PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-04-20, 09:15:04
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 ... 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 [82] 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 ... 100
Author Topic: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk!  (Read 973540 times)

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4603


Buy me some coffee
You have to laugh at the stories in the bible-you really do.

God made Adam and Eve
They had children
Where did the third generation come from ?  C.C

The great flood and the story of Noah
Two of each animal,and Noah's family,all on a boat built by Noah and his kin. Larger than any wooden boat that can be built today,that would stay together.
Every other living thing on the planet murdered because they were evil  :o --except for the fish-they were all good. :D
What a wonderful God they have.

The earth is only 6000 odd years old
All you know about dinosaurs is wrong--science knows nothing.

We were created from dust and water--mud pie ?

Oh-the list go's on
How dose any sane person believe in this garbage ?.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 841
When the Bible is the Root of Evil


 That declaration states, “We urge policies and practices that ensure the right of every religious group to exercise its faith free from legal, political and economic restrictions.”



The bugaboo with "religious freedom" is the failure to examine the basic beliefs of that system. If a belief system contains. conversion, control, slaying, exclusion, then it should be disqualified as a religion.

In the present day this would be all the major "religions" , Christianity, Judaism, Islam.

Ron
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality

The bugaboo with "religious freedom" is the failure to examine the basic beliefs of that system. If a belief system contains. conversion, control, slaying, exclusion, then it should be disqualified as a religion.

In the present day this would be all the major "religions" , Christianity, Judaism, Islam.

Ron


Disqualified as a religion ? surely these are some of the defining characteristics of the major Abrahamic religions! You missed out rape and pedophilia.. the latest Christian casualty:

Cardinal George Pell Charged With Multiple Sex Offenses in Australia


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/australian-police-charge-top-vatican-cardinal-sex-offenses-n777921

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.msg62878#msg62878

Abrahamic religions

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

The Abrahamic religions, also referred to collectively as Abrahamism, are a group of Semitic-originated religious sects that claim descent from the practices of the ancient Israelites and the worship of the God of Abraham. The term derives from a figure from the Bible known as Abraham.[1] Abrahamists were able to spread globally through Christianity being adopted by the Roman Empire in the 4th century and the military campaigns of the Arabs who spread Islam from the 7th century onward. As a consequence, today the Abrahamic religions are one of the major divisions in comparative religion (along with Indian, Iranian, and East Asian religions).[2] Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the largest Abrahamic religions in terms of numbers of adherents.[3][4][5]

The major Abrahamic religions in chronological order of founding are:

    Judaism (seventh century BCE),[6]
    Christianity (first century CE)
    Islam (seventh century CE)


How dose any sane person believe in this garbage ?.

They don't, but defining sanity is quite difficult and subjective:

Suffering a brain injury can make you more religious, scientists say

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/suffering-brain-injury-lesion-ventromedial-prefrontal-cortex-religious-beliefs-northwestern-a7722946.html

Study suggests damage to part of the prefrontal cortex makes people's beliefs stronger

Biological and cognitive underpinnings of religious fundamentalism


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393217301318

Highlights

    We examined religious fundamentalism in a large sample of penetrating TBI patients.

    Patients with VMPFC lesions reported greater fundamentalism.

    DLPFC lesions increase fundamentalism by reducing cognitive flexibility and openness.

Abstract

Beliefs profoundly affect people's lives, but their cognitive and neural pathways are poorly understood. Although previous research has identified the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) as critical to representing religious beliefs, the means by which vmPFC enables religious belief is uncertain. We hypothesized that the vmPFC represents diverse religious beliefs and that a vmPFC lesion would be associated with religious fundamentalism, or the narrowing of religious beliefs. To test this prediction, we assessed religious adherence with a widely-used religious fundamentalism scale in a large sample of 119 patients with penetrating traumatic brain injury (pTBI). If the vmPFC is crucial to modulating diverse personal religious beliefs, we predicted that pTBI patients with lesions to the vmPFC would exhibit greater fundamentalism, and that this would be modulated by cognitive flexibility and trait openness. Instead, we found that participants with dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) lesions have fundamentalist beliefs similar to patients with vmPFC lesions and that the effect of a dlPFC lesion on fundamentalism was significantly mediated by decreased cognitive flexibility and openness. These findings indicate that cognitive flexibility and openness are necessary for flexible and adaptive religious commitment, and that such diversity of religious thought is dependent on dlPFC functionality.

Al Adjuvant Causes Brain Inflammation and Behavioral Abnormalities; Low Dose Is More Harmful

http://vaccinepapers.org/al-adjuvant-causes-brain-inflammation-behavioral-disorders/

A new paper (Crepeaux et al.) by the Gherardi research group in France reports important results on the toxicity and transport of aluminum (Al) adjuvant in mice. This study is especially valuable because it looked at many outcomes: behavioral effects, immune (microglial) activation in the brain, and Al transport into the brain. The study tested dosages of 200 , 400 and 800 mcg/Kg (mcg=micrograms, mcg/Kg = micrograms per kilogram of animal body weight),  injected intramuscularly (IM). The Al adjuvant used was AlOH (brand name Alhydrogel), the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. It is in the tetanus, Hep A, Hep B, HiB, pneumococcal, meningococcal, and anthrax vaccines.

Remarkably, the study  found that the lowest dosage (200 mcg/Kg) was the most toxic! The 400 and 800 mcg/Kg dosages produced no statistically significant effects, but the 200 mcg/Kg dosage did.

The low toxicity of the higher dosages appears to be a consequence of dosage-dependent inflammation at the injection site. The high dosages caused intense inflammation at the injection site, forming “granulomas”. The 200 mcg/Kg dosage did not produce granulomas. Granulomas are hard nodules in tissue produced in response to injury, infection or foreign substances. Its a way the body “walls off” injured tissue and prevents the spread of infection or toxins. The granulomas apparently prevented Al adjuvant particles from leaving the injection site. This explains why the 200 mcg/Kg dosage affected the brain and behavior, while the higher dosages did not.

Accordingly, it may be more dangerous to administer numerous small doses of Al adjuvant, compared to a large dose that induces a granuloma.

Accordingly, it may be more dangerous to administer numerous small doses of Al adjuvant, compared to a large dose that induces a granuloma.

This is Trumps position from the presidential election debates if I remember correctly.. he wants lot's of small doses.. think about it!

Add in brainwashing and indoctrination from an early age (MSM, religious preachers) and factor in the psychotic push for global mandatory vaccination and you end up with.. one world religion!


---------------------------
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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Demolition Man - Edgar Friendly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsHsp680nEk

John Spartan unexpectedly meets Edgar Friendly and clues him in on the fact that somebody is trying to kill him.

http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/movie_script.php?movie=demolition-man

You think you're taking me in?
Guess what?
Not happening.
Tell Cocteau he can kiss my ass.
That's right.
It'll take an army to get rid of me.
I don't give a shit. I got nothing to lose.
I don't know who the hell you are,
let alone want to take you anywhere.
So stay here, be well
and Cocteau's an asshole!
Let's dump them up top.
They're only here to spy on us.
Wait a minute.
You're the guy outside Pizza Hut.
What do you want?
You weren't part of the Cocteau plan.
Greed, deception, abuse of power.
That's no plan.
-That's why you're here?
-That's right.
See....
According to Cocteau's plan...
...I'm an enemy because I like to think.
I like to read.
I'm into freedom of speech and choice.
I like to sit in a greasy spoon...
...and think, "Should I have steak
or barbecued ribs with gravy fries?"
I want high cholesterol.
I want to eat bacon, butter and cheese.
I want to smoke a Cuban cigar
the size of Cincinnati.
I want to run through the streets naked...
...reading Playboy magazine
because I might need to.
I've seen the future.
It's a 47-year-old virgin...
...drinking a banana-broccoli shake
and singing "I'm a wiener."
Up top, you live Cocteau's way.
What he wants, when he wants,
how he wants.
Your other choice: come here.
Maybe starve to death.


---------------------------
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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Refugee Crisis: Manufactured Migrants Are Tools in U.S. Empire’s ‘Grand Chessboard’

http://www.globalresearch.ca/refugee-crisis-manufactured-migrants-are-tools-in-u-s-empires-grand-chessboard/5596706

Book review of J. Michael Springmann's "Goodbye Europe? Hello, Chaos?: Merkel’s Migrant Bomb"


By Barrie Zwicker

https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2017/06/19/manufactured-migrants/#more-4361

The refugee crisis in Europe, the largest seen since World War 2, is no accident.

Former U.S. State Department official J. Michael Springmann addresses this verboten subject in his just-released second book Goodbye Europe? Hello, Chaos?: Merkel’s Migrant Bomb. He argues that these refugees and migrants were deliberately created by the American Empire to be used as political weapons.

The misery of asylees, Springmann writes, is one of the planned outcomes of horrendous and unlawful military attacks on Syria and other countries. These are carried out in proxy wars by “the West,” including Israel. Springmann writes that Israel “is a terrorist entity” and “an ever helpful architect of chaos.”

Overall the design is to advance the interests of the American Empire. The resulting chaos is cold-blooded strategy. Springmann offers evidence that the Empire has greased the skids for the traumatized asylum seekers. For instance this technical but telling factoid:

    CISCO’s Tactical Operations (TacOps) team supported by the volunteer Disaster Response Team (DRT) from the U.K. and Ireland, Google, and NetHope have installed Meraki-based Wi-Fi networks and device charging stations at more than 17 sites along the migration route in Southern and Central Europe. [my emphasis]

Springmann provides many other facts to buttress his contention that the “migrant millions” are human pawns. The reference to NetHope, by the way, is significant. NetHope and Mercy Corps “have backgrounds tied to the US government,” he writes. “NetHope is a shadowy organization headquartered in CIA-friendly Fairfax County, Virginia.” Springmann, who also has a background working for NGOs, names other suspect NGOs that play their role in the overall coerced migration. One of the motives is to destabilize Europe as an economic challenger to the U.S.A.

Verboten is the right word. Springmann speaks German, having spent five years in Stuttgart working for the State Department. He also worked for the department in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where he saw close-up how the Empire recruits prospective terrorists, sends them to the U.S. for terror training and deploys them in proxy wars. That experience provided him with the damning fodder for his first book, Visas for Al Qaeda: CIA Handouts That Rocked the World, reviewed on this blog two years ago this month.

    “At Jeddah,” Springmann wrote in Visas for Al Qaeda, “to the best of my knowledge, out of some twenty US citizens assigned to the consulate, only three people, including myself, worked for the Department of State. The rest were CIA or NSA officials or their spouses.”

Elsewhere in that book Springmann suggests that essentially the CIA runs the State Department, and that this is true of many other U.S. government departments and agencies as well.

In Goodbye, Europe? Springmann shows his grasp of how American military, economic, diplomatic, cultural, surveillance, technological, and vast “intelligence” resources comprise an integrated colossus using false flag ops, Trojan Horse fronts, incessant propaganda campaigns, and overt strong-arming. Repeatedly, Imperial Rome’s dictum, divide et impera, is a hallmark of the Empire’s depredations.

That is a big picture (not quite the big picture). Some of the fine-grained details are revealed in a Norwegian documentary, Recruiting for Jihad. It had its international premiere at Toronto’s Hot Docs festival in April-May. The producer had known the key recruiter featured from the time they were 10-year-olds playing soccer. The wheels within wheels involved in the recruitment schemes the producer uncovered can hardly be imagined. Intel agencies need and possess remarkable resources in micro-managing the recruitment, the terrorism, the false flag ops, and the evasion of discovery.

Springmann brings evidence to bear on his contention that German Chancellor Angela Merkel is a scheming author of unnecessary misfortunes in the form of the largest influx of migrants to any European country. At one point he holds her entirely to blame for this. (“It was Merkel and her government who invited all the feared Islamists into the country.”) Yet contradictorily Springmann overall lays the blame squarely on the American Empire.

That she’s such a baddie is also hard to square that with what is known about her overall. She’s earned the nickname “Chancellor of the World” and appears more dedicated to peace and understanding than most of her peers, by a long shot.

What Germany’s “V-men” do is likely not within her perfect control. The V-men come in for criticism by Springmann. The term comes from the German for a trusted person, Vertrauensmann. They’re really secret police. Hitler was recruited to be a “V” man while he was in the World War I postwar army.

The book is not without prosaic shortcomings. Apart from whether Merkel is as large a villain as Springmann suggests, there are some questionable alleged facts and insupportable generalizations.

Springmann includes a number of reports of alleged behaviours by migrants in Europe, from theft to sexual and other violent assaults, including rape and murder. His usual footnotes pointing to reliable sources dry up in regard to some of these reports. One example is a quote from the tabloid Bild that in 2015 “migrant misdeeds” in Germany numbered 208,344—or 23 crimes per hour. The paper said it got the number from a confidential police report that it was given exclusively. Worth noting is that the eminent German author Heinrich Boll wrote in an essay that what Bild does “isn’t cryptofascist anymore, not fascistoid, but naked fascism. Agitation, lies, dirt.” That is from a Wikipedia entry.

The emotional impact of most of these Bild reports leaves this reviewer with understandable skepticism. Are some of these examples of the very deceptions Springmann in other parts of the book decries? This reviewer encountered one of these fake reports in January 2016 and wrote a letter to the editor of The Globe and Mail about it, which was published. It read in part:

    An exacerbating factor in the divide over refugees is the insertion of disinformation by the right into the situation. An example is cited in Der Spiegel on Jan. 5, headlined The Case of the Murdered     Goats: Exploring Germany’s Far-Right Rumour Mill.

    Reporters investigated “outrage over an incident in the eastern German town of Lostau. Locals had accused refugees of plundering a petting zoo, slaughtering some goats and eating them around a campfire.”

    The story, said the writers, “aimed directly at the heart of German animal lovers, taxpayers and immigration opponents. But there was just one problem: It wasn’t true.

    It turns out that there hadn’t been a petting zoo in Lostau for years. And this was just one example among many.

Valuable as it is, this book also is in places a cautionary tale about making sweeping generalizations. One example must suffice. On page 181 we find this:

    If people forget their history, reject their heritage, and dismiss their identity, then why object to aliens changing European culture?

    The peoples of Europe understand this. Their leaders don’t. Those want to cobble together a new multicultural Europe, erasing the one that already exists. And, so far, the replacement doesn’t work and likely can’t be made to work—except in the minds of the globalists. The peo­ple vigorously oppose these government policies. They denounce their leaders’ abandoning constitutional obligations to defend their country’s borders, territorial integrity, and democracy.

The generalizations here include “peoples of Europe” who “understand this,” “replacement doesn’t work,” “the people vigorously oppose,” and “they denounce…” It’s reminiscent of Theresa May’s repeated contention that “the people of Britain voted for” Brexit when in fact the vote was close to 50-50.

These generalizations lead Springmann to make an assessment that was understandable even a few months ago, namely that (essentially right wing) nationalism remains in an upward trajectory.

But since he wrote that, Macron, ostensibly a centrist and probably a globalist, has risen fast in France. Springmann writes on page 184 that “the left’s policies are clearly bankrupt” and “the left has no plan” on page 185. Yet Jeremy Corbyn, very to the left, scored heavily against Theresa May with specific plans. UKIP is dead in the water, obtaining two per cent of the votes in the British election. The story of right wing populism is not paved with certainty, even if right wing populists are certain they’re right.

There are two lesser shortcomings. One is an occasional lack of copy editing. For instance, about half of page 19 is devoted to the arrest by North Rhine-Westphalia police of “five members of a ‘terrorist recruiting network.’” On page 177 the same half page of text is repeated almost word for word.

In his email to me to which the pdf file of his book was attached, Springmann offered this:

    Easier to write than the first but much harder to edit. Could have spent more time on it but thought with European elections was so timely I needed to get it out.

Understandable. Today there’s justification for more “instant books” containing vital perspectives, which this one contains. But instantaneity carries prices. I think they’re worth paying. A second edition could solve a lot.

In other places Springmann repeats information, but he says he is doing so. And I’m with him on that. Repetition is a pillar of effective communication. This pillar should not be at the disposal of the merchants of lies only.

Another format flaw that could have been avoided with the aid of a competent editor is that some material is misplaced. The most obvious example is at the end, where the conclusions are offered but not really found. Instead, his important conclusions, referred to earlier in this review, are found in the body of the book. An interested reader will encounter them where they are.

These failings are more than counterbalanced by the damning evidence and the damning perspective Springmann brings to the table, based on his life experiences working within different sectors of the American Empire and his wide-ranging research. Four stars out of five.

***

Excerpt from the book:

They come from across the Middle East, South Asia, North Africa—floods of refugees seeking sanctuary in Europe. Most are men. Some are terrorists. And all represent an ethnopolitical nightmare for the European Union.

What drives these migrants? Why, instead of seeking out nations with common ethnic and religious ties, do they instead head north and west, where few speak their language or share a common culture?

In Goodbye, Europe! Hello, Chaos! Merkel’s Migrants, former diplomat J. Michael Springmann provides an in-depth analysis of the migrant flood, its causes, and what it means for Europe. Building on arguments put forward in his previous work, Visas for Al Qaeda: CIA Handouts That Rocked the World, the ex–State Department official and attorney reveals how US foreign policy created the crisis.

Destabilizing nations through invasion and espionage furthers US goals in the Middle East, he argues, creating migrant waves guided northward and westward to destabilize the European Union in general and Germany in particular. Germany’s own refugee program, designed to exploit migrants as cheap labor, made US intelligence efforts all the easier.

Springmann’s insider knowledge of US policy permeates this insightful, sometimes terrifying look at a world where migrants become weapons, nationalism is condemned, and civil liberties hang in the balance.


---------------------------
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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Demolition Man (1993)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106697/trivia

Lenina Huxley's name is a combination of Lenina Crowne and Aldous Huxley. Crowne is a character in Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World' (1932), a novel about a future society where everything is predetermined for you so as not to offend others(among other reasons) and where showing even moderate emotion is considered to be unusual and possibly even illegal. Crowne's first name Lenina itself was chosen by Aldous Huxley after the pseudonym of the first dictator of the Soviet Union, Lenin (Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov).

Prescient

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prescient

Adj.   1.   prescient - perceiving the significance of events before they occur; "extraordinarily prescient memoranda on the probable course of postwar relations"-R.H.Rovere

discerning - having or revealing keen insight and good judgment; "a discerning critic"; "a discerning reader"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/discerning


---------------------------
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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Joseph Tainter: The Collapse Of Complex Societies

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-30/joseph-tainter-collapse-complex-societies

Authord by Adam Taggart via PeakProsperity.com,

https://www.peakprosperity.com/podcast/109453/joseph-tainter-collapse-complex-societies

By popular demand, we welcome Joseph Tainter, USU professor and author of The Collapse Of Complex Societies (free book download here).

Dr. Tainter sees many of the same unsustainable risks the PeakProsperity.com audience focuses on -- an overleveraged economy, declining net energy per capita, and depleting key resources.

He argues that the sustainability or collapse of a society follows from the success or failure of its problem-solving institutions. His work shows that societies collapse when their investments in social complexity and their energy subsidies reach a point of diminishing marginal returns. From Tainter's perspective, we are likely already past the tipping point towards collapse but just don’t know it yet:

    Sustainability requires that people have the ability and the inclination to think broadly in terms of time and space. In other words, to think broadly in a geographical sense about the world around them, as well as the state of the world as a whole. And also, to think broadly in time in terms of the near and distant future and what resources will be available to our children and our grandchildren and our great grandchildren.

    One of the major problems in sustainability and in this whole question of resources and collapse is that we did not evolve as a species to have this ability to think broadly in time and space. Instead, our ancestors who lived as hunter-gatherers never confronted any challenges that required them to think beyond their locality and the near term(...)

    We have developed the most complex society humanity has ever known. And we have maintained it up to this point. I have argued that technological innovation and other kinds of innovation evolve like any other aspect of complexity. The investments in research and development grow increasingly complex and reach diminishing returns. We cannot forever continue to spend more and more on technological innovation when we’ve reached the point of diminishing returns, which I argue we have reached.

    Our system of innovation is going to change very significantly over the next twenty to thirty to fifty years or so. By the end of the century, our system of innovation will not be anything like what we know today. It will have to be very different. And it’s likely that innovation is not going to be able to solve our problems as readily as it has done to this point.

    The technological optimists have assumed that the productivity of innovation is either constant or increasing. And in fact, what I think my colleagues and I can show is that the productivity of innovation is actually decreasing. What that means is that we will not forever be able to solve resource problems through innovation(...)

    And so individuals need to take responsibility for their own ignorance. As I said, our species did not evolve to think broadly in terms of time and space and if we’re going to maintain our way of life, people have to learn to do so. People have to take responsibility for knowing and understanding the predicament that we’re facing. I have argued over the last few years that we need to start teaching early school age children in K to 12 to think differently, to think broadly in terms of time and space – to think historically, to think long-term about the future, to think broadly about what’s going on in the world around us instead of the narrow way – the narrow, local way – that most people live and think. So I put responsibility on individuals to broaden their knowledge.

Click the play button below to listen to Chris' interview with Joseph Tainter (42m:44s).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-70ST4hVdYg


---------------------------
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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
America's Descent Into Israel's Moral Abyss

http://rense.com/general96/americasdescent.html

Idealistic principles are used to deceive and manipulate the Goyim. One must learn how to use political freedom as bait whenever it appears necessary to attract the masses, for the purposes of crushing authority". * The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

" We must use terror, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services, to rid the Galilee of it's Arab population" - * Israel Koenig - The Koenig Report

"Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the World -  Only to serve the people of Israel. - *Chief Israeli Rabbi- Ovadia Yosef 

This Middle East slaughter, or "crusade," as "George the dumber" once awkwardly called it, before the war cabinet settled on the ominous sounding "War on Terror," has been chiseled into the minds of the American public through years of government lies, propaganda, brainwashing,  shady dossiers and anonymous sources. After "Die Hard," almost 30 years ago,  movie bad guys were mostly Arabs, to embed the demonization into the American psyche. This barrage of disinformation would have never been successful without the mainstream news and their highly paid teleprompter readers, mindlessly reading government approved propaganda. Their reporting is producing grave results for the poor people we are claiming to liberate.

Remember when Vice President Dick Cheney, said the Iraqi's would greet us as liberators? Remember when we had to stop Saddam from killing his own people? Then we had to stop Muammar Gaddafi from killing his own people in Libya. Turns out, Benghazi was a US operation smuggling weapons to terrorists, who were actually killing Libyans for Israel.  And now, of course, it's imperative that we take out Bashar Al Assad for, you guessed it, killing his own people. The first thing that comes to mind is, who buys this nonsense? The next is, who benefits the most from this manufactured War on Terror and arming the worst terrorists on the planet ?

And finally, why is the American media the biggest cheerleaders of these Pentagon misadventures. No matter how much evidence surfaces that we are being lied to, They continue to support the big lie.
The big lie of course, is why we are there in the first place. Once you understand that, you begin to understand a lot about US  foreign  policy and why we are spending trillions of dollars, bankrupting our country and cutting programs that benefit American Citizens.

Most will believe the government explanation when the next false flag gas attack in Syria occurs, because they still believe that Al Qaeda was behind 911. ISIS, of course, the new boogeyman invented by the Pentagon, will carry the terror baton for the Pentagram until they serve their evil purpose. ISIS is the mysterious army of murderous miscreants, who seem to hate everyone, and have attacked, Muslims, Christians and every country in the area with the exception of Israel. A specter of evil right out "bad guy" central casting. Mr Orwell would be impressed.

Turns out, Al Baghdadi, the leader of this so called army of scary Arabs, who are torturing, raping and killing people of all faiths, is an Israeli Mossad trained Jew. As a matter of fact, most in the US are unaware that there is mounting evidence that the US Government, their NATO Allies, the psychopathic Saudi's and our BFF's the Israeli's are arming, funding and training several terrorist groups in the Middle East including ISIS and Al Qaeda. What is John "Traitor" McCain's role in all of this. Saudi Arabia has recently given  "Traitor" McCain's corrupt foundation a million dollars. Suspicious? You bet. just the past week Syria has accused Israel of twice bombing Syrian positions in support of ISIS. Israel is making Billions of dollars in oil profits on land stolen from Syria in the Golan Heights. Now they are bombing them. Where is the international outrage?

Twice in the last few weeks, American Fighters bombed Syrian troops that were advancing on known terrorist positions. Why is the US in Syria? Canadian independent journalist Eva Bartlett, who recently returned from Syria , said in a UN press conference that, "everything the American media is reporting about Syria is a lie". Mr Putin, in a speech to the UN recently, told the World that the US and their allies are supporting ISIS.

The US Government and the American media should have no credibility after the lies we were told about 911 and these middle east wars. Why are we being lied to again?  How does anyone believe it? Russia is in Syria at the invitation of Bashar Al Assad. The US is not. Assad has asked us to leave Syria. Why haven't we? These are questions the mainstream media should be asking. This is now the time to turn off the liars on  FOX, MSNBC, CNN, CBS and ABC  and find a good news site online like rense.com, globalresearch.ca, whatreallyhappened.com, operationdisclosure.blogspot.com or blacklistednews.com
 
Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer prize winning investigative reporter, who has broken a number of uncomfortable stories that the government would have liked to have kept a lid on. The My Lai Massacre exposed a degenerate, murderous underbelly of reality in Vietnam that the American public had no idea existed. American soldiers attacked a peaceful village, raping women and murdering every man, woman and child in sight. He broke the story of the torture details at Abu Ghraib prison during the Iraq War. The public was lied to about the extent and the methods of torture that were used. No quaint stories about waterboarding, where everybody was ok when it was over.

Eric Fair, in his book, "Consequence- A Memoir," states that US interrogators were trained in sadistic torture techniques by the Israelis. They were trained on the use of a disturbing torture devise, the "Palestinian Chair." The chair was used to break them down both physically and  mentally. Many prisoners were humiliated, tortured and beaten to death. Hersh is now reporting that, Trump launched Tomahawk missiles at the Syrian Military in April, after ignoring warnings from US Intelligence that there was no evidence Assad's government was to blame for the chemical attack on his own people. The attack was likely a false flag done by US allied terrorists, in order to escalate the long planned Israeli and American Zionist led regime change.

US foreign policy has bizarrely been controlled by Israel for decades, but no one will talk about it. It's like Fight Club? The first rule of Fight Club is you don't talk about Fight Club. The first rule about Israeli control of our Congress, foreign policy and our entire media is you can't talk about Israel control. The truth is, these Middle East wars were planned for Israel long before 911. To understand what is going is on, one would want to read Oded Yinon's 1982 Plan for the Middle East and a "Greater Israel".

Yinon was a Senior Official within the Israeli Foreign Ministry and a journalist with the Jerusalem Post. Donald Trump confirmed his support recently for the illegal settlements and his opposition to United Nations Security Council resolution # 2334, which, of course, affirms the illegality of the Israeli settlements. The plan was for Israel' s neighbors to become weakened and fractured through regime change and war. I don't think anyone thought that Israel would ever carry out their evil plan themselves, not when they control the most powerful military on the planet. Enter The Neo-Cons.
     
A White paper was written for Bibi Netanyahu in 1996, by Robert Kagan's Neo Con group, "The Project for a New American Century."  PNAC was a faction of Israel firsters, made up of American Neo-Con Jews and Christian Zionist. This unlikely group would change the course of history. Titled a "A Clean Break," The plan called for Israel to abandon past practices of trading land for peace as a waste of time and resources, and called for a more hostile and aggressive approach. They would Steal the land they desired through regime change and the ethnic cleansing of millions of people. This would only happen through a major paradigm shift and what PNAC called a "New Pearl Harbor type event", like 911, to kick start their planned land theft and genocide.

Unbelievably, the paper makes this assertion: "Our claim to the land to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years is legitimate and noble. Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension.  Our claim to the land? "Whose future? Using a line from the Bible to justify stealing land, treasure and precious lives is despicable. Members of this group should someday be reviled in history books with the worst traitors and despots. "A Clean Break" called for regime change in seven countries and the Balkanization of the countries that would make up the new greater Israel.

Those seven countries targeted were Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan and of course Iran. Members of the group were Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, William Kristol, Scooter Libby, Jeb Bush and John Bolton, to name just a few of the traitors and liars that George W Bush assembled and allowed to hijack our country's foreign policy 17 years ago. The War on Terror is a monstrous lie. It's time people wake up.

We are in the calm before the storm. Most Americans would be shocked to learn that this long planned "War on Terror," where we have spent so much blood and treasure, is nothing but an Israeli land grab.  Don't hold your breath waiting for the media to tell you what's really going on. The President is a compliant Israeli dupe as were his predecessors. His new UN Ambassador, Nikki Haley, is an unapologetic Israeli sycophantic tool, who will never allow any criticism of Israel on her watch.

Many misguided Christians still blindly support this insane agenda. ISIS is a mercenary army being used to take Assad out and break up Syria. Russia knows what is going on, and knows the UN is in the tank for the Zionists. How far will Trump take this? He's in the same tank as the UN and the rest of the country's whose leaders are sold out, blackmailed or threatened by the Zionists. It wouldn't surprise me if they pull another false flag gas attack to be blamed on Assad. Israel won't give up their plan for a Greater Israel or "Eretz Israel", no how many Goyim have to die for them to get 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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Resist This: the United States is at War With Syria

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/21/resist-this-the-united-states-is-at-war-with-syria/

by Jim Kavanagh

The United States is at war with Syria. Though few Americans wanted to face it, this has been the case implicitly since the Obama administration began building bases and sending Special Ops, really-not-there, American troops, and it has been the case explicitly since August 3, 2015, when the Obama administration announced that it would “allow airstrikes to defend Syrian rebels trained by the U.S. military from any attackers, even if the enemies hail from forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.” With the U.S. Air Force—under Trump, following Obama’s declared policy—shooting down a Syrian plane in Syrian airspace, this is now undeniable.  The United States is overtly engaged in another aggression against a sovereign country that poses no conceivable, let alone actual or imminent, threat to the nation. This is an act of war.

As an act of war, this is unconstitutional, and would demand a congressional declaration. Will Trump ask for this? Will any Democratic or Republican congresscritter demand it? Is the Pope a Hindu?

Would it make any difference? Why should Trump bother? Obama set the stage when he completely ignored the War Powers Act, the Constitution, Congress, and his own Attorney General and legal advisers, and went right ahead with a war on Libya, under the theory that, if we pretend no American troops are on the ground, it isn’t really a war or “hostilities” at all. Which I guess means if the Chinese Air Force starts shooting down American planes in American airspace in defense of Black Lives Matter’s assault on the White House, it wouldn’t really be engaging in an act of war.

It’s impossible to overstate the danger in these executive war-making prerogatives that Obama normalized—with the irresponsible connivance of his progressive groupies, who pretend not to know where this would lead: In 2012, referring to the precedent of Obama’s policies, Mitt Romney said: “I don’t believe at this stage, therefore, if I’m president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now.” Following Obama, for Trump, and every Republican and Democratic president, it now goes without saying.

As an aggressive, unprovoked war, this is also illegal under international law, and all the political and military authorities undertaking it are war criminals, who would be prosecuted as such, if there were an international legal regime that had not already been undermined by the United States.

Syria is now under explicit attack by the armed forces of the U.S., Turkey, and other NATO states. Sixteen countries have combat aircraft buzzing around Syrian airspace under the effective command of the United States, and a number of them have attacked Syria’s army.

Americans, and certainly self-identified “progressives,” have to be crystal clear about this: American armed forces have no right to be in Syria, have no right to restrict the Syrian government from using any of its airspace, or to prevent it from regaining control of any of its own territory from foreign-backed jihadi armies.

The Syrian state and its allies (Iran and Russia), on the other hand, are engaged in the legitimate self-defense of a sovereign state, and have the right to respond with full military force to any attack on Syrian forces or any attempt by the United States to balkanize or occupy Syrian territory, or to overthrow the Syrian government.

So please, do not pretend to be shocked, shocked, if Syria and its allies fight back, inflicting American casualties. Don’t pose as the morally superior victim when Americans are killed by the people they are attacking. And don’t be preaching about how everyone has to support our troops in a criminal, unconstitutional, aggressive attack on a country that has not threatened ours in any way. American soldiers and pilots executing this policy are not heroes, and are not fighting to protect America or advance democracy; they are criminal aggressors and legitimate targets. In response to American aggression, the Syrian Army has every right to strike back at the American military apparatus, everywhere. Every casualty of this war, however big it gets, is the ethico-political responsibility of the attacking party – US. The first responsibility of every American is not to “support our troops,” but to stop this war. Right now. Before it gets worse

It’s quite obvious, in fact, that the United States regime is deliberately making targets of its military personnel, in the hopes of provoking a response from Syrian or allied armed forces that will kill some Americans, and be used to gin up popular support for the exactly the kind of major military attack on Syria and/or Russia and/or Iran that the American people would otherwise reject with disgust. Anyone who professes concern for “our troops” should be screaming to stop that.

It’s also quite clear now, that the War on ISIS is a sham, that ISIS was always just a pretext to get the American military directly involved in attacking the Syrian army and destroying the coherence of the Syrian state. If the U.S. wanted to defeat ISIS, it could do so easily by coordinating their actions with, and not against, the forces who have been most effectively fighting it: the Syrian Arab Army, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah.

Instead, it’s attacking the Syrian army precisely because it has been defeating ISIS and other jihadi forces, and regaining its own territory and control of its own border with Iraq. The U.S. does not want that to happen. At the very least—if it cannot immediately engender that massive offensive to overthrow the Baathist government—the U.S. wants to control part of the border with Iraq and to occupy a swath of eastern Syria. It wants to establish permanent bases from which to provision and protect jihadi armies, achieving a de facto partitioning of the Syrian state, maintaining a constant state of armed attack against the Damascus government, and reducing Syria to a weakened, rump state that can never present any effective resistance to American, Israeli, or Saudi designs on the region.

This is extremely dangerous, since the Syrians, Russians, and Iranians seem determined not to let this happen. Trump seems to have abrogated authority to his generals to make decisions of enormous political consequence. Perhaps that’s why aggressive actions like the shoot-down of the Syrian plane have been occurring more frequently, and why it’s not likely they’ll abate. There’s a dynamic in motion that will inevitably lead each side to confront a choice of whether to back down, in a way that’s obvious, or escalate. Generals aren’t good at backing down. A regional or global war is a real possibility, and becomes more likely with every such incident.

Though most American politicians and media outlets do not want to say it (and therefore, most citizens cannot see it clearly enough), such a war is the objective of a powerful faction of the Deep State which has been persistent and determined in seeking it. If the generals are loathe to back down in a battle, the neocons are adamant about not backing down on their plans for the Middle East. They will not be stopped by anything less than overwhelming popular resistance and international pushback.

The upside of these attacks on Syrian forces is that they wipe the lipstick off the pig of the American project in Syria. Everyone—European countries who profess concern for international law and stability, and the American people who are fed up with constant wars that have no benefit for them—can see exactly what kind of blatant aggression is unfolding, and decide whether they want to go along with it.

In that regard, any self-identified “liberal” or “progressive” American—and particularly any such American politician—who spent (and may still spend) their political energy attacking Bush, et. al., for that crazy war in Iraq, and who goes along with, or hesitates to immediately and energetically denounce this war, which is already underway, is a political hypocrite, resisting nothing but the obvious.


---------------------------
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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
The Causes of Terrorism

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-causes-of-terrorism-3209053

by Amy Zalman, Ph.D.
Updated June 21, 2017

Terrorist acts are motivated by two things:

    Social and political injustice: People choose terrorism when they are trying to right what they perceive to be a social or political or historical wrong—when they have been stripped of their land or rights, or denied these.

    The belief that violence or its threat will be effective, and usher in change. Another way of saying this is: the belief that violent means justify the ends. Many terrorists in history said sincerely that they chose violence after long deliberation, because they felt they had no choice.

This explanation of the causes of terrorism may be difficult to swallow. It sounds too simple, or too theoretical. However, if you look at any group that is widely understood as a terrorist group, you will find these two elements are basic to their story.

People who choose terrorist tactics are also persuaded that violence, or the threat of violence, is effective.

There is some question about who actually 'chooses' terrorism, and it may be unfair to think of young recruits, such as some suicide bombers today, who are seduced by cult-like methods of indoctrination as completely culpable for their choices.
Asking a Better Question: What Conditions Are Favorable for Terrorism

In fact, the question, "what causes terrorism?" is not quite the right question to be asking, because we will never be able to answer it. We cannot say that the presence of one factor provokes terrorism in the same way that we can say with scientific certainty that certain toxins cause diseases.

If you listen closely to the explanations that are usually given as answers to the question, "What is terrorism?" you will find that they actually answer the question: "What are the conditions in which terrorism is most likely to take place?" Sometimes these conditions have to do with the people who become terrorists (they are described as having certain psychological traits, like 'narcissistic rage') and some conditions have to do with the circumstances they live in (a poor society; a formerly colonized society, for example).

Although many people today believe that that religious fanaticism "causes" terrorism, it isn't true. It may be true that religious fanaticism creates conditions that are favorable for terrorism. But we know that religious zealotry does not 'cause' terrorism because there are many religious fanatics who do not choose terrorism or any form of violence. So there must also be other conditions that in combination provoke some people to see terrorism as an effective way of creating change in their world.

There are two more reasons why asking, "What conditions create a favorable climate for terrorism?" is better than asking about causes The first is, it makes it easy to remember that there are always at least several conditions. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon; it is a specific kind of political violence committed by people who do not have ​a legitimate army at their disposal. A second reason that has been useful for me, as I ask questions about terrorism, is that thinking in terms of 'conditions' helps me remember that people have a choice about whether to use violence.

There is nothing inside any person nor in their circumstances that sends them—like a monopoly piece headed directly to "Go"—directly to terrorism.

Instead, there are certain conditions, some of which make violence against civilians seem like a reasonable, and even necessary option. Despite this, and some of the deeply unforgivable circumstances that foster terrorism, people always have the free will to seek another course of action.

More about the groups mentioned in this article:

    Zionists who bombed British targets in 1930s mandate Palestine felt they must do so in order to create a Jewish state.

    The IRA (Irish Republican Army) bombed English targets in the 1980s to make the point that they felt their land was colonized by British imperialists.

    In the 1960s and 1970s, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine felt that armed attacks in Israel were a justifiable response to the usurpation of their land.

    Osama bin Laden's declaration of war on American interests in the 1990s stemmed from his belief that U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia represented an abomination to the kind of Islamic state he believed should exist in the Arabian peninsula.

    Uighur separatists in China today feel that Chinese religious repression (the Uighur Chinese are Muslims) justifies their terrorist tactics.

    In some cases, people choose terrorist tactics based on a cause whose righteousness they believe in to the exclusion of nearly all else. Abortion clinic bombers in the 1990s and groups such as the Animal Liberation Front believe zealously in their causes.


---------------------------
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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Terrorist acts are motivated by two things:

    Social and political injustice: People choose terrorism when they are trying to right what they perceive to be a social or political or historical wrong—when they have been stripped of their land or rights, or denied these.

    The belief that violence or its threat will be effective, and usher in change. Another way of saying this is: the belief that violent means justify the ends. Many terrorists in history said sincerely that they chose violence after long deliberation, because they felt they had no choice.


Amy Zalman Ph.D. writes from the point of view of the terrorists justifying their actions. No mention of morality or considering an external control frame of reference that desires to both cultivate terrorism and hide the complicity, which is disappointing as the article could have been so much more.. "Manchester Boys" anyone ?

cultivate

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cultivate

1.
    a. To improve and prepare (land), as by plowing or fertilizing, for raising crops; till.

    b. To loosen or dig soil around (growing plants).

2. To grow or tend (a plant or crop).

3. To promote the growth of (a biological culture).

4. To encourage or foster: cultivate a respect for the law. See Synonyms at nurture.

5. To acquire, develop, or refine, as by education: cultivating a posh accent.

6. To seek the acquaintance or goodwill of; make friends with: cultivated the club's new members.

WATCH: Tears of a suicide bomber - Twisted footage shows crying teen’s last moments


http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/607377/Video-crying-teen-suicide-bomber-last-moments-Syria

Read the comments!

catnap

"Don't let Britain descend into chaotic ethnic conflict - stop the colonisation of our country !!!!

sign the petition."

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106477

IRA gives up arms and terrorism and embraces mainstream politics

http://www.asiantribune.com/node/2332

 London, 06 October, (Asiantribune.com): The Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) that had terrorized Britain for over three decades in its quest for independence for Northern Ireland has given up its armed struggle and terrorism to enter democratic politics, an independent commission reported.

In a historic change in strategy which was warmly welcomed by the British government that first fought the IRA and later encouraged negotiations with its political arm, Sinn Fein, to thrash out a political settlement, the announcement comes ahead of next week's talks in Scotland to revive the stalled power-sharing process.

This renunciation of terrorism as a weapon in political change is being attributed by some political groups as a result of the pressure exerted on the IRA and the demand for it to surrender weapons, halt criminal activity and killings and embrace mainstream politics.

The Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC) said in a 60-paged report that the IRA has gone through "transformation” that it had disbanded its military structures, asked volunteers to stand down and has renounced terrorism and crime.

The four-member IMC includes former directors of the US Central Intelligence Agency and the anti-terrorism unit of Scotland Yard, is tasked with monitoring the ceasefires that came into operation following the Good Friday agreement reached by the warring parties some years ago.

" We do not believe that Pira is now engaged in terrorism. We do not believe that Pira is undertaking terrorist-type training. We do not believe that Pira is recruiting. The leadership is trying to reduce the size of its organization. We have no evidence of targeting, procurement or engineering activity. We believe that the leadership does not consider a return to terrorism as in any way a viable option," the Commission said.

Reacting to the conclusions in the IMC report, Prime Minister Tony Blair said, "The IRA has done what we asked. In short, Sinn Fein and IRA are following the political path and the commitment to exclusively democratic means. The IRA campaign is over."

"There is now a consensus across all the main parties in the province of Northern Ireland that change can only come through persuasion and not through violence." Mr Blair appealed to the Democratic Unionist leader Ian Paisley and other politicians in Northern Ireland to take the opportunity in next week's talks to reach a settlement.

In his reaction Rev Ian Paisley, who has been strongly opposed to the IRA and even sharing power in the Northern Ireland parliament with its political arm Sinn Fein, said the report vindicated that his party's hard-line position was forcing the IRA to give up terrorism and its terrorist structures.

The Commission report, which covered para-military activities in the last six months, said the IRA was not undertaking terrorist-type training, recruiting, targeting or buying weapons. No shootings had been attributed to the Pira and no criminal activity sanction by the leadership.

"It is not the same organization that it was three years ago. (Then) it was the most sophisticated and potentially the most dangerous of the (paramilitary) groups, possessed of the largest arsenal of guns. It is not firmly set on a political strategy."

Still, small dissident republican factions such as the Real IRA and Continuity IRA, are said to pose a residual threat. They had carried out bomb and arson attacks.
The report warned that after 35 years of terrorism disbanding paramilitary groups would not end all violence.

- Asian Tribune -


---------------------------
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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
sign the petition

What's the point ?

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/24966.html

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

    John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962
    35th president of US 1961-1963 (1917 - 1963)   


---------------------------
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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
England is Not an Independent Country

https://www.thoughtco.com/england-is-not-an-independent-country-1435413

But the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a Country

by Matt Rosenberg

Updated March 03, 2017

There are eight accepted criteria used to determine whether an entity is an independent country or not.

A country need only fail on one of the eight criteria to not meet the definition of independent country status. England does not meet all eight criteria; it fails on six of the eight criteria...

1. Has space or territory that has internationally recognized boundaries (boundary disputes are OK).

Yes, England does have internationally recognized boundaries and is 130,395 square kilometers in area.

England is the largest component of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

2. Has people who live there on an ongoing basis.


Yes, according to the 2001 census, England's population is 49,138,831.

3. Has economic activity and an organized economy. A country regulates foreign and domestic trade and issues money.

Somewhat. England certainly has economic activity and an organized economy. However, England does not regulate its own foreign or domestic trade, the United Kingdom's parliament acts on the entire nation's behalf.

The Bank of England serves as the central bank for the United Kingdom and does print banknotes for both England and Wales.

4. Has the power of social engineering, such as education.


No. National government departments (such as the Department for Education and Skill) at the national level maintain responsibility for social engineering.

5. Has a transportation system for moving goods and people.

Mostly. England has a transportation system but the system is not fully under English control. There is no English Parliament but some systems are under local control but must of the national transportation system is under national control by Parliament.

6. Has a government that provides public services and police power.

Somewhat. Local governments provides local law enforcement and fire protection but the national government controls criminal and civil law, the prosecution system, the courts, defense and national security across the United Kingdom. England does not and can not have its own army.

7. Has sovereignty. No other State should have power over the country's territory.

No. The Parliament of the United Kingdom definitely has power over England's territory.

8. Has external recognition. A country has been "voted into the club" by other countries.


No. England does not have external recognition nor does England have its own embassies in other independent countries. There's no possible way England could become an independent member of the United Nations.

Thus, as you can plainly see, England (nor Wales, nor Northern Ireland, nor Scotland) is not an independent country; England is an internal division of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

England and Wales

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

England and Wales (Welsh: Cymru a Lloegr) is a legal jurisdiction covering England and Wales, two of the four countries of the United Kingdom. "England and Wales" forms the constitutional successor to the former Kingdom of England and follows a single legal system, known as English law.

The devolved National Assembly for Wales (Welsh: Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru) was created in 1999 by the Parliament of the United Kingdom under the Government of Wales Act 1998 and provides a degree of self-government in Wales. The powers of the Assembly were expanded by the Government of Wales Act 2006, which allows it to pass its own laws, and the Act also formally separated the Welsh Government from the Assembly. There is no equivalent body for England, which is directly governed by the Parliament and the government of the United Kingdom.

History of jurisdiction

During the Roman occupation of Britain, the area of present-day England and Wales was administered as a single unit, with the exception of the land to the north of Hadrian's Wall. At that time, most of the native inhabitants of Roman Britain spoke Brythonic languages, and were all regarded as Britons, divided into numerous tribes. After the conquest, the Romans administered this region as a single unit, the province of Britain.

After the departure of the Romans, the Britons of what became Wales developed their own system of law, first codified by Hywel Dda (Hywel the Good; reigned 942–950) when he was king of most of present-day Wales, while in England Anglo-Saxon law was initially codified by Alfred the Great in his Legal Code, c. 893. However, following the Norman invasion of Wales in the 11th century, English law came to be practised in the parts of Wales conquered by the Normans (the Welsh Marches). In 1283 the English, led by Edward I, with the biggest army brought together in England since the 11th century, conquered the remainder of Wales, then organised as the Principality of Wales, which was united with the English crown by the Statute of Rhuddlan of 1284. This aimed to replace Welsh criminal law with English law.

Welsh law continued to be used for civil cases until the annexation of Wales to England in the 16th century. The Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 then consolidated the administration of all the Welsh territories and incorporated them fully into the legal system of the Kingdom of England.[1]

Prior to 1746 it was not clear whether a reference to "England" in legislation included Wales, and so in 1746 Parliament passed the Wales and Berwick Act. This specified that in all prior and future laws, references to "England" would by default include Wales (and Berwick). The Wales and Berwick Act was repealed in 1967, although the statutory definition of "England" it created is preserved for acts passed prior to its repeal. Since the Act's repeal what was referred to as "England" is now "England and Wales", while references to "England" and "Wales" refer to those political divisions.

Law

England and Wales are treated as a single unit, for most purposes, because the two form the constitutional successor to the former Kingdom of England. The continuance of Scots law was guaranteed under the 1706 Treaty of Union that led to the Acts of Union 1707, and as a consequence English law—and after 1801, Irish law— continued to be separate. Following the two Acts of Union, Parliament can restrict the effect of its laws to part of the realm, and generally the effect of laws, where restricted, was originally applied to one or more of the former kingdoms. Thus, most laws applicable to England also applied to Wales. However, Parliament now passes laws applicable to Wales and not to England (and vice versa), a practice which was rare before the middle of the 20th century. Examples are the Welsh Language Acts 1967 and 1993 and the Government of Wales Act 1998. Measures and Acts of the National Assembly for Wales passed since the Government of Wales Act 2006 also apply in Wales but not in England.

Following the Government of Wales Act, effective since May 2007, the National Assembly for Wales can legislate on matters devolved to it. Following a referendum on 3 March 2011, the Welsh Assembly gained direct law-making powers, without the need to consult Westminster. This was the first time in almost 500 years that Wales had its own powers to legislate. Each piece of Welsh legislation is known as an Act of the Assembly.

Company registration


Main article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companies_House

For a company to be incorporated in the United Kingdom, its application for registration with Companies House must state "whether the company's registered office is to be situated in England and Wales (or in Wales), in Scotland or in Northern Ireland",[2] which will determine the law applicable to that business entity. A registered office may be specified as "in Wales" if the company wishes to use a name ending cyfyngedig or cyf, rather than Limited or Ltd. and/or to avail itself of certain other privileges relating to the official use of the Welsh language.

Other bodies

    In sports, cricket has a combined international team administered by the England and Wales Cricket Board, who also govern the sport across both nations, whilst football, rugby union, rugby league, the Commonwealth Games and other sports have separate national representative teams for each country. A few Welsh association football clubs, most notably Cardiff City F.C. and Swansea City F.C., play in the English football league system, while The New Saints F.C., which represents places on both sides of the border, plays in the Welsh football league system.

    Some religious denominations organise on the basis of England and Wales, most notably the Roman Catholic Church, but also small denominations, e.g. the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Prior to the disestablishment of the Church in Wales in 1920, the Anglican church in Britain operated under the jurisdiction of the Church of England throughout Wales and England.

    The Electoral Commission maintains a register of political parties, organised according to where the party operates (either England, Wales or England and Wales).

    Some professional bodies represent England and Wales, for example the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the General Council of the Bar, the Law Society, the National Farmers Union and the Police Federation of England and Wales.

    Other examples include the Canal & River Trust, the Charity Commission, the General Register Office for England and Wales, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, HM Land Registry, Her Majesty's Prison Service, Mountain Rescue England and Wales, the Worshipful Company of Chartered Accountants and the Youth Hostels Association.

Order of precedence


The order of precedence in England and Wales is distinct from those of Northern Ireland and Scotland, and from Commonwealth realms.

National parks

The national parks of England and Wales have a distinctive legislative framework and history.

See also

    Courts of England and Wales

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

    Judiciary of England and Wales

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

    Cultural relationship between the Welsh and the English

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

    Geography of Wales

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

    Geography of England

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

    British Isles

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


---------------------------
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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
    Cultural relationship between the Welsh and the English

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

The relationship between the Welsh and English is characterised largely by tolerance and intermixing of people and cultures. Historically this has not always been the case, and elements of mutual mistrust or dislike and overt racism or xenophobia persist. Hatred or fear of the Welsh by the English has been termed "Cymrophobia",[1] and similar attitudes towards the English by the Welsh, or others, are termed "Anglophobia". However, these expressions are not in general use, and expressions of anti-Welsh or anti-English sentiment tend to be more in jest than in earnest.

The relationship has developed historically from the origins of the two nations, and been shaped by the military, political, economic and cultural power exercised by the much more populous English over the Welsh for many centuries; the marked differences between the English and Welsh languages, both spoken and written; and the high degree of cultural importance attached by many in Wales to signifiers of national identity such as the language, literature, history, traditions, and the national sport of rugby union.

The Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britain led to the formation of Wales as a separate nation between the 5th and 7th centuries. The Anglo-Norman kings of England had conquered Wales militarily by the 13th century, and under Henry VIII the country was incorporated into the Kingdom of England by the Laws in Wales Acts in the 16th century. Many elements of the Welsh economy and society since then have been shaped by demands from England, and Wales has been described as "England's first colony".[2] However, Welsh identity remained strong, and recently there has been an increasing awareness and acknowledgement of Wales' cultural and historical separateness from England, which has latterly been reflected politically.

The Welsh language is in the Celtic language group, whereas English is in the West Germanic group; consequently the English language is further from the Welsh language in both vocabulary and grammar than from a number of European languages, such as Dutch, for example. Comparatively few English people can understand or speak Welsh. Conversely, virtually all Welsh speakers can speak English.

Xenophobia

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

Xenophobia is the fear and distrust of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange.[1][2] Xenophobia can manifest itself in many ways involving the relations and perceptions of an ingroup towards an outgroup, including a fear of losing identity, suspicion of its activities, aggression, and desire to eliminate its presence to secure a presumed purity.[3] Xenophobia can also be exhibited in the form of an "uncritical exaltation of another culture" in which a culture is ascribed "an unreal, stereotyped and exotic quality".[3]

The terms xenophobia and racism are sometimes confused and used interchangeably because people who share a national origin may also belong to the same race.[4] Due to this, xenophobia is usually distinguished by opposition to foreign culture.[4] Xenophobia is a political term and not a recognized medical phobia.

Definitions

Dictionary definitions of xenophobia include: "deep-rooted fear towards foreigners" (Oxford English Dictionary; OED), and "fear of the unfamiliar" (Webster's).[5] The word comes from the Ancient Greek words ξένος (xenos), meaning "strange", "foreigner", and φόβος (phobos), meaning "fear".[6]

A scholarly definition of xenophobia, according to Andreas Wimmer, is "an element of a political struggle about who has the right to be cared for by the state and society: a fight for the collective goods of the modern state". In other words, xenophobia arises when people feel that their entitlement to benefit from the government is being subverted by other people's rights.[7]

History

An early example of xenophobic sentiment in Western culture is the Ancient Greek denigration of foreigners as "barbarians", belief that the Greek people and culture were superior to those of others, and the subsequent conclusion that barbarians were naturally meant to be enslaved.[8] Ancient Romans also held notions of superiority over other peoples, such as in a speech attributed to Manius Acilius, "There, as you know, there were Macedonians and Thracians and Illyrians, all most warlike nations, here Syrians and Asiatic Greeks, the most worthless peoples among mankind and born for slavery."[9]


---------------------------
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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Melting pot

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

The melting pot is a metaphor for a heterogeneous society becoming more homogeneous, the different elements "melting together" into a harmonious whole with a common culture or vice versa, for a homogeneous society becoming more heterogeneous through the influx of foreign elements with different cultural background with a potential creation of disharmony with the previous culture. Historically, it is often used to describe the assimilation of immigrants to the United States.[1] The melting-together metaphor was in use by the 1780s.[2][3] The exact term "melting pot" came into general usage in the United States after it was used as a metaphor describing a fusion of nationalities, cultures and ethnicities in the 1908 play of the same name.

The desirability of assimilation and the melting pot model has been reconsidered by proponents of multiculturalism,[4][5] who have suggested alternative metaphors to describe the current American society, such as a mosaic, salad bowl, or kaleidoscope, in which different cultures mix, but remain distinct in some aspects.[6][7][8] Others argue that cultural assimilation is important to the maintenance of national unity, and should be promoted.

Origins of the term

In the 18th and 19th centuries, the metaphor of a "crucible" or "smelting pot" was used to describe the fusion of different nationalities, ethnicities and cultures. It was used together with concepts of the United States as an ideal republic and a "city upon a hill" or new promised land.[citation needed] It was a metaphor for the idealized process of immigration and colonization by which different nationalities, cultures and "races" (a term that could encompass nationality, ethnicity and race proper) were to blend into a new, virtuous community, and it was connected to utopian visions of the emergence of an American "new man". While "melting" was in common use the exact term "melting pot" came into general usage in 1908, after the premiere of the play The Melting Pot by Israel Zangwill.

The first use in American literature of the concept of immigrants "melting" into the receiving culture are found in the writings of J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur. In his Letters from an American Farmer (1782) Crevecoeur writes, in response to his own question, "What then is the American, this new man?" that the American is one who "leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. He becomes an American by being received in the broad lap of our great Alma Mater. Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labors and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world."

    …whence came all these people? They are a mixture of English, Scotch, Irish, French, Dutch, Germans, and Swedes... What, then, is the American, this new man? He is either an European or the descendant of an European; hence that strange mixture of blood, which you will find in no other country. I could point out to you a family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son married a French woman, and whose present four sons have now four wives of different nations. He is an American, who, leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. . . . The Americans were once scattered all over Europe; here they are incorporated into one of the finest systems of population which has ever appeared.
    — J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur, Letters from an American Farmer

In 1845, Ralph Waldo Emerson, alluding to the development of European civilization out of the medieval Dark Ages, wrote in his private journal of America as the Utopian product of a culturally and racially mixed "smelting pot", but only in 1912 were his remarks first published. In his writing, Emerson explicitly welcomed the racial intermixing of whites and non-whites, a highly controversial view during his lifetime.

A magazine article in 1876 used the metaphor explicitly:

    The fusing process goes on as in a blast-furnace; one generation, a single year even-- transforms the English, the German, the Irish emigrant into an American. Uniform institutions, ideas, language, the influence of the majority, bring us soon to a similar complexion; the individuality of the immigrant, almost even his traits of race and religion, fuse down in the democratic alembic like chips of brass thrown into the melting pot.[9]

In 1893, historian Frederick Jackson Turner also used the metaphor of immigrants melting into one American culture. In his essay The Significance of the Frontier in American History, he referred to the "composite nationality" of the American people, arguing that the frontier had functioned as a "crucible" where "the immigrants were Americanized, liberated and fused into a mixed race, English in neither nationality nor characteristics".

In his 1905 travel narrative The American Scene, Henry James discusses cultural intermixing in New York City as a "fusion, as of elements in solution in a vast hot pot".[10]

The exact term "melting pot" came into general usage in the United States after it was used as a metaphor describing a fusion of nationalities, cultures and ethnicities in the 1908 play of the same name, first performed in Washington, D.C., where the immigrant protagonist declared:

    Understand that America is God's Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and re-forming! Here you stand, good folk, think I, when I see them at Ellis Island, here you stand in your fifty groups, your fifty languages, and histories, and your fifty blood hatreds and rivalries. But you won't be long like that, brothers, for these are the fires of God you've come to – these are fires of God. A fig for your feuds and vendettas! Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians—into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American.[11]

Israel Zangwill


In The Melting Pot (1908), Israel Zangwill combined a romantic denouement with an utopian celebration of complete cultural intermixing. The play was an adaptation of William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, set in New York City. The play's immigrant protagonist David Quixano, a Russian Jew, falls in love with Vera, a fellow Russian immigrant who is Christian. Vera is an idealistic settlement house worker and David is a composer struggling to create an "American symphony" to celebrate his adopted homeland. Together they manage to overcome the old world animosities that threaten to separate them. But then David discovers that Vera is the daughter of the Tsarist officer who directed the pogrom that forced him to flee Russia. Horrified, he breaks up with her, betraying his belief in the possibility of transcending religious and ethnic animosities. However, unlike Shakespeare's tragedy, there is a happy ending. At the end of the play the lovers are reconciled.

Reunited with Vera and watching the setting sun gilding the Statue of Liberty, David Quixano has a prophetic vision: "It is the Fires of God round His Crucible. There she lies, the great Melting-Pot—Listen! Can't you hear the roaring and the bubbling? There gapes her mouth, the harbor where a thousand mammoth feeders come from the ends of the world to pour in their human freight". David foresees how the American melting pot will make the nation's immigrants transcend their old animosities and differences and will fuse them into one people: "Here shall they all unite to build the Republic of Man and the Kingdom of God. Ah, Vera, what is the glory of Rome and Jerusalem where all nations and races come to worship and look back, compared with the glory of America, where all races and nations come to labour and look forward!"

Zangwill thus combined the metaphor of the "crucible" or "melting pot" with a celebration of the United States as an ideal republic and a new promised land. The prophetic words of his Jewish protagonist against the backdrop of the Statue of Liberty allude to Emma Lazarus's famous poem The New Colossus (1883), which celebrated the statue as a symbol of American democracy and its identity as an immigrant nation.[12]

Zangwill concludes his play by wishing, "Peace, peace, to all ye unborn millions, fated to fill this giant continent--the God of our children give you Peace." Expressing his hope that through this forging process the "unborn millions" who would become America's future citizens would become a unified nation at peace with itself despite its ethnic and religious diversity.

United States

In terms of immigrants to the United States, the "melting pot" process has been equated with Americanization, that is, cultural assimilation and acculturation. The "melting pot" metaphor implies both a melting of cultures and intermarriage of ethnicities, yet cultural assimilation or acculturation can also occur without intermarriage. Thus African-Americans are fully culturally integrated into American culture and institutions. Yet more than a century after the abolition of slavery, intermarriage between African-Americans and other ethnicities is much less common than between different white ethnicities, or between white and Asian ethnicities. Intermarriage between whites and non-whites, and especially African-Americans, has long been a taboo in the United States, and was illegal in many US states (see anti-miscegenation laws) until 1967.[13]

Whiteness and the melting pot in the United States

The melting pot theory of ethnic relations, which sees American identity as centered upon the acculturation or assimilation and the intermarriage of white immigrant groups, has been analyzed by the emerging academic field of whiteness studies. This discipline examines the "social construction of whiteness" and highlights the changing ways in which whiteness has been normative to American national identity from the 17th to the 20th century.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, European immigration to the United States became increasingly diverse and increased substantially in numbers. Beginning in the 1890s, large numbers of Southern and Eastern European immigrant groups such as the Italians, Jews, and Poles arrived. Many returned to Europe but those who remained merged into the cultural melting pot, adopting American lifestyles.[14] By contrast, Chinese arrivals met intense hostility and new laws in the 1880s tried to exclude them, but many arrived illegally. Hostility forced them into "Chinatowns" or ethnic enclaves in the larger cities, where they lived a culture apart and seldom assimilated. The acquisition of Hawaii in 1898, with full citizenship for the residents of all races, greatly increased the Asian American population.

In the early 20th century, the meaning of the recently popularized concept of the melting pot was subject to ongoing debate which centered on the issue of immigration. The debate surrounding the concept of the melting pot centered on how immigration impacted American society and on how immigrants should be approached. The melting pot was equated with either the acculturation or the total assimilation of European immigrants, and the debate centered on the differences between these two ways of approaching immigration: "Was the idea to melt down the immigrants and then pour the resulting, formless liquid into the preexisting cultural and social molds modeled on Anglo-Protestants like Henry Ford and Woodrow Wilson, or was the idea instead that everyone, Mayflower descendants and Sicilians, Ashkenazi and Slovaks, would act chemically upon each other so that all would be changed, and a new compound would emerge?"[13]

Nativists wanted to severely restrict access to the melting pot. They felt that far too many "undesirables," or in their view, culturally inferior immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe had already arrived. The compromises that were reached in a series of immigration laws in the 1920s established the principle that the number of new arrivals should be small, and, apart from family reunification, the inflow of new immigrants should match the ethnic profile of the nation as it existed at that time.[15] National quotas were established that discouraged immigration from Poland, Italy and Russia, and encouraged immigration from Britain, Ireland and Germany.

Native Americans

Intermarriage between Euro-American men and Native American women has been common since colonial days. In the 21st century some 7.5 million Americans claim Native American ancestry.[16] In the 1920s the nation welcomed celebrities of Native American background, especially Will Rogers and Jim Thorpe, and elected as vice president in 1928 Senator Charles Curtis, who had been brought up on a reservation and identified with his Indian heritage.

Miscegenation

The mixing of whites and blacks, resulting in multiracial children, for which the term "miscegenation" was coined in 1863, was a taboo, and most whites opposed marriages between whites and blacks. In many states, marriage between whites and non-whites was even prohibited by state law through anti-miscegenation laws. As a result, two kinds of "mixture talk" developed:

    As the new word--miscegenation--became associated with black-white mixing, a preoccupation of the years after the Civil War, the residual European immigrant aspect of the question of [ethnoracial mixture] came to be more than ever a thing apart, discussed all the more easily without any reference to the African-American aspect of the question. This separation of mixture talk into two discourses facilitated, and was in turn reinforced by, the process Matthew Frye Jacobson has detailed whereby European immigrant groups became less ambiguously white and more definitely "not black".[13]

By the early 21st century, many white Americans celebrated the impact of African-American culture, especially in sports and music. Marriages between white Americans and African-Americans were still problematic in both communities. Israel Zangwill saw this coming in the early 20th century: "However scrupulously and justifiably America avoids intermarriage with the negro, the comic spirit cannot fail to note spiritual miscegenation which, while clothing, commercializing, and Christianizing the ex-African, has given 'rag-time' and the sex-dances that go with it, first to white America and then to the whole white world."[17]

Multiracial influences on culture

White Americans long regarded some elements of African-American culture quintessentially "American", while at the same time treating African Americans as second-class citizens. White appropriation, stereotyping and mimicking of black culture played an important role in the construction of an urban popular culture in which European immigrants could express themselves as Americans, through such traditions as blackface, minstrel shows and later in jazz and in early Hollywood cinema, notably in The Jazz Singer (1927).[17]

Analyzing the "racial masquerade" that was involved in creation of a white "melting pot" culture through the stereotyping and imitation of black and other non-white cultures in the early 20th century, historian Michael Rogin has commented: "Repudiating 1920s nativism, these films [Rogin discusses The Jazz Singer, Old San Francisco (1927), Whoopee! (1930), King of Jazz (1930) celebrate the melting pot. Unlike other racially stigmatized groups, white immigrants can put on and take off their mask of difference. But the freedom promised immigrants to make themselves over points to the vacancy, the violence, the deception, and the melancholy at the core of American self-fashioning".[17]

Since World War II, the idea of the melting pot has become more racially inclusive in the United States, gradually extending also to acceptance of marriage between whites and non-whites.

Ethnicity in films

This trend towards greater acceptance of ethnic and racial minorities was evident in popular culture in the combat films of World War II, starting with Bataan (1943). This film celebrated solidarity and cooperation between Americans of all races and ethnicities through the depiction of a multiracial American unit. At the time blacks and Japanese in the armed forces were still segregated, while Chinese and Indians were in integrated units.

Historian Richard Slotkin sees Bataan and the combat genre that sprang from it as the source of the "melting pot platoon", a cinematic and cultural convention symbolizing in the 1940s "an American community that did not yet exist", and thus presenting an implicit protest against racial segregation. However, Slotkin points out that ethnic and racial harmony within this platoon is predicated upon racist hatred for the Japanese enemy: "the emotion which enables the platoon to transcend racial prejudice is itself a virulent expression of racial hatred...The final heat which blends the ingredients of the melting pot is rage against an enemy which is fully dehumanized as a race of 'dirty monkeys.'" He sees this racist rage as an expression of "the unresolved tension between racialism and civic egalitarianism in American life".[18]

Hawaii

In Hawaii, as Rohrer (2008) argues, there are two dominant discourses of racial politics, both focused on "haole" (white people or whiteness in Hawaii) in the islands. The first is the discourse of racial harmony representing Hawaii as an idyllic racial paradise with no conflict or inequality. There is also a competing discourse of discrimination against nonlocals, which contends that "haoles" and nonlocal people of color are disrespected and treated unfairly in Hawaii. As negative referents for each other, these discourses work to reinforce one another and are historically linked. Rohrer proposes that the question of racial politics be reframed toward consideration of the processes of racialization themselves—toward a new way of thinking about racial politics in Hawaii that breaks free of the not racist/racist dyad.[19]

Olympics

Throughout the history of the modern Olympic Games, the theme of the United States as a melting pot has been employed to explain American athletic success, becoming an important aspect of national self-image. The diversity of American athletes in the Olympic Games in the early 20th century was an important avenue for the country to redefine a national culture amid a massive influx of immigrants, as well as American Indians (represented by Jim Thorpe in 1912) and blacks (represented by Jesse Owens in 1936). In the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City, two black American athletes with gold and bronze medals saluted the U.S. national anthem with a "Black Power" salute that symbolized rejection of assimilation.[20]

The international aspect of the games allowed the United States to define its pluralistic self-image against the monolithic traditions of other nations. American athletes served as cultural ambassadors of American exceptionalism, promoting the melting pot ideology and the image of America as a progressive nation based on middle-class culture. Journalists and other American analysts of the Olympics framed their comments with patriotic nationalism, stressing that the success of U.S. athletes, especially in the high-profile track-and-field events, stemmed not from simple athletic prowess but from the superiority of the civilization that spawned them.

Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City strongly revived the melting pot image, returning to a bedrock form of American nationalism and patriotism. The reemergence of Olympic melting pot discourse was driven especially by the unprecedented success of African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, and Native Americans in events traditionally associated with Europeans and white North Americans such as speed skating and the bobsled.[21] The 2002 Winter Olympics was also a showcase of American religious freedom and cultural tolerance of the history of Utah's large majority population of Mormons, as well representation of Muslim Americans and other religious groups in the U.S. Olympic team.[22][23]

Melting pot and cultural pluralism

The concept of multiculturalism was preceded by the concept of cultural pluralism, which was first developed in the 1910s and 1920s, and became widely popular during the 1940s. The concept of cultural pluralism first emerged in the 1910s and 1920s among intellectual circles out of the debates in the United States over how to approach issues of immigration and national identity.

The First World War heightened tensions between Anglo-American and German-Americans. The war and the Russian Revolution, which caused a "Red Scare" in the US, which also fanned feelings of xenophobia. During and immediately after the First World War, the concept of the melting pot was equated by Nativists with complete cultural assimilation towards an Anglo-American norm ("Anglo-conformity") on the part of immigrants, and immigrants who opposed such assimilation were accused of disloyalty to the United States.

The newly popularized concept of the melting pot was frequently equated with "Americanization", meaning cultural assimilation, by many "old stock" Americans. In Henry Ford's Ford English School (established in 1914), the graduation ceremony for immigrant employees involved symbolically stepping off an immigrant ship and passing through the melting pot, entering at one end in costumes designating their nationality and emerging at the other end in identical suits and waving American flags.[24][25]

Opposition to the absorption of million of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe was especially strong among such popular writers Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard, who believed in the "racial" superiority of Americans of Northern European descent as member of the "Nordic race", and therefore demanded immigration restrictions to stop a "degeneration" of America's white racial "stock". They believed that complete cultural assimilation of the immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe was not a solution to the problem of immigration because intermarriage with these immigrants would endanger the racial purity of Anglo-America. The controversy over immigration faded away after immigration restrictions were put in place with the enactment of the Johnson-Reed Act in 1924.

In response to the pressure exerted on immigrants to culturally assimilate and also as a reaction against the denigration of the culture of non-Anglo white immigrants by Nativists, intellectuals on the left such as Horace Kallen, in Democracy Versus the Melting-Pot (1915), and Randolph Bourne, in Trans-National America (1916), laid the foundations for the concept of cultural pluralism. This term was coined by Kallen.[26] Randolph Bourne, who objected to Kallen's emphasis on the inherent value of ethnic and cultural difference, envisioned a "trans-national" and cosmopolitan America. The concept of cultural pluralism was popularized in the 1940s by John Dewey.

In the United States, where the term melting pot is still commonly used, the ideas of cultural pluralism and multiculturalism have, in some circles, taken precedence over the idea of assimilation.[27][28][29] Alternate models where immigrants retain their native cultures such as the "salad bowl"[30] or the "symphony"[27] are more often used by sociologists to describe how cultures and ethnicities mix in the United States. Nonetheless, the term assimilation is still used to describe the ways in which immigrants and their descendants adapt, such as by increasingly using the national language of the host society as their first language.

Since the 1960s, much research in Sociology and History has disregarded the melting pot theory for describing interethnic relations in the United States and other counties.[27][28][29] The theory of multiculturalism offers alternative analogies for ethnic interaction including salad bowl theory, or, as it is known in Canada, the cultural mosaic. In the 1990s, political correctness in the United States emphasized that each ethnic and national group has the right to maintain and preserve its cultural distinction and integrity, and that one does not need to assimilate or abandon one's heritage in order to blend in or merge into the majority Anglo-American society.[citation needed]

Nevertheless, some prominent scholars, such as Samuel P. Huntington in Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity, have expressed the view that the most accurate explanation for modern-day United States culture and inter-ethnic relations can be found somewhere in a fusion of some of the concepts and ideas contained in the melting pot, assimilation, and Anglo-conformity models. Under this theory, it is asserted that the United States has one of the most homogeneous cultures of any nation in the world. This line of thought holds that this American national culture derived most of its traits and characteristics from early colonial settlers from Britain, Ireland, and Germany. When more recent immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe brought their various cultures to America at the beginning of the 20th century, they changed the American cultural landscape just very slightly, and, for the most part, assimilated into America's pre-existing culture which had its origins in Northwestern Europe.

The decision of whether to support a melting-pot or multicultural approach has developed into an issue of much debate within some countries. For example, the French and British governments and populace are currently debating whether Islamic cultural practices and dress conflict with their attempts to form culturally unified countries.[31]
« Last Edit: 2017-07-09, 11:49:44 by evolvingape »


---------------------------
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.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 841
Melting pot

snip

Nevertheless, some prominent scholars, such as Samuel P. Huntington in Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity, have expressed the view that the most accurate explanation for modern-day United States culture and inter-ethnic relations can be found somewhere in a fusion of some of the concepts and ideas contained in the melting pot, assimilation, and Anglo-conformity models. Under this theory, it is asserted that the United States has one of the most homogeneous cultures of any nation in the world. This line of thought holds that this American national culture derived most of its traits and characteristics from early colonial settlers from Britain, Ireland, and Germany. When more recent immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe brought their various cultures to America at the beginning of the 20th century, they changed the American cultural landscape just very slightly, and, for the most part, assimilated into America's pre-existing culture which had its origins in Northwestern Europe.

The decision of whether to support a melting-pot or multicultural approach has developed into an issue of much debate within some countries. For example, the French and British governments and populace are currently debating whether Islamic cultural practices and dress conflict with their attempts to form culturally unified countries.[31]


Interesting in this context to examine the DNA make up of the UK mixing pot.

It would seem that the Basques are the predominate influence.

Not much in google but several good videos on you tube, of all places

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgqjLMESS78

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgqjLMESS78&t=43s

Ron
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 841

Interesting in this context to examine the DNA make up of the UK mixing pot.

It would seem that the Basques are the predominate influence.

Not much in google but several good videos on you tube, of all places

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgqjLMESS78

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgqjLMESS78&t=43s

Ron


The sordid history of the British Empire.

So although the prominent DNA of the Irish, Welsh and Scottish could well retain the influence of the Basques it was they who suffered the most from latter inhuman immigration, particularly around the area of London and the founding of the atrocious British Empire by these latter more war like people.

Quote
It was the largest empire ever to have existed. And as the saying used to go, the sun never sets on the British Empire. At its height in 1922, the colonial power was lording it over a fifth of the world’s population and for many of them, the sun never rose again.
Under the policies of British colonialism, people around the globe were subjected to mass famines, atrocious conditions in concentration camps, and brutal massacres at the hands of imperialist troops. The Brits also played an integral role in the transatlantic slave trade.
Although the atrocities of the British Empire are well documented, the myth of the noble colonising power continued into recent decades.
t was the largest empire ever to have existed. And as the saying used to go, the sun never sets on the British Empire. At its height in 1922, the colonial power was lording it over a fifth of the world’s population and for many of them, the sun never rose again. Under the policies of British colonialism, people around the globe were subjected to mass famines, atrocious conditions in concentration camps, and brutal massacres at the hands of imperialist troops. The Brits also played an integral role in the transatlantic slave trade. Although the atrocities of the British Empire are well documented, the myth of the noble colonising power continued into recent decades.

The de-industrialization Of India then happened to the UK and the empire torch was passed to the USA. It too has suffered de-industrialisation, on such a vast scale that Detroit could easily pass for the ruins of Hiroshima. What goes around comes around.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/crimes-against-humanity-the-british-empire/5597781

Ron

   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
European 'No-Go' Zones for Non-Muslims Proliferating

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2367/european-muslim-no-go-zones

"Occupation Without Tanks or Soldiers"

Islamic extremists are stepping up the creation of "no-go" areas in European cities that are off-limits to non-Muslims.

Many of the "no-go" zones function as microstates governed by Islamic Sharia law. Host-country authorities effectively have lost control in these areas and in many instances are unable to provide even basic public aid such as police, fire fighting and ambulance services.

The "no-go" areas are the by-product of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged Muslim immigrants to create parallel societies and remain segregated rather than become integrated into their European host nations.

In Britain, for example, a Muslim group called Muslims Against the Crusades has launched a campaign to turn twelve British cities – including what it calls "Londonistan" – into independent Islamic states. The so-called Islamic Emirates would function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Islamic Sharia law and operate entirely outside British jurisprudence.

The Islamic Emirates Project names the British cities of Birmingham, Bradford, Derby, Dewsbury, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Luton, Manchester, Sheffield, as well as Waltham Forest in northeast London and Tower Hamlets in East London as territories to be targeted for blanket Sharia rule.

In the Tower Hamlets area of East London (also known as the Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets), for example, extremist Muslim preachers, called the Tower Hamlets Taliban, regularly issue death threats to women who refuse to wear Islamic veils. Neighborhood streets have been plastered with posters declaring "You are entering a Sharia controlled zone: Islamic rules enforced." And street advertising deemed offensive to Muslims is regularly vandalized or blacked out with spray paint.

In the Bury Park area of Luton, Muslims have been accused of "ethnic cleansing" by harassing non-Muslims to the point that many of them move out of Muslim neighborhoods. In the West Midlands, two Christian preachers have been accused of "hate crimes" for handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham. In Leytonstone in east London, the Muslim extremist Abu Izzadeen heckled the former Home Secretary John Reid by saying: "How dare you come to a Muslim area."

In France, large swaths of Muslim neighborhoods are now considered "no-go" zones by French police. At last count, there are 751 Sensitive Urban Zones (Zones Urbaines Sensibles, ZUS), as they are euphemistically called. A complete list of the ZUS can be found on a French government website, complete with satellite maps and precise street demarcations. An estimated 5 million Muslims live in the ZUS, parts of France over which the French state has lost control.

Muslim immigrants are taking control of other parts of France too. In Paris and other French cities with high Muslim populations, such as Lyons, Marseilles and Toulouse, thousands of Muslims are closing off streets and sidewalks (and by extension, are closing down local businesses and trapping non-Muslim residents in their homes and offices) to accommodate overflowing crowds for Friday prayers. Some mosques have also begun broadcasting sermons and chants of "Allahu Akbar" via loudspeakers into the streets.

The weekly spectacles, which have been documented by dozens of videos posted on Youtube.com (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here), and which have been denounced as an "occupation without tanks or soldiers," have provoked anger and disbelief. But despite many public complaints, local authorities have declined to intervene because they are afraid of sparking riots.

In the Belgian capital of Brussels (which is 20% Muslim), several immigrant neighborhoods have become "no-go" zones for police officers, who frequently are pelted with rocks by Muslim youth. In the Kuregem district of Brussels, which often resembles an urban war zone, police are forced to patrol the area with two police cars: one car to carry out the patrols and another car to prevent the first car from being attacked. In the Molenbeek district of Brussels, police have been ordered not to drink coffee or eat a sandwich in public during the Islamic month of Ramadan.

In Germany, Chief Police Commissioner Bernhard Witthaut, in an August 1 interview with the newspaper Der Westen, revealed that Muslim immigrants are imposing "no-go" zones in cities across Germany at an alarming rate.

The interviewer asked Witthaut: "Are there urban areas – for example in the Ruhr – districts and housing blocks that are "no-go areas," meaning that they can no longer be secured by the police?" Witthaut replied: "Every police commissioner and interior minister will deny it. But of course we know where we can go with the police car and where, even initially, only with the personnel carrier. The reason is that our colleagues can no longer feel safe there in twos, and have to fear becoming the victim of a crime themselves. We know that these areas exist. Even worse: in these areas crimes no longer result in charges. They are left 'to themselves.' Only in the worst cases do we in the police learn anything about it. The power of the state is completely out of the picture."

In Italy, Muslims have been commandeering the Piazza Venezia in Rome for public prayers. In Bologna, Muslims repeatedly have threatened to bomb the San Petronio cathedral because it contains a 600-year-old fresco inspired by Dante's Inferno which depicts Mohammed being tormented in hell.

In the Netherlands, a Dutch court ordered the government to release to the public a politically incorrect list of 40 "no-go" zones in Holland. The top five Muslim problem neighborhoods are in Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Utrecht. The Kolenkit area in Amsterdam is the number one Muslim "problem district" in the country. The next three districts are in Rotterdam – Pendrecht, het Oude Noorden and Bloemhof. The Ondiep district in Utrecht is in the fifth position, followed by Rivierenwijk (Deventer), Spangen (Rotterdam), Oude Westen (Rotterdam), Heechterp/ Schieringen (Leeuwarden) and Noord-Oost (Maastricht).

In Sweden, which has some of the most liberal immigration laws in Europe, large swaths of the southern city of Malmö – which is more than 25% Muslim – are "no-go" zones for non-Muslims. Fire and emergency workers, for example, refuse to enter Malmö's mostly Muslim Rosengaard district without police escorts. The male unemployment rate in Rosengaard is estimated to be above 80%. When fire fighters attempted to put out a fire at Malmö's main mosque, they were attacked by stone throwers.

In the Swedish city of Gothenburg, Muslim youth have been hurling petrol bombs at police cars. In the city's Angered district, where more than 15 police cars have been destroyed, teenagers have also been pointing green lasers at the eyes of police officers, some of whom have been temporarily blinded.

In Gothenburg's Backa district, youth have been throwing stones at patrolling officers. Gothenburg police have also been struggling to deal with the problem of Muslim teenagers burning cars and attacking emergency services in several areas of the city.

According to the Malmö-based Imam Adly Abu Hajar: "Sweden is the best Islamic state."


---------------------------
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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Balkanization

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

Balkanization, or Balkanisation, is a geopolitical term, originally used to describe the process of fragmentation or division of a region or state into smaller regions or states that are often hostile or uncooperative with one another.[1][2] Balkanization is a result of foreign policies creating geopolitical fragmentation as can be seen at times in the Western Balkans with respect to the Ottoman empire, the Austro-Hungarian empire, the Third Reich, the United Nations and NATO. Foreign policies can be precipitous to Balkanization.

Nations and societies

The term refers to the division of the Balkan peninsula, formerly ruled almost entirely by the Ottoman Empire, into a number of smaller states between 1817 and 1912.[3] It was coined in the early 19th century and has a strong negative connotation.[4] The term however came into common use in the immediate aftermath of the First World War, with reference to the numerous new states that arose from the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire.

The larger countries within Europe, often being the result of the union of several historical regions or nations, have faced the perceived issue of Balkanization. The Iberian Peninsula and Spain especially has from the time of Al-Andalus had to come to terms with Balkanization,[5] with several separatist movements existing today including the Basque Country and Catalan independentism.

Canada is a stable country but does harbor separatist movements, the strongest of which is the Quebec sovereignty movement which seeks to create a nation-state that would encompass the majority of Canada's French-Canadian population. Two referendums have been held to decide this question, one in 1980 and the last one in 1995 being lost by the separatist side by a tiny margin. Less mainstream, smaller movements also exist in the western provinces, namely Alberta, to protest what is seen as a domination by Quebec and Ontario of Canadian politics. Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow had also considered separation from Canada if the 1995 Quebec independence referendum had succeeded; which would have led to the balkanization of Canada.

Quebec has been the scene of a small but vociferous partition movement from the part of anglophone activist groups opposed to the idea of Independence of Quebec, as such a country would be dominated by francophones on the order of 80%. One such project is the Proposal for the Province of Montreal, which wishes for the establishment of a separate province from Quebec from Montreal's strongly anglophone Anglo-Saxon and immigrant communities.

In January 2007, regarding the growing support for Scottish independence, the then-Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, and later Prime Minister, Gordon Brown talked of a "Balkanisation of Britain".[6] Independence movements within Britain also exist in England, Wales, Cornwall and Northern Ireland.

Balkanization in Africa

As Bates, Chatsworth & Williamson would argue, Balkanisation was observed to a great extent in Africa. During the 1960s, Countries in the Communauté Financière Africaine have started to opt for “autonomy within the French community” in this post-colonial era.

Countries within the CFA zone were allowed to impose tariffs, regulate trade and manage transport services. Zambia, Malawi, Uganda and Tanzania achieved independence in the post-colonial era. This period also saw the break down of the Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland as well as the East African High Commission. Balkanization was a result of the movement towards a closed economy. Countries were adopting antitrade and anti-market policies. Tariff rates were 15% higher than OECD countries during the 1970s and 1980s. [7]Furthermore, countries took approaches to subsidize their own local industries yet the market within the country was small-scale. Transport networks were fragmented; regulations on labor and capital flow were more regulated; prices were under control. Between 1960 and 1990, balkanization led to disastrous results. The GDP of these regions were 1/10 of OECD countries.[8] Balkanization also resulted in what van de Valle called "typically fairly overvalued exchanged rates" in Africa. Balkanization contributed to what Bates, Chatsworth & Williamson claimed to be a lost decade in Africa.

Economic situations only took a turn during the mid-1990s. Countries within the region started to input more stabilization policies. What was originally a high exchange rate eventually fell to a more reasonable exchange rate after devaluations in 1994. 18 countries had an exchange rate 50% higher than the official exchange rate, by 1994, the number of countries that had such exchange rate was decreased to 4.[9] However, there is still limited progress in improving trade policies within the region according to van de Walle. In addition, the post-independent countries still rely heavily on donors for development plans. Balkanization still has an impact on today’s Africa.

Other uses

The term is also used to describe other forms of disintegration, including, for instance, the subdivision of the Internet into separate enclaves.[10] However, Robert Morgus' and Tim Maurer's study suggests that the alarmist term “Balkanization” should be replaced with more appropriate terms such as fragmentation and diversity.[11] The term has been used in American urban planning to describe the process of creating gated communities.


---------------------------
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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
War of independence

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

A war of independence is a conflict occurring over a territory that has declared independence. Once the state that previously held the territory sends in military forces to assert its sovereignty or the native population clashes with the former occupier, a separatist rebellion has begun. If a new state is successfully established, the conflict is usually known as a ¨War of Independence¨.

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


---------------------------
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.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 841
War of independence

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

A war of independence is a conflict occurring over a territory that has declared independence. Once the state that previously held the territory sends in military forces to assert its sovereignty or the native population clashes with the former occupier, a separatist rebellion has begun. If a new state is successfully established, the conflict is usually known as a ¨War of Independence¨.

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

An interesting point of view on the USA, 'war of independence'

http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2014/07/24/american_revolution_did_britain_treat_all_its_colonies_equally.html

And some  claim that the USA still pays tax to England...

http://stopthepirates.blogspot.ca/2012/08/americans-pay-percentage-of-their-taxes.html

Ron

   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Three countries, three continents: One imperial Western project

https://richardedmondson.net/2017/07/08/three-countries-three-continents-one-western-imperial-project/

[ Ed. note – An excellent comparative analysis of US regime change operations in three different countries–Syria, Libya, and Yugoslavia. Writer Neil Clark discovers a seven-step process that the regime-changers seem to have employed in all three cases. ]

By Neil Clark

A resource-rich, socialist-led, multi-ethnic secular state, with an economic system characterized by a high level of public/social ownership and generous provision of welfare, education and social services.

An independent foreign policy with friendship and good commercial ties with Russia, support for Palestine and African and Arab unity – and historical backing for anti-imperialist movements.

Social progress in a number of areas, including women’s emancipation.

The above accurately describes the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Syrian Arab Republic. Three countries in three different continents, which had so much in common.

All three had governments which described themselves as socialist. All three pursued a foreign policy independent of Washington and NATO. And all three were targeted for regime change/destruction by the US and its allies using remarkably similar methods.

The first step of the imperial predators was the imposition of draconian economic sanctions used to cripple their economies, weaken their governments (always referred to as ‘a/the regime’) and create political unrest. From 1992-95, and again in 1998, Yugoslavia was hit by the harshest sanctions ever imposed on a European state. The sanctions even involved an EU ban on the state-owned passenger airliner JAT

Libya was under US sanctions from the 1980s until 2004, and then again in 2011, the year the country with the highest Human Development Index in Africa was bombed back to the Stone Age.

Syria has been sanctioned by the US since 2004 with a significant increase in the severity of the measures in 2011 when the regime change op moved into top gear.

The second step was the backing of armed militias/terrorist proxies to destabilise the countries and help overthrow these “regimes”. The strategy was relatively simple. Terrorist attacks and the killing of state officials and soldiers would provoke a military response from ‘the regime, whose leader would then be condemned for ‘killing his own people’ (or in the case of Milosevic, other ethnic groups),  and used to ramp up the case for a ‘humanitarian intervention’ by the US and its allies.

In Yugoslavia, the US-proxy force was the Kosovan Liberation Army, who were given training and logistical support by the West.

In Libya, groups linked to al-Qaeda, like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, were provided assistance, with NATO effectively acting as al-Qaeda’s air force

In Syria, there was massive support for anti-government Islamist fighters, euphemistically labelled ‘moderate rebels.’ It didn’t matter to the ‘regime changers’ that weapons supplied to ‘moderate rebels’ ended up in the hands of groups like ISIS. On the contrary, a declassified secret US intelligence report from 2012 showed that the Western powers welcomed the possible establishment of a Salafist principality in eastern Syria, seeing it as a means of isolating ‘the Syrian regime’.

The third step carried out at the same time as one and two involved the relentless demonisation of the leadership of the target states. This involved the leaders being regularly compared to Hitler, and accused of carrying out or planning genocide and multiple war crimes.

Milosevic – President of Yugoslavia – was labelled a ‘dictator’ even though he was the democratically-elected leader of a country in which over 20 political parties freely operated.

Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi was portrayed as an unstable foaming at the mouth lunatic, about to launch a massacre in Benghazi, even though he had governed his country since the end of the Swinging Sixties.

Syria’s Assad did take over in an authoritarian one-party system, but was given zero credit for introducing a new constitution which ended the Ba’ath Party’s monopoly of political power. Instead all the deaths in the Syrian conflict were blamed on him, even those of the thousands of Syrian soldiers killed by Western/GCC-armed and funded ‘rebels’.

The fourth step in the imperial strategy was the deployment of gatekeepers – or ‘Imperial Truth Enforcers’ – to smear or defame anyone who dared to come  to the defence of the target states, or who said that they should be left alone.

The pro-war, finance-capital-friendly, faux-left was at the forefront of the media campaigns against the countries concerned. This was to give the regime change/destruction project a ‘progressive’ veneer, and to persuade or intimidate genuine ’old school’ leftists not to challenge the dominant narrative.

To place them beyond the pale, Yugoslavia, Libya and Syria were all labelled ’fascist,’ even though their leadership was socialist and their economies were run on socialistic lines. Meanwhile, genuine fascists, like anti-government factions in Ukraine (2013-14), received enthusiastic support from NATO.

The fifth step was direct US/NATO-led military intervention against 'the regime' triggered by alleged atrocities/planned atrocities of the target state. At this stage, the US works particularly hard to sabotage any peaceful solution to the conflicts they and their regional allies have ignited. At the Rambouillet conference in March 1999, for example, the Yugoslav authorities, who had agreed to an international peace-keeping force in Kosovo, were presented with an ultimatum that they could not possibly accept. Lord Gilbert, a UK defence minister at the time, later admitted "the terms put to Milosevic (which included NATO forces having freedom of movement throughout his country) were absolutely intolerable … it was quite deliberate."

In 2011, the casus belli was that ‘the mad dog’ Gaddafi was about to massacre civilians in Benghazi. We needed a ‘humanitarian intervention’ to stop this, we were repeatedly told. Five years later, a House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report held that "the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence."

In 2013, the reason given for direct military intervention in Syria was an alleged chemical weapons attack by 'Assad's forces' in Ghouta. But this time, the UK Parliament voted against military action and the planned ‘intervention’ was thwarted, much to the great frustration of the war-hungry neocons. They still keep trying though.

The recent claims of The White House, that they had evidence that the Syrian government was planning a chemical weapons attack, and that if such an attack took place it would be blamed on Assad, shows that the Empire hasn’t given up on Stage Five for Syria just yet.

Stage Six of the project involves the US continuing to sabotage moves towards a negotiated peace once the bombing started. This happened during the bombing of Yugoslavia and the NATO assault on Libya. A favoured tactic used to prevent a peaceful resolution is to get the leader of the target state indicted for war crimes. Milosevic was indicted at the height of the bombing in 1999, Gaddafi in 2011.

Stage Seven is ‘Mission Accomplished’. It’s when the target country has been ‘regime-changed’ and either broken up or transformed into a failed state with strategically important areas/resources under US/Western control. Yugoslavia was dismantled and its socially-owned economy privatised. Montenegro, the great prize on the Adriatic, recently joined NATO.

Libya, hailed in the Daily Telegraph as a top cruise ship destination in 2010, is now a lawless playground for jihadists and a place where cruise ships dare not dock. This country, which provided free education and health care for all its citizens under Gaddafi, has recently seen the return of slave markets.

Syria, though thankfully not at Stage Seven, has still been knocked back almost forty years. The UNDP reported: "Despite having achieved or being well under way to achieving major Millennium Development Goals targets (poverty reduction, primary education, and gender parity in secondary education, decrease in infant mortality rates and increasing access to improved sanitation) as of 2011, it is estimated that after the first four years of crisis Syria has dropped from 113th to 174th out of 187 countries ranked in the Human Development Index."

Of course, it’s not just three countries which have been wrecked by the Empire of Chaos. There are similarities too with what’s happened to Afghanistan and Iraq. In the late 1970s, the US started to back Islamist rebels to destabilise and topple the left-wing, pro-Moscow government in Kabul.

Afghanistan has been in turmoil ever since, with the US and its allies launching an invasion of the country in 2001 to topple a Taliban 'regime' which grew out of the ’rebel’ movement which the US had backed.

Iraq was hit with devastating, genocidal sanctions, which were maintained under US/UK pressure even after it had disarmed. Then it was invaded on the deceitful pretext that its leader, Saddam Hussein, still possessed WMDs.

The truth of what has been happening is too shocking and too terrible ever to be admitted in the Western mainstream media. Namely, that since the demise of the Soviet Union, the US and its allies have been picking off independent, resource-rich, strategically important countries one by one.

The point is not that these countries were perfect and that there wasn’t political repression taking place in some of them at various times, but that they were earmarked for destruction solely for standing in the way of the imperialists. The propagandists for the US-led wars of recent years want us to regard the conflicts as ‘stand alones’ and to regard the ‘problem' as being the ‘mad dog’ leadership of the countries which were attacked.

But in fact, the aggressions against Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, and the threatening of Iran, North Korea, Russia and Venezuela are all parts of the same war. Anyone who hasn’t been locked in a wardrobe these past twenty years, or whose salary is not paid directly, or indirectly, by the Empire of Chaos, can surely see now where the ‘problem’ really lies.

The ‘New Hitlers’ - Milosevic, Hussein and Gaddafi - who we were told were the ‘biggest threats’ to world peace, are dead and buried. But guess what? The killing goes on.


---------------------------
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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Eastern Europe Chooses To Keep Western Civilization

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-08/eastern-europe-chooses-keep-western-civilization

Authored by Giulio Meotti via The Gatestone Institute,

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10631/eastern-europe-islam-civilization

    "The greatest difference is that in Europe, politics and religion have been separated from one another, but in the case of Islam it is religion that determines politics" - Zoltan Balog, Hungary's Minister for Human Resources.

    It is no coincidence that President Donald Trump chose Poland, a country that fought both Nazism and Communism, to call on the West to show a little willingness in its existential fight against the new totalitarianism: radical Islam.

    "Possessing weapons is one thing, and possessing the will to use them is another thing altogether". — Professor William Kilpatrick, Boston College.

In a historic speech to an enthusiastic Polish crowd before the meeting of the G20 Summit leaders, US President Donald Trump described the West's battle against "radical Islamic terrorism" as the way to protect "our civilization and our way of life". Trump asked if the West had the will to survive:

    "Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?"

Trump's question might find an answer in Eastern Europe, where he chose to deliver his powerful speech.

After an Islamist suicide-bomber murdered 22 concert-goers in Manchester, including two Poles, Poland's prime minister, Beata Szyd?o, said that Poland would not be "blackmailed" into accepting thousands of refugees under the European Union's quota system. She urged Polish lawmakers to safeguard the country and Europe from the scourges of Islamist terrorism and cultural suicide:

    "Where are you headed, Europe? Rise from your knees and from your lethargy, or you will be crying over your children every day".

A few days later, the European Union announced that it would begin proceedings to punish Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic for their refusal to accept migrants as the European Commission had decided under a 2015 scheme it created.

After Szyd?o's speech, Zoltan Balog, Hungary's Minister for Human Resources, declared:

    "Islam is a major culture and religion, which we must respect, but Europe has a different identity, and it is clear that these two cultures are incapable of coexisting without conflict...

    The greatest difference is that in Europe, politics and religion have been separated from one another, but in the case of Islam it is religion that determines politics".


That is why Viktor Orban has been labelled as "Europe's enemy within" -- because he spelled out what the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, will never do: "Keeping Europe Christian".

These speeches from Visegrad officials -- the European group made up of the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Slovakia -- are just two examples of deep ideological divisions between Western European countries and those in Central- and Eastern Europe.

There has been a growing tendency of Visegrad leaders to depict Islam as a civilizational threat to Christian Europe. If, in Western Europe, Christianity has been dramatically cast aside by public opinion and severely restricted by EU official rules, in Eastern Europe new polls reveal that Christianity is as robust and patriotic as ever. That is why Trump called Poland "the faithful nation". That is why US Catholic magazines are openly asking if there is a "Christian reawakening" in Eastern Europe. Slovakia approved a law to prevent Islam from becoming an official state religion.

These Central- and Eastern European countries know that Western Europe's multiculturalism has been a recipe for terror attacks, for a start. As Ed West of The Spectator noted:

    "Not all of Europe, of course. Central Europe, chiefly Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, remain largely safe from the terror threat, despite the former in particular being a Nato player in the Middle East. It is precisely because the reasons for this are so obvious that they cannot be mentioned. Poland is 0.1 percent Muslim, most of whom are from a long-settled Tartar community, Britain is 5 percent, France 9 percent and Brussels 25 percent, and those numbers are growing".

What is presumably "obvious" here is that Poland and Hungary are not hit by Islamic terror attacks because they have very few Muslims, while Belgium and UK it is the reverse. Europe would probably have been safer if it had followed Eastern Europe's example.

Eastern Europe not only shows a greater understanding of Western culture than Western Europe does; these Eastern countries have also been far more generous to NATO, the bulwark of their independence and security. Culture and security go hand-in-hand: if you take your own culture and civilization seriously, you will be ready to defend them.

A brief look at the NATO's members' military spending as a percentage of GDP shows that Poland meets the 2% target, unlike all the Western European countries. Only five of NATO's 28 members -- the U.S., Greece, Poland, Estonia and the U.K. -- meet the 2% target. Where is France? And Belgium? And Germany? And The Netherlands?

"Unlike most of its NATO and European peers," Agnia Grigas, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, explained, "Poland has for the past two decades consistently viewed defense as a priority issue, and as a result, has been slowly but steadily emerging as the bedrock of European security". Poland -- unlike Belgium, Italy and other European countries -- is not a "free rider" but a trustworthy partner to its US ally. Poland showed loyal support to the United States both in Afghanistan and Iraq, where its troops fought the Taliban and helped to topple Saddam Hussein.

It is no coincidence that President Trump selected Poland, a country that fought both Nazism and Communism, to call on the West to show a little willingness in its existential fight against the new totalitarianism: radical Islam.

    "The West will continue to have the military edge for a good time to come, but possessing weapons is one thing, and possessing the will to use them is another thing altogether", wrote William Kilpatrick, a professor at Boston College.

    "The West is strong militarily, but weak ideologically. It lacks civilizational confidence".


That is why it is critical that Eastern Europe continues to be a strong voice of dissent in the EU project. It might provide just the cultural confidence that European bureaucrats dramatically lack -- at the peril of Europe itself.


---------------------------
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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Leo Varadkar wins: Ireland set to install first openly gay Prime Minister

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/leo-varadkar-wins-gay-ireland-pm-election-first-lgbt-leader-a7770091.html

The 38-year-old son of an Indian immigrant will succeed Enda Kenny

The proud Irish who for many a year fought the occupation of Ireland by the Judeo-Christian Empire known as Great Britain.. has fallen.. it is a sad day for the Irish Celts and they may never recover  :'(

Celts

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

FLASHBACK: Muslim Mayor Of London Tells Citizens To Get Used To Terrorism


http://www.dailywire.com/news/16770/flashback-muslim-mayor-london-told-citizens-get-michael-qazvini

As the civilized world joins the United Kingdom in mourning the deaths of 22 innocent people, children included, in a horrific suicide bombing attack at an Ariana Grande concert in the Manchester Arena, police and counter-terrorism agents are scouring to find any accomplices linked to the perpetrator, a 22-year-old Muslim male named Salman Abedi.

Terrorist attacks on major European cities are beginning to feel routine. But they shouldn’t be. This isn’t normal. The Islamic terrorist reportedly blew himself up with a device meant to send nails flying into human flesh. At the local children’s hospital in Manchester, doctors are removing shrapnel from the faces of young girls. This isn’t normal. It never was. It never is. And it will never be normal.

But that’s not what Sadiq Khan, the Muslim mayor of London, thinks.

In September 2016, Khan actually had the gall to say that citizens in big cities should just get used to terrorism.

At a glitzy event in New York City called “Building Progressive, Inclusive Cities” alongside his counterpart in the Big Apple, far-left Mayor Bill de Blasio, Khan talked about the virtues of immigration and multiculturalism, explaining that some sacrifices had to be made.

Terror attacks are “part and parcel of life in a big city,” Khan later told the Evening Standard just hours after police foiled multiple terror attacks in New Jersey and New York.

Once hailed as a “progressive” Muslim that would inevitably challenge regressive Islamists, Khan echoed the same excuse shared by European leaders across the West. After a series of terror attacks in France, the French Prime Minister told his countrymen that France “will have to live with terrorism.” In other words, terrorism is the new normal.

Serving as London’s mayor for less than a year, Khan has a history of controversial remarks.

During the London mayoral election, Khan apologized after a video surfaced showing the Labour party official calling moderate Muslims “Uncle Toms.”

And in February, Khan overstepped his authority as mayor and demanded that President Trump be denied a state visit to the United Kingdom, citing the American administration’s “cruel” immigration policies.

Khan is so devoted to the tolerant tenets of multi-culturalism that he even served as “legal consultant’ to 9/11 bomber Zacarias Moussaoui, and "shared a platform" with terrorist Yasser al-Siri, who once said American soldiers’ corpses should be “dragged in the streets,” according to Daily Wire’s Hank Berrien.

But Khan isn’t the only one who shares a nearly cultish belief in multiculturalism.

Unfortunately, Europe is littered with bureaucrats and politicians who think exactly like Khan. If all stays the same and the European Left has its way, then Europe (and perhaps even the West) as we know it is dead.


---------------------------
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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Last stand

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

A last stand is a military situation in which a body of troops holds a defensive position in the face of overwhelming odds. The defensive force usually takes very heavy casualties or is completely destroyed, as happened at the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC, the Battle of the Persian Gate in 330 BC, the Battle of Karbala in 680, the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Georgian Three Hundred Aragvians in 1795, the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, the Battle of Shiroyama in 1877, the Battle of the Little Bighorn in 1876,[1], the Battle of Pavan Khind in 1660, and Battle of Saragarhi in 1897 and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in 1943. Troops may make a last stand due to a perceived duty; because they are defending a tactically crucial point; to buy time to enable a trapped army to escape, due to fear of execution if captured; or to protect their ruler or leader. Last stands loom large in history, as the heroism and sacrifice of the defenders exerts a large pull on the public's imagination. Some last stands have become a celebrated part of a fighting force's or a country's history.

Tactical significance


A "last stand" is a last resort tactic, and is chosen because the defending force realizes or believes the benefits of fighting outweigh the benefits of retreat or surrender. This usually arises from strategic or moral considerations, such as staying and fighting to buy time for wounded soldiers or civilians to get to a safe place, leading defenders to conclude that their sacrifice is essential to the greater success of their campaign or cause, as happened at the end of the Battle of Thermopylae.[2][3] The situation can arise in several ways. One situation is that retreat by the defending force would lead to immediate defeat, usually due to the surrounding geography or shortage of supplies or support, as happened to the Royalist infantry on Wadborough Hill after the Battle of Naseby.[4][5]

Perceived duty

A last stand may also be the last pitched battle of a war where the position of the defending force is hopeless but the defending force considers it their duty not to surrender until forced to do so, as happened to the last Royalist field army of the First English Civil War at the Battle of Stow-on-the-Wold.[6]

Defending tactically crucial point

Specifically, defeat or withdrawal by the defending force may give the attacking force a point of utmost tactical importance, making it imperative that the defending force hold its position at all costs. The historian Bryan Perrett suggests that although the majority of last stands throughout history have seen the defending force overwhelmed, on rare occasions the outnumbered defenders succeed in their desperate endeavours and live to fight another day, and he lists the Battle of Agincourt and the Battle of Rorke's Drift as such engagements.[7] Another example could be the Battle of Myeongnyang, where 13 Joseon Navy warships (led by Korean admiral Yi Sun-sin) defeated 133 Japanese warships,[8] as well as battles such as Siege of the International Legations, the Battle off Samar and the Raid on Godfrey Ranch.

Protecting leader

In some cases, troops will make a last stand to protect their ruler or leader. When Rome was attacked in 1527 by the army of the Holy Roman Empire under Emperor Charles V, over 20,000 troops stormed the city. The 189 Swiss Guards made a last stand against the massive army by forming a square around St. Peter's Basilica to give Pope Clement VII time to escape through secret tunnels, and held the doors until Clement could escape. In the Battle of Hastings in 1066, Saxon King Harold II battled the Norman William the Conqueror, who invaded with 7,000 men. After most of the Saxons were killed in the battle, "Harold and his housecarl bodyguard...fought on until an arrow struck the king in the eye." After Harold died, the housecarl bodyguard made a last stand and "...fought to the death around the body of their dead king."[9] At the 1795 battle of Krtsanisi, where the Persian army led by Agha Muhammad Khan defeated the Georgians, the Three Hundred Aragvians - a detachment of the highlanders from the Aragvi valley - loyally fought and died in order to enable the escape of king Heraclius II, for which they are remembered as national heroes and were canonized by the Georgian Church.

Buying time

Sometimes, rather than face annihilation at the hands of a pursuing victorious army, a rearguard will be tasked by the commander of the defeated army with hindering the advance of the victorious army. Even if the rearguard is destroyed in a last stand, its sacrifice may buy their commander time to disengage without losing the majority of his army as happened during the Battle of Roncevaux Pass (778), and the Dunkirk evacuation (1940, in World War II).[10][11]

During the second Persian invasion of Greece, the Greeks blocked the advance of the Persian army at the pass of Thermopylae, during what is known as the Battle of Thermopylae. A Greek force of 7,000 men marched north to block the pass in the middle of 480 BC. The Persian army, ranging between about 100,000 and 150,000,[12][13] arrived at the pass in late August or early September. The vastly outnumbered Greeks held off the Persians for seven days (including three of battle) before the rear-guard was annihilated in one of history's most famous last stands. During two full days of battle, the small force led by Leonidas blocked the only road by which the massive Persian army could pass. When Leonidas became aware that his force was being outflanked, he dismissed the bulk of the Greek army and remained to guard their retreat with 300 Spartans, 700 Thespians, 400 Thebans, fighting to the death.

Fear of execution

Troops may fight a last stand if they believe that they will be executed if they surrender.

In Custer's last stand, at the end of the battle, the extent of the soldiers' resistance to the Native Indian warriors indicated they had few doubts about their prospects for survival if they surrendered. In the end, the hilltop where Custer's remaining troops made their last stand made it impossible for Custer's men to secure a defensive position. Nevertheless, the soldiers put up their most dogged defense, and died fighting.

During the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, by the end of 1942, the Jews trapped in the Warsaw Ghetto learned that the deportations were part of an extermination process, as the deportees were sent to death camps. Many of the remaining Jews decided to revolt.[14] The first armed resistance in the ghetto occurred in January 1943.[15] On 19 April 1943, Passover eve, the Germans entered the ghetto. The remaining Jews knew that the Germans would murder them all and they decided to resist the Germans to the last, rather than surrender.[16]

At the end of a siege


A siege may lead to a last stand by the defenders (see for example the Battle of the Alamo).[17] Last stands at the end of sieges became less common after the Hague Conventions came in force. Before the 20th century, if a besieged garrison refused any offered terms of surrender and the attackers subsequently breached the defences, the defenders were only given quarter at the discretion of the attackers, something they were not likely to do if they perceived that by holding out, with no hope of relief, the defenders had needlessly squandered lives. Under the laws of war as they are now "...it is especially forbidden - ... To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion; [and] To declare that no quarter will be given ...",[18] it is unlawful for an attacking force to kill a garrison if they attempt to surrender even if it is during the final assault on a fortified position.

Historical significance

Last stands loom large in history due to the pull on popular imagination. Historian Nathaniel Philbrick argues:

    Long before Custer died at the Little Bighorn, the myth of the Last Stand already had a strong pull on human emotions, and on the way we like to remember history. The variations are endless — from the three hundred Spartans at Thermopylae to Davy Crockett at the Alamo — but they all tell the story of a brave and intractable hero leading his tiny band against a numberless foe. Even though the odds are overwhelming, the hero and his followers fight on nobly to the end and are slaughtered to a man. In defeat the hero of the Last Stand achieves the greatest of victories, since he will be remembered for all time.[19]

During WW I, the expression to fight "with one's back to the wall" became a widely-known way to refer to making a last stand. The London Times reported on April 13, 1918 that General Douglas Haig ordered British troops that "Every position must be held to the last man...With our backs to the wall...each one of us must fight on to the end". [20]


---------------------------
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 ... 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 [82] 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 ... 100
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-04-20, 09:15:04