PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2017-04-23, 16:46:35
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 ... 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 [74] 75 76 77
Author Topic: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk!  (Read 248208 times)

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1632
Everyman decries immorality
1948 Palestinian exodus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus

The 1948 Palestinian exodus, also known as the Nakba (Arabic: النكبة‎‎, "al-Nakbah", literally "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm"),[1] occurred when more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1948 Palestine war.[2] Between 400 and 600 Palestinian villages were sacked during the war, while urban Palestine was almost entirely extinguished.[3] The term "nakba" also refers to the period of war itself and events affecting Palestinians from December 1947 to January 1949.

The precise number of refugees, many of whom settled in refugee camps in neighboring states, is a matter of dispute[4] but around 80 percent of the Arab inhabitants of what became Israel (50 percent of the Arab total of Mandatory Palestine) left or were expelled from their homes.[5][6]

The causes are also a subject of fundamental disagreement between historians. Factors involved in the exodus include Jewish military advances, destruction of Arab villages, psychological warfare and fears of another massacre by Zionist militias after the Deir Yassin massacre,[7]:239–240 which caused many to leave out of panic; direct expulsion orders by Israeli authorities; the voluntary self-removal of the wealthier classes;[8] collapse in Palestinian leadership and Arab evacuation orders.[9][10] and an unwillingness to live under Jewish control.[11][dubious – discuss][12]

Later, a series of laws passed by the first Israeli government prevented them from returning to their homes, or claiming their property. They and many of their descendants remain refugees.[13][14] The expulsion of the Palestinians has since been described by some historians as ethnic cleansing,[15][16][17] while others dispute this charge.[18][19][20]

The status of the refugees, and in particular whether Israel will grant them their claimed right to return to their homes or be compensated, are key issues in the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The events of 1948 are commemorated by Palestinians both in the Palestinian territories and elsewhere on 15 May, a date now known as Nakba Day.

UN: 9 million Syrians now displaced as conflict ticks into fourth year

March 14, 2014

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/3/14/syriaa-s-forciblydisplacedtop9million.html

As country surpasses Afghanistan in displaced persons, the UN mediator in Syria expresses skepticism over peace talks

On the eve of the third anniversary of unrest that led to the Syrian civil war, the United Nation's refugee agency (UNHCR) said Friday that the country now leads the world in forced displacement, with more than 9 million people uprootedas a result of the conflict.

The total number of displaced people is comprised of over 2.5 million refugees who are living in neighboring countries and 6.5 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) within Syria, according to the UNHCR. The number of people uprooted — half of which are children — equals 40 percent of the country’s pre-war population.

In crossing the 9 million mark, experts believe that Syria has overtaken Afghanistan as the world’s leader in forcibly displaced persons.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1632
Everyman decries immorality
‘Bercow's Trump ban: Slap in face for US president & UK govt’

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/376576-uk-parliament-us-trump/

The proposal by the Speaker of the UK Parliament to ban President Trump from addressing the House is a slap in the face to the president and the British government trying to bring America on side, political commentator Adam Garrie told RT.

On Monday, the Speaker of the UK House of Commons John Bercow denounced Donald Trump's policies and said the US president should be barred from addressing Parliament during his state visit.

A number of politicians objected to Bercow’s proposal, and some Tory MPs are suggesting forcing a vote of no confidence in the Speaker.

John Bercow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bercow

John Simon Bercow (born 19 January 1963) is a British politician who has been the Speaker of the House of Commons since June 2009. Prior to his election to Speaker, he was a member of the Conservative Party. A former hardline right-winger who moderated his views after becoming an MP and at one time was rumoured to be likely to defect to the Labour Party, Bercow's election to the Speaker's chair depended heavily on the backing of other parties, and was deeply unpopular with many of his former colleagues.[2]

He served as a councillor from 1986 to 1990 and unsuccessfully contested parliamentary seats in the 1987 and 1992 general elections. In the 1997 general election, Bercow was elected the MP for Buckingham and promoted to the shadow cabinet in 2001. He held posts in the shadow cabinets of Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard. In November 2002, he resigned from the shadow cabinet over disputes concerning the Adoption and Children Act but returned under Howard in 2003. In September 2004, Bercow was sacked after disagreements with Howard.

Following the resignation of Speaker Michael Martin, Bercow announced his intention to stand for the Speakership election on 22 June 2009 and was successful. He remained Speaker and was re-elected in his constituency at the general election on 7 May 2015. He was re-elected as Speaker, unopposed, when the House sat at the start of the new parliament on 18 May 2015.[3]

In 2014 Bercow was appointed Chancellor of the University of Bedfordshire.[4]

Early life and education


Bercow was born to an English Jewish family in Edgware, London.[5] His paternal grandparents were Jews from Romania who arrived in England a century ago..

Zionist Jew becomes speaker of British Parliament

https://radioislam.org/islam/english/jewishp/britain/speaker_bercow_jewish.htm

John Bercow is a member of the Zionist Conservative Friends of Israel lobby group and has been to Israel courtesy of the Israel Government.

John Bercow will be protected by the Zionist Broadcasting Corporation. No mention of his former views on repatriation. No mention of his links to Israel.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1632
Everyman decries immorality
Israel’s manipulation of UK politics: time for zero tolerance

https://mycatbirdseat.com/2017/02/israels-manipulation-uk-politics-time-zero-tolerance/

We have Aljazeera to thank for the brilliant exposé where our own security services failed.

by Stuart Littlewood

Both the Foreign Office and Boris Johnson, the UK’s foreign secretary, have declared the Shai Masot affair “closed” after Masot, an employee of the Israeli embassy and probably a Mossad asset, plotted with gullible British MPs and political hangers-on to “take down” senior government figures, including Johnson’s deputy, Alan Duncan.

“The UK has a strong relationship with Israel and we consider the matter closed,” they announced. The Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, who is Jewish, has also declined to investigate.

Sorry, Boris. It isn’t closed – hell no. It’s just opening and it’ll run and run. You and your fellow stooges can be sure of it.

According to some reports, Masot served in the Israeli navy in Palestinian waters off Gaza. Given the many atrocities committed by Israel’s gunboats against Gaza’s fishermen, and children playing on Gaza’s beach, and even peaceful unarmed humanitarian vessels bringing relief to the sick and starving there, he may well be on a wanted list for questioning about war crimes. Masot’s damning comments were captured and revealed in an undercover investigation by Aljazeera and not, as one might have hoped, by Britain’s own beloved press barons.

Masot’s hostile conniving was going on under the eye of a recently arrived ambassador, the loathsome Mark Regev, ace propagandist, mastermind of the Israeli lie machine and personal spokesman for the Zionist regime’s chief thug, Binyamiin Netanyahu.

Emily Thornberry, the Labour Party’s shadow foreign secretary, called Masot’s activities “extremely disturbing” and has demanded a probe into the potential extent of political “interference” in the United Kingdom. There are calls for Regev to be packed off back to Tel Aviv.

Are British parliamentarians at last waking up? Are those who wave the flag of a nasty, murderous foreign military power about to feel the heat from an increasingly furious public? They should be very afraid.

Nothing new

The realisation that we are in the grip of great evil has been slow in coming. Nine years ago 20 senior professionals wrote to the Committee on Standards in Public Life about the undue influence of the Israel lobby at the heart of British government and their deep concern about the appalling conditions forced on the civilian population in the occupied territories, particularly Gaza, by the Israeli blockade and called-for sanctions to be imposed by Britain and the European Union.

A letter had earlier been delivered to the Foreign Office minister then responsible for the Middle East, Kim Howells, suggesting that Britain consider suspending the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The rules provide for this sanction if Israel’s conduct towards its neighbours falls short of what is required under the UN Charter and other obligations.

Howells replied:

We consider that the Association Agreement is a key tool for the EU to both enhance cooperation with Israel but also to raise any concerns. We do not support suspension of that agreement, which would limit how we could put our viewpoint across to the Israeli government.

When the EU demanded an end to the emergency in Gaza and the military occupation of the West Bank, Israel responded with an even tighter lockdown, so another letter was sent to Howells. He replied:

The UK… has strong relationships with Israel on a number of fronts… We do not consider it would be in the best interests of the UK, or the European Union, to end this relationship.

Howells was a former chairman of Labour Friends of Israel (LFI). His opposition shadow at the time was a member of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI).

The minister was then asked to explain what “viewpoint” Her Majesty’s Government had put to the Israeli government regarding the medieval-style siege of Gaza and the collective punishment inflicted on its already impoverished civilians in flagrant breach of the UN Charter and every conceivable code of conduct. What action had he and his department taken to alleviate the suffering in this former British mandate? What was the status of the coastal waters off Gaza? How could Israel maintain a sea blockade lawfully and deny Gazan fishermen their livelihood?

And how did continuing the association agreement in these cruel circumstances “enhance cooperation” with Israel?

No answers to these questions were ever received.

So the 20 signatories reminded the Standards Committee how the lobby group, Friends of Israel, had embedded itself in the British political establishment with the stated purpose of promoting Israel’s interests in our Parliament and bend British policy.

British MPs eating out of the Israeli government’s hand

It was put to the committee that MPs are surely not at liberty to act for a foreign military power at the expense of our own national interests, or to let foreign influence cloud their judgement. Such conduct breached the second of the Seven Principles of Public Life, namely Integrity – “Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.”

The various Friends of Israel organisations had gone to great lengths to influence those in power. A good many of them, it seemed, reached their high positions with Friends of Israel help. The network acted as a sort of parliamentary freemasonry. The political director of Conservative Friends of Israel claimed that with over 2,000 members and registered supporters alongside 80 per cent of the Conservative MPs, CFI was the largest affiliated group in the party.

Its website stated that the CFI

strives to support the Conservative Party at all available opportunities. In the run up to the 2005 General Election… CFI supported candidates up and down the country. As candidates are now being continuously selected for target seats, CFI has developed a special programme of weekly briefings, events with speakers and a chance to participate in delegations to Israel. CFI encourages all members to help campaign for parliamentary candidates and also for local council, London and European elections.

It also had a “Fast Track” group for Conservative parliamentary candidates fighting target marginal seats at the next election. The political director himself was seeking election to Parliament. If successful where would his loyalty lie?

Senior Conservatives tried to justify these activities by insisting that Israel was “a force for good in the world” and “in the battle for the values that we stand for, for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression – Israel’s enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together”.

The danger of inappropriate “friendships” with foreign regimes had become blazingly obvious a few days earlier when Tzipi Livni, Israel’s foreign minister, was reported to have twice asked David Miliband, our foreign secretary, to scrap the law that authorised magistrates to issue arrest warrants for suspected war criminals who set foot in the UK, she being a particularly blood-soaked example. Avi Dichter, a former director of the Shin Bet spy service and involved in the Shehadeh assassination in which 14 Palestianian civilians, including children, were killed by an Israeli air strike, had to cancel a trip to London for fear of being arrested.

Doron Almog, a former Israeli general, also involved in the Shehadeh affair, narrowly avoided arrest when he landed at Heathrow in 2005. Israel wished the UK to change its laws to protect alleged war criminals. So, we did so just to oblige them, in the name of “enhanced cooperation”, as Howells might have put it.

The Standards Committee was also told bluntly:

It is especially disconcerting to discover that at least two members of your committee, which is pledged to uphold the Principles of Public Life, are Friends of Israel [one the president of Conservative Friends of Israel and the other a member of Labour Friends of Israel]… Given that Israel’s deep penetration of our political system apparently prevents Britain from taking a principled stand on Middle East matters, including the violations of Palestinian human rights, we invite your committee – minus those with an interest – to uphold the Principles of Public Life and consider the activities of the Friends of Israel as a matter for urgent investigation.

But the Standards Committee refused to look into it. The chairman’s reply, sent in a note from a member of his office staff, said: “I regret that the Committee on Standards in Public Life has no remit to help you in this matter.”

So, the public’s watchdog – the Standards Committee – which was formed specifically to uphold those Seven Principles, wasn’t playing ball. Its published remit called on it to examine current concerns about standards of conduct of all holders of public office, including arrangements relating to financial and commercial activities and make recommendations as to any changes in present arrangements which might be required to ensure the highest standards of propriety in public life.

Wasn’t this the kind of plain English even dyed-in-the-wool bureaucrats like the committee’s chairman could understand?

Apparently not. He added:

This Committee commented on lobbying in their first report in 1995 and re-addressed the issue, including the changes instigated by their first report, in a review in 2001. The committee has no plans to review this area again in the near future.

The angry 20 pointed out there was nothing in the 1995 report relating to MPs and legislators representing the interests of foreign countries within Parliament or placing themselves under the influence of a foreign country’s political lobby. Nor could they find any mention of it in the 2001 report. They asked for chapter and verse. No reply.

And there the matter has rested for nine years.

Tarnished watchdog

Fast-forward to the present day and we find it’s now the Anglo-Israel Association (AIA) casting a shadow over the Standards Committee. “The Association’s primary purpose is to promote wider and better understanding of Israel in the UK; to encourage exchanges between both countries at every level and generally to support activities which foster good will between British and Israeli citizens,” says the website. But its programme is skewed mainly towards “educating” Britons, including our clergy, about Israel.

The honorary president of the AIA is the ambassador of Israel himself. The chairman of the AIA’s Executive Committee is none other than Lord Bew, also chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. And its council includes the Earl of Balfour – the fifth earl, that is – related of course to the first earl, that nincompoop Arthur Balfour whose infamous Declaration in 1917 paved the way for the shameful handover of the Palestinians’ homeland – and Christianity’s homeland – to Zionist Jews. “What we have done, by concessions not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section,” warned Lord Sydenham at the time, “is to start a running sore in the East, and no-one can tell how far that sore will extend.”

The centenary of Balfour’s Declaration will be joyously celebrated this year by Israel’s many Westminster stooges including Theresa May if her sucking-up speech to the Israel lobby last month is anything to go by.

So there’s a lot of weeding-out to do.

Those disgruntled 20 could easily become 2 million if the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement, the PSC (Palestine Solidarity Campaign), the unions and other activist groups got together.

The sinister machinations of Masot and Regev have presented them an open goal. And we have Aljazeera to thank for the brilliant exposé where our own security services failed.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1632
Everyman decries immorality
Great Britain

https://radioislam.org/islam/english/index_uk.htm

The Jews in Great Britain make out only 0.5 percent of the total population but have an overhelming grip on British politics and medias, completely out of proportion to their status as a minority. This Jewish influence is used for the goals of Zionism where Britain's foreign policies are made to coincide with the aims of Israel.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1632
Everyman decries immorality
vassal

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vassal

1. A person who held land from a feudal lord and received protection in return for homage and allegiance.
2. A bondman; a slave.
3. A subordinate or dependent.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1632
Everyman decries immorality
As Netanyahu and Theresa May Chat, a Large Nest of Israeli Spies in London Exposed

http://www.globalresearch.ca/as-netanyahu-and-theresa-may-chat-a-large-nest-of-israeli-spies-in-london-exposed/5573588

By Craig Murray

The Israeli Embassy has seventeen Israeli “technical and administrative staff” granted visas by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The normal number for an Embassy that size would be about two. I spoke to two similar size non-EU Embassies this morning, one has two and one zero. I recall I dealt with an angry Foreign Minister during my own FCO career incensed his much larger High Commission had been refused by the FCO an increase from three to four technical and administrative staff.

Shai Masot, the Israeli “diplomat” who had been subverting Britain’s internal democracy with large sums of cash and plans to concoct scandal against a pro-Palestinian British minister, did not appear in the official diplomatic list.

I queried this with the FCO, and was asked to put my request in writing. A full three weeks later and after dozens of phone calls, they reluctantly revealed that Masot was on the “technical and administrative staff” of the Israeli Embassy.

This is plainly a nonsense. Masot, as an ex-Major in the Israeli Navy and senior officer in the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, is plainly senior to many who are on the Diplomatic List, which includes typists and personal assistants. There are six attaches – support staff – already on the List.

Masot was plainly not carrying out technical and administrative duties. The term is a formal one from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and it is plain from the convention that technical and administrative staff are in official status lower than the diplomatic staff. The majority of support activities are carried out in all Embassies by locally engaged staff already resident in the host country, but a very small number of technical and administrative staff may be allowed visas for work in particularly secure areas. They may be an IT and communications technician, possibly a cleaner in the most sensitive physical areas, and perhaps property management.

These staff do not interact with politicians of the host state or attend high level meetings beside the Ambassador. The level at which Shai Masot was operating was appropriate to a Counsellor or First Secretary in an Embassy. Masot’s formal rank as an officer in his cover job in the Ministry of Strategic Affairs would entitle him to that rank in the Embassy if this were a normal appointment.

The Al Jazeera documentaries plainly revealed that Masot was working as an intelligence officer, acquiring and financing “agents of influence”. It is simply impossible that the FCO would normally grant seventeen technical and administrative visas to support sixteen diplomats, when six of the sixteen are already support staff. The only possible explanation, confirmed absolutely by Masot’s behaviour, is that the FCO has knowingly connived at settling a large nest of Israeli spies in London. I fairly put this to the FCO and they refused to comment.

I asked my questions on 10 January. On 12 January the FCO asked me to put them in writing. On 2 February they finally replied to the first three questions, but refused to comment on questions 4 or 5 about involvement of the intelligence services in Masot’s appointment.

FCO Media Department have replied that they refuse to give me any further information on the subject, and that I should proceed through a Freedom of Information request so the FCO can assess properly whether the release of any further information is in the national interest.

What is it they are always saying to us: if you have got nothing to fear, you have got nothing to hide?

I am confident I know what they are hiding, and that is FCO complicity in a large nest of Israeli spies seeking to influence policy and opinion in the UK in a pro-Israeli direction. That is why the government reaction to one of those spies being caught on camera plotting a scandal against an FCO minister, and giving £1 million to anti-Corbyn MPs, was so astonishingly muted. It is also worth noting that while the media could not completely ignore the fantastic al Jazeera documentaries that exposed the scandal, it was a matter of a brief article and no follow up digging.

This was not just a curiosity, it reveals a deep-seated problem for our democracy. I intend to continue picking at it.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1632
Everyman decries immorality
English people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people

The English are a nation and an ethnic group native to England, who speak the English language. The English identity is of early medieval origin, when they were known in Old English as the Angelcynn ("family of the Angles"). Their ethnonym is derived from the Angles, one of the Germanic peoples who migrated to Great Britain around the 5th century AD.[6] England is one of the countries of the United Kingdom.

Historically, the English population is descended from several peoples — the earlier Britons (or Brythons) and the Germanic tribes that settled in Britain following the withdrawal of the Romans, including Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians. Collectively known as the Anglo-Saxons, they founded what was to become England (from the Old English Englaland) along with the later Danes, Normans and other groups. In the Acts of Union 1707, the Kingdom of England was succeeded by the Kingdom of Great Britain.[7] Over the years, English customs and identity have become fairly closely aligned with British customs and identity in general.

Today many English people have recent forebears from other parts of the United Kingdom, while some are also descended from more recent immigrants from other European countries and from the Commonwealth.

The English people are the source of the English language, the Westminster system, the common law system and numerous major sports such as cricket, football,[8] rugby union, rugby league and tennis. These and other English cultural characteristics have spread worldwide, in part as a result of the former British Empire.

English nationality

The concept of an "English nation" is far older than that of the "British nation", and the 1990s witnessed a revival in English self-consciousness.[9] This is linked to the expressions of national self-awareness of the other British nations of Wales and Scotland  – which take their most solid form in the new devolved political arrangements within the United Kingdom  – and the waning of a shared British national identity with the growing distance between the end of the British Empire and the present.[10][11][12]

Many recent immigrants to England have assumed a solely British identity, while others have developed dual or mixed identities.[13][14] Use of the word "English" to describe Britons from ethnic minorities in England is complicated by most non-white people in England identifying as British rather than English. In their 2004 Annual Population Survey, the Office for National Statistics compared the ethnic identities of British people with their perceived national identity. They found that while 58% of white people in England described their nationality as "English", the vast majority of non-white people called themselves "British".


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1632
Everyman decries immorality
Craig Murray defines a small nest of spies with diplomatic cover who are part of a Governmental Organisation (GO). There is a larger nest of Non Governmental Organisation actors (lobbyist) who operate without official diplomatic cover and also subvert established democracies in the same way as Shai Masot got caught doing.

Shai Masot, the Israeli “diplomat” who had been subverting Britain’s internal democracy with large sums of cash and plans to concoct scandal against a pro-Palestinian British minister, did not appear in the official diplomatic list.

Subversion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subversion

Subversion refers to an attempt to transform the established social order and its structures of power, authority, and hierarchy. Subversion (Latin subvertere: overthrow) refers to a process by which the values and principles of a system in place are contradicted or reversed. More specifically, subversion can be described as an attack on the public morale and, "the will to resist intervention are the products of combined political and social or class loyalties which are usually attached to national symbols. Following penetration, and parallel with the forced disintegration of political and social institutions of the state, these loyalties may be detached and transferred to the political or ideological cause of the aggressor".[1] Subversion is used as a tool to achieve political goals because it generally carries less risk, cost, and difficulty as opposed to open belligerency. Furthermore, it is a relatively cheap form of warfare that does not require large amounts of training.[2] A subversive is something or someone carrying the potential for some degree of subversion. In this context, a "subversive" is sometimes called a "traitor" with respect to (and usually by) the government in power.

Subversion, however, is also often a goal of "comedians", artists and people in those careers.[3] In this case, being subversive can mean questioning, poking fun at, and undermining the established order in general.[4] When a comedy or comic is referred to as being subversive, it is as much of a compliment to their work as it could be an accusation,[5] from comics like Charlie Chaplin, Lenny Bruce, Andy Kaufman and Stephen Colbert to writers like Paddy Chayefsky, Larry Charles and Mel Brooks, and activists like Abbie Hoffman, and Michael Moore. Satire is one of the most potent forms of subversion for artists and comics, and it can take shape in films, television, books, and even political protest.

Terrorist groups generally do not employ subversion as a tool to achieve their goals. Subversion is a manpower-intensive strategy and many groups lack the manpower and political and social connections to carry out subversive activities.[6] However, actions taken by terrorists may have a subversive effect on society. Subversion can imply the use of insidious, dishonest, monetary, or violent methods to bring about such change.

This is in contrast to protest, a coup d'état, or working through traditional means (if) available in a political system to bring about change. Furthermore, external subversion is where, "the aggressor state attempts to recruit and assist indigenous political and military actors to overthrow their government by coup d’état".[7] If subversion fails in its goal of bringing about a coup it is possible that the actors and actions of the subversive group could transition to insurrection, insurgency, and/or guerilla warfare.[8]

The word is present in all languages of Latin origin (see: seditio), originally applying to such events as the military defeat of a city. As early as the 14th century, it was being used in the English language with reference to laws, and in the 15th century came to be used with respect to the realm. The term has taken over from "sedition" as the name for illicit rebellion, though the connotations of the two words are rather different, sedition suggesting overt attacks on institutions, subversion something much more surreptitious, such as eroding the basis of belief in the status quo or setting people against each other.

Definition

The problem with defining the term subversion is that there is not a single definition that is universally accepted.[9] Charles Townshend described subversion as a term, "so elastic as to be virtually devoid of meaning, and its use does little more than convey the enlarged sense of the vulnerability of modern systems to all kinds of covert assaults".[10] What follows are some of the many attempts to define the term:

    "Subversion is the undermining or detachment of the loyalties of significant political and social groups within the victimized state, and their transference, under ideal conditions, to the symbols and institutions of the aggressor."[11]

    "Subversion — Actions designed to undermine the military, economic, psychological, or political strength or morale of a governing authority."[12]

    "Subversive Activity — Anyone lending aid, comfort, and moral support to individuals, groups, or organizations that advocate the overthrow of incumbent governments by force and violence is subversive and is engaged in subversive activity. All willful acts that are intended to be detrimental to the best interests of the government and that do not fall into the categories of treason, sedition, sabotage, or espionage will be placed in the category of subversive activity."[12]

    "Subversive Political Action — A planned series of activities designed to accomplish political objectives by influencing, dominating, or displacing individuals or groups who are so placed as to affect the decisions and actions of another government."[12]

    Subversion — "A destructive, aggressive activity aimed to destroy the country, nation, or geographical area of your enemy... [by demoralizing the cultural values and changing the population's perception of reality].[13]

    Subversion — Roger Trinquier defined subversion as a term that could be lumped together under the name modern warfare, "as being interlocking systems of actions, political, economic, psychological and military that aims at the overthrow of established authority in a country."

Conceptual understanding

Defining and understanding subversion means identifying entities, structures, and things that can be subverted. Furthermore, it may help to identify practices and tools that are not subversive. Institutions and morals can be subverted, but ideology on the other hand cannot.[15] The fall of a government or the creation of a new government as a result of an external war is not subversion. Espionage does not count as subversion because it is not an action that leads directly to an overthrow of a government. Information gathered from espionage may be used to plan and carry out subversive activities.[16]

To gain an understanding of what is considered to be subversive requires understanding the intent of those taking action. This makes defining and identifying subversion a difficult process. As Laurence Beilenson points out, "to criticize a government in an effort to reform it or to change its policies is not subversion, even though such criticism may contribute to overthrow. But criticism intended to help a projected overthrow becomes subversive without regard to whether it is right or wrong."


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1632
Everyman decries immorality
Kingdom of Great Britain

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Great_Britain

The Kingdom of Great Britain, officially Great Britain /ɡreɪt ˈbrɪ.tən/,[1][2][3] was a sovereign state in western Europe from 1 May 1707 to 31 December 1800. The state came into being following the Treaty of Union in 1706, ratified by the Acts of Union 1707, which united the kingdoms of England and Scotland to form a single kingdom encompassing the whole island of Great Britain and its outlying islands. It did not include Ireland, which remained a separate realm. The unitary state was governed by a single parliament and government that was based in Westminster. The former kingdoms had been in personal union since James VI, King of Scots, became King of England and King of Ireland in 1603 following the death of Queen Elizabeth I, bringing about a "Union of the Crowns". Also after the accession of George I to the throne of Great Britain in 1714, the kingdom was in a personal union with the Electorate of Hanover.

The early years of the unified kingdom were marked by Jacobite risings which ended in defeat for the Stuart cause at Culloden in 1746. Later on in 1763, victory in the Seven Years' War led to the dominance of the British Empire, which was to become the foremost global power for over a century and later grew to become the largest empire in history.

On 1 January 1801, the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland were merged to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.[4] In 1922, five-sixths of Ireland seceded from the United Kingdom and the state was renamed the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" – a title it has retained to date.

British people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_people

British people, or Britons, are the citizens of the United Kingdom, British Overseas Territories, and Crown dependencies, and their descendants.[28][29][30] British nationality law governs modern British citizenship and nationality, which can be acquired, for instance, by descent from British nationals. When used in a historical context, "British" or "Britons" can refer to the ancient Britons, the indigenous Brittonic-Pictish Celtic inhabitants of Great Britain and Brittany, whose surviving members are the modern Welsh, and Bretons.[29]

Although early assertions of being British date from the Late Middle Ages, the creation of the united Kingdom of Great Britain[31][32][33][34][35] in 1707 triggered a sense of British national identity.[36] The notion of Britishness was forged during the Napoleonic Wars between Britain and the First French Empire, and developed further during the Victorian era.[36][37] The complex history of the formation of the United Kingdom created a "particular sense of nationhood and belonging" in Great Britain and Ireland;[36] Britishness became "superimposed on much older identities", of English, Scots, Welsh and Irish cultures, whose distinctiveness still resists notions of a homogenised British identity.[38] Because of longstanding ethno-sectarian divisions, British identity in Northern Ireland is controversial, but it is held with strong conviction by unionists.[39]

Modern Britons are descended mainly from the varied ethnic groups that settled in the British Isles in and before the 11th century: Prehistoric, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Normans.[40] Union[clarification needed] facilitated migration, cultural and linguistic exchange, and intermarriage between the peoples of England, Scotland and Wales during the late Middle Ages, Early Modern period and beyond.[41][42] Since 1922 and earlier, there has been immigration to the United Kingdom by people from what is now the Republic of Ireland, the Commonwealth, mainland Europe and elsewhere; they and their descendants are mostly British citizens, with some assuming a British, dual or hyphenated identity.[43]

The British are a diverse, multi-national[44][45] and multicultural society, with "strong regional accents, expressions and identities".[46][47] The social structure of the United Kingdom has changed radically since the 19th century, with a decline in religious observance, enlargement of the middle class, and particularly since the 1950s increased ethnic diversity. The population of the UK stands at around 62.5 million,[48] with a British diaspora of around 140 million concentrated in Australia, Canada, South Africa, Hong Kong, New Zealand, United States and Spain.[49]

White British

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_British

White British is an ethnicity classification used in the 2011 United Kingdom Census. As a result of the 2011 census the White British population was estimated 51,736,290 (81.9% of the UK total population).[1][2][3] (NB. This total includes the population estimate for Northern Ireland, where only the term 'White' is used in ethnic classification. National identity is listed separately in NI, where 40% classified themselves as British, making up a significant portion of the population, along with those specifying their national identity as Irish.[4])

Population and distribution


The White British census classification have their ages more evenly distributed in their population pyramid and have the highest percent female population of all ethnic-based classifications. About 64% percent of the White British classification are between the ages of 16 and 64 while about 19% percent are under 16 and 19% percent are over 64. All other census classifications have a higher percentage of their population under 16 and a lower percentage over 64. Of those aged 65 or over, White British are 41% percent male and 59% percent female, making them have the lowest percent male population among all census classifications defined as "ethnic" in the census.[10]

According to the 2011 Census results, White British people make up the largest percentage of the population in rural areas, such as Allerdale (99.4%) and Copeland (99.3%) in Cumbria, Ryedale (99.4%) in North Yorkshire, North Norfolk (99.2%) and North Devon (99%). Cities across the UK regions with high White British populations include Swansea (91.5%), Plymouth (92.2%), Darlington (93.7%), Belfast (96.4% - NI classification "white"),[11] Norwich (84.7%), Chelmsford (90.0%) and Lichfield (94.6%). Within London, Havering (83.3%) has the highest White British percentage, followed by Bromley (77.4%), Bexley (77.3%) and Richmond upon Thames (71.4%).[1]

As at 2011 London contains by far the lowest percentage of English and other White British people of all the UK regions, where they make up less than half of the population in 24 of the 32 boroughs, including Newham (16.7%), Brent (18.0%), Ealing (30.4%), Harrow (30.9%), Tower Hamlets (31.2%), Westminster (35.2%) and Hackney (36.2%). The city with the lowest White British population as a percentage is Leicester (45.1%). The Unitary Authority with the lowest White British percentage is Slough (34.5%), followed by Luton (44.6%).[1]


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1632
Everyman decries immorality
Hell just froze over: the New York Times runs an article saying Zionism is racist

http://mondoweiss.net/2016/12/article-saying-zionism/

Phil Weiss and Donald Johnson on December 20, 2016

Trump’s election is having fascinating consequences. Today the New York Times ran a long piece titled, “Liberal Zionism in the Age of Trump,” by Omri Boehm of the New School saying that liberal Zionism is a contradiction: liberal American Jews have “identified themselves with Zionism, a political agenda rooted in the denial of liberal politics.”

Boehm’s most startling point is that Zionism has anti-Semitic strains, witness its collaboration with Nazis. Hannah Arendt is happy today.

The piece will greatly increase the pressure on liberal Zionists to choose one idea or the other, and to stop denying the existence of apartheid.

Boehm says white nationalist Richard Spencer helped to blow up the liberal Zionist hypocrisy in his famous encounter with a Texas rabbi when he said he admires Israel for its ethnic purity and the rabbi had nothing to say. Some of Boehm’s hammer blows:

    by denying liberal principles, Zionism immediately becomes continuous with — rather than contradictory to — the anti-Semitic politics of the sort promoted by the alt-right…

    insofar as Israel is concerned, every liberal Zionist has not just tolerated the denial of this minimum liberal standard, but avowed this denial as core to their innermost convictions. Whereas liberalism depends on the idea that states must remain neutral on matters of religion and race, Zionism consists in the idea that the State of Israel is not Israeli, but Jewish. As such, the country belongs first and foremost not to its citizens, but to the Jewish people — a group that’s defined by ethnic affiliation or religious conversion…


Boehm never comes out and uses the term “racist,” but he might as well.

Trump has changed the map.

    As long as liberalism was secure back in America and the rejection of liberalism confined to the Israeli scene, this tension could be mitigated. But as it spills out into the open in the rapidly changing landscape of American politics, the double standard is becoming difficult to defend…

    [T]he following years promise to present American Jewry with a decision that they have much preferred to avoid. Hold fast to their liberal tradition, as the only way to secure human, citizen and Jewish rights; or embrace the principles driving Zionism.


By the way, the denial of the right of return is racist:

    Opposition to the Palestinians’ “right of return” is a matter of consensus among left and right Zionists because also liberal Zionists insist that Israel has the right to ensure that Jews constitute the ethnic majority in their country. That’s the reason for which Rabbi Rosenberg could not answer Spencer.

And then this verboten history: Zionists collaborated with “anti-Semitic politics.” With Nazis:

    The “original sin” of such alliances may be traced back to 1941, in a letter to high Nazi officials, drafted in 1941 by Avraham Stern, known as Yair, a leading early Zionist fighter and member in the 1930s of the paramilitary group Irgun, and later, the founder of another such group, Lehi. In the letter, Stern proposes to collaborate with “Herr Hitler” on “solving the Jewish question” by achieving a “Jewish free Europe.” The solution can be achieved, Stern continues, only through the “settlement of these masses in the home of the Jewish people, Palestine.” To that end, he suggests collaborate with the German’s “war efforts,” and establish a Jewish state on a “national and totalitarian basis,” which will be “bound by treaty with the German Reich.”

    It has been convenient to ignore the existence of this letter, just as it has been convenient to mitigate the conceptual conditions making it possible.


This is an opinion piece by an outsider, not a New York Times article. Hell and everything else would freeze if the NYT started writing news pieces which presupposed Zionism as actually practiced is racist. They won’t do that yet. They might conceivably start writing articles where people with that view are treated respectfully as they express it, rather than hiding the view from readers or treating people who express it as moral lepers.

Many of Boehm’s arguments have been made on the left for years, of course. The liberal Zionists chose to ignore them and talk about the two-state solution. They are losing that luxury. Though, expect some pushback from the Zionist forces inside the New York Times.

The Times would never have run this piece if Boehm were not Israeli. Just as the newspaper insisted, according to the late Tony Judt, that he identify himself as Jewish when he defended Walt and Mearsheimer in 2006. There are double standards in the press too.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1632
Everyman decries immorality
Thousands of Jews and Arabs March Together Against Racism and House Demolitions in Tel Aviv

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.769634

Jack Khoury and Or Kashti Feb 05, 2017

The organizers say the protest, in which the speeches were given in both Arabic and Hebrew, is a new stage in the civil struggle of Jews and Arabs.

Thousands of people, Arabs and Jews, marched Saturday evening in Tel Aviv in a protest against the house demolitions in Kalansua and Umm al-Hiran in recent weeks, and against further steps to demolish more homes.

Organizers said some 5,000 protestors participated in the march, which began at the intersection of King George an Allenby Streets and ended in Dizengoff Square.

A number of Jewish and Arab organizations participated in organizing the demonstration, which the organizers termed a new stage in the civil struggle of Jews and Arabs. The speeches were given in Arabic and Hebrew, and marchers waved both Israeli and Palestinian flags. 

Amal Abu Sa'ad, the widow of Yakub Abu al-Kiyan, who was killed during the operation to demolish illegal homes in the unrecognized Bedouin village of Umm al-Hiran in the Negev last month, addressed the protesters: "It is important to me to stand here and speak to you and pass on the message to the prime minister and ministers: Despite your wild incitement, the racism and discrimination in legislation, enforcement, infrastructure and government services - you will not succeed in dividing between the country's citizens. All of you, who are standing here today, you are proof that Jews and Arabs can and want to live together and with equality."

http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/thousands-of-jews-and-arabs-march-together-against-racism-and



---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1632
Everyman decries immorality
Trump’s Foreign Policy at a Crossroads

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/09/trumps-foreign-policy-at-a-crossroads/

February 9, 2017

Exclusive: Recent U.S. foreign policy – driven by neocons and liberal hawks – has spread chaos and death around the globe. But can “crazy” Donald Trump bring sanity to how the U.S. approaches the world, asks Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

If you wanted to bring sanity to a U.S. foreign policy that has spun crazily out of control, there would be some immediate steps that you – or, say, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson – could take, starting with a renewed commitment to tell the truth to the American people.

Instead of the endless “perception management” or “strategic communication” or “psychological operations” or whatever the new code words are, you could open up the files regarding key turning-point moments and share the facts with the citizens – the “We the People” – who are supposed to be America’s true sovereigns.

For instance, you could release what the U.S. government actually knows about the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin gas attack in Syria; what the files show about the origins of the Feb. 22, 2014 coup in Ukraine; what U.S. intelligence analysts have compiled about the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine. And those are just three examples of cases where U.S. government propagandists have sold a dubious bill of goods to the American and world publics in the “information warfare” campaign against the Syrian and Russian governments.

If you wanted to base U.S. foreign policy on the firm foundation of reality, you also could let the American people in on who is actually the principal sponsor of the terrorism that they’re concerned about: Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the Taliban – all Sunni-led outfits, none of which are backed by Shiite-ruled Iran. Yet, all we hear from Official Washington’s political and media insiders is that Iran is the chief sponsor of terrorism.

Of course, that is what Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and Israel want you to believe because it serves their regional and sectarian interests, but it isn’t true. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are the ones arming and financing Al Qaeda and Islamic State with Israel occasionally bombing Al Qaeda’s military enemies inside Syria and providing medical support for Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate operating near the Golan Heights.

The reason for this unsavory network of alliances is that Israel, like Saudi Arabia and the Sunni-led Gulf states, sees Iran and the so-called “Shiite crescent” – from Tehran through Damascus to Beirut – as their principal problem. And because of the oil sheiks’ financial wealth and Israel’s political clout, they control how pretty much everyone in Official Washington’s establishment views the Middle East.

But the interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are not in line with the interests of the American people – nor the average European – who are not concerned about militant Shiites as much as militant Sunnis. After all, the worst terror attacks on Europe and the U.S. have come from Sunni extremists belonging to or inspired by Al Qaeda and Islamic State.

This gap between the reality of Sunni-extremist terrorism and the fantasy of Official Washington’s “group think” fingering Shiite-ruled Iran explains the cognitive dissonance over President Trump’s travel ban on people from seven mostly Muslim countries. Beyond the offensive anti-Muslim prejudice, there is the fact that he ignored the countries that produced the terrorists who have attacked the U.S., including the 9/11 hijackers.

This bizarre feature of Trump’s executive order shows how deep Official Washington’s dysfunction goes. Trump has picked a major constitutional battle over a travel ban that targets the wrong countries.

But there’s a reason for this dysfunction: No one in Official Washington can speak the truth about terrorism without suffering severe political damage or getting blacklisted by the mainstream media. Since the truth puts Israel and especially Saudi Arabia in an uncomfortable position, the truth cannot be spoken.

Hope for Trump

There was some hope that President Trump – for all his irascibility and unpredictability – might break from the absurd “Iran is the principal source of terrorism” mantra. But so far he has not.

Nor has Trump moved to throw open the files on the Syrian and Ukraine conflicts so Americans can assess how the Obama administration sought to manipulate them into supporting these “regime change” adventures.

But Trump has resisted intense pressure to again entrust U.S. foreign policy to the neoconservatives, a number of  whom lost their jobs when President Obama left office, perhaps most significantly Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who helped orchestrate the violent overthrow of Ukraine’s elected president and is an architect of the New Cold War with Russia.

Other neocons who angled for jobs in the new administration, including John Bolton and James Woolsey, have failed to land them. Currently, there is pressure to ensconce Elliott Abrams, a top neocon dating back to the Reagan administration, in the key post of Deputy Secretary of State but that idea, too, has met resistance.

The neocon threat to Trump’s stated intent of restoring some geopolitical realism to U.S. foreign policy is that the neocons operate almost as an ideological cabal linked often in a subterranean fashion – or as I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s neocon chief of staff, once wrote in a cryptic letter to neocon journalist Judith Miller that aspen trees “turn in clusters, because their roots connect them.”

In other words, if one neocon is given a key job, other neocons can be expected to follow. Then, any Trump deviation from neocon orthodoxy would be undermined in the classic Washington tradition of strategic leaking to powerful media and congressional allies.

So far, the Trump inner circle has shown the administrative savvy to avoid bringing in ideologues who would dedicate their efforts to thwarting any significant change in U.S. geopolitical directions.

What is less clear is whether Trump, Tillerson and his fledgling State Department team have the intellectual heft to understand why U.S. foreign policy has drifted into the chaos and conflicts that now surround it – and whether they have the skill to navigate a route toward a safe harbor.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 157
Trump’s Foreign Policy at a Crossroads


If you wanted to base U.S. foreign policy on the firm foundation of reality, you also could let the American people in on who is actually the principal sponsor of the terrorism that they’re concerned about: Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the Taliban – all Sunni-led outfits, none of which are backed by Shiite-ruled Iran. Yet, all we hear from Official Washington’s political and media insiders is that Iran is the chief sponsor of terrorism.


Excellent report as Robert Parry is a truthful  reporter.

Is it not strange though that in a world with 7 billion people there are so few truthful reporters? I can think of less than a dozen.

Ron
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1632
Everyman decries immorality
Excellent report as Robert Parry is a truthful  reporter.

Is it not strange though that in a world with 7 billion people there are so few truthful reporters? I can think of less than a dozen.

These are strange times, we have the United Kingdom of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland all governed by the Israeli Government in Westminster.. labeled 'British'.

http://www.redressonline.com/2017/02/britains-sickening-infatuation-with-israel-continues/

Stuart Littlewood on Craig Murray:

Israel’s ‘nest of spies’ in London

I looked up one of my old reports about how Craig Murray, a former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, argued five years ago that British policy was being driven in an underhand fashion by the Israel lobby. He linked Matthew Gould, the then British ambassador to Israel, with the Fox-Werritty scandal and raised questions about meetings between Gould, Liam Fox and Fox’s strange friend Adam Werritty. Werritty was referred to as Fox’s adviser but according to reports he was backed financially by Israel lobbyists and had no security clearance and therefore no authorised role.

Murray, with many useful contacts from his days as an ambassador, claimed to have serious evidence connecting Gould with a secret plan to attack Iran, but the Foreign Office and the Cabinet Secretary blocked questions.

In it he pointed out that

    Matthew Gould does not see his race or religion as irrelevant. He has chosen to give numerous interviews to both British and Israeli media on the subject of being a Jewish ambassador, and has been at pains to be photographed by the Israeli media participating in Jewish religious festivals. Israeli newspaper Haaretz described him as “not just an ambassador who is Jewish, but a Jewish ambassador”. That rather peculiar phrase appears directly to indicate that the potential conflict of interest for a British ambassador in Israel has indeed arisen.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 157
These are strange times, we have the United Kingdom of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland all governed by the Israeli Government in Westminster.. labeled 'British'.


We have a similar condition in Canada and the USA

"Six Jewish Companies Control 96% of the World’s Media

The power of lies, deceptions and disinformation as Americans pay the price of collective stupidity.
“You know very well, and the stupid Americans know equally well, that we control their government, irrespective of who sits in the White House. You see, I know it and you know it that no American president can be in a position to challenge us even if we do the unthinkable. What can they (Americans) do to us? We control congress, we control the media, we control show biz, and we control everything in America. In America you can criticize God, but you can’t criticize Israel…” Israeli spokeswoman, Tzipora Menache"

Ron
http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=2334

Adam Rothschild calls the Prime Minister of Canada a slave!
June 1, 2010 in | No comments

If you read the series of posts below, taken from Facebook, you will see several comments from Adam Rothschild. In response to the post from Eric Issac, Rothschild declares;

“CJPAC owns your country; Stephen harper is like a slave”.

CJPAC is the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee, and Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada. At the bottom of the screenshot Adam Rothschild makes another post:

“May Yahweh bless the CJPAC with control of the Canadian Government just like the AIPAC controls the United States

AM YISRAEL CHAI!!
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1632
Everyman decries immorality
Adam Rothschild calls the Prime Minister of Canada a slave!
June 1, 2010 in | No comments

If you read the series of posts below, taken from Facebook, you will see several comments from Adam Rothschild. In response to the post from Eric Issac, Rothschild declares;

“CJPAC owns your country; Stephen harper is like a slave”.

CJPAC is the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee, and Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada. At the bottom of the screenshot Adam Rothschild makes another post:

“May Yahweh bless the CJPAC with control of the Canadian Government just like the AIPAC controls the United States

AM YISRAEL CHAI!!

Where is the source that supports this part of the post ? I cannot find this information on the provided radicalpress link.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 157
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1632
Everyman decries immorality
No worries Ron, it's important to accurately source material. This is something that the MSM struggles to do, because it peddles fiction as fact.

I was 14 (1992) when I discovered "fake news" was real, and it came about from a simple observation.

I observed that adults were lying to me when they repeated obvious fictions declared by the MSM as fact, and thus discovered the power over the mind of the "Big Lie" and the importance of critical thought in analysing all information.

I decided to search for the truth and work on solutions, not change through the use of force and deception. There is the opportunity now for Everyman who decries immorality to live together in peace. We must seize this opportunity and stand now.

To that end I have decided that as a native English Celt I must unite the Celtic Nations to restore the sovereignty of our lands. UKIP is the only political vehicle in the UK that is positioned for this transition, hence it is under severe and constant attack. The General Election campaign starts now and we all vote UKIP.

Everyman must be moral in this pursuit. There are many ethnic groups that are settled in these lands that live alongside us with respect. Their presence here must be considered a fait accompli, and how we treat them, and them us, will define us all. Racial purity is not a requirement of the Everyman principle, it is our morality that defines us, and binds us together.

Celtic nations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_nations

The Celtic nations are territories in western Europe where Celtic languages or cultural traits have survived.[1] The term "nation" is used in its original sense to mean a people who share a common identity and culture and are identified with a traditional territory. It is not synonymous with "sovereign state".

The six territories widely considered Celtic nations are Brittany (Breizh), Cornwall (Kernow), Wales (Cymru), Scotland (Alba), Ireland (Éire), and the Isle of Man (Mannin),[1][2] commonly referred to as the "Celtic fringe". Each has a Celtic language that is either still spoken or was spoken into modern times.[3]

Before the expansions of Ancient Rome and the Germanic and Slavic tribes, a significant part of Europe was dominated by Celts, leaving behind a legacy of Celtic cultural traits.[4] Territories in north-western Iberia—particularly Galicia, northern Portugal and Asturias, historically referred to as Gallaecia, covering north-central Portugal and northern Spain—are sometimes considered Celtic nations due to their culture and history.[5] Unlike the others, however, no Celtic language has been spoken there in modern times.[5][6][7] However a study from a research team at Oxford University found that the majority of Britons are descended from a group of tribes which arrived from Iberia from around 5000 BC, prior to the spread of Celts into western Europe.



---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 157
snip

To that end I have decided that as a native English Celt I must unite the Celtic Nations to restore the sovereignty of our lands. UKIP is the only political vehicle in the UK that is positioned for this transition, hence it is under severe and constant attack. The General Election campaign starts now and we all vote UKIP.


As my father was Welsh perhaps we share more than was first considered.

I have watched many of Nigel's videos. He seems to have the EU scam figured out and is not afraid to speak up.

Ron
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1632
Everyman decries immorality
As my father was Welsh perhaps we share more than was first considered.

I have watched many of Nigel's videos. He seems to have the EU scam figured out and is not afraid to speak up.

We must resolve to maintain our cultural diversity while remaining moral sovereign individuals. We can do this through reason, or as a last resort force, in order to restore reason.

Nigel is just as scared as I am, we stand anyway, we have no choice in this matter.

We want to have the conversation.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1632
Everyman decries immorality
The "Jewish" Conspiracy is British Imperialism

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/makowjewishconspiracybritishimperialism30may04.shtml

Conspiracy theorists like myself believe modern history reflects a long-term conspiracy by an international financial elite to enslave humanity.

Like blind men examining an elephant, we attribute this conspiracy to Jews, Illuminati, Vatican, Jesuits, Freemasons, Black Nobility, and Bildersbergs etc.

The real villains are at the heart of our economic and cultural life. They are the dynastic families who own the Bank of England, the US Federal Reserve and associated cartels. They also control the World Bank and IMF and most of the world's Intelligence agencies. Their identity is secret but Rothschild is certainly one of them. The Bank of England was "nationalized" in 1946 but the power to create money remained in the same hands.England is in fact a financial oligarchy run by the "Crown" which refers to the "City of London" not the Queen. The City of London is run by the Bank of England, a private corporation. The square-mile-large City is a sovereign state located in the heart of greater London. As the "Vatican of the financial world," the City is not subject to British law.

On the contrary, the bankers dictate to the British Parliament. In 1886, Andrew Carnegie wrote that, "six or seven men can plunge the nation into war without consulting Parliament at all." Vincent Vickers, a director of the Bank of England from 1910-1919 blamed the City for the wars of the world. ("Economic Tribulation" (1940) cited in Knuth, The Empire of the City, 1943, p 60)

The British Empire was an extension of bankers' financial interests. Indeed, all the non-white colonies (India, Hong Kong, Gibraltar) were "Crown Colonies." They belonged to the City and were not subject to British law although Englishmen were expected to conquer and pay for them.

The Bank of England assumed control of the U.S. during the T.R. Roosevelt administration (1901-1909) when its agent J.P. Morgan took over 25% of American business. (Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America, 1964)

According to the "American Almanac," the bankers are part of a network called the "Club of the Isles" which is an informal association of predominantly European-based royal households including the Queen. The Club of the Isles commands an estimated $10 trillion in assets. It lords over such corporate giants as Royal Dutch Shell, Imperial Chemical Industries, Lloyds of London, Unilever, Lonrho, Rio Tinto Zinc, and Anglo American DeBeers. It dominates the world supply of petroleum, gold, diamonds, and many other vital raw materials; and deploys these assets at the disposal of its geopolitical agenda.

Its goal: to reduce the human population from its current level of over 5 billion people to below 1 billion people within the next two to three generations; to literally ``cull the human herd'' in the interest of retaining their own global power and the feudal system upon which that power is based.

Historian Jeffrey Steinberg could be referring to the US, Canada and Australia when he writes, "England, Scotland, Wales, and, especially, Northern Ireland, are today little more than slave plantations and social engineering laboratories, serving the needs of ...the City of London...

These families constitute a financier oligarchy; they are the power behind the Windsor throne. They view themselves as the heirs to the Venetian oligarchy, which infiltrated and subverted England from the period 1509-1715, and established a new, more virulent, Anglo-Dutch-Swiss strain of the oligarchic system of imperial Babylon, Persia, Rome, and Byzantium....

The City of London dominates the world's speculative markets. A tightly interlocking group of corporations, involved in raw materials extraction, finance, insurance, transportation, and food production, controls the lion's share of the world market, and exerts virtual ``choke point'' control over world industry."

Steinberg belongs to a group of historians associated with economist Lyndon Larouche. They have traced this scourge to the migration of the Venetian mercantile oligarchy to England more than 300 years ago.

Although the Larouche historians do not say so, it appears that many members of this oligarchy were Jews. Cecil Roth writes: "The trade of Venice was overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of the Jews, the wealthiest of the mercantile class." (The History of the Jews in Venice, 1930)

As William Guy Carr points out in Pawns in the Game, both Oliver Cromwell and William of Orange were funded by Jewish bankers. The English Revolution (1649) was the first in a series of revolutions designed to give them world hegemony. The establishment of the Bank of England by William in 1694 was the next crucial step. Behind the facade, England has been a "Jewish" state for over 300 years. (pp.20-24)

The Jewish banking families made it a practice to marry their female offspring to spendthrift European aristocrats. In Jewish law, the mixed offspring of a Jewish mother is Jewish. (The male heirs marry Jews although the Victor and Jacob Rothschild are exceptions .) For example, in 1878 Hannah Rothschild married Lord Rosebery. who later became Prime Minister. In 1922 Louis Mountbatten, the uncle of Prince Philip and cousin of the Queen married the granddaughter of Jewish banker Ernest Cassel, one of the wealthiest men in the world. Winston Churchill's mother, Jenny (Jacobson) Jerome, was Jewish. By the beginning of the 1900s, there were very few English aristocrat families left that hadn't intermarried with Jews. It was said that, when they visited the Continent, Europeans were surprised to see Jewish looking persons with English titles and accents.

According to L.G. Pine, the Editor of Burke's Peerage , Jews "have made themselves so closely connected with the British peerage that the two classes are unlikely to suffer loss which is not mutual. So closely linked are the Jews and the lords that a blow against the Jews in this country would not be possible without injuring the aristocracy also." (Tales of the British Aristocracy1957, p.219.)

If they aren't Jewish by intermarriage, many European aristocrats consider themselves descendents of Biblical Hebrews. The Hapsburgs are related by marriage to the Merovingians who claim to be descendents of the Tribe of Benjamin.

In addition, many aristocrats belong to the "British Israel" Movement that believes the British soveriegn is the head of the Anglo Saxon "Lost Tribes" of Israel and that the Apocalyse will see the full reconstitution of the British Empire.

According to Barbara Aho, Rosicrucians and Freemasons, who believe in British Israelism, have a plan to place one of their bloodline on the throne of the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem. This positioning of a false messiah whom the world will worship as Christ has been carefully planned and executed over many centuries.

According to Barry Chamish, "there would be no modern state of Israel without British Freemasonry. In the 1860s, the British-Israelite movement was initiated from within Freemasonry. Its goal was to establish a Jewish-Masonic state in the Turkish province of Palestine...Initially, British Jewish Masonic families like the Rothschilds and Montefiores provided the capital to build the infrastructure for the anticipated wave of immigration. However, luring the Jews to Israel was proving difficult. They, simply, liked European life too much to abandon it. So Europe was to be turned into a nightmare for the Jews."

CONCLUSION

I wasted much of my life getting a conventional education, so I feel I am beginning my education anew.

It appears that a vampire-like clique directs the world. This secretive cabal is represented by our dominant political, economic and cultural institutions. Western society has been subverted and western culture is bankrupt. Democracy is a form of social control and the mass media/ education are systems for indoctrination.

Essentially the problem boils down to whether we believe man was made in God's image and has an obligation to lift himself to a higher level of truth, beauty and justice. Naturally monopolists have no use for this and want to define reality to suit their own interests. They have taught us that God is dead and man is just a fancy animal without a divine soul. Culture today tends to deny standards, ideals and goals of any kind. Instead, we are fed an endless diet of trivia and degradation.

Certain elite Jews are an integral part of this elite neo feudal conspiracy. Throughout history they have had a symbiotic relationship with the aristocracy. But ordinary Jews like the serfs were manipulated and persecuted by their elites.

True Judaism like Islam and Christianity affirms the supremacy of God as a moral force. A real Jew, like a true Christian or Muslim cannot perform an immoral act. It's time to reaffirm our belief in God.

Henry Makow


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1632
Everyman decries immorality
The Migrant Invasion of Europe: Get Ready for Riots and the Abolition of the White Race

https://www.darkmoon.me/2017/the-migrant-invasion-of-europe-get-ready-for-riots-and-the-abolition-of-the-white-race/

“Lasha Darkmoon explains why Angela Merkel has probably wrought greater damage to Germany and Europe as a whole than Hitler.” (Rixon Stewart, Truthseeker)

The material presented below, based on previous articles published in The Occidental Observer, will serve as a short introduction to an electrifying video which forms the centerpiece of this article. I am told the 19-minute video could be removed from YouTube any day soon. This is because of constant complaints about it from the Usual Suspects, particularly about the shockingly damning quote by Jewish activist Barbara Spectre which forms the climax of the video.

The video link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sirj6qNLAEU

and the quote:

"Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural, and I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It's a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role, but without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive."

Barbara Lerner Spectre,
Founder, PAIDEIA Sweden

PAIDEIA
The European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden

http://www.paideia-eu.org/

Paideia - The European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden is a non-denominational academic framework that was established in 2000 with funding from the Swedish government.
Dedicated to the revival of Jewish culture in Europe, Paideia educates leaders for Europe - academicians, artists and community activists - towards fluency in the Jewish textual sources that have served as the wellsprings of Jewish civilization.
In renewing interpretation of Jewish text, Paideia is reviving a European Jewish voice long silenced by Communism and post-Holocaust trauma - a voice that can contribute to a culturally rich and pluralistic Europe.

They are now going into a multicultural mode

a culturally rich and pluralistic Europe.

Cultural pluralism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_pluralism

Cultural pluralism is a term used when smaller groups within a larger society maintain their unique cultural identities, and their values and practices are accepted by the wider culture provided they are consistent with the laws and values of the wider society. As a sociological term, the definition and description of cultural pluralism has evolved over time. It has been described as not only a fact but a societal goal.[1] Cultural pluralism is distinct from (though often confused with) multiculturalism. Multiculturalism lacks the requirement of a dominant culture. If the dominant culture is weakened, societies can easily pass from cultural pluralism into multiculturalism without any intentional steps being taken by that society. If communities function separately from each other, or compete with one another, they are not considered culturally pluralistic.[2]

Cultural pluralism can be practiced at varying degrees by a group or an individual.[3] A prominent example of pluralism is 20th Century United States, in which a dominant culture with strong elements of nationalism, a sporting culture, and an artistic culture contained also smaller groups with their own ethnic, religious, and cultural norms[citation needed]. In 1971, the Canadian government referred to cultural pluralism, as opposed to multiculturalism, as the "very essence" of their nation's identity[4]. In a pluralist culture, groups not only co-exist side by side, but also consider qualities of other groups as traits worth having in the dominant culture. Pluralistic societies place strong expectations of integration on members, rather than expectations of assimilation. The existence of such institutions and practices is possible if the cultural communities are accepted by the larger society in a pluralist culture and sometimes require the protection of the law. Often the acceptance of a culture may require that the new or minority culture remove some aspects of their culture which is incompatible with the laws or values of the dominant culture.

The idea of cultural pluralism in the United States has its roots in the transcendentalist movement and was developed by pragmatist philosophers such as Horace Kallen, William James and John Dewey, and later thinkers such as Randolph Bourne. One of the most famous articulations of cultural pluralistic ideas can be found in Bourne's 1916 essay "Trans-National America".[5] Philosopher Horace Kallen is widely credited as being the originator of the concept of cultural pluralism.[6][7][8] Kallen's 1915 essay in The Nation, Democracy versus the Melting Pot, was written as an argument against the concept of the "Americanization" of European immigrants.[9] He later coined the term cultural pluralism in 1924 when he published Culture and Democracy in the United States.[10] In 1976, the concept was further explored in Crawford Young's book The Politics of Cultural Pluralism. Young's work, in African studies, emphasizes the flexibility of the definition of cultural pluralism within a society.[11] More recent advocates include moral and cultural anthropologist Richard Shweder. In 2014, an article in the Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare offered an updated definition of cultural pluralism in which it is described as a social condition in which communities of different cultures live together and function in an open system.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1632
Everyman decries immorality
Israel's International Conspiracy

http://www.unz.com/article/israels-international-conspiracy/

Nearly every western country has an Israel lobby

Philip Giraldi • February 9, 2016

Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom recently suggested an inquiry into a surge in Israel’s reported extra-judicial killing of Palestinian demonstrators after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for a harsh response and told his police and soldiers that those opposed to the continued occupation of the West Bank were “terrorists.” Almost immediately, the Israeli government denounced Wallstrom as engaging in “political stupidity,” banning her from travel to Israel, while one newspaper close to the government suggested that she might be assassinated, as fellow Swede Count Folke Bernadotte was by Jewish militants in 1948, because anti-Semitism appears to be in the Swedish DNA.

All of that outrage and personal ridicule is pro forma for an Israeli government that reflexively smears and denigrates any and all critics, but the more interesting epilogue was the unanticipated discovery by the Swedish and international media that Wallstrom has not been paying the full rent on the subsidized government apartment that she occupies. The revelation follows a familiar pattern, where critics of Israel suddenly find themselves being discredited for something completely unrelated to the Middle East. President George H. W. Bush (the good Bush) suffered a similar come to Jesus moment in 1991 when he went on national television to denounce the pressure tactics of the Israel lobby. The Israeli government was demanding U.S. Treasury backed loans to construct illegal settlements. President Bush, who was running for reelection and far ahead in the opinion polls, suddenly was confronted by a well-funded and organized opposition raising doubts about him and his record. And President Bush was not reelected, presumably learning along the way that one does not trifle with the Israel Lobby, to be replaced by the enthusiastically Zionist Bill Clinton.

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is also wondering about Israel’s alleged commitment to peace. On Tuesday he said “it was human nature to react to occupation,” following up with a comment on Wednesday regarding Israel’s “stifling” occupation of Palestine. Netanyahu reacted with his usual over the top rhetoric, stating that Ban “was encouraging terror.” One might also anticipate, as in the case of Wallstrom, a well-orchestrated media blitz questioning Ban’s motives or explaining how he has always been a closet anti-Semite. It is par for the course and fully expected when one criticizes Israel.

Indeed, it is a global phenomenon. Wherever one goes – Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States – there is a well-organized and funded lobby ready, willing and able to go to war to protect Israel. Most of the organizations involved take at least some direction from officials in Tel Aviv. Many of them even cooperate fully with the Israeli government, its parastatal organizations and faux-NGOs like the lawfare center Shurat HaDin. Their goal is to spread propaganda and influence the public in their respective countries of residence to either hew to the line coming out of Tel Aviv or to confuse the narrative and stifle debate when potential Israeli crimes are being discussed.

Israel’s diaspora allies are backed up by a formidable government organized machine that spews out disinformation and muddies the waters whenever critics surface. The Israeli Foreign Ministry has a corps of paid “volunteers” who monitor websites worldwide and take remedial action and there is a similar group working out of the Prime Minister’s office. That is why any negative story appearing in the U.S. about Israel is immediately inundated with pro-Israel comments, many of which make exactly the same coordinated points while exhibiting the same somewhat less than perfect English. On sites like Yahoo they are actually able to suppress unwelcome comments by flooding the site with “Dislike” responses. If a comment receives a large number of dislikes, it is automatically blocked or removed.

The sayanim, local Jews in their countries of residence, are essential to this process, having been alerted by emails from the Israeli Foreign Ministry about what to do and say. The reality is that Israel has lost the war of public opinion based on its own actions, which are becoming more and more repressive and even inhumane and so are difficult to explain. That means that the narrative has to be shifted by Israel’s friends through subterfuge and the corruption of the information process in each country. In some places the key media and political players who are engaged in the process can simply be bought. In other places they can be intimidated or pressured into taking positions that are neither in their own countries’ interests nor morally acceptable. In large countries like the United States, Britain and France a combination of friendly suasion and coercive elements often come together.

In all cases, the objective is the same: to repress or misrepresent any criticism of Israel and to block any initiatives that might be taken that would do damage either to the Israeli economy or to the country’s perceived standing in the world. In some countries Israel’s advocates work right out in the open and are highly successful in implementing policies that often remain largely hidden but that can be discerned as long as one knows what to look for.

Recent Israel Lobby activity in the United States has included legislation at state levels to make illegal divestment from Israel or to promote boycott of Israeli products. A trade pact with Europe will reportedly include language requiring the United States to take retaliatory action if any European country tries to boycott Israel, to include the West Bank settlements, which the empowering legislation regards as part of Israel proper.

Israel is also working to create a mechanism for global censorship of the internet to ban “incitement,” which clearly is a euphemism for material that is critical of its policies. Recently Facebook has begun to delete from its site any “hate speech” and “terrorism” related material but what has not been widely noted is that the apparent restrictions also have involved sites critical of Israel including Christians United for Peace.

Many prominent critics of the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) are unaware that AIPAC exists in various forms in a number of other countries. BICOM , the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, is located in London. The French equivalent is the Conseil Representatif des Institutions Juives de France (CRIF). In Canada there is a Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) , in Australia a Zionist Federation of Australia and in New Zealand a Zionist Federation of New Zealand .

While AIPAC is specifically focused on the U.S.-Israel relationship, its counterparts in Europe often deal with a whole range of issues that they define as Jewish, but protecting Israel is always part of their agenda, particularly for those groups that label themselves as Zionist. The political power and financial muscle of the groups gives them access to government far beyond the actual numbers of their supporters. In France this has led to the legislation of hate crimes that de facto exist to protect Jews that have been also been interpreted as limitations on one’s ability to criticize Israel. In its most recent test, a French court declared that a peaceful protest promoting Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) directed against Israel was illegal.

Many believe that France now has less free speech than any other European country. Recently, the alleged humor magazine Charlie Hebdo, ran a revolting cartoon showing the little Syrian boy Alan Kurdi who drowned in Turkey last summer as all grown up and sexually assaulting a woman in Germany. There was considerable outrage throughout the world but no sign that the French government will do anything to prosecute the magazines since it was Muslims who were being ridiculed. Charlie Hebdo frequently insults Muslims (and also Christians) but rarely lampoons Jews.

In Britain, Jewish organizations uniquely are allowed to patrol heavily Jewish neighborhoods in police-like uniforms while driving police type vehicles and there have been reports of their threatening Muslims who enter the areas. Prime Minister David Cameron’s government, which is responsive to a Conservative Friends of Israel lobbying group, has also done its part to create official barriers to any spread of the BDS movement. It is proposing legislation that will enable it to overrule decisions by local government councils that seek to cut business or investment ties with Israel and, more particularly, Israeli settlements, under the pretext that such action interferes with the conduct of foreign affairs. The British government is also considering its own brand of hate speech legislation, banning from social media any commentary that is considered to be anti-Semitic, which will almost certainly extend to criticism of Israel.

Canada’s government has also threatened to use hate speech laws to block criticism of Israel and forbid BDS related activity. Australia meanwhile, has ceased referring to east Jerusalem as “occupied” and is apparently leaning towards similar “non-pejorative” language relating to the militarized occupation of the West Bank, preferring the neocon favored dodge “disputed.” New Zealand has proposed Israeli-Palestinian peace talks that specifically demands that participants “refrain from referring a situation…to the International Criminal Court,” which would effectively decriminalize war crimes committed by both sides during the two recent invasions of Gaza. As a United Nations investigation determined that Israel was disproportionately responsible for what did occur, the proposal eliminates accountability and is effectively a get out of jail free card for some Israeli government officials.

And so it goes. Criticize Israel and there will be a comeuppance by virtue of a highly developed international system that relies on government direction as well as volunteer supporters who are able to shape both the media message and the political response. Accepting that as a given, I suppose one should be proud of being called an anti-Semite every time the label is misapplied to stifle dissent, but it all sadly reflects a lowering of the discussion to a dirt level. This might just be because there is no justification for Israeli behavior. The fact is that in terms of systematic human rights violations Israel is something beyond an apartheid state, frequently engaging in open racism and, in the opinion of many observers, crimes against humanity. It is furthermore a persistent source of instability in the Middle East and even beyond.

Israel is a liability to the United States and to the European nations that it has successfully manipulated into acquiescence regarding its bad behavior. When AIPAC and its overseas clones act for Israel the host nations in which these organizations exist should recognize exactly what is taking place. If Israel is truly first in their hearts and minds that is perfectly acceptable but its advocates should perhaps consider moving there and letting the rest of us be. Would that be too much to ask?


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1632
Everyman decries immorality
TRANSCRIPT: [Putin at] Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club [partial transcript]

http://russialist.org/transcript-putin-at-meeting-of-the-valdai-international-discussion-club-partial-transcript/

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Good afternoon, friends, ladies and gentlemen,

I hope that the place for your discussions, for our meetings is well chosen and that the timing is good. We are in the centre of Russia ­ not a geographical centre, but a spiritual one. [Novgorod Region] is a cradle of Russian statehood. Our outstanding historians believe and have analysed how the elements of Russian statehood came together right here. This is in the light of the fact that two great rivers ­ the Volkhov and Neva ­ acted as natural means of communication, providing a natural linkage at the time. And it was here that Russian statehood gradually began to emerge.

As has already been pointed out, this year the [Valdai] club has brought together an unprecedented list of participants: more than 200 Russian and foreign politicians, public and spiritual leaders, philosophers and cultural figures, people with very different, original and sometimes opposing views.

You have already been conferring here for a few days now, and I’ll try not to bore you unduly. But nevertheless, I will allow myself to state my views on subjects that you have touched on during these discussions in one way or another. I am not only thinking about analysing Russian historical, cultural, and governance experiences. First and foremost, I am thinking of general debates, conversations about the future, strategies, and values, about the values underpinning our country’s development, how global processes will affect our national identity, what kind of twenty-first-century world we want to see, and what Russia, our country, can contribute to this world together with its partners.

Today we need new strategies to preserve our identity in a rapidly changing world, a world that has become more open, transparent and interdependent. This fact confronts virtually all countries and all peoples in one form or another: Russian, European, Chinese and American ­ the societies of virtually all countries. And naturally, including here in Valdai, we strive to better understand how our partners are attempting to meet this challenge, because we are meeting here with experts on Russia. But we proceed from the fact that our guests will state their views on the interaction and relationship between Russia and the countries that you represent.

For us (and I am talking about Russians and Russia), questions about who we are and who we want to be are increasingly prominent in our society. We have left behind Soviet ideology, and there will be no return. Proponents of fundamental conservatism who idealise pre-1917 Russia seem to be similarly far from reality, as are supporters of an extreme, western-style liberalism.

It is evident that it is impossible to move forward without spiritual, cultural and national self-determination. Without this we will not be able to withstand internal and external challenges, nor we will succeed in global competitions. And today we see a new round of such competitions. Today their main focuses are economic-technological and ideological-informational. Military-political problems and general conditions are worsening. The world is becoming more rigid, and sometimes forgoes not merely international law, but also basic decency.

[Every country] has to have military, technological and economic strength, but nevertheless the main thing that will determine success is the quality of citizens, the quality of society: their intellectual, spiritual and moral strength. After all, in the end economic growth, prosperity and geopolitical influence are all derived from societal conditions. They depend on whether the citizens of a given country consider themselves a nation, to what extent they identify with their own history, values and traditions, and whether they are united by common goals and responsibilities. In this sense, the question of finding and strengthening national identity really is fundamental for Russia.

Meanwhile, today Russia’s national identity is experiencing not only objective pressures stemming from globalisation, but also the consequences of the national catastrophes of the twentieth century, when we experienced the collapse of our state two different times. The result was a devastating blow to our nation’s cultural and spiritual codes; we were faced with the disruption of traditions and the consonance of history, with the demoralisation of society, with a deficit of trust and responsibility. These are the root causes of many pressing problems we face. After all, the question of responsibility for oneself, before society and the law, is something fundamental for both legal and everyday life.

After 1991 there was the illusion that a new national ideology, a development ideology, would simply appear by itself. The state, authorities, intellectual and political classes virtually rejected engaging in this work, all the more so since previous, semi-official ideology was hard to swallow. And in fact they were all simply afraid to even broach the subject. In addition, the lack of a national idea stemming from a national identity profited the quasi-colonial element of the elite ­ those determined to steal and remove capital, and who did not link their future to that of the country, the place where they earned their money.

Practice has shown that a new national idea does not simply appear, nor does it develop according to market rules. A spontaneously constructed state and society does not work, and neither does mechanically copying other countries’ experiences. Such primitive borrowing and attempts to civilize Russia from abroad were not accepted by an absolute majority of our people. This is because the desire for independence and sovereignty in spiritual, ideological and foreign policy spheres is an integral part of our national character. Incidentally, such approaches have often failed in other nations too. The time when ready-made lifestyle models could be installed in foreign states like computer programmes has passed.

We also understand that identity and a national idea cannot be imposed from above, cannot be established on an ideological monopoly. Such a construction is very unstable and vulnerable; we know this from personal experience. It has no future in the modern world. We need historical creativity, a synthesis of the best national practices and ideas, an understanding of our cultural, spiritual and political traditions from different points of view, and to understand that [national identity] is not a rigid thing that will last forever, but rather a living organism. Only then will our identity be based on a solid foundation, be directed towards the future and not the past. This is the main argument demonstrating that a development ideology must be discussed by people who hold different views, and have different opinions about how and what to do to solve given problems.

All of us ­ so-called Neo-Slavophiles and Neo-Westernisers, statists and so-called liberals ­ all of society must work together to create common development goals. We need to break the habit of only listening to like-minded people, angrily ­ and even with hatred ­ rejecting any other point of view from the outset. You can’t flip or even kick the country’s future like a football, plunging into unbridled nihilism, consumerism, criticism of anything and everything, or gloomy pessimism.

This means that liberals have to learn to talk with representatives of the left-wing and, conversely, that nationalists must remember that Russia was formed specifically as a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional country from its very inception. Nationalists must remember that by calling into question our multi-ethnic character, and exploiting the issue of Russian, Tatar, Caucasian, Siberian or any other nationalism or separatism, means that we are starting to destroy our genetic code. In effect, we will begin to destroy ourselves.

Russia’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity are unconditional. These are red lines no one is allowed to cross. For all the differences in our views, debates about identity and about our national future are impossible unless their participants are patriotic. Of course I mean patriotism in the purest sense of the word.

Too often in our nation’s history, instead of opposition to the government we have been faced with opponents of Russia itself. I have already mentioned this; Pushkin also talked about it. And we know how it ended, with the demolition of the [Russian] state as such. There is virtually no Russian family that completely escaped the troubles of the past century. Questions about how to assess certain historical events still divide our country and society.

We need to heal these wounds, and repair the tissues of our historic fabric. We can no longer engage in self-deception, striking out unsightly or ideologically uncomfortable pages of our history, breaking links between generations, rushing to extremes, creating or debunking idols. It’s time to stop only taking note of the bad in our history, and berating ourselves more than even our opponents would do. [Self-]criticism is necessary, but without a sense of self-worth, or love for our Fatherland, such criticism becomes humiliating and counterproductive.

We must be proud of our history, and we have things to be proud of. Our entire, uncensored history must be a part of Russian identity. Without recognising this it is impossible to establish mutual trust and allow society to move forward.

Another serious challenge to Russia’s identity is linked to events taking place in the world. Here there are both foreign policy and moral aspects. We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilisation. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national, cultural, religious and even sexual. They are implementing policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief in God with the belief in Satan.

The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote paedophilia. People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation. And people are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis.

What else but the loss of the ability to self-reproduce could act as the greatest testimony of the moral crisis facing a human society? Today almost all developed nations are no longer able to reproduce themselves, even with the help of migration. Without the values embedded in Christianity and other world religions, without the standards of morality that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. We consider it natural and right to defend these values . One must respect every minority’s right to be different, but the rights of the majority must not be put into question.

At the same time we see attempts to somehow revive a standardised model of a unipolar world and to blur the institutions of international law and national sovereignty. Such a unipolar, standardised world does not require sovereign states; it requires vassals. In a historical sense this amounts to a rejection of one’s own identity, of the God-given diversity of the world.

Russia agrees with those who believe that key decisions should be worked out on a collective basis, rather than at the discretion of and in the interests of certain countries or groups of countries. Russia believes that international law, not the right of the strong, must apply. And we believe that every country, every nation is not exceptional, but unique, original and benefits from equal rights, including the right to independently choose their own development path.

This is our conceptual outlook, and it follows from our own historical destiny and Russia’s role in global politics. Our present position has deep historical roots. Russia itself has evolved on the basis of diversity, harmony and balance, and brings such a balance to the international stage.

I want to remind you that the Congress of Vienna of 1815 and the agreements made at Yalta in 1945, taken with Russia’s very active participation, secured a lasting peace. Russia’s strength, the strength of a winning nation at those critical junctures, manifested itself as generosity and justice. And let us remember [the Treaty of] Versailles, concluded without Russia’s participation. Many experts, and I absolutely agree with them, believe that Versailles laid the foundation for the Second World War because the Treaty of Versailles was unfair to the German people: it imposed restrictions with which they could not cope, and the course of the next century became clear.

There is one more fundamental aspect to which I want to draw your attention. In Europe and some other countries so-called multiculturalism is in many respects a transplanted, artificial model that is now being questioned, for understandable reasons. This is because it is based on paying for the colonial past. It is no accident that today European politicians and public figures are increasingly talking about the failures of multiculturalism, and that they are not able to integrate foreign languages or foreign cultural elements into their societies.

Over the past centuries in Russia, which some have tried to label as the “prison of nations”, not even the smallest ethnic group has disappeared. And they have retained not only their internal autonomy and cultural identity, but also their historical space. You know, I was interested to learn (I did not even know this) that in Soviet times [authorities] paid such careful attention to this that virtually every small ethnic group had its own print publication, support for its language, and for its national literature. We should bring back and take on board much of what has been done in this respect.

Along with this the different cultures in Russia have the unique experience of mutual influence, mutual enrichment and mutual respect. This multiculturalism and multi-ethnicity lives in our historical consciousness, in our spirit and in our historical makeup. Our state was built in the course of a millennium on this organic model.

Russia ­ as philosopher Konstantin Leontyev vividly put it ­ has always evolved in “blossoming complexity” as a state-civilisation, reinforced by the Russian people, Russian language, Russian culture, Russian Orthodox Church and the country’s other traditional religions. It is precisely the state-civilisation model that has shaped our state polity. It has always sought to flexibly accommodate the ethnic and religious specificity of particular territories, ensuring diversity in unity.

Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and other religions are an integral part of Russia’s identity, its historical heritage and the present-day lives of its citizens. The main task of the state, as enshrined in the Constitution, is to ensure equal rights for members of traditional religions and atheists, and the right to freedom of conscience for all citizens.

However, it is clearly impossible to identify oneself only through one’s ethnicity or religion in such a large nation with a multi-ethnic population. In order to maintain the nation’s unity, people must develop a civic identity on the basis of shared values, a patriotic consciousness, civic responsibility and solidarity, respect for the law, and a sense of responsibility for their homeland’s fate, without losing touch with their ethnic or religious roots.

There are broad discussions on how the ideology of national development will be structured politically and conceptually ­ including with your participation, colleagues. But I deeply believe that individuals’ personal, moral, intellectual and physical development must remain at the heart of our philosophy. Back at the start of the 1990s, Solzhenitsyn stated that the nation’s main goal should be to preserve the population after a very difficult 20th century. Today, we must admit that we have not yet fully overcome the negative demographic trends, although we have veered away from a dangerous decline in the national potential.

Unfortunately, throughout our nation’s history, little value was given at times to individual human lives. Too often, people were seen simply as a means, rather than a goal and a mission for development. We no longer have that right and we cannot throw millions of human lives into the fire for the sake of development. We must treasure every individual. Russia’s main strength in this and future centuries will lie in its educated, creative, physically and spiritually healthy people, rather than natural resources.

The role of education is all the more important because in order to educate an individual, a patriot, we must restore the role of great Russian culture and literature. They must serve as the foundation for people’s personal identity, the source of their uniqueness and their basis for understanding the national idea. Here, a great deal depends on the teaching community, which has been and remains a highly important guardian of nationwide values, ideas and philosophies. This community speaks the same language ­ the language of science, knowledge and education, despite the fact that it is spread out over an enormous territory, from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok. In this way, the community of teachers, the educational community overall, in the broad sense of the word, binds the nation together. Supporting this community is one of the most important steps on the path toward a strong, flourishing Russia.

I want to stress again that without focussing our efforts on people’s education and health, creating mutual responsibility between the authorities and each individual, and establishing trust within society, we will be losers in the competition of history. Russia’s citizens must feel that they are the responsible owners of their country, region, hometown, property, belongings and their lives. A citizen is someone who is capable of independently managing his or her own affairs, freely cooperating with equals.

Local governments and self-regulated citizens’ organisations serve as the best school for civic consciousness. Of course, I’m referring to non-profits. Incidentally, one of the best Russian political traditions, the country council tradition, was also built on the principles of local government. A true civil society and a true, nationally-focused political elite, including the opposition with its own ideology, values and standards for good and evil ­ their own, rather than those dictated by the media or from abroad ­ can only grow through effective self-governing mechanisms. The government is prepared to trust self-regulating and self-governing associations, but we must know whom we are trusting. This is absolutely normal global practice, which is precisely why we have passed new legislation to increase the transparency of nongovernmental organisations.

Speaking of any kind of reforms, it is important to bear in mind that there is more to our nation than just Moscow and St Petersburg. In developing Russian federalism, we must rely on our own historical experience, using flexible and diverse models. The Russian model of federalism has a great deal of potential built into it. It is imperative that we learn to use it competently, not forgetting its most important aspect: the development of the regions and their independence should create equal opportunities for all of our nation’s citizens, regardless of where they live, to eliminate inequalities in the economic and social development of Russia’s territory, thereby strengthening the nation’s unity. Ultimately, this is a huge challenge because these territories’ development has been very unbalanced over the course of decades and even centuries.

I would like to touch on another topic. The 21st century promises to become the century of major changes, the era of the formation of major geopolitical zones, as well as financial and economic, cultural, civilisational, and military and political areas. That is why integrating with our neighbours is our absolute priority. The future Eurasian Economic Union, which we have declared and which we have discussed extensively as of late, is not just a collection of mutually beneficial agreements. The Eurasian Union is a project for maintaining the identity of nations in the historical Eurasian space in a new century and in a new world. Eurasian integration is a chance for the entire post-Soviet space to become an independent centre for global development, rather than remaining on the outskirts of Europe and Asia.

I want to stress that Eurasian integration will also be built on the principle of diversity. This is a union where everyone maintains their identity, their distinctive character and their political independence. Together with our partners, we will gradually implement this project, step by step. We expect that it will become our common input into maintaining diversity and stable global development.

Colleagues, the years after 1991 are often referred to as the post-Soviet era. We have lived through and overcome that turbulent, dramatic period. Russia has passed through these trials and tribulations and is returning to itself, to its own history, just as it did at other points in its history. After consolidating our national identity, strengthening our roots, and remaining open and receptive to the best ideas and practices of the East and the West, we must and will move forward.

Thank you very much for your attention.


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1632
Everyman decries immorality
Putin Calmly Explains Why Liberals Hate Russia

http://russia-insider.com/en/putin-calmly-explains-why-liberals-hate-russia-video/ri19147

    "Without the moral values that are rooted in Christianity and other world religions, without rules and moral values which have formed and been developed over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity."

    "AND RUSSIA THINKS IT IS RIGHT AND NATURAL TO DEFEND AND PRESERVE THESE MORAL VALUES."


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Pages: 1 ... 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 [74] 75 76 77
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2017-04-23, 16:46:35