PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-05-03, 12:52:03
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 ... 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 98 99 100
Author Topic: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk!  (Read 975413 times)

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
15,000 Nuclear Weapons In The World - Mapping Who Has What

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-13/15000-nuclear-weapons-world-mapping-who-has-what

It seems the British Empire's proxy, Saudi Arabia, has been missed off the list:

CIA Reveals Saudi Arabia Has Nukes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt3trHKqdiM


---------------------------
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

The Diana article you posted I do have an issue with though as it is poorly sourced, in fact it is not sourced at all, and seems to be loosely based upon the allegations made by Mohamed al-Fayed years ago:



My bad, I did not check sources. It merely fitted my preconceived concepts as to how she died, as even she said that they were going to kill her in a car crash.

Ron
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
My bad, I did not check sources. It merely fitted my preconceived concepts as to how she died, as even she said that they were going to kill her in a car crash.

You have hit the nail on the head there 'preconceived concepts'. This is why there is a constant barrage of false news in the western media targeting people who do not check sources, and therefore the accuracy or potential truth of the information. Often the 'fake news' is vouched for by 'anonymous sources' which should be a relative rarity in good journalism, and if it is necessary to protect a source (which it sometimes is, Seth Rich, Michael Hastings are dead remember) the credibility of the piece rests on the journalists reputation. The alternative media (many of us who don't want to be journalists but do so because we have no choice) is constantly being plied with fake news to try and ruin the reputation and bring it down to the standard of mainstream western journalism.. the gutter. RT is normally very good at sourcing material which is probably why it has won so many awards and is so highly respected internationally!


---------------------------
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

A reasonable voice, a couple of years old but has anything changed?:

"But this century’s wars we keep hearing red, white and blue, flag waving Americans urging us to “support our troops.”

Over the long haul, supporting our troops has resulted in the United States being the most warring, aggressive nation on earth, bar none. As we’re about to enter 2016, our ultraviolent country will be killing other human beings somewhere on this planet for 223 out of the last 240 total years the US has been in existence. That’s 93% of our time as a nation-turned-Empire we’ve been destroying human life. That’s certainly nothing to be proud of. Yet it’s “our troops” who’ve been the murdering culprit. No compassionate, rational person could possibly place blindly obedient support behind such rampantly wanton disregard and contempt for fellow human life.

Another fact that Americans can’t be proud of is knowing that the most warring nation on earth just since World War II alone has murdered up to 30 million people around the globe with an estimated 90% of them being civilians. Having initiated 201 out of the total of 240 armed conflicts from the end of WWII to 2001, it then follows that between those years the US Empire of Chaos and Destruction has murdered 27 million innocent people whose lives have tragically been cut short through no fault of their own for simply living in the wrong place at the wrong time belonging to the wrong ethnic nationality targeted by America’s full spectrum dominance and global superpower hegemony. And that was before the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And what does it take to be targeted as a US foreign enemy? Any country whose leaders choose to support their own citizens’ well-being, independence and quality of life over US Empire’s fascist transnational corporate interests is attacked economically through sanctions and embargos, politically through propaganda lies and threats, or militarily though unnatural disasters/weather warfare, occupied invasions involving long term bloody conflict or acts of terrorism, coups and assassinations. Just ask Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti, Panama, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Congo North Korea, Donbas, Palestine or Russia just to name more than a dozen.

People around the world have been victimized for well over a century by American Empire’s willful rape and pillage of their lands in the name of stolen natural resources and inhumane forced slave labor, and those are the nations whose puppet dictators willingly succumbed and acquiesced to US demands and pressures. In fact in the tradition of the British Empire, North America’s entire domestic and foreign history has been made of genocidal killing, enslaving, stealing and subjugating other darker-skinned races into death and submission. Given this context with the bigger picture perspective, “supporting our troops” is really supporting mass murder around the world. So bearing that sobering, grim reality in mind, it’s time for Americans to cease and desist with their jingoistic rah-rah that only adds insult to injury to the rest of the victimized world."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/its-time-to-stop-supporting-our-troops-thirty-million-people-killed-by-u-s-since-end-of-world-war-ii/5495538

Ron
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 841

An interesting message just in from a contact. He tells me there won't be a ww3 and goes on to say:

"TRIALITY:
 
Time for a little explanation of what is going on…..
 
In this 3-dimensional world that we live in the fundamental life experience is one of “choices” that lead each of us on journeys of learning and experiences.  These “choices” are generally based on the DUALITY that exists everywhere.  These are individual choices of right or wrong, belief or unbelief, practicing righteousness or evil, introspection (meditation or prayer) or the lack thereof, giving or demanding, being patient or hasty, being truthful in words and deeds or lying and cheating, and so on.
 
Basically our choice of incarnating is to experience the results of duality choices.
 
But there is a third element in these choices that is being neglected and overlooked in modern society and that needs to be rectified.  That is the MORAL CORE that comes with taking individual responsibility and accountability for ones choices.  Too many are shirking that responsibility and that leads to the evil mess that our world is currently facing.
 
This is seen particularly in LAW where there is the Law of the Land (Common Law), Law of the Sea (Admiralty and Commercial Law) and the Law of the AIR (which is the higher Moral Law as laid down by the Creator).  Elementally this is Earth, Water and Air that is the foundation of 3-dimensional existence.  Fire is the spark of life that all living things bring to animate the Earth, Water and Air so that they can experience this existence.
 
In order to attain real balance and peace we humans must apply all 3 elements in all that we do.  This is the “TRIALITY” of this human experience.
 
In perspective, Corporate statute Law (SEA) cannot operate alone (NWO) in a void without Common Law (LAND) and an overriding Moral Law (AIR).  This is the actual conflict that is taking place now.  Divide and Conquer is based on polarizing people to being focused on Land, Sea or Air, instead of understanding that ALL THREE are necessary and must be in balance.
 
Governments and those that operate them invariable throughout history become too focused on their own Law thus neglecting the other Laws to their downfall.  Russia under communism fell into that trap, but now have shed that form of government to one that has a religious core and common law balance.  China has always had a moral (family and religious) core regardless of who is in political power.  Similarly, the United States is coming out of a period of Corporate Law that has bankrupted the Government service corporations and is now swinging back to its moral Christian and Constitutional Common Law form of governance.  Try to see these factors in play right now.  Re-balancing.
 
This is the “awakening” that is taking place globally.  The TRIALITY is seeking balance.
 
Radicalization of polarized positions is NEVER the answer.  Listen to the War Drums and understand that behind the pounding are only polarized idiots out of natural balance.  Look to see the puppeteers’ strings and simply cut them off.  Say “NO Thank You. Not for me anymore.”
 
WE are many.  THEY are few.  Just say “NO.” Enough is enough.
 
For example, what if Americans wake up to the fact that the Income Tax Law was never ratified, is strictly “voluntary” and that the IRS is just an illegal foreign collection agency of the bankrupted municipal and territorial government service provider corporations……an then just decided “enough is enough” and stopped paying these taxes to defunct and corrupt corporations.  Wouldn’t that result in “regime change”?  No Money…..No Honey.  Governments beware of what is coming…..globally.
 
Change is a constant in life and the re-balancing is a constant juggling act, but once humanity becomes aware of this process and intelligently makes adjustments that balance this TRIALITY, then there will be PEACE ON EARTH AND GOODWILL TO ALL MANKIND.
 
Thank you for your understanding and help in this time of re-balancing."

Ron
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
The real church of Jediism - THOUSANDS believe in religion based off the Star Wars franchise

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2465445/Jediism-THOUSANDS-believe-religion-based-Star-Wars-franchise.html

    According to a report in Details, the church based off the Star Wars franchise has grown to include thousands of members

    In the UK, Jediism is the seventh-largest religion. Experts estimate that there are 5,000 members in the U.S.

Members of the Jedi church believe in the Force, rather than the Holy Ghost. It's a religion barely two decades old and based off a movie franchise, but there's still a lot the Jedi have in common with other religious groups.



---------------------------
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
The real church of Jediism - THOUSANDS believe in religion based off the Star Wars franchise


Members of the Jedi church believe in the Force, rather than the Holy Ghost. It's a religion barely two decades old and based off a movie franchise, but there's still a lot the Jedi have in common with other religious groups.

Unreal,

Have you ever looked into Mr Cati's videos? Other than being so very very long winded he is quite fascinating. He does the number thing.

For example: Black Sky

This report discusses the recent Charlottesville, VA protests and the upcoming Operation Black Sky training, set to begin on August 23, 2017.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f_hyn6bhJo

Ron


   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Unreal,

Indeed.

Nicene Creed

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

The Nicene Creed (Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νικαίας or, τῆς πίστεως, Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum) is a Symbol of faith widely used in Christian liturgy. It is called Nicene /ˈnaɪsiːn/ because it was originally adopted in the city of Nicaea (present day İznik, Turkey) by the First Council of Nicaea in 325.[1] In 381, it was amended at the First Council of Constantinople, and the amended form is referred to as the Nicene or the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

The Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian churches use this profession of faith with the verbs in the original plural ("we believe") form, but the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches convert those verbs to the singular ("I believe"). The Anglican and many Protestant denominations generally use the singular form, but sometimes use the plural.

The Apostles' Creed is also used in the Latin West, but not in the Eastern liturgies.[2][3][4] On Sundays and some other days, one or other of these two creeds is recited in the Roman Rite Mass after the homily. The Nicene Creed is also part of the profession of faith required of those undertaking important functions within the Catholic Church.[5][6]

In the Byzantine Rite, the Nicene Creed is sung or recited at the Divine Liturgy, immediately preceding the Anaphora (Eucharistic Prayer), and is also recited daily at compline.[7][8]

History

The purpose of a creed is to provide a doctrinal statement of correct belief or orthodoxy. The creeds of Christianity have been drawn up at times of conflict about doctrine: acceptance or rejection of a creed served to distinguish believers and deniers of a particular doctrine or set of doctrines. For that reason a creed was called in Greek a σύμβολον (Eng. symbolon), a word that meant half of a broken object which, when placed together with the other half, verified the bearer's identity. The Greek word passed through Latin "symbolum" into English "symbol", which only later took on the meaning of an outward sign of something.[13]

The Nicene Creed was adopted in the face of the Arian controversy, whose leader, Arius, was a member of the clergy of Alexandria. "Arius objected to Alexander's (the bishop of the time) apparent carelessness in blurring the distinction of nature between the Father and the Son by his emphasis on eternal generation".[14] Alexander accused Arius of denying the divinity of the Son and also of being too "Jewish" and "Greek" in his thought. Both Arius and Alexander rejected Gnosticism, Manichaeism and Sabellian formulae. The Nicene Creed was created as a result of the extensive adoption of the doctrine of Arius far outside Alexandria, in order to clarify the key tenets of the Christian faith.

The Nicene Creed of 325 explicitly affirms the co-essential divinity of the Son, applying to him the term "consubstantial". The 381 version speaks of the Holy Spirit as worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son. The Athanasian Creed (not used in Eastern Christianity) describes in much greater detail the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Apostles' Creed makes no explicit statements about the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, but, in the view of many who use it, the doctrine is implicit in 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: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 841

one needs to have some knowledge of what the Global Collateral Accounts are/were. After WW1 it was decided to bring in all the worlds gold and issue bonds (for its return)

Brief quote:  "While the ‘official’ history of the BIS can be corroborated through information gathered on their website, the ‘unofficial’ story is far more secretive and indeed nefarious in nature. The drafting of a plan to form a global central bank to ‘put on deposit’ the gold and precious metals assets of many of the world’s most powerful nations actually began in 1921, when Japanese Emperor Hirohito, the grandson of the Meiji Emperor, was invited to take a six month tour of many of the major European nations. One of these included a visit by Hirohito to London to meet with King George V (live footage of his arrival can be seen HERE). What the history books do not tell us are the true reasons for Hirohito’s pre-World War II involvement with many of the leaders of the most powerful European nations: To make a secret deal with the Western oligarchy to loot Southeast Asia of its vast hordes of gold and precious metals. After World War I, it was decided by world leaders that the only way to achieve prosperity and harmony in the future was by creating a centralized system of control over the world’s supply of gold and other precious metals".

 Once you understand that this actually happened, then you can better understand the killing and deceit put forth by the cabal to keep this gold and the excuses like 9-11 as to why the gold had "just disappeared"

https://www.slideshare.net/ernestrauthschild/what-are-global-collateral-accounts

Ron
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
RD Vlogs: Waiting for God

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4czMbR2SaAc

Awakeandalive1

"Back in the day, this was the episode that sold me on the show... Which  might have been foreshadowing my eventual decision to become a Religious Studies professor. It's the sort of thing you couldn't do in any other show, because without being a sci-fi comedy it just wouldn't work. And really, I LOVE how nuanced it is: the arguably more scientifically-plausible aliens don't exist at all and are just the result of the fanatical Rimmer's fevered imagination; but there IS a "Cloister" and there WAS a "Frankenstein" and there WAS a plan to go to "Fuschal"! For all their misinterpretations, the cats were more correct than Rimmer!"  ;D

Red Dwarf - waiting for god: The painful truth about all religions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSgRmsnsdH4

Lister discover's he's the God of the cat people.

"This is by far my favorite clip from Red Dwarf."

They were supposed to be green!


---------------------------
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
Jesus or Yehoshua: What's in a Name?

http://www.jesusandtheprofessor.com/2010/04/jesus-or-yehoshua-whats-in-a-name.html

Welcome to my blog and my first post! I hope that this will be the beginning of a long and happy relationship for us. On this day of beginnings, I have chosen to focus on the first line of the Gospel of Mark because it was the first written Gospel. Mark begins by referring to, “Jesus Christ the Son of God.” Mark 1:1. Nevertheless, would Mary, Joseph, or early followers of Jesus have called him that?

One clue that the answer is no, is the fact that the letter “J” did not come into the English language until the sixteenth century. Further, as a Jew, Jesus had a Hebraic name, and that was Yehoshua (“Joshua”) or, perhaps, Yeshua, a shortened Aramaic version, or even, Yeshu.

The first fifteen bishops of the early Church were Jews. By the time Greek-speaking Gentiles gained full control of the Church in the third-century, they significantly minimized Jesus’ Jewish heritage. This would make it easier to break with the “old covenant” of Judaism (which required compliance with the 613 commandments, something I will discuss in a subsequent post) and institute the “new covenant” of Christianity, which required only belief in Jesus. When a Greek name (Iesous, pronounced "ee-ay-soos") replaces his Hebraic name, Jesus is more easily withdrawn from his undeniably Jewish roots, which sets the stage for breaking him from his Jewish persona and Jewish teachings. As a result, many end up perceiving Jesus as being the “first” Christian.

As to the term “Christ,” it is the Anglicized version of the Greek word, Christos, meaning, “anointed one.” Yet again, we see a break from the Hebraic term for anointed one, Moshiach, rendered Messiah in English. Jesus’ Jewish name and title in Hebrew would be Yehoshua ha Moshiach, that is, Jesus the Messiah.

The Jewish view of the Messiah is that he will be a mere mortal, born of his parents’ sexual union; he will have no divine attributes whatsoever. This is fundamental Jewish teaching. The Ebionites, one of the earliest groups of followers of Jesus, took this view. They believed that Jesus was mortal, but because of his righteousness, God adopted him. See Mark 1:9-11. Of course, that Jesus is the literal Son of God is a fundamental teaching within most branches of Christianity today. As we shall see, while there are clear convergences between Judaism and Christianity, there are distinct differences, too. This is certainly one of them.

Judaism: Deed Not Creed


http://www.jesusandtheprofessor.com/2010/04/judaism-deed-not-creed.html

A Jew is a member of the community that traces its origin back to Abraham who, Jewish tradition tells us, came to understand by his own reasoning powers that the One God exists, not the many gods. Abraham also came to understand that this God requires justice. Again, according to tradition, all this took place before God revealed Himself to Abraham.

Later, around 1,800 B.C.E., after God revealed Himself to Abraham, God entered into a special relationship with him and his descendants. Genesis 15:18; 17:2, 7. In this special relationship, God promised to give the land of the Canaanites to Abraham’s descendants and to make them numerous and respected. Four hundred years later, after the exodus from Egypt, God renewed this everlasting covenant with the Jews at Mount Sinai. In this renewal, God took the Jews as His “treasure.” Exodus 19:5. Importantly, God sealed the covenant with the Jews promising to obey Him: “All that the Lord has spoken, we will do.” Exodus 19:8. God did not seal the covenant with the Jews promising to believe; He sealed the covenant with the Jews promising to obey. Thus, Judaism is primarily a religion based on deed, not creed.

What deeds? The deeds are those found in the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). These are the “commandments,” mitzvos in Hebrew. They are not just the “Ten Commandments,” but also many others. In fact, if you were to count all of the positive (“thou shalt”) and the negative (“thou shalt not”) commandments, you would count 613.

I will discuss the matter of deed over creed and Jesus’ view of this doctrine in the coming posts. In the interim, I welcome your comments!

Creed

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

A creed (also known as a confession, symbol, or statement of faith) is a statement of the shared beliefs of a religious community in the form of a fixed formula summarizing core tenets.

One of the most widely used creeds in Christianity is the Nicene Creed, first formulated in AD 325 at the First Council of Nicaea. It was based on Christian understanding of the Canonical Gospels, the letters of the New Testament and to a lesser extent the Old Testament. Affirmation of this creed, which describes the Trinity, is generally taken as a fundamental test of orthodoxy for most Christian denominations.[1] The Apostles' Creed is also broadly accepted. Some Christian denominations and other groups have rejected the authority of those creeds.

Muslims declare the shahada, or testimony: "I bear witness that there is no god but (the One) God (Allah), and I bear witness that Muhammad is God's messenger."[2]

Whether Judaism is creedal has been a point of some controversy. Although some say Judaism is noncreedal in nature, others say it recognizes a single creed, the Shema Yisrael, which begins: "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one."

Deed

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

A deed (anciently "an evidence") is any legal instrument in writing which passes, affirms or confirms an interest, right, or property and that is signed, attested, delivered, and in some jurisdictions, sealed. It is commonly associated with transferring (conveyancing) title to property. The deed has a greater presumption of validity and is less rebuttable than an instrument signed by the party to the deed. A deed can be unilateral or bilateral. Deeds include conveyances, commissions, licenses, patents, diplomas, and conditionally powers of attorney if executed as deeds. The deed is the modern descendant of the medieval charter, and delivery is thought to symbolically replace the ancient ceremony of livery of seisin.[1]

The traditional phrase signed, sealed and delivered refers to the practice of seals; however, attesting witnesses have replaced seals to some extent. Agreements under seal are also called contracts by deed or specialty; in the United States, a specialty is enforceable without consideration.[2] In some jurisdictions, specialties have a liability limitation period of double that of a simple contract and allow for a third party beneficiary to enforce an undertaking in the deed, thereby overcoming the doctrine of privity.[3] Specialties, as a form of contract, are bilateral and can therefore be distinguished from covenants, which, being also under seal, are unilateral promises.


---------------------------
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
Religious conversion

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

Religious conversion is the adoption of a set of beliefs identified with one particular religious denomination to the exclusion of others. Thus "religious conversion" would describe the abandoning of adherence to one denomination and affiliating with another. This might be from one to another denomination within the same religion, for example, from Baptist to Catholic Christianity or from Sunni to Shi'a Islam.[1] In some cases, religious conversion "marks a transformation of religious identity and is symbolized by special rituals".[2]

People convert to a different religion for various reasons, including: active conversion by free choice due to a change in beliefs,[3] secondary conversion, deathbed conversion, conversion for convenience, marital conversion, and forced conversion.

Conversion or reaffiliation for convenience is an insincere act, sometimes for relatively trivial reasons such as a parent converting to enable a child to be admitted to a good school associated with a religion, or a person adopting a religion more in keeping with the social class they aspire to.[4] When people marry one spouse may convert to the religion of the other.

Forced conversion is adoption of a different religion under duress. The convert may secretly retain the previous beliefs and continue, covertly, with the practices of the original religion, while outwardly maintaining the forms of the new religion. Over generations a family forced against their will to convert may wholeheartedly adopt the new religion.

Proselytism is the act of attempting to convert by persuasion another individual from a different religion or belief system. (See proselyte).

Apostate is a term used by members of a religion or denomination to refer to someone who has left that religion or denomination.

Forced conversion

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

Forced conversion is adoption of a different religion or irreligion under duress. Forced abandonment of religion has been described as "conversion to atheism". Those who convert may willingly embrace their new religion or irreligion, or may continue, covertly, with the beliefs and practices originally held, while outwardly behaving as converts. Crypto-Jews, crypto-Christians, crypto-Muslims and crypto-Pagans are historical examples of the latter.

Religion and power

In general, anthropologists have shown that the relationship between religion and politics is complex, especially when viewed over the expanse of human history.[1] While religious leaders and the state generally have different aims, both are concerned with power and order; both use reason and emotion to motivate behavior. Throughout history, leaders of religious and political institutions have cooperated, opposed one another, or attempted to co-opt each other, for purposes both noble and base, and have implemented programs with a wide range of driving values, from compassion aimed at alleviating current suffering to brutal change aimed at achieving longer-term goals, for the benefit of groups ranging from small cliques to all of humanity. The relationship is far from simple. But religion has often been used coercively, and has used coercion.[1]

Christianity

Christianity was a minority religion during much of the Roman Empire, and the early Christians were persecuted during that time. When Constantine I converted to Christianity, it became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire. Already under the reign of Constantine I, Christian heretics had been persecuted; beginning in the late 4th century, the ancient pagan religions were also actively suppressed. In the view of many historians, the Constantinian shift turned Christianity from a persecuted religion into one capable of persecution and sometimes eager to persecute.[2] There are a number of examples of forced conversion throughout the history of Christianity: during the Roman Empire, in the Middle Ages, inquisitions in Spain and Goa, and campaigns by Russian rulers.

Judaism

Forced conversions occurred under the Hasmonean Kingdom. The Idumeans were forced to convert to Judaism, by threat of exile or death, depending on the source.[25][26] In Eusebíus, Christianity, and Judaism, Harold W. Attridge claims that "there is reason to think that Josephus' account of their conversion is substantially accurate." He also writes: "that these were not isolated instances, but that forced conversion was a national policy, is clear from the fact that Alexander Jannaeus (around 80 BCE) demolished the city of Pella in Moab, 'because the inhabitants would not agree to adopt the national custom of the Jews.'" Josephus, Antiquities. 13.15.4.[27]

Maurice Sartre has written of the "policy of forced Judaization adopted by Hyrcanos, Aristobulus I and Jannaeus", who offered "the conquered peoples a choice between expulsion or conversion,"[28]

William Horbury has written that "The evidence is best explained by postulating that an existing small Jewish population in Lower Galilee was massively expanded by the forced conversion in c.104 BCE of their Gentile neighbours in the north."[29]

In 2009 the BBC defended a claim that in 524 CE the Yemeni Jewish Himyar tribe, led by King Dhu Nuwas, had offered Christian residents of a village in what is now Saudi Arabia the choice between conversion to Judaism or death, and that 20,000 Christians had then been massacred. The BBC stated that "The production team spoke to many historians over 18 months, among them Nigel Groom, who was our consultant, and Professor Abdul Rahman Al-Ansary [former professor of archaeology at the King Saud University in Riyadh]."[30] Inscriptions documented by Yousef himself show the great pride he expressed after massacring more than 22,000 Christians in Zafar and Najran.[31]

Islam

Although Islamic law prohibits forced conversion, following the Quranic principle "no compulsion in religion" (2:256),[32][33][34] episodes of forced conversions are recorded in the history of Islam. Historians have qualified such instances as "rare"[35] or "exceptional".[32] In theory, Islamic religious tolerance applied only to monotheistic "People of the Book", and pagans faced a choice between conversion to Islam and fight to the death.[36] In practice, this designation and the dhimma status was extended even to non-monotheistic religions of conquered peoples, such as Hinduism.[36]

In recent times, forced conversions have been threatened or carried out in the context of war, insurgency and intercommunal violence. Cases affecting thousands of people are reported to have occurred during the Partition of India, the Bangladesh Liberation War, in areas controlled by ISIS, and in Pakistan. Disputed allegations of forced conversion of young women have generated public controversy in Egypt and the UK.


---------------------------
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
Saudi bulldozers destroy Yemeni village

http://al-bab.com/blog/2010/05/saudi-bulldozers-destroy-yemeni-village

Saudi forces are active across the border again, in Yemeni territory. In an incident that is being likened to Israel's destruction of Palestinian homes, the Yemeni village of Um Quaia’ah, close to the Saudi border, "was ravaged by Saudi bulldozers, including mosques and electricity poles", the Yemen Observer reports, citing eyewitnesses.

A Yemeni local government official contacted by the paper declined to comment but did not deny the news. "The destroyed village is now empty of local residents except Saudi Hummers and military vehicles," the paper says.

Um Quaia’ah is/was close to al-Malahidh area – the scene of heavy fighting during the recent war with the Houthi rebels – but is said to have remained neutral.

Saudi forces have also "retrieved" two young German girls – members of a group held hostage in northern Yemen for almost a year. The exact location of that incident has not been disclosed and it is unclear whether it was connected with the bulldozing of Um Quaia’ah. The rescue was reportedly carried out by Saudi special forces in collaboration with the Yemeni military.

The Saudis became militarily involved in Yemen last Novemberat the height of the Yemeni government's six-month-long "Operation Scorched Earth" against the Houthi rebels. In an effort to prevent cross-border activity by the rebels, they declared a 10-km exclusion zone on either side of the frontier, where civilians would not be allowed. The destruction of Um Quaia’ah seems to be a continuation of that policy.

In the maritime border area, the Yemen Observer also reports the Saudis' seizure of 20 Yemeni fishermen and 13 boats which the paper says were in international waters off the Farasan Islands. Presumably this was part of the Saudi effort to prevent the Houthis receiving weapons by sea.

Meanwhile, in southern Yemen, fierce clashes were reported yesterday between security forces and "armed gangs" (i.e. separatists) in al-Habilain district of Lahij province. Al-Habilain was the scene, on Saturday, of an apparent attempt to kill President Salih.

The Yemen Post website says security forces "randomly opened fire using artilleries and tanks causing a state of horror among the people ... Homes and commercial shops were affected with some burned".

No deaths were reported but News Yemen says five people, including two soldiers, a child and a woman, were injured.

Posted by Brian Whitaker, 19 May 2010.


---------------------------
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
one needs to have some knowledge of what the Global Collateral Accounts are/were. After WW1 it was decided to bring in all the worlds gold and issue bonds (for its return)

Brief quote:  "While the ‘official’ history of the BIS can be corroborated through information gathered on their website, the ‘unofficial’ story is far more secretive and indeed nefarious in nature. The drafting of a plan to form a global central bank to ‘put on deposit’ the gold and precious metals assets of many of the world’s most powerful nations actually began in 1921, when Japanese Emperor Hirohito, the grandson of the Meiji Emperor, was invited to take a six month tour of many of the major European nations. One of these included a visit by Hirohito to London to meet with King George V (live footage of his arrival can be seen HERE). What the history books do not tell us are the true reasons for Hirohito’s pre-World War II involvement with many of the leaders of the most powerful European nations: To make a secret deal with the Western oligarchy to loot Southeast Asia of its vast hordes of gold and precious metals. After World War I, it was decided by world leaders that the only way to achieve prosperity and harmony in the future was by creating a centralized system of control over the world’s supply of gold and other precious metals".

 Once you understand that this actually happened, then you can better understand the killing and deceit put forth by the cabal to keep this gold and the excuses like 9-11 as to why the gold had "just disappeared"

https://www.slideshare.net/ernestrauthschild/what-are-global-collateral-accounts

Ron

Global Collateral Accounts... quote

Quote
4.02 The 1944 Bretton Woods Agreement: Power Bloc Coup

At the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference held in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, from July 1 to July 22, 1944. The agreement included the formation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and, most importantly, the proposed introduction of an adjustable pegged foreign exchange rate system.

Currencies were pegged to gold and the IMF was given the authority to intervene when an imbalance of payments arose.

The truth is that in 1944, Britain, France and United States were given a fifty-year term of Global Control over the global financial system. The Agreement was supposed to develop and modernize the planet, when in fact, Roosevelt was poisoned (assassinated) and then most of the world’s gold was taken off-market, blacklisted or hidden in caves. This allowed the fascist coup to finalize their fiat currency system control over the world. The military-industrial complex, instead of developing the planet, would actually start controlling and stealing from the world.

http://neilkeenan.com/history-events-timeline/

Quote
5.04 In 1963: Kennedy’s Green Hilton Agreement with Sukarno

In 1963, President John F. Kennedy entered into an Agreement with President Sukarno to provide the funds to allow the United States Treasury to print its own currency, thus subverting the “right” to print the currency held by the Federal Reserve.

The Agreement would have transferred some 59,000 tons of gold to underpin this currency. The problem with this was that the US domestic currency would have then been backed by gold which would have been a violation of international agreements meant to stabilize currencies.

Kennedy, Sukarno and Johnson

Pictures don’t lie. John Kennedy was emotionally high at this meeting, as was Sukarno, but unbeknownst to them,  Vice President Johnson was a member of secret societies, the likes of which  Kennedy had spoken against.

Neil’s Pentagon sources advised him that Johnson was involved in the murder of JFK. The entire scenario was set up not only because of what Kennedy was doing in terms of ending the Federal Reserve System and replacing it with the new United States Treasury currency, but also with regards to the dismantling of the CIA.  In addition it involved both Texaco and Standard Oil and their loss of income in West Papua.

In delivering all of the information that Johnson was getting from Kennedy and Sukarno in Washington D.C. to his cabal bosses, the Cabal managed to stop Kennedy from moving forward by assassinating him.

With their plans, the Cabal had to stop Kennedy because he wanted to take down the Illuminati et al and the Federal Reserve System.  The daily reports to the Cabal from Lyndon Johnson in Jakarta, Indonesia, doomed Kennedy to his assassination.

For his painstaking efforts, a CIA coup saw Sukarno removed from presidency and replaced by General Suharto, who then imposed a lifetime of home imprisonment upon Sukarno.



Kennedy with Sukarno --- Kennedy was assassinated, Sukarno was deposed



Bernard, co founder of the Bilderberg, with CIA puppet Suharto

Ron
« Last Edit: 2017-08-20, 00:04:01 by ronee »
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Theresa May rejects appeal from 9/11 survivors to release suppressed Saudi Arabia terror report

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-saudi-arabia-report-911-survivors-reject-terrorism-latest-complicity-a7898816.html

The survivors described the UK response as 'shameful' [Shame is synonymous with the 9/11 five eyes + two proxies cooperation]  :(

Theresa May has rejected an appeal from survivors of the 9/11 attacks to make public a suppressed report into the role of Saudi Arabia in funding Islamist extremism in the UK.

Earlier this summer, the British government announced it had decided not to publish the information, citing national security reasons and the “vast amount of personal information” it contained.

Among those calling for Ms May to make public the report, which was commissioned by her predecessor, David Cameron, was a US group of survivors of the 9/11 attacks and relatives of some of the almost 3,000 people who were killed.

“The UK now has the unique historic opportunity to stop the killing spree of Wahhabism-inspired terrorists by releasing the UK government’s report on terrorism financing in the UK which, according to media reports, places Saudi Arabia at its centre of culpability,” said the letter, signed by 15 people.

But the British government has rejected their request in a letter that the group has described as “shameful”.

“[The] response did not convey that much would change in the future for one simple reason: the US and the UK continue to protect Saudi Arabia, allowing them to operate freely, with impunity, even supplying them with lethal weapons, as they go about their usual business of inspiring intolerance, committing genocide and human rights violations,” said Sharon Premoli, who was on the 80th floor of the North Tower of the World Trade Centre when the first Al-Qaeda plane hit.

Brett Eagleson, whose son John perished on the 17th floor of the South Tower, said the British government was withholding potentially crucial information.

“When the UK government had the opportunity to shed light on the funding of terrorism and had the opportunity to make real inroads on the global fight against terror, they have chosen to take the path of least resistance by putting the cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia before the safety of its owns citizens,” he said. “It’s a shameful day for democracy.”

Ellen Sarancini, the widow of a pilot on United Airlines Flight 175 which was hijacked after taking off from Boston and flown into the South Tower, said the UK response was the latest in a series of rejections.

“For 15 years, we have been blocked by our own government who, along with the UK, continue to protect Saudi Arabia at the expense of their citizens,” she said. “The UK report has the potential for ending terrorism by outing those at the centre of its funding but refuses to do so.”

Although 15 of the 19 hijackers who attacked New York and Washington were citizens of Saudi Arabia, the authorities in Riyadh have long denied having any official role in the attack. They have also rejected legal actions seeking compensations.

Earlier this year, a lawsuit was filed in New York on behalf of the families of 850 individuals who were killed and 1,500 who were injured. It claims that Saudi supported Al-Qaeda in four critical ways – supporting government-linked charities that ran training camps, directly funding Osama Bin Laden’s terror group, supporting the hijackers by providing them with passports and, finally, offering on-the-ground support to the hijackers in the 18 months leading up to the attacks.

Earlier this month, lawyers for Saudi Arabia filed a motion seeking to have the suit dismissed. The 75-page document concludes by saying: “Saudi Arabia’s motion to dismiss should be granted.”

A number of historians have pointed out that Britain and the US have a long history of promoting and using Islamist extremists when it has suited their different needs. Mark Curtis, the historian and author of Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam, wrote recently that Saudi Arabia’s role in promoting Wahhabism had been known for decades.

“The British elite is perfectly aware of the insidious role that Saudi Arabia plays in fomenting terrorism,” he said.

Britain has previously moved to ensure strategic ties with Saudi Arabia are not damaged by covering up damaging information. In 2006, Tony Blair halted a major criminal investigation into alleged corruption by the arms company BAE Systems and payments to Saudi officials involved in the Al-Yamamah arms deal.

The letter informing the 9/11 survivors that their request was being rejected was sent from the office of Home Office minister Baroness Williams.

It does not mention Saudi Arabia but said the report had concluded there are a “small number of organisations in the UK who receive support, including funding, from overseas”.

It added: “I hope you will appreciate that the review report is classified because of the volume of personal information it contains but also for national security reasons.”

The call for the report to be made public was supported by the Labour Party and Green Party Member of Parliament Caroline Lucas.

In addition to the 2,605 US citizens who were killed in the attacks, were victims from 61 countries. The second largest number were Britons, who totaled 67.


---------------------------
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 One True Faith: Nuclear Weapons Are God’s Gift to the United States of America, Alone

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-one-true-faith-nuclear-weapons-are-gods-gift-to-the-united-states-of-america-alone/5604508

"We must constitute ourselves trustees of this new force–to prevent its misuse, and to turn it into the channels of service to mankind. It is an awful responsibility which has come to us.

We thank God that it [nuclear weapons] has come to us, instead of to our enemies; and we pray that He may guide us to use it [nuclear weapons] in His ways and for His purposes." Harry Truman, August 9, 1945


Like obscene profits from great fraud or theft, “wonder weapons” of mass destruction, to which the atomic bomb certainly belongs, have their origins in the inability and unwillingness to accept the equality and dignity of one’s opponents/ competitors (never mind whether one’s cause/product is legitimate).

The ambivalence of the US position during WWII — the discrepancy which became apparent after 1945 between the stated and unstated policies — allowed and even promoted the mythic justification for US atomic bombing.

When I first moved to Germany more than thirty years ago, I was appalled at the insensitivity — to put it mildly — in US policy with the deployment of the Pershings. Placing new medium-ranged missiles in Germany at that time caused vocal opposition even among those whose anti-communist credentials (no virtue in my book, but for the “alliance” at least acceptable opposition) were undisputed. However, there was no evidence that anyone (in the US) was willing to grasp that the reply to Pershings would not be ICBMs but more probably Soviet medium-ranged delivery vehicles to Germany! The general US response was that Germany should appreciate the “protection” it was getting from the US. The fact that these missiles were a threat to Germany and the Soviet Union but not to the US was simply disregarded (as is the stationing of missiles on Russia’s borders today.)

The US has the largest gratuitous war machine on the planet. Whatever its claims, as the only belligerent in the past century’s two world wars not to suffer any destruction to its national territory (colonies aside), it can safely be said that it is the only country for whom war is exclusively business. As Smedley Butler said, war is a racket!

“Fire and Fury”: Who should be feared more? Macduff or Macbeth?


The recent threats to Korea — addressed to the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea — are ultimately “business” policies. That is why they are so difficult to challenge effectively. Mr Trump is not making statements which originate in any actual threat or the imperative of a response to such. He is driven by policy objectives that simply are not subject to open discussion let alone democratic process (like most business policy).

Bruce Cumings’ detailed study, The Origins of the Korean War, upon which I have repeatedly drawn in previous attempts to explain US regime policy not only in Asia, shows just how difficult it is to ascertain the underlying policies and interests driving US regime behavior when the war against Korea began. One is forced to infer, interpolate, extract conclusions from information the coherence and relevance of which to public policy is never openly admitted. This leaves what little potential for public — democratic — intervention seriously inhibited.

It is of little help to arrive at the legitimate system level analysis and say that it is American capitalism — a particularly virulent strain of that ideology — which drives US belligerence. This does not tell anyone how to stop particular instances of egregious violence.

One point in all this is that the US policy of non-proliferation is so obviously one directed solely at those countries not utterly allied or subservient to it. (Here it is important that the US allies perceived as “white” are allowed to have atomic bombs and delivery vehicles.) But beyond that, the NPT was also an agreement to reduce and eliminate all atomic weapons — an objective with which the US regime has never materially complied — in fact, quite the opposite. Such threats against Korea — conventional bombing capacity notwithstanding — are clearly only possible because the policy of first strike and super atomic superiority (including the enormous profits this earns for those who run the industry) have never been seriously challenged, revised or abandoned.

There is no doubt, in fact, if not in rhetoric, that the US is led by some of the most spiteful people on the planet for whom gratuitous violence is not only foreign policy, but domestic and cultural obsession. “White rage” and its attendant “lynch justice” are firmly entrenched elements of American culture, not just among the elite. Here in Portugal almost every public venue has a television screen. A friend of mine has several cable channels running in his restaurant– mostly fueled with American product. Since I do not have a television and have not had one for almost thirty years I “miss a lot”.

The TV/cable/cinema programming comprises entirely allusions to libertinism (music videos) or high tech mass violence (so-called crime drama and the endless supply of films and series with highly organised state violence, usually against people in the target countries of US policy). The worst we had when I was growing up was re-runs of WWII propaganda films, Aaron Spelling/Jack Webb Los Angeles police soaps and Hoover’s FBI propaganda. Looking back that seems all incredibly harmless.

Who produces this stuff — with the enormous support from DOD et al?

As I just argued albeit tongue in cheek, the atomic power of the President is not as easy to measure as it seems. In fact, the President — whether Truman or Trump — executes policy but does not really make it. Today no serious scholar can deny that Truman’s decision was prepared for his approval. In fact, everything was done to minimize the possibility that he would deny it. I believe we have to see Trump in the same capacity. Truman is formally responsible for the mass murder in Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the law and Constitution assign that responsibility to him and because he lacked the moral fortitude to refuse mass murder, like many before him. But he did not create the weapon or order its creation nor did he start the war in which it was used.

Donald Trump has always had an inflammatory style — even when he was only a NY real estate mogul. That is nothing new. So now he is President his style is not going to change. There is something actually comical about Trump’s appearances. Who remembers Reagan’s off the cuff “joke” about bombing the Soviet Union?1 These are not accidents. They express the contempt which all Presidents ex officio have for the targets of their atomic bombs. Who now remembers anything George Bush said during their respective terms in office? Every US president has had his style of presenting the wantonly murderous capacity of the US war machine. This is also nothing new.

One has to ask two questions, one historical and the other contemporary. [two frames of reference]

Historically: It must be asked how and why under the Obama reign the largest increase in the US atomic arsenal since 1989 was performed? Mr Trump came into office with vastly more lethality because of actions taken over the previous eight years approved by his predecessor and the heiress apparent-pretender.

Contemporary: second question is really two. What and above all who is driving this policy? Who or what is their target?2

I believe that there are no countries besides the US and Israel (which are for all intents and purposes one country) that seriously contemplate first strikes with atomic weapons. I also believe that the few sane people in the policy-making venues of the US regime know this — just as George Kennan knew it when he wrote his mendacious “X” article and Dean Acheson knew it too. This leaves us with two simple non-exclusive explanations for the present situation.

Enhancing deniability and lethality

One — the atomic bomb system is a perpetual motion machine for those who own it like DuPont inter alia. There is simply too much money to be made to ever willingly stop producing these weapons that no sane person would ever employ at the strategic level. However, there has been, it would seem, enormous progress in miniaturisation of atomic weapons — including depleted uranium or enhanced radiation — opening the possibility to genuinely “micro-nuke” US competitors.

I am convinced this was already tested against China. The point is that deniable atomic attacks have been on the drawing board for at least twenty years. Hollywood not only propagates fantasy but illustrates the nascent agenda of the national security state. The US generally accuses others of doing what it is, in fact, doing (e.g. brainwashing and germ warfare). So we have been saturated with films and other stories about micronukes in various forms in the hands of criminals (the illegal half of the Business community). Everyone outside the US generally knows more about US policy than the American public and as Cumings indicated in his Korea research the PDRK knew and paid more careful attention to US policy before the US war against Korea started than any reputable people in the US itself. They were not surprised like the average American — who is hermetically isolated from unpleasant reality.

In short, Trump may simply be echoing what has been apparent in the boardrooms of the US regime for the past fifteen years:

    We have approached the level of atomic weapons development where we can deliver atomic devastation in ways that only experts will be able to verify. We will be able to graduate the use of our most powerful weapons in such a way that no one will be able to justify retaliation and so this option will disappear.

This is, in fact, the continuation of the policy of limited war — which was so far successful because only those who actually fought, were wounded or died, have any testimony to the fact that the US has been at war without interruption since 1945. So there is first the huge business in atomic weapons which needs targets to justify its existence. Trump is just keeping the public aware of targets so that the business continues unabated.

On one hand there is the imperative to have atomic threats to justify atomic weapons. If the only threats to US “security” came from Serbia or Samoa, this would not be very convincing and it is part of the US system that virtual unanimity for policy must be manufactured. That is about the only way to maintain the appearance of a democracy — aside from annual introduction of a “new” formula of Coca Cola or more massive versions of the terminally mediocre Microsoft products.

On the other hand, the US business elite cannot afford all out war with anyone who has the capacity to defend themselves. (Aside from the fact that the US military is only capable of “winning” aggressive war against the defenseless, like Grenada or Panama.) Yet economic domination of the world has been the number one mission of US policy since 1945. Now China (where there are many US factories) and the alliance with Russia (which under Putin seems to have resisted the continuation of the Kissinger policy of playing China and Russia against each other) can actually challenge US dominion. So the strategic issue is again (!) how to control China but not lose the economic advantages of producing there at high profit to feed US consumers.

Two: Asymetric war — as the new jargon likes to call the GWOT — is not really about the US against little “rogue states” or “state aspirants”. It is the US doctrine of “limited war” revised to include the new generation of micro-atomic weapons. The aim of asymetric war is to wage a tactically brutal assault against a US adversary/competitor which is apparently too small to allow a response that would a) threaten the US, in fact, or b) expose the US as the aggressor. Thus any response by the target would have to be (appear to the international public as) vastly disproportionate. Thus deterrence takes the old meaning from school days. The bully hits when no one is looking and knows that the counterblow comes just when the teacher is watching.

This is the kind of blackmail that all the films from Hollywood show — not because there are some “rogue criminal elements” waiting to act — but because this is the US policy for which the public has to be prepared. Just like they were prepared for the WTC destruction. Most people I know reacted the same as I did to the first images on TV — we thought this was a scene from one of those perennial Hollywood-NY disaster films.

(In fact, it was filmed by crews in place before the event so that all the work was done like Hollywood would have done it in the studio.) We have been watching US policy in preparation for the past twenty years. But for most people — including many from whom one would expect more sense — it was only decided in January of 2017.

Does this offer any options for ending the crisis? Not immediately. It does tell us, however, that Trump is not the crisis. Moreover his removal from office will not alter a policy he did not make. Even the obvious questions like “what about Mr Pence?” are not asked. If the crazies (i.e. those who believe that Trump must go at all costs) were actually to force the dismissal or resignation of Donald Trump, they would then have Mr Pence as President. The administration would not change at all. (Ronald Reagan actually covered the first Bush presidency. Although Alexander Haig may have thought he was president for a few hours– which says more about what actually happens in the White House than anything we read in the organs of the Business Party. The Bush dynasty began in 1980 and has more or less continued to this day.)

It’s the Open Door that lets all the (F)lies in…

It should tell the sane, educated and those with some access to public opinion shaping institutions that the driving force of the atomic industry and those who finance it has grown enormously, not declined and that this industry, not the POTUS, is driving the war machine. So if there are any systemic interventions possible, they must be aimed at closing down the atomic bomb industry entirely. To do this it is necessary to honestly identify the people in that industry, its producing, financing, and beneficiary members natural and corporate. After 1945, certain corporations were dissolved in Germany on the premise that they were criminal conspiracies. Notwithstanding the deception and circumvention — this was public policy. That means there are precedents for dealing not only with natural criminals but with their corporate shells. In fact, the so-called RICO Act is US law. Imagine General Butler defined war as a “racket”. Taking this literally all enterprises engaged in the war “industry” are “racketeers” in the meaning of the act…

It should also tell those same people that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way Asian policy is made and the policies themselves. Cumings’ book Dominion from Sea to Sea comes very close to stating the problem in its historical essence and showing why it is almost impossible to counter US policy: namely, it enjoys a centuries old consensus among the elite and one manufactured for just about a century now for everyone else. There has been no change in the fundamentals driving it — of which most people are only subliminally aware. Nothing — even on the so-called Left — has been or is being done on a meaningful scale to revise the view of the United States of America as “god’s gift to humanity”. As long as the vast bulk of the US population (and certainly almost all “whites” who also think Jesus God is just like them — even if they do not believe in either) is convinced that they live in God’s country, they can be forgiven for thinking like Harry Truman, that the atomic bomb was god’s gift to them.

In all this lies one very serious core problem — the US is an empire and there are no empires which have voluntarily surrendered their claims to power and expansion.

If my assertion about the state of ordnance and doctrine is correct — and I have every reason to believe it is — then Korea is reacting to knowledge and awareness of this policy by extroverted means. China, on the other hand, is responding introvertedly. They see the difficulty of confronting this enhanced deniability. They also do not want to provide more fuel to inflame the US lynching party. And behind the scenes the instruments of covert power are supporting whatever business objectives may best be served by this enhanced bellicosity.

Of course, I write “it should tell the sane…” If by that one means those who publish the leading organs of official opinion and that which is “fit to print” if in support of same, then there is not much reason to expect a sane response. In these venues it is not the policy which is in dispute but the sociability among the factions. One cannot expect any efforts to reorganize and reorient leading opinion (the rest of opinion does not matter anyway).

So currently the only limitations on US policy and action will come from abroad in the form of challenges that the regime is unable to suppress or where they are unable to prevail. There are indications that China and Russia are, in fact, capable of sustaining such challenges. The US regime may be losing its international diplomacy campaign with Trump — which will probably be the only factor in a potential dismissal. He is obviously trying to counter that with obsequity toward the centres of bureaucratic power — the CIA and the Pentagon (and those who own these two bureaucracies).

It is apparent to anyone outside the US that the regime has no alternative to imperialism — it has cannibalised its entire economy to maintain its “open door” (if necessary by means of a solid kick with a “standard issue”) empire. Even the US cannot live by marketing alone. It has been reduced more or less to its origins, a country ruled by traffickers in drugs, arms, contraband, bonded labour, and stolen goods — whose claim to trade is based on the imposition of the USD. Unfortunately this empire has simply more destructive power (and the nihilism to exercise it) than any previous empire of such longevity. So unless the US regime is disarmed by its population (now it seems pretty much the other way around), we will just have to watch the carnage continue. The Open Door will continue to let the flies in and there will be plenty of dead flesh upon which their larvae will feed.

Dr T.P. Wilkinson writes, teaches History and English, directs theatre and coaches cricket between the cradles of Heine and Saramago. He is also the author of Church Clothes, Land, Mission and the End of Apartheid in South Africa (Maisonneuve Press, 2003). Read other articles by T.P.


---------------------------
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
Stuart Littlewood asks the perpetrator of the lie to substantiate the moral position:

Balfour’s shameful legacy: UK government must say sorry and protect Christian churches in Palestine

http://www.redressonline.com/2017/08/balfours-shameful-legacy-uk-government-must-say-sorry-and-protect-christian-churches-in-palestine/

Open letter to a Secretary of State

To: Rt Hon David Mundell MP [pictured below], Secretary of State for Scotland

Dear Mr Mundell,

It was a pleasure meeting you at the Dumfries Agricultural Show. If you recall, we talked briefly about Mrs May’s perverse plan to celebrate the centenary of the Balfour Declaration “with pride” and invite Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu to the jollifications.

The infamous declaration was a pledge contrived by Zionists inside and outside the British government. It was in effect a “promissory note” to the Zionist movement for their help in bringing the US into World War I; and it was made with utter disregard to the consequences for the majority Arab population in Palestine. Worse, it amounted to a betrayal of our Arab allies, cutting across an earlier promise for their help against the Turks. There was strong opposition in Parliament even from Lord Montague, the only Jew in the Cabinet. Lord Sydenham remarked: “What we have done, by concessions not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, is to start a running sore in the East, and no-one can tell how far that sore will extend.”

Well, we know now. And it’s high time the wound was healed.

The Declaration by Balfour, a Zionist convert, needs to be read in parallel with “The Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism”, a joint statement by the heads of Palestinian Christian churches which rejects Christian Zionist doctrine as false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation.

    We further reject the contemporary alliance of Christian Zionist leaders and organisations with elements in the governments of Israel and the United States [they could have added the UK] that are presently imposing their unilateral pre-emptive borders and domination over Palestine… We reject the teachings of Christian Zionism that facilitate and support these policies as they advance racial exclusivity and perpetual war.

Justice groups are urging the British Government to mark the centenary of the Balfour Declaration in November by saying sorry instead of toasting the blunder in champagne. Mrs May could do some real good here. She could, at a stroke, help quell the destructive turmoil in the Middle East and begin repairing Britain’s tattered image. She could even open new trade routes into Islamic markets, vitally important as we leave the European Union. By apologising on our behalf for 100 years of agony inflicted on a lovely people in a lovely part of the world, Mrs May could take a giant step for mankind on the world stage.

But no, she’s pressing ahead with the revelry. And her principal guest, the ruthless Israeli prime minister, is on many a wanted list for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He’s also under investigation in his own country for corruption. This is not just poor judgement on Mrs May’s part, but insanely provocative when a UN report recently branded Israel an apartheid regime. It’s even more regrettable considering the desperate cry for help a few weeks ago from the National Coalition of Christian Organizations in Palestine in an open letter to the World Council of Churches and the ecumenical movement, signed by over 30 organisations in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. You can read this disturbing document here.

They issued a similar cry for help 10 years ago but the tyranny of the occupying forces has gone from very bad to much worse. Their latest message is frighteningly stark:

    Things are beyond urgent. We are on the verge of a catastrophic collapse. The current status quo is unsustainable. This could be our last chance to achieve a just peace. As a Palestinian Christian community, this could be our last opportunity to save the Christian presence in this land.

“The name of the game: Erasing Palestine” (Miko Peled)

I was encouraged to hear you say that you visited occupied Palestine independently rather than accept the usual propaganda tour organised by Conservative Friends of Israel (CFoI) and the Israeli government. Nevertheless, claims by the CFoI that 80 per cent of Conservative MPs and MEPs are signed up members is alarming and puts us almost on a par with US Congress, which is controlled by the Israel lobby through AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee). It is ludicrous that a foreign military power which has no respect for international law and rejects weapons conventions and safeguards can exert such influence on foreign policy in the US and UK. Pandering to Israel has been immensely costly in blood and treasure and damaging to our reputation.

Everyone outside the Westminster bubble knows perfectly well that there can be no peace in the Holy Land without justice. Everyone knows that international law and countless UN resolutions still wait to be enforced. Everyone knows that Israel won’t comply unless sanctions are imposed. Everyone knows that the siege on Gaza won’t be lifted until warships are sent.

Miko Peled, son of an Israeli general, former Israeli soldier and now a leading voice in the struggle for Palestinian freedom, tells us that “by 1993 the Israelis had achieved their mission to make the conquest of the West Bank irreversible [and] the Israeli government knew for certain that a Palestinian state could not be established in the West Bank”. What’s more, everyone now knows that the US is not an honest broker and peace won’t come from sham “negotiations” between the weak and the all-powerful. Everyone knows who is the real threat to peace in the Middle East. And everyone knows that Her Majesty’s Government’s hand-wringing and empty words serve no purpose except to prolong the daily misery and buy time for Israel to complete its criminal scheme to make the occupation permanent.

Mrs May praises Israel for being “a thriving democracy, a beacon of tolerance”, when it is obviously neither. She says our two countries share “common values” when we obviously don’t; and given the Israeli regime’s incessant crimes against humanity and cruelty to the indigenous people it terrorises such a remark is insulting to anyone who lives by Christian values. She even claims that Israel is a country where people of all religions “are free and equal in the eyes of the law” and “Israel guarantees the rights of people of all religions, races and sexualities, and it wants to enable everyone to flourish”. This is arrant nonsense. The lady needs to tone down her misguided adoration of the rogue regime.

She also needs to call off attempts to criminalise the successful BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) campaign calling it wrong and warning that her government will “have no truck with those who subscribe to it”.  Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights bestows on everyone “the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”.

As the Secretary of State for Scotland, the senior central government figure hereabouts and a member of the Cabinet, you have the ear of the prime minister on heavyweight matters of state – such as this. I hope you’ll allow me, please, to pursue the matter through your good self (keeping my MP Alister Jack informed). I do not wish to receive the usual proforma reply from the Foreign Office about the UK’s adherence to the two-state solution – a futile position, as anyone paying attention to the situation has known for years. What I do hope for is reasons why HMG is still exporting weaponry to Israel when it is used against the Palestinians to maintain the illegal occupation, why no move is made to break the 10-year blockade of Gaza which has brought nearly two million citizens to the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe, why HMG keeps rewarding Israel for its other never-ending crimes, its contempt for international law, its disregard for the provisions of the UN Charter, and its continued breaches of the EU-Israel Agreement. And why Mrs May seeks to appeal against the recent court decision defending our right to boycott Israel. Does she not realise that HMG’s inaction leaves civil society no choice but to resort to BDS?

In particular I’d like to know, please, Mrs May’s reaction to the desperate plea from the Christian churches in the Holy Land, and I hope you’ll bring to her notice that letter to the World Council of Churches if she hasn’t already seen it. She wears her Christianity on her sleeve, is seen regularly attending church etc, but her faith credentials will be in question if she ignores the contents of the letter.

Whether the questions raised here are tiresomely ducked as usual or given the consideration they deserve, the story will find wide circulation. This request is therefore sent as an open letter.


---------------------------
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
sub·stan·ti·ate

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/substantiate

1. To prove the truth of or support with proof or evidence: substantiate an accusation. See Synonyms at confirm.
2. To give substance to; make real or actual.


---------------------------
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 American total solar eclipse has shifted perception in a moment, a new day has dawned.

The future becomes what you shape of it. Cooperation on secular moon base's and energy freedom should be every man's goal.

Perception

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

Perception (from the Latin perceptio) is the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the presented information, or the environment.[1]

All perception involves signals that go through the nervous system, which -in turn- result from physical or chemical stimulation of the sensory system.[2] For example, vision involves light striking the retina of the eye, smell is mediated by odor molecules, and hearing involves pressure waves.

Perception is not only the passive receipt of these signals, but it's also shaped by the recipient's learning, memory, expectation, and attention.[3][4]

Perception can be split into two processes, [4] (1) processing the sensory input, which transforms these low-level information to higher-level information (e.g., extracts shapes for object recognition), (2) processing which is connected with a person's concepts and expectations (or knowledge) and selective mechanisms (attention) that influence perception.

Perception depends on complex functions of the nervous system, but subjectively seems mostly effortless because this processing happens outside conscious awareness. [2]

Since the rise of experimental psychology in the 19th Century, psychology's understanding of perception has progressed by combining a variety of techniques. [3] Psychophysics quantitatively describes the relationships between the physical qualities of the sensory input and perception.[5] Sensory neuroscience studies the brain mechanisms underlying perception. Perceptual systems can also be studied computationally, in terms of the information they process. Perceptual issues in philosophy include the extent to which sensory qualities such as sound, smell or color exist in objective reality rather than in the mind of the perceiver.[3]

Although the senses were traditionally viewed as passive receptors, the study of illusions and ambiguous images has demonstrated that the brain's perceptual systems actively and pre-consciously attempt to make sense of their input.[3] There is still active debate about the extent to which perception is an active process of hypothesis testing, analogous to science, or whether realistic sensory information is rich enough to make this process unnecessary.[3]

The perceptual systems of the brain enable individuals to see the world around them as stable, even though the sensory information is typically incomplete and rapidly varying. Human and animal brains are structured in a modular way, with different areas processing different kinds of sensory information. Some of these modules take the form of sensory maps, mapping some aspect of the world across part of the brain's surface. These different modules are interconnected and influence each other. For instance, taste is strongly influenced by smell.[6]

Secularity

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

Secularity (adjective form secular,[1] from Latin saeculum meaning "worldly", "of a generation", "temporal", or a span of about 100 years[2]) is the state of being separate from religion, or of not being exclusively allied with or against any particular religion. Historically, the word "secular" was not related or linked to religion, but was a freestanding term in Latin which would relate to any mundane endeavor.[2] The idea of a dichotomy between religion and the secular originated in the 18th century European Enlightenment.[3] Furthermore, since "religion" and "secular" are both Western concepts that were formed under the influence of Christian theology, other cultures do not necessarily have words or concepts that resemble or are equivalent to them.[3][4] In many cultures, little conceptual or practical distinction is made between "natural" and "supernatural" phenomena and the very notions of "religious" and "nonreligious" dissolve into unimportance or nonexistence, especially since people have beliefs in other supernatural or spiritual things irrespective of belief in gods.[4]

One can regard eating and bathing as examples of secular activities, because there may not be anything inherently religious about them. Nevertheless, some religious traditions see both eating and bathing as sacraments, therefore making them religious activities within those world views. Saying a prayer derived from religious text or doctrine, worshipping through the context of a religion, and attending a religious school are examples of religious (non-secular) activities.

The "secular" is experienced in diverse ways ranging from separation of religion and state to being anti-religion or even pro-religion, depending on the culture.[5] For example, the United States has both separation of church and state and pro-religiosity in various forms such as protection of religious freedoms; France has separation of church and state (and Revolutionary France was strongly anti-religious); the Soviet Union was anti-religion; in India, people feel comfortable identifying as secular while participating in religion; and in Japan, since the concept of "religion" is not indigenous to Japan, people state they have no religion while doing what appears to be religion to Western eyes.[5]

A related term, secularism, involves the principle that government institutions and their representatives should remain separate from religious institutions, their beliefs, and their dignitaries. Many businesses and corporations, and some governments operate on secular lines. This stands in contrast to theocracy, government with deity as its highest authority.


---------------------------
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


Interesting times, with the ramming of the USS Fitzgerald and the USS John S McCain. Things are hotting up.

On further research the video I had suggested is too questionable to leave up.

Ron
« Last Edit: 2017-08-24, 05:30:34 by ronee »
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
The Saudi-Israeli Alliance

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/08/19/saudi-israeli-alliance.html

by Eric Zeusse

 Two of the U.S. government’s supposed allies are supposedly not allies of each other but enemies of each other, but, away from the glare of the ‘news’media, they actually work together with each other to control, by means of their secret actual alliance with one-another, a substantial, if not the major, part of U.S. foreign policies — especially regarding Iran, Russia, Syria, Israel, Palestinians, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Turkey, but much else besides. These two secret allies of each other, who largely determine U.S. foreign policies, are the Saud family, and the government of Israel.

Saudi Arabia is a fundamentalist-Sunni dictatorship in which the royal Saud family actually own the country including its oil company, which is the world’s largest, and in which country the nation’s center of its Shia population is bombed to smithereens if and when that ruling family’s appointed king gets the whim to do so, which he recently did — but the U.S. press didn’t even report it, because ‘Saudi Arabia is an ally of the United States.’

Israel is the apartheid regime of official Jews against official Palestinians (non-Jewish native Arabs in that land), and it's ruled on behalf of U.S. and American billionaires, some of whom aren’t even Jewish themselves but merely far-rightwing American billionaires (some of whom call themselves liberals, even while they support their own selective type of racism). Those billionaires (regardless of their religion) own the ‘news’media and most of the successful politicians, not only in Israel, but also in America. Some of them have dual citizenships, they’re citizens simultaneously in both countries — something that shouldn’t even be allowed, anywhere, because it means, by definition, split loyalties, which makes any such person an alien agent; and any refusal by such a person to cancel the other citizenship ought to be taken to constitute a hostile act. Every nation has legitimate national-security concerns — especially when a dual citizen is a billionaire and consequently far more powerful than a mere regular citizen is: the billionaire can buy favorable press-coverage for any political agent he chooses.

The Saud family and the Israeli government are deep allies of one-another, especially because both of them aim to conquer or destroy the Shia nation of Iran and Shia Muslims in general, such as in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

The alliance between the Saud family and the Israeli government has an enormous impact shaping U.S. foreign policies toward Iran and toward any ally of Iran such as Syria, and even toward allies of allies of Iran, such as Russia (which is allied with Syria). Also affected, but to a lesser extent, are U.S. policies regarding allies and enemies of the countries that are within the circle of those nations of first concern; for example, Pakistan is very tightly allied with Saudi Arabia, while in the neighboring and increasingly fundamentalist-Hindu nation India, «educated, well off/cultured Hindus are falling easy victims to Islamophobia», and, as a result, «civil war for a Muslim-free India» is drawing closer, so that, even if today’s tensions between Pakistan and India don’t produce a war between those two, India could become more favorable toward Shiite Iran, because most of India’s Muslims are Sunnis and thus are favorably inclined toward Saud-allied Pakistan, where the relatively few (Pew estimates at only 6% of Pakistan’s Muslims are) Shiites have commonly complained of persecution that’s by, or permitted by, the government. Thus, the internal Muslim, Sunni-v-Shiite, competition, has intensified not only Russia-v-U.S. tensions, but also India-v-Pakistan tensions. And, so, when the nation of Saudi Arabia was created in 1744 by an eternal pact between the Saud family and the Wahhab clergy to eliminate Shia Islam, that aggressive intent exists today, and is now clearly being spread even outside the Islamic world, and so it affects big-power relations, especially between U.S. and Russia.

Both the Saud family who own Saudi Arabia, and the Israeli aristocracy who control Israel’s government, are obsessive in their shared hatred of Iran. (The origins and reasons behind those hatreds are vastly different in Israel than in the Saud family, but the hatreds have the same target: Shia. This shared obsession is sufficient in order to unite them.)

The Saud family have one essential tool to control the U.S. federal government, and it's their ally Israel’s government, which controls the U.S. government to do everything possible to weaken if not obliterate Iran. Whereas European nations aren’t rabidly anti-Iranian, the U.S. government is, and one big reason for that is Israel’s control over the U.S. Congress, and over most of America’s ‘news’media.

The control of the U.S. government that's exercised by Israel’s government has been amply demonstrated in many ways:

In 1967, Israel unprovokedly attacked the USS Liberty, slaughtering 34 of our sailors and injuring 172 others; here, with my emphasized parts highlighted in boldface, is an excerpt from the long-suppressed official investigation into it:

 https://www.congress.gov/crec/2004/10/11/CREC-2004-10-11-pt1-PgE1886-3.pdf

FINDINGS OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE ISRAELI ATTACK ON THE USS ‘‘LIBERTY’’

1. That on June 8, 1967, after eight hours of aerial surveillance, Israel launched a two-hour air and naval attack against the USS Liberty, the world’s most sophisticated intelligence ship, inflicting 34 dead and 172 wounded American servicemen (a casualty rate of seventy percent, in a crew of 294);

2. That the Israeli air attack lasted approximately 25 minutes, during which time unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on the Liberty’s bridge, and fired 30mm cannons and rockets into our ship, causing 821 holes, more than 100 of which were rocket-size; survivors estimate 30 or more sorties were flown over the ship by a minimum of 12 attacking Israeli planes which were jamming all five American emergency radio channels;

3. That the torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of torpedoes, but the machine-gunning of the Liberty’s firefighters and stretcher-bearers as they struggled to save their ship and crew; the Israeli torpedo boats later returned to machine-gun at close range three of the Liberty’s life rafts that had been lowered into the water by survivors to rescue the most seriously wounded;

4. That there is compelling evidence that Israel’s attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew; evidence of such intent is supported by statements from Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Undersecretary of State George Ball, former CIA director Richard Helms, former NSA directors Lieutenant General William Odom, USA (Ret.), Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, USN (Ret.), and Marshal Carter; former NSA deputy directors Oliver Kirby and Major General John Morrison, USAF (Ret.); and former Ambassador Dwight Porter, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon in 1967;

5. That in attacking the USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against American servicemen and an act of war against the United States;

6. That fearing conflict with Israel, the White House deliberately prevented the U.S. Navy from coming to the defense of the Liberty by recalling Sixth Fleet military rescue support while the ship was under attack; evidence of the recall of rescue aircraft is supported by statements of Captain Joe Tully, Commanding Officer of the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga, and Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis, the Sixth Fleet carrier division commander, at the time of the attack; never before in American naval history has a rescue mission been cancelled when an American ship was under attack;

7. That although the Liberty was saved from almost certain destruction through the heroic efforts of the ship’s Captain, William L. McGonagle (MOH), and his brave crew, surviving crewmembers were later threatened with ‘‘court-martial, imprisonment or worse’’ if they exposed the truth; and were abandoned by their own government;

8. That due to the influence of Israel’s powerful supporters in the United States, the White House deliberately covered up the facts of this attack from the American people;

9. That due to continuing pressure by the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, this attack remains the only serious naval incident that has never been thoroughly investigated by Congress; to this day, no surviving crewmember has been permitted to officially and publicly testify about the attack;

10. That there has been an official cover-up without precedent in American naval history.

——

On 30 September 2016, I headlined «Why Does U.S. Gov’t. Donate $38B to an Enemy Nation?» and provided my answer to that title-question. But, regardless, the fact is that the U.S. government’s subservience to the government of Israel is recognized by some Americans, and it’s acceptable to most Americans, since there is no well-funded organized movement in the U.S. to oust from Congress all of the Senators and Representatives who have voted for the continuation of America’s formerly $3 billion-per-year and now $3.8 billion-per-year annual donation to that apartheid enemy nation.

On 15 August 2017, Philip Giraldi at unz dot com, headlined «Israel's Chorus Sings Again: Less than total loyalty to Israel is un-American», and he opened:

Congress is on a one-month summer recess. You would think that given the recent turmoil over the bill to eliminate Obamacare and the upcoming debate over tax policy the nation’s legislators would be back in their home districts talking to the voters. Some are, but many are not. «More than fifty» Congressmen are off on an all-expenses paid trip to Israel to demonstrate that «there is no stronger bond with any ally we have.» Yes indeed, a congress which cannot pass legislation to benefit the American people finds that it has only one voice when it comes to our troublesome little client state that also doubles as the leading recipient of U.S. tax dollars in the world.

How do they do it? They do it by relentless courting of the congress critters and media talking heads, all of whom know how to repay a favor. Some readers might be asking how Congress (spouses included) can accept these free trips from a foreign government? The current trip is estimated to be costing $10,000 per person. Well, the answer is that they can’t do it directly, which would be illegal, so the clever rascals at the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC) have created an «charitable» foundation that pays the bills. It’s called the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF). AIEF is a tax exempt 501(c)3 foundation that had income of more than $80 million in 2015. As it is tax exempt that means that its activities are, in effect, being subsidized by the U.S. Treasury so the congressmen are being «charitably educated» while they are also being wined and dined and propagandized in part on the taxpayers’ dime.

If this were instead a Saud-run working vacation for members of the U.S. Congress, it would be far more repulsive to America’s voters than it is when Israel’s government does this. Whereas America’s old right, like the KKK, have knee-jerk hatred of Jews, America’s new right, like Southern Baptists and the rest of America’s fundamentalist Christians, support Israel because ‘God gave it to the Jews’. Plus, most Jews are likewise knee-jerk supporters of Israel’s government against Palestinians. And, most liberals also have been that, because Jews generally are voters for Democratic Party candidates. Thus, a huge solid political base exists in the U.S. for continuation of the U.S. government’s donations to, and alliance with, the government of Israel, notwithstanding Israel’s slaughter of America’s sailors on the USS Liberty, and the treason of Israel’s spy in America Jonathan Pollard, and any other warring by Israel against the U.S. But it doesn’t exist for continuation of the U.S. government’s alliance with the Sauds. The Saud family is the wealthiest on the planet. They can afford to pay — in favors if not in cash — for Israel’s government to carry their PR water in Washington DC. Thus: Israel does the lobbying and PR work for the foreign policies of the Saud family, in Washington, and the Palestinians obtain an outsized proportion of their Muslim support from Shia Muslims instead of from Sunni Muslims.

Back on 21 August 2012, the New York Times headlined «Skinny-Dipping in Israel Casts Unwanted Spotlight on Congressional Travel». Little has changed, except that a Republican is the President now, and a Democrat was the President then. In foreign policies, the U.S. President does whatever the U.S. and Israeli billionaires allow him to do, and that doesn’t change much over the decades — say, ever since 1967, at least. Americans are sympathetic to the apartheid racist nation of Israel, but not to the outright dictatorship of Saudi Arabia. So: the excuses to overthrow Iran’s government are in line with Israel’s stated fears against Iran but not with the Sauds’ stated fears against Iran. Israel’s government is thus the front-man in the operation.

On the Sauds’ side of this Israel-Saud control of the U.S. government, that control is practiced almost entirely behind-the-scenes. But it’s just as real. Their attacks against the United States included the ones on 9/11, which however relied heavily upon inside participation by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, as well as by a few others in the U.S. government at the time — but the U.S. government has consistently blocked this information from reaching the U.S. public. The Sauds control the foreign policies of the United States government even more than does the government of Israel, and much more quietly, because the Sauds have virtually unlimited wealth at their disposal.

The coup de gras of all this, is that Iran — the nation that the U.S. aristocracy raped in 1953 and that both the Sauds and Israel want to destroy — is the nation (and the only nation) that in U.S. courts has been blamed for having been behind the 9/11 attacks and has been fined $10.5 billion to restitute victims of the 9/11 attacks, which Iran wasn’t at all involved with and which was a 100% Sunni operation (but with inside help from a few American insiders — none of them Shia).

These things might seem impossible, at least in the view of almost all Americans, whose ‘news’ that we read, see, and hear, doesn’t include much, if any, of these facts. But they’re not just true, they’re easy to explain, once one recognizes that the U.S. isn’t a democracy but a dictatorship. And, of course, being a dictatorship, our press doesn’t report to the public such facts, as that the Sauds (in conjunction with U.S. insiders) did the 9/11 attacks, and that in 1967, Israel intentionally targeted and attacked the USS Liberty and almost succeeded at sinking it, and that all of this has been covered-up by the U.S. President at the time, and by all subsequent U.S. Administrations. Facts such as these, indicate what type of bipartisan dictatorship this country really is, which is the sort of information that such a dictatorship would most prohibit its public from knowing — much less, from understanding. But it’s all documented, right here, in the links, and in the links within the links, in this article. And that’s just some of the evidence for it. (There is much more.)


---------------------------
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


Trump Damaged Democracy, Silicon Valley Will Finish It Off

Donald Trump’s rise is, in a sense, just one symptom of the damage the tech oligarchs are doing to America.
JOEL KOTKIN
08.27.17 12:00 AM ET
When Democrats made their post-election populist “Better Deal” pitch, they took a strong stance against pharmaceutical and financial monopolies. But they conspicuously left out the most profound antitrust challenge of our time—the tech oligarchy.
The information sector, notes The Economist, is now the most consolidated sector of the American economy.

The Silicon Valley and its Puget Sound annex dominated by Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft increasingly resemble the pre-gas crisis Detroit of the Big Three. Tech’s Big Five all enjoy overwhelming market shares—for example Google controls upwards of 80 percent of global search—and the capital to either acquire or crush any newcomers. They are bringing us a hardly gilded age of prosperity but depressed competition, economic stagnation, and, increasingly, a chilling desire to control the national conversation.
Jeff Bezos harrumphs through his chosen megaphone, The Washington Post, about how “democracy dies in the dark.” But if Bezos—the world’s third richest man, who used the Post first to undermine Bernie Sanders and then to wage ceaseless war on the admittedly heinous Donald Trump—really wants to identify the biggest long-term threat to individual and community autonomy, he should turn on the lights and look in the mirror.
Trump’s election and volatile presidency may pose a more immediate menace, but when he is gone, or neutered by lack of support, the oligarchs’ damage to our democracy and culture will continue to metastasize.

continued at:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-damaged-democracy-silicon-valley-will-finish-it-off
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
There’s a Reason Why Washington and London Won’t Quit the Business of Killing

https://journal-neo.org/2017/08/25/there-s-a-reason-why-washington-and-london-won-t-quit-the-business-of-killing/

Vladimir Odintsov

On August 23, a coalition of Arab countries, led by Saudi Arabia, carried yet another barbaric bombardment in the Yemeni capital of Sana’a, which resulted in the death of at least 35 people.

On July 18, at least 20 civilians fell victims of a Saudi air strike in the Yemeni Taiz Governorate, as it’s been reported by the Daily Mail with a special reference to the United Nations.

Since the beginning of the civil war in Yemen in 2014, more than 10,000 civilians perished in the poorest country of the Arabian Peninsula, while another 3 million were displaced. In March 2015, Saudi Arabia unleashed an armed aggression against this state without any sort of approval from the UN, but with an extensive amount of military and political support coming from the United States and Britain. Such acts of aggression have for a long time been a trademark of Washington, but now it’s allies seem to be willing to follow in its footsteps. The Saudi coalition carries on air strikes against targets of the Houthis resistance to this very day, which results in massive civilian casualties, with hundreds of victims being added regularly to the rising death toll.

As a result of continuous attacks carried out by Saudi armed forces schools, hospitals and other vital civil infrastructure are being routinely reduced to the ground, while electricity and drinking water supplies are getting increasingly scarce even in large cities. With the silent approval of Washington and London, the Saudi coalition is taking every effort to make sure that no Yemeni national survives this conflict, using the tactics that can only be described as genocidal.

And the list of war crimes committed by the Saudi coalition is getting large by the day largely due to the ever-growing flow of various weapons sold to Riyadh by the United States, Britain and other Western powers. Today, the British and American arms manufactures receive fabulous profits from their indirect participation in the Yemeni military campaign.

Saudi Arabia alone in recent years received over a hundred billion worth of arms from American military manufacturers, while Donald Trump pledged to carry on the business tactics pursued by his predecessors by signing a deal on the shipment of another 110 billion worth of arms to Riaydh.

The latest annual report issued by the British Committee for Defense and Security shows that in 2016 alone the UK received 6 billion pounds from the sale of arms, with a half of this some coming from to the Middle East, where violent conflicts are raging. For more than 10 consecutive years the UK remains the second largest arms supplier in the world after the United States.

At the same time, London keeps training pilots for the Saudi Air Force, the very people that would bomb Yemeni residential areas. The British Supreme Court, which usually defends “human rights”, did not even want to consider the formal appealissued by the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), which had previously urged the kingdom to put an end to the supply of military equipment to Saudi Arabia.

In turn, Amnesty International would accuse the United States and Britain for handing over weapons to Saudi Arabia for it to be able to carry on its aggression against Yemen since March 2015, delivering more than five billion dollars worth of weapons.

The fact that for London any armed conflict is perfect opportunity to sell its weapons is vividly confirmed by the recently declassified documents of the National Archives of the United Kingdom showing, in particular, that the British government considered Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 to be an “unprecedented opportunity” to obtain super profits from the sale of weapons to the countries of the Persian Gulf . Back in the day UK’s Minister for Defence Procurement, Alan Clarke would use exact same words in his letter to British PM of the time Margaret Thatcher, noting that this was an unprecedented opportunity for DESO (the Department of Defense Export Administration).”

As declassified documents show, “an unprecedented opportunity” for Clark was the expected response of the US and its allies to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and the outbreak of military conflict in the region. The fact that wars have always been considered as a chance to sell more arms to other states has recently been confirmed by The Guardian.

Mind you that last May former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice admitted that the US invasion of Iraq launched in 2003 had nothing in common with establishing democracy in this country, the goal was to overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a pro-Washington regime in this country . This invasion would then result in a civil war that gave birth to ISIS.

Of the other declassified documents of 1983, it follows that Britain had not interest in stopping Iraqi production of chemical weapons, since British exporters were involved in this trade, according to the documents of the UK Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

So, if for residents of the Middle East wars means death, poverty and grief, Washington and London believe that wars is a perfect opportunity to get even richer at the expense of somebody else’s blood!


---------------------------
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
Theocracy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy

Theocracy is a form of government in which a deity is the source from which all authority derives. The Oxford English Dictionary has this definition:

1. a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.

1.1. the commonwealth of Israel from the time of Moses until the election of Saul as King.[2][3]

An ecclesiocracy is a situation where the religious leaders assume a leading role in the state, but do not claim that they are instruments of divine revelation: for example, the prince-bishops of the European Middle Ages, where the bishop was also the temporal ruler. Such a state may use the administrative hierarchy of the religion for its own administration, or it may have two 'arms'—administrators and clergy—but with the state administrative hierarchy subordinate to the religious hierarchy. Theocracy differs from theonomy, the latter of which is government based on divine law.[4]

The papacy in the Papal States occupied a middle ground between theocracy and ecclesiocracy, since the Pope did not claim he was a prophet who received revelation from God and translated it into civil law.

Religiously endorsed monarchies fall between theocracy and ecclesiocracy, according to the relative strengths of the religious and political organs.

Most forms of theocracy are oligarchic in nature, involving rule of the many by the few, some of whom so anointed under claim of divine commission.

Etymology

The word theocracy originates from the Greek θεοκρατία meaning "the rule of God". This in turn derives from θεός (theos), meaning "god", and κρατέω (krateo), meaning "to rule." Thus the meaning of the word in Greek was "rule by god(s)" or human incarnation(s) of god(s).

The term was initially coined by Flavius Josephus in the first century A.D. to describe the characteristic government of the Jews. Josephus argued that while mankind had developed many forms of rule, most could be subsumed under the following three types: monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy. The government of the Jews, however, was unique. Josephus offered the term "theocracy" to describe this polity, ordained by Moses, in which God is sovereign and his word is law.[5]

Josephus' definition was widely accepted until the Enlightenment era, when the term started to collect more universalistic[clarification needed] and negative connotations, especially in Hegel's hands. The first recorded English use was in 1622, with the meaning "sacerdotal government under divine inspiration" (as in Biblical Israel before the rise of kings); the meaning "priestly or religious body wielding political and civil power" is recorded from 1825.

Synopsis

In some religions, the ruler, usually a king, was regarded as the chosen favorite of God (or gods) who could not be questioned, sometimes even being the descendant of, or a god in their own right. Today, there is also a form of government where clerics have the power and the supreme leader could not be questioned in action. From the perspective of the theocratic government, "God himself is recognized as the head" of the state,[6] hence the term theocracy, from the Koine Greek θεοκρατία "rule of God", a term used by Josephus for the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.[7] Taken literally or strictly, theocracy means rule by God or gods and refers primarily to an internal "rule of the heart", especially in its biblical application. The common, generic use of the term, as defined above in terms of rule by a church or analogous religious leadership, would be more accurately described as an ecclesiocracy.[8]

In a pure theocracy, the civil leader is believed to have a personal connection with the civilization's religion or belief. For example, Moses led the Israelites, and Muhammadled the early Muslims. There is a fine line between the tendency of appointing religious characters to run the state and having a religious-based government. According to the Holy Books, Prophet Joseph was offered an essential governmental role just because he was trustworthy, wise and knowledgeable (Quran 12: 54–55). As a result of the Prophet Joseph's knowledge and also due to his ethical and genuine efforts during a critical economic situation, the whole nation was rescued from a seven-year drought (Quran 12: 47–48). When religions have a "holy book," it is used as a direct message from God. Law proclaimed by the ruler is also considered a divine revelation, and hence the law of God. As to the Prophet Muhammad ruling, "The first thirteen of the Prophet's twenty-three year career went on totally apolitical and non-violent. This attitude partly changed only after he had to flee from Mecca to Medina.This hijra, or migration, would be a turning point in the Prophet's mission and would mark the very beginning of the Muslim calendar. Yet, interestingly, the Prophet did not establish a theocracy in Medina. Instead of a polity defined solely by Islam, he founded a territorial polity based on religious pluralism. This is evident in a document called the ’Charter of Medina’, which the Prophet signed with the leaders of the other community in the city."[9] According to the Quran, Prophets were not after power or material resources. For example in surah 26 verses (109, 127, 145, 164, 180), the Koran repeatedly quotes from Prophets, Noah, Hud, Salih, Lut, and Shu'aib that: ” I do not ask you for it any payment; my payment is only from the Lord of the worlds.” While, in theocracy many aspects of the holy book are overshadowed by material powers. Due to be considered divine, the regime entitles itself to interpret verses to its own benefit and abuse them out of the context for its political aims. An ecclesiocracy, on the other hand, is a situation where the religious leaders assume a leading role in the state, but do not claim that they are instruments of divine revelation. For example, the prince-bishops of the European Middle Ages, where the bishop was also the temporal ruler. Such a state may use the administrative hierarchy of the religion for its own administration, or it may have two 'arms'—administrators and clergy—but with the state administrative hierarchy subordinate to the religious hierarchy. The papacy in the Papal States occupied a middle ground between theocracy and ecclesiocracy, since the pope did not claim he was a prophet who received revelation from God and translated it into civil law.

Religiously endorsed monarchies fall between these two poles, according to the relative strengths of the religious and political organs.

Theocracy is distinguished from other, secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held "By the Grace of God". In the most common usage of the term, some civil rulers are leaders of the dominant religion (e.g., the Byzantine emperor as patron and defender of the official Church); the government proclaims it rules on behalf of God or a higher power, as specified by the local religion, and divine approval of government institutions and laws. These characteristics apply also to a caesaropapist regime. The Byzantine Empire however was not theocratic since the patriarch answered to the emperor, not vice versa; similarly in Tudor England the crown forced the church to break away from Rome so the royal (and, especially later, parliamentary) power could assume full control of the now Anglican hierarchy and confiscate most church property and income.

Secular governments can also co-exist with a state religion or delegate some aspects of civil law to religious communities. For example, in Israel marriage is governed by officially recognized religious bodies who each provide marriage services for their respected adherents, yet no form of civil marriage (free of religion, for atheists, for example) exists nor marriage by non-recognized minority religions.


---------------------------
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
Journalist Interrogated, Fired For Story Linking CIA And Syria Weapons Flights

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-28/journalist-interrogated-fired-story-linking-cia-and-syria-weapons-flights

Report: Saudi, UAE weapons end up with armed groups

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/08/saudi-arabia-uae-implicated-arms-transfers-170827115154085.html

Investigative journalist says Azerbaijan-owned carrier used to move large quantities of heavy weapons to conflict zones.

An investigative report by a Bulgarian journalist says Saudi Arabia and the UAE have supplied Eastern European-made weapons to armed groups inSyria and Iraq using different intermediaries and diplomatic cover to mask their points of origin and final destinations.

The report, authored by Dilyana Gaytandzhiev, claims Saudi Arabia, UAE, the US military and several countries have used Azerbaijani state-owned airlines Silk Way Airlines to transport large quantities of weapons that ended up in the hands of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, known as ISIS) group, Kurdish fighters in the Middle East and armed groups in Africa.

"At least 350 diplomatic Silk Way Airlines flights transported weapons for war conflicts across the world over the last 3 years," says the report, published in Trud, Bulgaria's largest circulated newspaper.

"The state aircrafts of Azerbaijan carried on-board tens of tons of heavy weapons and ammunition headed to terrorists under the cover of diplomatic flights."

According to the report, "Saudi Arabia has purchased huge quantities of Eastern European weapons and exported them using Silk Way Airline's diplomatic flights.

"In 2016, 2017 there were 23 diplomatic flights carrying weapons from Bulgaria, Serbia and Azerbaijan to Jeddah and Riyadh".

Diplomatic flights

Gaytandzhiev says in the report: "The Kingdom [of Saudi Arabia] does not buy those weapons for itself, as the Saudi army uses only Western weapons and those weapons are not compatible with its military standard.

"Therefore, the weapons transported on diplomatic flights end up in the hands of terrorist militants in Syria and Yemen that Saudi Arabia officially admits supporting."

Citing leaked documents that detail flight paths and weapons cargo of the diplomatic flights, the report shows one aircraft loaded with mortars and anti-tank grenades including SPG-9 and GP-25 which were later discovered by the Iraqi army a month ago in an ISIL warehouse in Mosul.

Al Jazeera could not independently confirm the claims made in Gaytandzhiev's report.

The US news outlet Buzzfeed published an investigation in 2016 detailing how obscure and small American defence contractors were awarded big contracts by the US military to arm and equip Syrian opposition fighters using Eastern European weapons.

Saudi Arabia has publicly expressed its support for Syrian fighters trying to topple the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad.

Multiple attempts by Al Jazeera by phone and email to reach Silk Way Airlines in Baku for a reaction to the Trud story proved unsuccessful.

Gaytandzhiev said on Thursday in a tweet that she was fired from her job at Trud after she was interrogated by the Bulgarian national security which tried to find out her sources.

She said she first got suspicious of the weapons transferred to Syria when she found Bulgarian-made weapons at the hands "terrorists" in Aleppo while reporting on the Syrian war there.

She said that she then traced those weapons to its Bulgarian manufacturer only to find out that those weapons were legally exported to Saudi Arabia, which in turn supplied it to "terrorists" in Syria.

'Hands of terrorists'

Speaking to Al Jazeera by phone on Sunday from Bulgaria, Gaytandzhiev said: "Saudi Arabia, UAE and the US must stop using the cover of Silk Way Airlines diplomatic flights to supply Eastern European weapons which end up in the hands of terrorists around the world. Diplomatic flights are exempt from checks and inspection."

A joint investigation by Al Jazeera and the New York Times revealed a joint CIA-Saudi operation that supplied weapons to Syrian fighters by shipping through Jordan.

Many of the weapons, the investigation revealed, were stolen by Jordanian officers of the General Intelligence Department.

Some of the stolen weapons were used in a shooting in November of 2016 that killed two Americans and three others at a police training facility in Amman.

Historically, the United States has relied on Saudi Arabia to clandestinely finance weapons shipment to armed groups around the world from the Nicaraguan Sandinistas to Afghan Mujahideen in the 1970s and '80s to more recent and current Syrian and Iraqi fighters.


---------------------------
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 ... 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 98 99 100
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-05-03, 12:52:03