Ignatieff, who really made his name
in this era, has been the most forthright about the consequences of
'humanitarian interventionism': postcolonial independence has been a
failure, peoples without large repressive states to keep them in check are
liable to slaughter one another, and America should fully assume the burdens
of empire. David Rieff, resiling in horror at this development, described
how the humanitarian intervention that he had championed had allowed "the
rebirth of imperialism, with human rights as its moral warrant".
I am reluctant to concede that they, the pro-war liberals, were actually on
the Left, or that their judgment on Iraq was consistent with being on the
Left. However, their stance was a logical result of their support for
Clintonite 'humanitarian intervention'. They didn't all foreground WMD, as
Bush did, but rather the humanitarian capacity in which American soldiers
would purportedly be acting. Christopher Hitchens prophesied that, following
a few surgical strikes, "a massive landing will bring food, medicine and
laptop computers to a surging crowd of thankful and relieved Iraqis and
Kurds". There would be no war, so "bring it on". This was the mirage that
liberals had been chasing throughout the 1990s as they demanded armed
intervention into Somalia, Rwanda and Yugoslavia.
What was new was the Islamophobic undertones, which ensured that once the
war degenerated into the bloodbath that it did, a minority could continue to
defend it on the grounds that the carnage only proved how wicked and
ungrateful the enemy was.
It is strategically sensible for the liberal belligerati to focus on this
issue and try to make the antiwar movement out to be 'the enemy within', in
bed with the enemies of "Western values". But it is by no means sensible for
us to take their accusations as the starting point for a discussion. For
example, this word 'associating' has quite a nebulous meaning here. I might
'associate' with Islamophobic liberals in defending the right to abortion,
but does that involve a compromise on my part?
My attitude is that a broad political campaign like the antiwar movement has
to include everyone who opposes the war on whatever grounds, provided they
aren't outright fascists. Incidentally, if your goal was to win people away
from homophobic or misogynistic ideas, you'd stand a greater chance of
having that argument by working alongside them on issues that you agree with
them on than by just shunning and denouncing them. This is not a
particularly controversial point when one is 'associating' with Christian
groups in anti-debt campaigns, even where it is certain that a great number
of them are homophobes and committed patriarchs. Moreover, it is impossible
to take such strictures seriously from those who have aligned themselves
with mass murderers.
I fear this argument ultimately isn't about 'Faith'. It is one of the
endless variations of the 'integration' and 'values' discussion that
resulted from colonialism and subsequent immigration from formerly colonial
societies. It is now taking place in a context of renewed imperialist
aggression in which the idea that Muslims are weird and damaged people,
neo-barbarians, is an important part of the justification for imperialist
violence. For example, when the celebrated atheist writer Sam Harris can say
of Islam that "the basic thrust of the doctrine is undeniable: convert,
subjugate, or kill unbelievers; kill apostates; and conquer the world", and
argue that fascists have the most sensible view of the threat that Islam
poses to Europe, the role this has in justifying the 'war on terror' is
obvious. He even goes farther, arguing that torture should be acceptable
against such foes, constituting nothing more than "collateral damage". That
such a despicable man is so widely appreciated, especially by the liberal
hawks, says a great deal about what the obsession with 'Faith' is all about.
The Islamophobes in practise advocate an increasing encroachment by the
state on matters of value, on conceptions of the good, and so on. That is
not secular. Thus, while formally 'secular' concerns are presented about
faith schools, or religious clothing, there is no doubt that what motivates
them is the sudden discernment of a supposed threat to something called
'British values' or 'Western values' by Islam, and the desire for the state
to thwart the threat. The result, which is that Muslims are singled out for
opprobrium and suspicion, has nothing to do with secularism: it is its
reverse. It is therefore not only possible to oppose this logic and remain
secular - to be truly secular, it is *necessary* to oppose such logic.
Further, the claim to Enightenment, rationality and open-mindedness made by
the soi-disant seculars is hard to sustain in light of the Spenglerian
mysticism that they indulge in, with their insistence on the idea of
"Western values". Historically, "Western" has been a synonym for "white",
and so it largely remains. The idea that a coherent set of values can be
adduced as the specific intellectual and moral property of the descendants
of northwestern Europeans is not merely unsustainable: it is racist.
Secular liberals really shouldn't find it a challenge to defend Muslims from
ascriptive humiliation, but the discourse of the 'war on terror' has utterly
deranged their perceptions.
kelpzoidzl
Religous freedom and freedom of thought is where it is at. People
have to act civilized to be part of of that kind of "civilization."
They have to AGREE with freedom of religion and not proclaim the goal
of the over-throw of all other religions and world supremacy, such as
with the Japanse Shinto Military government prior to and during WW2.
Everyone tried to appease them and talk to them like they were
civilized, but that was all ignored. They were willing to die for
their ideology--even commit suicide for it.
Normal Japanese had little ability to protest, They were overwhelmed
by shows of force and their media brainwashed people.
dc
stale...@gmail.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_USBCLoqzU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK9kq0UMDdY
heheh which is which!!! ahh!!! confusion!!! help!!!!
:)
kelpzoidzl
>
> heheh which is which!!! ahh!!! confusion!!! help!!!!
>
This is bizzarely hilarious. "You will convert if you will see these
images."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FwREz324Ko&feature=related
dc
Cosmic Gnome
"kelpzoidzl" <kelpz...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:62b5bf7a-35ea-44d1...@b34g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
"Religous freedom and freedom of thought is where it is at."
The problem is that there are inherent contradictions in this statement,
glaring ambiguities. First we need to recognize that, in practice, religions
over the past two thousand years have been systematically instrumental in
shutting down freedom and censoring thought. I'm talking about religion as a
set of social phenomena pertaining to institutions, bodies, groupings, and
how they function in the social field, whereas you appear to be talking
about religion in terms of various 'benign' doctrines. To my thinking, the
sociological trumps the doctrinal. If it can't be shown that the doctrinal
plays a statistically significant role in these social groupings, I'm not
sure why it should be considered at all in these discussions as here we're
turning the world on its head treating ideas as being more real than the
social relations they reflect. The doctrinal is potentially powerful in
producing change, but only if it proliferates throughout actually existing
populations. Given that it's actually existing populations that I'm
interested in, their distribution of power and organization, the doctrinal
is largely beside the point.
In other words, the problem with empty appeals to 'freedom of religion'
confuses the discussion by setting up a binary between secularism and
religious thought by placing all the revolutionary power on the side of
religious thought and portraying secularism as a defender of the status quo.
I think that's a supreme distortion of the sociological reality of how
religion actually functions in a country like, for example, the United
States, where it is associated with the most reactionary forces [including
neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism]. Moreover, when I look at the major
emancipatory movements of the last couple of decades, they are not coming
from the religious but from predominantly secular sources. A certain form of
religion could potentially become emancipatory (and in certain oppressive
contexts sometimes does), but so far as I can tell this potentiality remains
largely a potentiality in thought not the actuality of practice of large
organized blocks of ordinary people out there in the streets.
Such an approach, then, completely distorts the nature of actually existing
social relations. Far from giving up anything like a radically emancipatory
politics, the elevation of Faith (over Reason), at least as it has
functioned in the United States, has been a primary element in our
infrastructure standing in the way of any sort of emancipation and
continuously functioning as an apologetics for the status quo and the
dominant forms of capitalist power. There's simply no way around this. The
voting statistics don't lie. By contrast, when we look at the last three
hundred years of human history no force has been greater in producing
emancipation and the transformation of society than reason and secularism.
The effect of such a misleading focus on 'freedom of religion' is that it
sidelines how a certain dimension of religious practice as an institution
becomes veiled. It falsely posits religion as radically emancipatory,
defending it against reason, veiling the highly oppressive nature of
mainstream religion. As such, it places a fantasy version of religion- one
that has no real political potency in the present but which could in the
future - in place of the actuality of religion.
"They have to AGREE with freedom of religion and not proclaim the goal
of the over-throw of all other religions and world supremacy, such as ..."
Such as Western imperialism over the past few hundred years, which the
original post above makes clear.
Cosmic Gnome
production companies after birds of prey - Hawk Films, Peregrine Films,
Eagle Films, etc. Something to do with the Machiavellian machinations of
Hollywood deal-making and its odious, merciless politics, or just an
innocent love of predatory birds? [And speaking of the slimeball vermin that
now runs Hollywood, in a recent interview film-maker Neil Jordan reports of
an unpleasant phone conversation he recently had with one such slimeball who
sidelined Jordan from a project: "We've decided to go for someone younger",
Jordan then asking, "Are you EVEN ALLOWED to say such an offensive thing?".
Assassinate all fucking Hollywood executives! Immediately!].
Something otherwise to do with the relation between imperialism and the
predatory ("The Eagle Has Landed", etc), which I was reminded of when
noticing the following on my cyberspace travels: today's school students
being asked to discuss the similarities and differences between these two
poems:
The Eagle
He clasps the crag with crooked hands;
Close to the sun in lonely lands,
Ringed with the azure world, he stands.
The wrinkled sea beneath him crawls;
He watches from his mountain walls,
And like a thunderbolt he falls.
-----Alfred Lord Tennyson (1809-1892)
eagle
eagle
majestic appearance
power of flight,
king of birds
since ancient times symbol
of strength and courage
Sumerians 5000 years ago
Imperial Rome
America
but a killer
a dive bomber
with laser sights
that always hits its target
---Malcolm George (1950-)
(Sumerians = ancient inhabitants of the Tigris-Euphrates valley)
Well! Explain the sequence "Sumerians 5000 years ago / Imperial Rome /
America". Explain the significance of "the Tigris-Euphrates valley". Explain
about laser-targeted bombs, who used them and where. Correlate this with the
"thunderbolt", weapon of Zeus. Explain how the second poem's linking of the
symbol of Empire with its strike capacity relates to the first, written by
the laureate of a self-proclaimed Empress...
[No wonder the (imperialist) Apollo Program came to such an abrupt end in
the early 1970s: not much empire-predatory 'excitement' about a bunch of
grey-boring moon rocks, is there? But if there had been some Ruuskies up
there, or some Mooozlims, or, as FMJ's Sgt Hartman would claim, "I bet you'd
climb that obstacle if there was some pussy up there!"]
"Cosmic Gnome" <hundredmill...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:gv6pdq$16b$1...@news.doubleSlash.org...
kelpzoidzl
<hundredmillionlifeti...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> "kelpzoidzl" <kelpzoi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
IMO you are being a sucker apologist for victim mentality on a
personal level, and more broadly your argument is the very heart of
nerd-politico appeasement thinking.
You've twisted freedom of religion and freedom of thought and morphed
it into an argument for "US Imperialism" nonsense.
There are a lot of traitors in Europe, destroying their own countries
by appeasing the fanatics,
A "religion" in order to be part of civilized society can't be one of
those intent on militant world domination. You can pretend they are
all just the victim of US imperialism, but you are being suckered.
You think they give a hoot about marxists who pretend to be their
friend? They are equal opportunity Freedom of Thought crushers, and
you are buying right into the appeasement.
Good luck on that,
dc
kelpzoidzl
be just another defense of appeasement, based on naivete.
You'd be calling people Shintophobes.
dc
kelpzoidzl
By our act of Assembly of 1705, c. 30, ...........if a person brought
up in the Christian religion denies the being of a God, or the
Trinity, or asserts that there are more gods than one, or denies the
Christian religion to be true, or the Scriptures to be of divine
authority, he is punishable on the first offence by incapacity to hold
any office or employment, ecclesiastical, civil, or military; on the
second, by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy to be
guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years'
imprisonment, without bail. A father's right to the custody of his own
children being founded in law on his right of guardianship, this being
taken away, they may, of course, be severed from him, and put by the
authority of a court, into more orthodox hands. This is a summary view
of that religious slavery under which a people have been willing to
remain, who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the
establishment of their civil freedom. The error seems not sufficiently
eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of
the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws.
But our rulers can have no authority over such natural rights, only
as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never
submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God.
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are
injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say
there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor
breaks my legs. If it be said, his testimony in a court cannot be
relied on, reject it then, and be the stigma on him. Constraint may
make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a
truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure
them.
-------Thomas Jefferson
A BILL FOR ESTABLISHING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Section I.
Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own
will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds;
that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested His
supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether
insusceptible of restraint: that all attempts to influence it by
temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend
only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure
from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both
of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on
either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to exalt it by its
influence on reason alone: that the impious presumption of legislature
and ruler, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but
fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of
others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the
only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on
others, hath established and maintained false religions over the
greatest part of the world, and through all time: That to compel a man
to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions
which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical; that even
the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious
persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his
contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his
pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness;
and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which,
proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an
additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the
instruction of mankind, that our civil rights have no dependence on
our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or
geometry; and therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the
public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to
office of trust or emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or
that religious opinion, is depriving him injudiciously of those
privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow
citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the
principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing
with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will
externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are
criminals who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those
innocent who lay the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are
not the object of civil government nor under its jurisdiction; that to
suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of
opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles
on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at
once destroys all religious liberty, because, he being of course judge
of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and
approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square
with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful
purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when
principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and
finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that
she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing
to fear from the conflict unless, by human interposition, disarmed of
her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be
dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:
Sect. II.
We, the General Assembly of Virginia, do enact that no man shall be
compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or
ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or
burthened in his body or goods, or shall otherwise suffer on account
of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to
profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of
religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or
affect their civil capacities.
Sect. III.
And though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for
the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain
the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to
our own, and that, therefore, to declare this act to be irrevocable
would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do
declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of
mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the
present or to narrow its operations, such act will be an infringement
of natural right. --
----------Thomas Jefferson.
Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests of
society require the observation of those moral precepts only in which
all religions agree (for all forbid us to steal, murder, plunder, or
bear false witness), and that we should not intermeddle with the
particular dogmas in which all religions differ, and which are totally
unconnected with morality. In all of them we see good men, and as many
in one as another. The varieties in the structure and action of the
human mind as in those of the body, are the work of our Creator,
against which it cannot be a religious duty to erect the standard of
uniformity. The practice of morality being necessary for the well-
being of society, he has taken care to impress its percepts so
indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the
subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral
precepts of Jesus, and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater
purity than in His discourses. It is, then, a matter of principle with
me to avoid disturbing the tranquillity of others by the expression of
any opinion on the innocent questions on which we schismatize.
---------Thomas Jefferson
kelpzoidzl
some laws for its regulation. Time and place of meeting; admitting and
excluding members, &c., must be regulated. But as it was a spontaneous
joining of members, it follows that its laws extend to its own members
only, not to those of any other voluntary society; for then, by the
same rule, some other voluntary society might usurp power over them.
.........
No man shall be compelled to frequent, or support, any religious
worship, place, or ministry, whatsoever; nor shall be enforced,
restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, or shall
otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but
all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their
opinion in matters of religion, and the same shall in no wise
diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
-----------Thomas Jefferson
Can the fanatics agree to this?
Will they modify the belief in certain parts of their sacred texts?
The Jews did it. They modified their beliefs.
Hindus did it, Buddhists did it. Christians did it.
Later Shintoists did it.
Can they?
dc
stale...@gmail.com
> Can the fanatics agree to this?
>
> Will they modify the belief in certain parts of their sacred texts?
>
> The Jews did it. They modified their beliefs.
When did the Jews do it? what do you mean?
Cosmic Gnome
I'm not interested in "opinions", much less in your abusive and frankly
psychopathic ad hominems, which place you to the right of the US Christian
fundamentalist right.
"You've twisted freedom of religion and freedom of thought and morphed
it into an argument for "US Imperialism" nonsense."
No, I've employed reason and argument (alien notions in your hysterical
drooling) to demonstrate how religion in practice is used to shut down both
freedom and thought (where have you been for the past 8 years of Bush Admin
dementia and brutality? Oh, I forgot, you were an active supporter).
Imperialism has always relied on religious tropes, in particular, "Christian
Values" ('western values'), to justify its foreign plunder and slaughter.
Didn't Sgt Hartman teach you all about the Virgin Mary at Bootcamp?
[MP has already linked to a report which starkly reveals how "Christian
Values" were daily invoked by the Bush Admin to justify its continuing war
crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1184546/Donald-Rumsfelds-holy-war-How-President-Bushs-Iraq-briefings-came-quotes-Bible.html]
"There are a lot of traitors in Europe, destroying their own countries
by appeasing the fanatics,"
You mean, by appeasing fascist lunatics like you.
You don't even know what religion is.
stale...@gmail.com
Never mind, I'm not interested.
kelpzoidzl
A number of old, primitive Hebrew Laws mentioned in the bible are not
practiced. Stoning rules etc.
dc
kelpzoidzl
>
> "There are a lot of traitors in Europe, destroying their own countries
> by appeasing the fanatics,"
>
> You mean, by appeasing fascist lunatics like you.
>
> You don't even know what religion is.
There is no merit whatseover in your argument. Spinning me as a far
right is wacky.
A questionable article about George Bush painted as a fanatic
christian out for Holy War is wacky.
You are just in super-denial.
dc
kelpzoidzl
> On May 24, 10:31 am, "Cosmic Gnome"
>
>
> > Values"
BTW Paul Thompsen, the author of the article MP posted, is a "citizen
journalist" who is a main player in the "9/11 was an Inside Job
conspiracy theory." In other words a mentally ill, obsessed person.
Get it?
If anyone seriously beliefs 911 was an inside job, they need some
serious table tie down and perhaps some waterboarding.
dc
kelpzoidzl
I enjoy a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but srsly.
This "Booooshe did 911" insanity is really too much.
When people believe this, It's a symptom of a larger karmic problem
that person has.
dc
Some recommendations for a Happy Life
The Bodhisattva who, undaunted and unabashed, wishes to set forth
this Sûtra in the dreadful period hereafter,
Must keep to his course (of duty) and proper sphere; he must be
retired and pure, constantly avoid intercourse with kings and princes.
Nor should he keep up intercourse with king's servants, nor with
Kândâlas, jugglers, and Tîrthikas in general.
He ought not to court conceited men, but catechise such as keep to
the religion. He must also avoid such monks as follow the precepts of
the Arhat [of the Gainas], and immoral men.
He must be constant in avoiding a nun who is fond of banter and
chatter; he must also avoid notoriously loose female lay devotees.
He should shun any intercourse with such female lay devotees as seek
their highest happiness in this transient world.
This is called the proper conduct of a Bodhisattva.
But when one comes to him to question him about the law for the sake
of superior enlightenment, he should, at any time, speak freely,
always firm and undaunted.
He should have no intercourse with women and hermaphrodites; he
should also shun the young wives and girls in families.
He must never address them to ask after their health. He must also
avoid intercourse with vendors of pork and mutton.
With any persons who slay animals of various kind for the sake of
profit, and with such as sell meat he should avoid having any
intercourse.
He must shun the society of whoremongers, players, musicians,
wrestlers, and other people of that sort.
He should not frequent whores, nor other sensual persons; he must
avoid any exchange of civility with them.
And when the sage has to preach for a woman, he should not enter into
an apartment with her alone, nor stay to banter.
When he has often to enter a village in quest of food, he must have
another monk with him or constantly think of the Buddha.
Herewith have I shown the first sphere of proper conduct. Wise are
they who, keeping this Sutra in memory, live according to it.
And when one observes no law at all, low, superior or mean, composed
or uncomposed, real or not real;
When the wise man does not remark, 'This is a woman,' nor marks,'This
is a man;' when in searching he finds no laws (or things), because
they have never existed;
This is called the observance of the Bodhisattvas in general. Now
listen to me when I set forth what should be their proper sphere.
All laws (i.e. the laws, the things) have been declared to be non-
existing, not appearing, not produced, void, immovable, everlasting;
this is called the proper sphere of the wise.
They have been divided into existing and non-existing, real and
unreal, by those who had wrong notions; other laws also, of
permanency, of being produced, of birth from something already
produced, are wrongly assumed.
Let (the Bodhisattva) be concentrated in mind, attentive, ever firm
as the peak of Mount Sumeru, and in such a state (of mind) look upon
all laws (and things) as having the nature of space [i.e. as being
void],
Permanently equal to space, without essence, immovable, without
substantiality. These, indeed, are the laws, all and for ever. This is
called the proper sphere of the wise.
The monk observing this rule of conduct given by me may, after my
extinction, promulgate this Sûtra in the world, and shall feel no
depression.
Let the sage first, for some time, coerce his thoughts, exercise
meditation with complete absorption, and correctly perform all that is
required for attaining spiritual insight, and then, after rising (from
his pious meditation), preach with unquailing mind.
----excerpt from The Saddharma Pundarika Sutra, Peaceful Life
Chapter.
Cosmic Gnome
As that is how you have been 'spinning' yourself hereabouts, endlessly, yes
... from defending a psycho's 'right' to name his son 'Adolf Hitler' to
identifying with Europe's most fascist political fanatics (all criminal
thugs with convictions for Holocaust denials and incitements to
anti-semitic/arab hatred and violence) to your racist demonization of Barack
Obama to your membership of a deranged fascist ('religious'/pseudo-buddhist)
cult .. yes, let's just ignore the facts and embrace the narcissistic
fantasy instead ...
"A questionable article about George Bush painted as a fanatic christian out
for Holy War is wacky."
The truth is always 'wacky' for blood-lusting fanatics, isn't it ... No,
Bush isn't a 'christian', just a regular mass-murdering psychotic, the type
of vermin that beyond-the-pale losers like you idolize ...
Biblical Prophesy and the Iraq War
Bush, God, Iraq and Gog
By CLIVE HAMILTON
The revelation this month in GQ magazine that Donald Rumsfeld as Defense
Secretary embellished top-secret wartime memos with quotations from the
Bible prompts a question. Why did he believe he could influence President
Bush by that means?
The answer may lie in an alarming story about George Bush's Christian
millenarian beliefs that has yet to come to light.
In 2003 while lobbying leaders to put together the Coalition of the Willing,
President Bush spoke to France's President Jacques Chirac. Bush wove a story
about how the Biblical creatures Gog and Magog were at work in the Middle
East and how they must be defeated.
In Genesis and Ezekiel Gog and Magog are forces of the Apocalypse who are
prophesied to come out of the north and destroy Israel unless stopped. The
Book of Revelation took up the Old Testament prophesy:
"And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his
prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four
quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle .
and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."
Bush believed the time had now come for that battle, telling Chirac:
"This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to
erase his people's enemies before a New Age begins".
The story of the conversation emerged only because the Elys�e Palace,
baffled by Bush's words, sought advice from Thomas R�mer, a professor of
theology at the University of Lausanne. Four years later, R�mer gave an
account in the September 2007 issue of the university's review, Allez
savoir. The article apparently went unnoticed, although it was referred to
in a French newspaper.
The story has now been confirmed by Chirac himself in a new book, published
in France in March, by journalist Jean Claude Maurice. Chirac is said to
have been stupefied and disturbed by Bush's invocation of Biblical prophesy
to justify the war in Iraq and "wondered how someone could be so superficial
and fanatical in their beliefs".
In the same year he spoke to Chirac, Bush had reportedly said to the
Palestinian foreign minister that he was on "a mission from God" in
launching the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and was receiving commands
from the Lord.
There can be little doubt now that President Bush's reason for launching the
war in Iraq was, for him, fundamentally religious. He was driven by his
belief that the attack on Saddam's Iraq was the fulfilment of a Biblical
prophesy in which he had been chosen to serve as the instrument of the Lord.
Many thousands of Americans and Iraqis have died in the campaign to defeat
Gog and Magog. That the US President saw himself as the vehicle of God whose
duty was to prevent the Apocalypse can only inflame suspicions across the
Middle East that the United States is on a crusade against Islam.
There is a curious coda to this story. While a senior at Yale University
George W. Bush was a member of the exclusive and secretive Skull & Bones
society. His father, George H.W. Bush had also been a "Bonesman", as indeed
had his father. Skull & Bones' initiates are assigned or take on nicknames.
And what was George Bush Senior's nickname? "Magog".
http://www.counterpunch.org/hamilton05222009.html
Clive Hamilton is a Visiting Professor at Yale University He can be reached
at: ma...@clivehamilton.net.au.
Notes.
Jocelyn Rochat, 'George W. Bush et le Code Ez�chiel', Allez Savoir!, No. 39,
September 2007
http://www.rue89.com/2007/09/17/un-petit-scoop-sur-bush-chirac-dieu-gog-et-magog
http://www.plon.fr/ficheLivre.php?livre=9782259210218
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=14890
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
kelpzoidzl
<hundredmillionlifeti...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
>
> You are just in super-denial.
>
> dc
Yes can say that again...
Okay
You are just in super denial.
The way you intellectualize things that have no intellectual basis,
really is pretty desperate--but i can't find it humorous, it's too
destructive.
Are you throwing in with the "911 was an inside job" people?
Gutter nonsense from delusional paranoids.
dc
Cosmic Gnome
"Are you throwing in with the "911 was an inside job" people?"
No, I'm throwing out your fascist ravings. The articles posted and linked to
above are referring to Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq, his 'justifying'
such mass murder and plunder by reference to delusional 'religious'
fantasies (something which you also do in your unhinged posts here), not
some idiotic, red herring nonsense about 911. Similar in structure to the
delusional fantasies of the Nazies: just replace "worldwide Jewish
conspiracy" with "worldwide Muslim conspiracy", with similar results.
kelpzoidzl
lol.
dc
Jason McGann
>
>
> "Are you throwing in with the "911 was an inside job" people?"
>
Jason McGann
>
>
> "Are you throwing in with the "911 was an inside job" people?"
>
.org not .com sorry, rather interesting tho, do take a look;
kelpzoidzl
The book that started it all was the David Icke Book "Alice in
Wonderland and the World trade center." He's a damn fine conspiracy
writer.
It's all based on these secretive people being reptilian aliens. The
funny thing is how the believer of this absurd idea parallel the Pod
People stories.
911 was NOT an inside job. That is wacky. Believing that, is to be
part of a collective insanity.
It is "interesting" though as fantasy and sci-fi and because it is a
perfect way to explain away personal responsibility.
Now if they do all turn out to be Reptilian Aliens then I'll eat my
Alligator Hat.
dc
kelpzoidzl
the 911 Conspiracies:
"The NBC program also tended to allege that the 9/11 truth movement
sees Bush and Cheney as the prime movers and directors of 9/11 – an
absurd thesis. Bush is a moron, and Cheney is a moribund old drunk
with four heart attacks, quadruple bypass surgery, and a pacemaker
that has to be serviced every couple of years. I tried to make the NBC
people understand the idea of an invisible government much older than
Bush and Cheney, going back in the present form at least to 1895, when
J.P. Morgan forced President Grover Cleveland to knuckle and under and
give Morgan and London total control over the US public debt. NBC was
not having any of that, either."
They all believe the Aliens are controlling it all---they just don't
talk about that much cause they know they are nuts and people will
know they are wacky. They are people, who live in fiction and can't
deal with reality. It's got to be Boooooshessss fault. Him and Osama
are best buds. Cheney Shape Shifts into an Alien on you tube, Or if
he and the other good ole boys were too dumb to orchestrate something
likwe that it had to be Aliens.
It's the Speilberg Syndrome.
dc
kelpzoidzl
<hundredmillionlifeti...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> "Are you throwing in with the "911 was an inside job" people?"
. Similar in structure to the
> delusional fantasies of the Nazies: just replace "worldwide Jewish
> conspiracy" with "worldwide Muslim conspiracy", with similar results.
Wacky. Nazi Germany was real. The Japan's Emperor is God war was
real. 911 was real. Psycho-commie wars are real. Drug lord wars are
real.
The United States believes in freedom of religion--in fact so does
Israel-which is a Jewish State. You don't find "Freedom of Religion"
as a popular idea amongst terrorists, marxists or fanatics of all
kinds of ilks.
As far as the United States, our government is based in law on the
Declaration of independance, the constitution and it's ammendments,
the bill of rights. Doesn;t make it perfect because people are not
perfect, but it is better than any commie ravings.
Thomas Jefferson:
"We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting
question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in
government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the
quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to
profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the
inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own
inquiries." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Virginia Baptists, 1808. ME
16:320
"The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and
sacred of all human rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of
Visitors Minutes, 1819. ME 19:416
"Among the most inestimable of our blessings, also, is that... of
liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to
His will; a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good
government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support." --
Thomas Jefferson: Reply to John Thomas et al., 1807. ME 16:291
"In our early struggles for liberty, religious freedom could not fail
to become a primary object." --Thomas Jefferson to Baltimore Baptists,
1808. ME 16:317
"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those
principles on which our government has been founded and its rights
asserted." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:283
"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and
under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the
press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the
sanctuary which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky
Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382
"The rights [to religious freedom] are of the natural rights of
mankind, and... if any act shall be... passed to repeal [an act
granting those rights] or to narrow its operation, such act will be an
infringement of natural right." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for
Religious Freedom, 1779. (*) ME 2:303, Papers 2:546
"I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our
consciences, for which we were accountable to Him, and not to the
priests." --Thomas Jefferson to Mrs. M. Harrison Smith, 1816. ME
15:60
"From the dissensions among Sects themselves arise necessarily a right
of choosing and necessity of deliberating to which we will conform.
But if we choose for ourselves, we must allow others to choose also,
and so reciprocally, this establishes religious liberty." --Thomas
Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:545
"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously
reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his
Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to
intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.
"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or
admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others." --
Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. ME 10:378
"Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability
to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine." --
Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:198
In order to live in the United States, one has to understand the
nature of Freedom of Religion in the context of a society does not
give freedom to those from other countries who want to bomb and
kill. These ideas are not compatible with fanatics. They spit on
freedom of religion and thought.
These maniacs are attacking others with bombs all around the world.
If their own governments can't stop them, then who can??
"Nations of eternal war expend all their energies... in the
destruction of the labor, property, and lives of their people." --
Thomas Jefferson
dc
dc
Cosmic Gnome
On May 26, 9:03 am, "Cosmic Gnome"
<hundredmillionlifeti...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> "Are you throwing in with the "911 was an inside job" people?"
. Similar in structure to the
> delusional fantasies of the Nazies: just replace "worldwide Jewish
> conspiracy" with "worldwide Muslim conspiracy", with similar results.
"Wacky. Nazi Germany was real."
So you subscribe to the anti-semitic conspiracy theory, to the delusional
and murderous fantasy of there being a "worldwide Jewish conspiracy". I
thought so .... a central belief for all fascists like you.
"The United States believes ...."
Oh, I see. Countries now have 'beliefs', not individuals or groups.
"in freedom of religion"
Sorry to have to break it to your sad mind, but the issue is one of the
absolute separation of church and state, of never allowing any religious
dogma or demented cult from taking over the powers of the state in a secular
and democratic socius or body politic. Which is what the unhinged Christian
fundamentalists in the US are attempting to do. Which is what Zionist
fundamentalists have done and continue to do in Israel (and we are again
reminded of what happened in Ireland while the Catholic Church of Child
Abuse controlled state institutions (eg running child slave-labour camps and
running the world's largest paedophile ring:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0526/1224247402389.html)).
"--in fact so does
Israel-which is a Jewish State."
.
Which is what makes it an illegitimate state, a pariah state (quite apart
from its foundation upon the slaughter of those residing there, the
Palestinians, still continuing). Indeed, It could be said that the
foremation of a nation like Israel for the sole benefit of a racist and
anti-semitic 'religious' sect (Zionism) is a fundamentalist nation.
Israel can pathetically pose as 'democratic' within the green line because
the nakba gave it an ethnic majority. But Zionism is the ruling ideology of
the state. Parties can't run for election if they're explicitly against
Israel as 'the state of the Jewish people' (as if Jews were some
essentialist entity, some special, privileged 'race' from the racist
imaginary). There's no way the "Arab" parties could campaign to repeal the
Israeli Lands Administration and the Jewish National Fund from barring
non-Jews to live on state land, nor could they do anything about the Law of
Return. Azmi Bishara was run out of town on the pretext of visiting Syria
and maybe saying nice things about Hezbollah even though an Israeli
journalist only needs another passport to visit an "enemy state."
There's competitive elections among the Zionist parties because the factions
from the mandate era weren't able to monopolize power (I think this is the
main reason). Even when Haganah eliminated Irgun and Lechi their ranks were
still able to operate in Herut. However, none of the coalitions and shifting
balances of power have any effect on the state-legislated discrimination
against non-Jews. Still, Israel gets the 'only Middle East democracy' PR
tag, despite being the main threat to peace in the Middle East, despite
being inherently (written in to its very laws) racist and anti-semitic,
despite systematically plundering Palestinian lands, despite engaging in an
ongoing genocide against Palestinians and threatening to invade and attack
other countries..
This in turn allows right wingers and liberals (ostensible ones) to dress up
a race war as Israeli democracy versus Islamic authoritarianism. It's
probably the most explicit case today of a reactionary ideology posing as
some form of humanism.
Likewise, Zionists have been religious and secular, but even secular
Zionists use religious language. Ben-Gurion was an atheist who publicly
invoked the scriptural sanction of modern Israel - a symptom of how Zionism
utterly secularizes the religious identity of Judaism. And of course there's
the state run kibbutzim and Histadrut that have been called socialist even
if they exclude non Jews.
With the kind of support base Israel has, it has to be many different things
to certain people. Even referring to Zionism as a national liberation
movement is part of the scavenging.
Zionism was a response to the antisemitic attitudes that predominated in the
region it originated in. Instead of challenging antisemitism it validated
antisemitic claims that Jews are a separate 'race' who are incompatible with
the rest of humanity.
Zionists distorted Judaism to support their campaign for a colonialist state
based on racist criteria. That's why antisemites have been willing to
support Israel because it panders to their belief in separation and their
own racist agenda.
Furthermore, the Zionist Israeli state is inherently anti-semitic: sections
of zionism have since the existence of the ideology, been collaborating with
antisemites in driving Jews out of any country but Israel. In that sense
they share a common goal and this explains why Israel has suffered no
ideological crisis even when arming anti-semitic regimes like the Argentine
Junta 1976-1983 or in receiving support from anti-semitic Christian
fundamentalist, or support from the fascist and neo-Nazi far right in
Europe.
Consider, then, Theodor Herzl, sometimes called the 'father of Zionism', and
whose agenda bears out the Zionist-antisemite link. The basis of his Zionism
was giving up hope of Jewish integration, and concluding that wherever they
went, Jews would 'produce' persecution. As a result, he explicitly distanced
himself from those who were trying to fight antisemitism in Europe (because
they were mainly dirty lefties) and sought to arrange meetings and
discussions with the high-ups in Tsarist Russia, the Catholic church, and
other places.
Interestingly, in his youth he was a member of German nationalist
fraternities, who fused liberal demands with patriotic nonsenses. After the
Dreyfuss affair, he realised that non-Jewish nationalism was always prone to
antisemitism (being by definition exclusionary) and so drew the neat
conclusion that Jewish nationalism was necessary. Some quotes:
"I recognized the emptiness and futility of trying to 'combat'
anti-Semitism."
"We are naturally drawn into those places where we are not persecuted, and
our appearance there gives rise to persecution. This is the case, and will
inevitably be so, everywhere"
"The unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of anti-Semitism into
England; they have already introduced it into America."
If he wasn't Jewish, these statements would be clearly anti-semitic. Since
he is Jewish, they are merely Zionist.
stale...@gmail.com
<hundredmillionlifeti...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Which is what makes it an illegitimate state, a pariah state (quite apart
> from its foundation upon the slaughter of those residing there, the
> Palestinians, still continuing). Indeed, It could be said that the
> foremation of a nation like Israel for the sole benefit of a racist and
> anti-semitic 'religious' sect (Zionism) is a fundamentalist nation.
>
It is not an illegitimate state. The state was defined in the Bible a
long time before the Arabs were there in that land; it is land for the
Jews and any righteous gentiles who want to live there (but not for
Arabs who are attacking Jewish people; these Arabs must be driven
out).
The Arabs already have dozens of countries. They do not need Israel's
land. Jews only have one country and it is fairly small.
> Israel can pathetically pose as 'democratic' within the green line because
> the nakba gave it an ethnic majority. But Zionism is the ruling ideology of
> the state. Parties can't run for election if they're explicitly against
As it should be. Zionism is the Biblical order to conquer the land of
Israel and subdue it and keep it a holy nation for the Jewish people.
Israel is not supposed to be democratic. Other countries can be
democratic if they want. You don't have to live in Israel, which I
assume you don't anyway.
> Israel as 'the state of the Jewish people' (as if Jews were some
> essentialist entity, some special, privileged 'race' from the racist
> imaginary). There's no way the "Arab" parties could campaign to repeal the
Any country has a right to control who lives in their borders. Of
course Israel is a Jewish country. The name comes from the Bible,
which is about the Jews and their affairs. Gentiles are allowed to
live there if they obey the seven Noahide laws, but they some of them
don't, notably the angry Arabs who call themselves Palestinians.
Here is an opinion piece about Palestinians and their lack of a
history:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/8788
> tag, despite being the main threat to peace in the Middle East, despite
> being inherently (written in to its very laws) racist and anti-semitic,
> despite systematically plundering Palestinian lands, despite engaging in an
> ongoing genocide against Palestinians and threatening to invade and attack
> other countries..
There is no genocide against Palestinians. They can live in any of the
dozens of other Arab countries, or in America, Europe, etc. If they
followed the law in Israel they could even live there as second class
citizens. The actions against the "Palestinians," the Arabs in Israel,
is defensive because the Arabs are attacking Israel and want to take
over that country. For instance, they are Muslim and there is a mosque
where the Jewish temple is supposed to be.
> Zionism was a response to the antisemitic attitudes that predominated in the
> region it originated in. Instead of challenging antisemitism it validated
> antisemitic claims that Jews are a separate 'race' who are incompatible with
> the rest of humanity.
The Bible makes it clear that the Jews are supposed to be a separate
people, however difference races can convert to Judaism.
>
> Zionists distorted Judaism to support their campaign for a colonialist state
> based on racist criteria. That's why antisemites have been willing to
> support Israel because it panders to their belief in separation and their
> own racist agenda.
I don't think there is much support of Israel from anti-semites. What
do you mean? Are there white supremacists or something who support
Israel, because they want Jews out of their own country? That is the
only reason I can think of for why they would support Israel.
>
> Furthermore, the Zionist Israeli state is inherently anti-semitic: sections
> of zionism have since the existence of the ideology, been collaborating with
> antisemites in driving Jews out of any country but Israel. In that sense
I would like to learn more about this.
Jason McGann
i hear you on the Reptilians, Aliens, Bush etc. i'd eat mine too.
...although what puzzles me from Richard Gage's presentation is how both
main tower collapses violated laws of physics + those micro iron sphere
and nano-thermite deposits found in the dust and metal samples, these do
take some explaining from the planes alone? also, how building 7 managed
to collapse through its path of greatest resistance from a couple of
small fires? the bbc reporting it 20mins before it happened. many
interesting points. ...recently a Danish geezer came out with more on
the nano-thermite;
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o
i've considered the inverse myself; if it was indeed an inside job one
would actually have to personally take action, something which scares
the crap out of most...
kelpzoidzl
> > Furthermore, the Zionist Israeli state is inherently anti-semitic: sections
> > of zionism have since the existence of the ideology, been collaborating with
> > antisemites in driving Jews out of any country but Israel. In that sense
The real jews are subjugated and mysteriously controlled by the
overlord zionist, fascist, nazi, islamaphobes
You don't realize how absurd this is do you?
dc
kelpzoidzl
>
If their were other bombs they had been planted by the terrorists.
It's all vaporized now.
Point is no matter how one can string together alternate theories of
reality about 911, They're all fiction. They hit our buildings with
stolen airplanes in a plan they had been planning for years. it
killed thousands and people today have such short memories. They
can't believe reality so they invent alternate versions.
dc
Jason McGann
> It's all vaporized now.
>
> Point is no matter how one can string together alternate theories of
> reality about 911, They're all fiction. They hit our buildings with
> stolen airplanes in a plan they had been planning for years. it
> killed thousands and people today have such short memories. They
> can't believe reality so they invent alternate versions.
>
>
> dc
>
indeed the planes hit the towers, with thousands tragically killed.
but again; what sort of 'reality' defies physics like that? and how can
the BBC know this reality 20mins before it takes place? ...the official
report reality is incompatible with regard to our known laws of reality.
so, until we have a more complete hypothesis of the events on that
day, a statement that all alternate theories are fiction, is fiction :)
Richard Gage and supporters simply want a new investigation, i can't
blame them.
kelpzoidzl
> blame them.
You have to realize the sources of the so called evidence for this
conspiracy theory is coming from people with overactive imaginations.
Obviously the supposed experts that fall in with this ideation were
baffled as to why the buildings fell down. They offer up their
opinions and calculations that are pre-designed to prove the point
they want to believe is true--that the whole thing is like an excerpt
from the Twilight Zone and it has to be the secret government and
alien invaders behind all this. Pffft........and people complain
about scientology being offbeat sci-fi fantasy but buy into this
nonsense??
The entire hypothesis and so-called evidence, is entirely fake and
paranoid. These mysterious incongruities are a artifact of
imagination and confusion.
People will investigate it forever just like other viral conspiracy
theories.
dc
Jason McGann
> conspiracy theory is coming from people with overactive imaginations.
it's coming from 650+ Architects and engineers, 200+ Pilots and Aviation
Professionals, 230+ 911 survivors and family members, 180+ senior
military, intelligence service, law enforcement, and government
officials. many thousands of chemists and physics professionals
(including 400+ professors), and many thousands of fire-fighters and
first responders.
> Obviously the supposed experts that fall in with this ideation were
> baffled as to why the buildings fell down. They offer up their
> opinions and calculations that are pre-designed to prove the point
> they want to believe is true--that the whole thing is like an excerpt
> from the Twilight Zone and it has to be the secret government and
> alien invaders behind all this. Pffft........and people complain
> about scientology being offbeat sci-fi fantasy but buy into this
> nonsense??
indeed they were baffled at why the buildings fell, the official report
gives no explanation as to how they did, it avoids even mentioning how
building 7 fell at all. ...to be fair it's hard to see how the
nano-thermite would appear in the dust just because you'd want to find
it there.
> The entire hypothesis and so-called evidence, is entirely fake and
> paranoid. These mysterious incongruities are a artifact of
> imagination and confusion.
much like the war on terror?
>
> People will investigate it forever just like other viral conspiracy
> theories.
>
so, let's have a new independent report so we can finally put it to bed.
kelpzoidzl
I think if you look to the sources of these groups and "organizations"
arguing this and that list of hundred of architects. etc, you will
discover that it's all manufactured and can all be traced back to
kooks and compulsive agitators.
When I first read the Icke book around 5 years ago or so I was
fascinated. It's twisted entertainment---not real. Its associations
and syncronicities mixed with wild speculations and what ifs. All
the supposed planted bpmb seen in the videos giving the impression of
demolition is just explosions caused by the planes and heat. As i
continued to read about it, one by one the questions I had, based on
what I read in the conspiracy pages all faded, once you dig a little
more.
There will never be any independent investigation. No non-kooks.
really take this seriously, and although you may be caught up in
wondering about it now, give it time and you will realize how idiotic
it is. IMO.
dc
MrJake
> arguing this and that list of hundred of architects. etc, you will
> discover that it's all manufactured and can all be traced back to
> kooks and compulsive agitators.
>
> When I first read the Icke book around 5 years ago or so I was
> fascinated. It's twisted entertainment---not real. Its associations
> and syncronicities mixed with wild speculations and what ifs. All
> the supposed planted bpmb seen in the videos giving the impression of
> demolition is just explosions caused by the planes and heat. As i
> continued to read about it, one by one the questions I had, based on
> what I read in the conspiracy pages all faded, once you dig a little
> more.
>
> There will never be any independent investigation. No non-kooks.
> really take this seriously, and although you may be caught up in
> wondering about it now, give it time and you will realize how idiotic
> it is. IMO.
>
>
>
>
> dc
Icke, aliens, reptiles and all that rubbish aside, i live in a small
village in England, and since the 911 and 77 events i am now tracked
everywhere i go, i walk into the local park and find a 30 foot high
black darth vader like cctv camera rig tracking me as i stroll through
it, the park keeper has hung nice flower baskets from it. ...the town
centre is full of cameras, the whole country is full of cameras, we have
more camera than anywhere else on earth. our cars are tracked and logged
everywhere we drive, our communications are tracked and logged, our
police can hack into our computers without a warrant. its an offence to
protect yourself in your own home, our rights are vanishing by the day.
it's now a terrorist offence to photograph or film policeman or
politicians, carrying up to 10 years in prison. it's an offence to
protest, the public transport has adverts for confidential terrorist
hot-lines pasted on them. the tv is jam full of sickening propaganda and
mindless titillation singing and dancing happy fools. the list is
becoming endless. ...and all this in the name of events which frankly
have piss poor official reports, in fact 77 has no official report at
all! ...and still they put on their stern parental faces get up there
and flatly tell us how our free speech may have to be limited, all our
biometric information needs to be collected and logged, and that we may
need to be force inoculated with god knows what etc etc etc etc... all
in the name of safety and a re-definable word 'terrorism' ...so yea, i
think people should actually start giving a shit now, and if your a kook
for asking questions about where exactly this path is taking us all,
then so be it. IMO.
AZ Nomad
>it's now a terrorist offence to photograph or film policeman or
>politicians, carrying up to 10 years in prison. it's an offence to
obviously it's not an offence yet where you live to spam irrelevent
newsgroups with political bitching.
MP
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, the irony is that though there are now cameras everywhere, we're
not allowed to photograph anything. A couple months ago I was trying
to tape my brother's school Sport's Day event and got stopped by
teachers for fear I might be a paedophile recording kiddies for
pornographic purposes. There are cameras all around the country, but
you're not allowed to photograph your own family.
Then two years ago I'm in New York sight seeing with my cam corder,
taking pictures of all the famous landmarks, and I was stopped twice
by security guards for fear I might be "documenting their buildings".
You can photograph these buildings from across the street, but if you
stand on the sidewalk directly infront of them and point a camera
upwards, apparently its a breech of the law.
Cosmic Gnome
"MrJake" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
news:o5mdncd12asEwL_X...@bt.com...
>
>
> Icke, aliens, reptiles and all that rubbish aside, i live in a small
> village in England, and since the 911 and 77 events i am now tracked
> everywhere i go, i walk into the local park and find a 30 foot high black
> darth vader like cctv camera rig tracking me as i stroll through it, the
> park keeper has hung nice flower baskets from it. ...the town centre is
> full of cameras, the whole country is full of cameras, we have more camera
> than anywhere else on earth. our cars are tracked and logged everywhere we
> drive, our communications are tracked and logged, our police can hack into
> our computers without a warrant. its an offence to protect yourself in
> your own home, our rights are vanishing by the day. it's now a terrorist
> offence to photograph or film policeman or politicians, carrying up to 10
> years in prison. it's an offence to protest, the public transport has
> adverts for confidential terrorist hot-lines pasted on them. the tv is jam
> full of sickening propaganda and mindless titillation singing and dancing
> happy fools. the list is becoming endless. ...and all this in the name of
> events which frankly have piss poor official reports, in fact 77 has no
> official report at all! ...and still they put on their stern parental
> faces get up there and flatly tell us how our free speech may have to be
> limited, all our biometric information needs to be collected and logged,
> and that we may need to be force inoculated with god knows what etc etc
> etc etc... all in the name of safety and a re-definable word 'terrorism'
> ...so yea, i think people should actually start giving a shit now, and if
> your a kook for asking questions about where exactly this path is taking
> us all, then so be it. IMO.
>
Hear hear. What's even more disturbing is that the reactionary spin meisters
describe all of this move to the far right, to police-state fascism as
'protecting' freedoms. Any wonder that many of the most deranged far right
political parties in Europe have 'freedom' in their titles (and are set to
gain even more seats in the Euro Elections in a few days; even Britain's
Nazi BNP may gain one.), appropriating the language of liberal capitalism
for purely fascist agendas. Worse, in the U.S. most Americans seem oblivious
to (or where not, often 'happy' with) the fact that they no longer have any
rights whatsoever, Habeus Corpus having been abolished by the Bush
Administration, and with the current Obama Administration not only retaining
this absurd state of affairs, but actually extending it much further (as
with numerous other Bush Admin policies, from escalating the repugnant war
in Afghanistan and extending into Pakistan to robbing vast quantities of the
public's money to 'reward' the very cabal of wealthy and horrendously
corrupt bankers and lobbyists who caused the economic meltdown).
But there is little point in attempting to reason, in trying to point out
any of this to someone like "Kelpzoidal", an explicitly pro-fascist
reactionary (someone who thinks that an obnoxious cult like Scientology is a
'progressive' organization, even defending it as a 'religion', someone who
imagines that anyone who challenges his psychotic ravings is a 'wacko
commie', the list is quite endless ...),
Cosmic Gnome
"MP" <mystic_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:14c3e514-2943-4a59...@h23g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
"Yeah, the irony is that though there are now cameras everywhere, we're
not allowed to photograph anything."
Yes, we're all now 'volunteers' in the Big Brother Household ...
Though the whole Tomlinson affair** last April in London during the G20
protests provides a more nuanced, and very interesting - if still
depressing - perspective on our ubiquitous 'self-surveillance' society,
where everything is increasingly recorded by everyone. Though I also can't
help but recall all those films - like especially the seminal Powell's
Peeping Tom - where events are purely staged for the benefit of the
camera/media/Big Other, and so many ordinary quotidian events where the
priority for many is no longer to experience the event itself as it is
occuring, but the recording of it for future consumption (ie where the event
itself is already treated as history before it has even happened, something
just to be recorded by technology, and so nobody has any real memory of it
[being solely preoccupied with recording/filming it] no affective relation
to it. Remember that Korean student in the US two years ago who went on a
shooting rampage at a University: in the middle of the slaughter, he stopped
suddenly, then ran back to his flat to send off more communications [a
'press pack'] to the media, then resumed the mayhem. It's as if only the Big
Other exists for such people; and we're likely to see much, much more of
this ...
But to return to the Tomlinson incident, Owen Hatherley made the following
incisive remarks at the time:
"Usually, when people film political events on their cameraphones or budget
DV cameras, it's to put a macabre spin on events where the trajectory is
already known in advance. Nothing new about the 7/7 bomb attacks came out of
the commuters' self-surveillance other than the bleak vistas of lines of
people filing along tube tunnels, making jerkily, grainily clear something
we already knew was latent. Yet these acts of political tourism,
self-surveillance, call them what you will, have given us a record of
policemen whacking women in the face, crashing with their shields into
crowds of climate campers with their hands in the air chanting 'this is not
a riot', of beaten photographers in orange visibility vests, Police Medics
with truncheons raised, and most obviously, in the act of manslaughter, all
of them viewed by thousands on YouTube. And although there has indisputably
been a rise in the level of police aggression over the last year, there's
little new here. What is new is that we now have the record, and can hold
them to it, and these records are documented by entirely mainstream news
sources. This isn't just based on photography and film, but the slippages in
the ego-projections of the social networking sites - Facebook messages
incriminate coppers out for 'beating up some long haired hippys', marchers
asked to spy have evidence against their would-be spymasters.
In all this we can see outlines of the media-as-response envisaged by
Bertolt Brecht at the turn of the 1930s, the democratisation of the
technological apparatus creating the possibility for 'responses of the
governed', presaging the total democratisation not just of art, but of the
media in its widest form. We should be careful not to get carried away, as
this has huge limitations - as anyone who recalls Los Angeles 1991/2 [the
Rodney King affair, where broadcast video footage of cops beating up King
was ignored by the judge, who acquited the cop-thugs, a decision that
provoked the LA Riots, with massive damage and loss of life] could attest -
and the conspiratorially minded could fairly consider the whole thing a
cover-up to save the bankers, the armed guard of capital setting itself up
as one gigantic patsy. Nonetheless, not only have we seen media usually
employed for inane self-promotion suddenly turned into a self-surveillance
turned outwards at those who obsessively survey us, we have also ensured
that the next time this happens - as it will - there's a chance we can break
out of the old circuits, as police tactics will be very, very closely
scrutinised"
**To recall that event:
The systematic cover-up by London police - with the passive cooperation of
most of the mainstream print and broadcast media - of the circumstances
leading to the death of Ian Tomlinson during the April 1st G20 spectacle
protest in London should come as no surprise. A full six days elapsed before
the Guardian released video footage filmed by, ironically, an American
bond-dealer tourist, during which time the police and their 'watchdog'
predictably sought to displace blame onto others, from Tomlinson himself
(the myth of the self-implicating 'heart attack') to protesters (interfering
with medics' attempts to revive Tomlinson) to the media ( The IPCC alsatian
attempting to restrain the Guardian from publishing details of Tomlinson
being attacked by police minutes before his 'natural' death because it would
'upset Tomlinson's parents'). They almost succeeded.
The Guardian's Paul Lewis summarizes the chronology of events:
How the story changed ...
Wednesday April 1. Ian Tomlinson, 47, a newspaper vendor, collapses and
dies at the G20 protests. In a statement that night, the Metropolitan police
says that medics were temporarily impeded from helping him as "a number of
missiles - believed to be bottles - were being thrown at them".
Thursday April 2. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
says it will "assess the circumstances".
Friday April 3. A postmortem finds that Tomlinson died of a heart
attack. The Guardian contacts City of London police - tasked with conducting
the
investigation into Tomlinson's death on behalf of the IPCC - and says it has
obtained photographs of him lying on the pavement at the feet of riot
police.
Sunday April 5. The Guardian's photographs are published, along with
the testimony of three named witnesses who describe him being hit with a
baton
or thrown to the ground by police. The IPCC criticises the Guardian for
upsetting Tomlinson's family. It tells other journalists that there is
"nothing
in the story" that he had been assaulted by an officer.
Monday April 6. The IPCC confirms Tomlinson had contact with police. It
continues to "manage" an investigation conducted by City police, some of
whose
officers were pictured at the site of Tomlinson's alleged assaults.
Tuesday April 7. At 2am, the Guardian receives video footage that
clearly shows Tomlinson was hit with a baton and pushed to the floor by a
riot
officer. That afternoon, it publishes the footage on its website and hands a
dossier of evidence to the IPCC.
Wednesday April 8. The IPCC reverses its decision to allow City police
to investigate the death.
Thursday April 9. The Met suspends the officer shown in the footage; 48
hours on, he has still not been questioned by the IPCC.
Friday April 10. Tomlinson's father says he believes the police acted
with excessive force
What is increasingly clear from all the video footage - now all over Youtube
and numerous other video sites - and the eyewitness reports, is that
Tomlinson cracked his head against the concrete pavement after being knocked
over by a cop (one eyewitness 'winced' upon hearing the sound), while the
rushed postmortem that concluded that his death was the result of a 'heart
attack' has already been discredited: the freelance pathologist called in by
the police turns out to be an incompetent loon, having previously, among
other bizarre determinations, also attributed the death of a murdered woman
to a 'heart attack', a finding that enabled the unstable suspect to be
released to murder yet another two women.
The indifference to Tomlinson's death of much of the media, especially the
BBC, prior to the wide release of the watershed video comes on the heels of
their seeming acceptance of Section 76 of the Terrorism Act, which is being
increasingly invoked to ban all photographing of police activity, of
officers, of their vehicles, of their buildings, and in spite of a recent
protest against the ban outside Scotland Yard headquarters by hundreds of
NUJ photographers:
Cosmic Gnome
"AZ Nomad" <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnh255mb.r...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
I think you might need to pay some attention to your enunciation of
'irrelevent', which is here no mere Freudian slip, but a permanent
obsessive-compulsive symptom, partially of your attempt to depoliticize your
odd 'political bitching'.
Though it's largely 'irrelevent' whether you're a folding-bicycle version of
a Deleuzian Nomadologist or an A-to-Z manifestation of VeryMad Cow Neo-Con
Pax Americana Disease, we might recall the following exchange:
Rumsfeldian Neo-Con: What's all this shit that's just hit our precious,
impenetrable Christian and Free Homeland?
AZ VeryMad Neo-Con Skeptic: We believe its a shower of moon rocks fired at
us from the Lunar surface by Al-Qaida aliens.
Rumsfeldian Neo-Con: Fuck! We have to stop them!
AZ VeryMad Neo-Con Skeptic: What should we do, Rumsy? They seem to be very
angry about something - all our lunar military bases maybe.
Rumsfeldian Neo-Con: Fuck all that! Let's invade Mars and blow all 'em
Martians into submission, let 'em know just who's boss around this solar
system.
AZ VeryMad Neo-Con Skeptic: Mars!? But the attack came from the moon, just
ten clicks from Clavius Moon Base, Rumsy! where we've got our very special
top secret weapon of unknown origin!
Rumsfeldian Neo-Con: We can fuck that later, but now we want infinite
pre-emption. We'll blow away the Martians just so they don't get any funny
ideas about ever showering us with Martian rocks! Let's bring it on!
AZ VeryMad Neo-Con Skeptic: Eh, um, that might make them very angry, Rumsy.
And there's oh boy a lot of rocks on Mars, a helluva lot of rock they can
shower us with in a retaliatory attack.
Rumsfeldian Neo-Con: Wha? But that why we're gonna attack 'em! So we can
catch 'em with their pants down before they can attack us or retaliate!
AZ VeryMad Neo-Con Skeptic: They're not planning on attacking us, Rumsy.
There's no intelligence to show it. It's the Lunar chaps we need to worry
about.
Rumsfeldian Neo-Con: That's all bull, now! We make the rules, now, we create
reality! If we attack them, then they'll want to attack us back with all
that Martian rock. And that's why we need to attack them - so that they
can't attack us. It's all about known knowns, known unknowns and unknown
unknowns, real simple game-theory stuff, dummy.
AZ VeryMad Neo-Con Skeptic: Eh, Rumsy, if we don't attack them they won't
attack us. They've no reason to attack us!
Rumsfeldian Neo-Con: But we want to pre-empt! We can't have no reasons! We
always have reasons! We've gonna attack them precisely because they're not
gonna attack us precisely because by attacking them they won't be able to
attack us. That's pre-emption. That's covering all unknowns and knowns. And
aren't Martian Rocks heavier and bigger than Moon Rocks?
AZ VeryMad Neo-Con Skeptic: I. See ... But ... if we attack them first
they'll get angry and maybe attack us back. Is that a good idea?
Rumsfeldian Neo-Con: It's brilliant! Sheer genius! Their attacking us back
is the reason we're attacking them. See!? Makes perfect sense! You're not
having doubts about this mission or my total confidence and infallibility,
are you?
AZ VeryMad Neo-Con Skeptic: No no no no no! Not at all, Rumsy. It all makes
... perfect sense, yes, no doubts anymore. Total certainty.
Rumsfeldian Neo-Con: There you go, you see!? Even you agree with me, which
proves that what I'm saying is right! Reality is ours for the taking! Let's
take it!
MP
> priority for many is no longer to experience the event itself as it is
> occuring, but the recording of it for future consumption (ie where the event
> itself is already treated as history before it has even happened, something
> just to be recorded by technology, and so nobody has any real memory of it
> [being solely preoccupied with recording/filming it] no affective relation
> to it. Remember that Korean student in the US two years ago who went on a
> shooting rampage at a University: in the middle of the slaughter, he stopped
> suddenly, then ran back to his flat to send off more communications [a
> 'press pack'] to the media, then resumed the mayhem. It's as if only the Big
> Other exists for such people; and we're likely to see much, much more of
> this ...
I like that phrase: "The event is treated as history before it even
occurs." What people are really doing, with all their mobile phones
and technological gizmos, is attempting to prolong the pleasure of the
event. They digitize and store their "special moments" for some kind
of future masturbation. The end result is that so many moments are
collected, stored and saved for later use, that the user either never
gets a chance to revist the event, misses the event as it occurs in
the present, or trivialises the "special event" by putting it in a
databank filled with millions of other similar events. It's just basic
greed really.
And in scrutinising (and demonising) the police, these civilian
cameras miss the larger point of the protests taking place. So you
have the G-20 summit essentially being reduced to footage of Jack
Torrance bashing his wife's head in whilst a larger violence is
overlooked.
> The indifference to Tomlinson's death of much of the media, especially the
> BBC, prior to the wide release of the watershed video comes on the heels of
> their seeming acceptance of Section 76 of the Terrorism Act, which is being
> increasingly invoked to ban all photographing of police activity, of
> officers, of their vehicles, of their buildings, and in spite of a recent
> protest against the ban outside Scotland Yard headquarters by hundreds of
> NUJ photographers:
Has Section 76 ever been used in the UK?
Section 76 may have photographers spooked, but cops themselves are
flooded with paperwork and afraid to put their hands on anybody. You
ultimately end up with some kind of weird paradox: a buncha police
observing you with the largest CCTV network in the world, a populace
recording everything with a mass of private cameras, cops bogged down
by paperwork and afraid to put their hands on anybody lest they be
charged with overstepping their bounds, and a populace bullied into
leaving the police alone. End result: a neverending cycle of power
checks and balances, a bunch of paranoid people watching nothing
important in particular.
Cosmic Gnome
>> camera/media/Big Other, and so many ordinary quotidian events where the
>> priority for many is no longer to experience the event itself as it is
>> occuring, but the recording of it for future consumption (ie where the
>> event
>> itself is already treated as history before it has even happened,
>> something
>> just to be recorded by technology, and so nobody has any real memory of
>> it
>> [being solely preoccupied with recording/filming it] no affective
>> relation
>> to it. Remember that Korean student in the US two years ago who went on a
>> shooting rampage at a University: in the middle of the slaughter, he
>> stopped
>> suddenly, then ran back to his flat to send off more communications [a
>> 'press pack'] to the media, then resumed the mayhem. It's as if only the
>> Big
>> Other exists for such people; and we're likely to see much, much more of
>> this ...
>
> I like that phrase: "The event is treated as history before it even
> occurs."
During the last World Cup, TV stations in the UK presented and promoted the
football tournament with the slogan "Let The Memories Begin!" ie that the
games were already a 'memory' before they had even happened, the games as a
nostalgic event (but actually what Frederic Jameson called 'the nostalgic
mode'; not nostalgia as such in its usual sense, for the nostalgic mode is
not based on a lived historical event, but the FORM of nostalgia, an empty
nostalgia that flattens out all history [ eg pastiche, and the use of past
forms in present circumstances, like neo-genres]: "it is flattened out to
the collection of dead museum artefacts that the distorting lens of
retrospection reduces it to" ), as something that one doesn't need to
'begin' remembering because it is sold to us as something that has already
'happened', it does not need to enter memory because it is deemed to be
already there (even though it isn't, because new memories cannot be formed
["anterograde amnesia"]): set your VCR/DVD on 'record' already ...
As K-punk argues, "we are in a culure that is formally nostalgic to an
astonishing degree ... it is precisely the failure of historical awareness -
under pressure from a cyberblitzing blip time that has no long term memory -
that leads to the rise of nostalgia. Those who can't remember the past are
condemned to have it resold to them forever." Everything becomes a
're-make', a bland simulation, but that always seems 'new' because there is
neither the memory nor the historical context/awareness of the original.
Hence all those paradoxical slogans of the post-modern, post-historical era:
Punk's "No Future", Fukuyama's "The End of History", "The Future ain't what
it used to be", "The future is past", "The possible is impossible", "There
is no alternative", etc.
But the cracks are beginning to appear in this dead zone, in this present
conjuncture: "And we who have been guided across the desert by ghosts crouch
like commandos amidst the ideological rubble of the new Year Zero..." The
past's other futures will appear again ...
>What people are really doing, with all their mobile phones
> and technological gizmos, is attempting to prolong the pleasure of the
> event. They digitize and store their "special moments" for some kind
> of future masturbation. The end result is that so many moments are
> collected, stored and saved for later use, that the user either never
> gets a chance to revist the event, misses the event as it occurs in
> the present, or trivialises the "special event" by putting it in a
> databank filled with millions of other similar events. It's just basic
> greed really.
Yes. And Zizek covers this exact point in "The Interpassive Subject" using
the example of VCRs (the technology [ as Big Other] has all the fun, the
enjoyment - it enjoys for us, while we just 'participate'):
"Against this background, one is tempted to supplement the fashionable
notion of "interactivity," with its shadowy and much more uncanny
supplement/double, the notion of "interpassivity." That is to say, it is
commonplace to emphasize how, with new electronic media, the passive
consumption of a text or a work of art is over: I no longer merely stare at
the screen, I increasingly interact with it, entering into a dialogic
relationship with it (from choosing the programs, through participating in
debates in a Virtual Community, to directly determining the outcome of the
plot in so-called "interactive narratives"). Those who praise the democratic
potential of new media, generally focus on precisely these features: on how
cyberspace opens up the possibility for the large majority of people to
break out of the role of the passive observer following the spectacle staged
by others, and to participate actively not only in the spectacle, but more
and more in establishing the very rules of the spectacle. Is, however, the
other side of this interactivity not interpassivity? Is the necessary
obverse of my interacting with the object instead of just passively
following the show, not the situation in which the object itself takes from
me, deprives me of, my own passive reaction of satisfaction (or mourning or
laughter), so that is is the object itself which "enjoys the show" instead
of me, relieving me of the superego duty to enjoy myself. Do we not witness
"interpassivity" in a great number of today's publicity spots or posters
which, as it were, passively enjoy the product instead of us ? (Coke cans
containing the inscription "Ooh!Ooh! What taste!", emulate in advance the
ideal customer's reaction.) Another strange phenomenon brings us closer to
the heart of the matter: almost every VCR aficionado who compulsively
records hundreds of movies (myself among them), is well aware that the
immediate effect of owning a VCR, is that one effectively watches less films
than in the good old days of a simple TV set without a VCR; one never has
time for TV, so, instead of losing a precious evening, one simply tapes the
film and stores it for a future viewing (for which, of course, there is
almost never time.). So, although I do not actually watch films, the very
awareness that the films I love are stored in my video library gives me a
profound satisfaction and, occasionally, enables me to simply relax and
indulge in the exquisite art of far'niente - as if the VCR is in a way
watching them for me, in my place. VCR stands here for the "big Other," for
the medium of symbolic registration."
Yes, it's all an impotent acting out, a romancing of the politics of
failure. But the thing is, the summit itself was a non-event - just a bunch
of guys in grey suits with delusions of vast power actually doing nothing,
because they too are impotent (are performing puppets of the system), they
too are part of the problem.
>
>> The indifference to Tomlinson's death of much of the media, especially
>> the
>> BBC, prior to the wide release of the watershed video comes on the heels
>> of
>> their seeming acceptance of Section 76 of the Terrorism Act, which is
>> being
>> increasingly invoked to ban all photographing of police activity, of
>> officers, of their vehicles, of their buildings, and in spite of a recent
>> protest against the ban outside Scotland Yard headquarters by hundreds of
>> NUJ photographers:
>
> Has Section 76 ever been used in the UK?
kelpzoidzl
>
I don't know what planet you live on but the forces of "big brother"
and the "fascists" aren't the conservatives anymore. Government
involvement in people's lives is increasing because of liberal
meddlers in the US and Europe and have also encouraged the terrorists,
forrcing tighter security.
Your bullshit is nonsense. Anyone who disagrees with you is a
fascist, zionist, islamaphobe or whatever.
dc
kelpzoidzl
I agree people should "give a shit." But so many people these days
want nanny states and the government to take care of them, that it is
the people would give these people the power.
So many things are out of whack.
Paparazzi are out of control in Europe and the US. My sister was in
Telluride while her Kid and husband were skiing. She was taking
pictures of her kid coming down the slope and some security guards
come up and tell her to stop. Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise were standing
there in full ski regalia and masks--my sister had no idea they were
there. It was Brad Pitt who instigated them to roust my sister. I
dispise paparazzi, gossip magazines etc. but it's people who buy them--
so it's people supporting papparazzi by default. At the same time as
celebrities get more protective, wackiness happens. One wacky thing
leads to another with reverse consequences. in the meantime commies
play all sides against the middle and become agitators. Wacky
extremists from the right or left do their dirty work while moderate
middle who believe in common sense but oppose scialism, are called
fascists.
In the meantime, it's the nanny-state people promoting all the big-
brother tendancies the conservatives are blamed for it. I think there
are some difference between the meaning of the words "conservative"
and "liberal" in the Uk and the US, labels like these make no real
sense anymore. Everyone claims to hate totalitarianism, and claim to
be all for freedom of thought, yet islamic terrorists get a free pass
in the new liberal world. While attacking scientologists and
christians is considered the in thing, cool thing to do. none of it
makes sense. Totalitarianism comes from any viewpoint that decides
it wants control and power over people,
No one seems to do anything about paparazzi, yet my sister is blocked
from taking photos of her daughter skiing because Brad Pitt, fifty
feet away form her, might be in the frame, My sister told him off.
It's natural clebrities react to paparazzi as they do, but where is
the common sense? It's all out of control. Extremist Fanatics,
religious or secular, busy bodies, meddlers in personal life, etc. are
given free passes while anyone suggesting that we don't want a hodge
podge socialist world state is called a rascist and a bigot.
"Tyranny of the Majority," was Thomas Jefferson's phrase to explain
it. for me it's like when the patients take over the asylum.
dc
Cosmic Gnome
<stale...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3ac684d-7bbc-4584...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>I would like to learn more about this.
Remembering the Sons of Eilaboun
Gilad Atzmon on the truth behind the Zionist project.
Gilad Atzmon | 25 May 2009 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The truth of the Nakba has been hidden for many decades. Not many people
except the Palestinians are aware of the scale of 1948 ethnic expulsions and
even fewer are aware of the atrocities occasionally performed by the nascent
Israel Defense Forces (IDF). As a young Israeli pupil I was taught to
believe that the "Arabs" (this is what we called them) just run for their
lives. We were told that no one forced "them" to do so - they were just a
bunch of cowards. We were taught that they are not as attached to the land
as we, the Israelis, are. While they fled for their lives without fighting
back, we, the "chosens," schlepped all the way back to Zion after 2,000
years to reclaim "our" historic land.
The truth about the hundreds of massacres of Palestinian villagers committed
by a young and well-trained enthusiastic IDF was absolutely hidden. There
wasn't even a hint that such a thing took place. We knew of only one
massacre, the one in Deir Yassin. We were aware of it because the so-called
"left" Israeli leadership used it to vilify their right wing political
rivals - namely Menahem Begin who was directly responsible for this very
massacre.
In the last decade, the horrifying exposure of Israeli brutality in the
Nakba has started to filter through. Nowadays we know that the ethnic
cleansing of Palestine was an orchestrated operation that was planned well
in advance. As we learn in the early Zionist texts, the intention to wipe
out the Palestinian existence in the Holy Land was apparent from the very
beginning of the movement. The national Jewish aspiration was all about the
erection of a Jews-only state in Palestine. The indigenous habitants on the
land had to be expelled for the Zionist project to prevail.
It is rather obvious that the scale of Israeli atrocities in the Nakba is
far from being fully explored. This alone may also explain why many of us
tend to believe that Israelis are becoming more and more vicious as time
goes by. We tend to believe that Israelis have ethically deteriorated. The
truth of the matter is pretty devastating. Israel was born into a colossal
sin. The birth of the Jewish state was a tragedy involved with an endless
chain of barbarian massacres and other war crimes. As we learn from Hisham
Zreiq's film Sons Of Eilaboun, the first Israelis -the 1948 IDF soldiers -
were at least as sinister as their grandsons in Gaza 2009.
Sons of Eilaboun is a story of one small village in the Galilee, one village
among many. It is a story of one massacre, one massacre among many. It is a
story of a small community that is tormented and traumatized for
generations. Sons of Eilaboun is, in fact, the story of Palestine.
With very minimal means, Zreiq manages to deliver a very deep and authentic
reading of Palestinian history. He also manages to portray the intense
emotional impact of the Nakba on those who survived the horror. It is a
documentation of villagers that were dispossessed and have run for their
lives. But it is also an unusual story of a small Palestinian community that
managed to return (thanks to UN intervention) only to find out that their
houses were looted and they were left with nothing. As if this is not enough
they soon found out that Israeli invaders had poked out their beloved
brothers' and sons' eyes. One may expect that just three years after the
liberation of Auschwitz Israelis soldiers would be slightly more
compassionate.
You better see it to believe it.