I thought you might want to check this article:
http://www.forward.com/articles/13388/
Cheers
Re:Tutu's visit ), I can not believe israel said tutu entered Gaza illegally , he Should have gone via an israeli Exit , not rafah which is an egyptian exit
Glad to see this important visit has been front page news all over the major news organisations - NOT!
It's hilarious - in a sad sort of way - to see the Israelis sulking like spoilt prepubescent girls over the visit. Especially when they start complaining about Tutu's 'bias' - never mind the fact that he said he had planned to investigate Palestinian targetting of Israeli civilians, only the Israelis wouldn't let him in.
Tony,
See this. This is crazy
http://www.foxnews.com/story/
0,2...,359501,00.html
Falastini Hurr | Homepage | 05.29.08 - 12:41 pm |
They are completely ignorant on this channel, you have no idea. Besides it's Fox News, the most hated channel in the world.
I normally do not repeat myself, but what I said earlier is still germane to this current post. The Israelis are morally and legally culpable, it was an specific act of murder. There are no excuses for what happened, and this investigation should open the following accusations and investigate them with clarity.
What we have here is a war crime, plain and simple. Let it be known that war conventions necessitate the safety of civilians. Fifteen shells.
The Zionists have a never ending supply of weapons, mostly provided by the United States. Billions of dollars given so that they may terrorize a mostly unarmed people, where close to half the population are children. Mercilessly pounding them day after day on the most densely populated real estate in the world, the Gaza strip.
What makes this crass are two points - first, Israel initially had a 300 meter rule for firing shells of this nature because the accuracy of these projectiles is usually a couple of hundred meters off. Earlier this year they purposefully reduced their guidelines to 100 meters. Second, shells of this nature must only be fired when there is a immanent threat - according to Israelis own command confession, the rockets they alleged were fired by whomever the day before!
This tell us two things - what was done was a bold faced war crime. It also tells us how valuable Zionists believe Palestinian lives to be, worthless. It reminds one of the statement many years ago of Manachem Begen (previous prime minister) - "Palestinians are animals walking on two legs."
The question that this evokes is simple - does someone who acts this way, and obviously believes that the Palestinians are worthless (by this atrocity) deserve to run a government, let alone the fourth largest military force in the world? Justice must roll like a river.
They almost had no room in the hospital morgues, they had to be taken to two different hospitals because they were already filled with the bodies of the massacred. One body after another pulled from the rubble of an apartment. They had to be laid to rest in a cemetery under construction in Beit Hanoun because no other cemetery has enough land for them to be buried together, mostly of one family. As they were buried two Israeli drones flew overhead.
BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE LARGEST AND MOST POWERFUL TERRORIST NATION IN THE WORLD, IN SYNC WITH THE FOURTH LARGEST TERRORIST ARMED FORCES IN THE WORLD. BILLIONS OF YOUR (USA) TAX DOLLARS GOING INTO THE MURDER OF ALMOST DEFENSELESS PEOPLE!
Dunkin' Donuts Pulls Ad w/ Rachael Ray because of a keffiyeh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J...h?
v=JE7jFV2vSEA
To summarize, this means that they are guilty deeply in the normal forms of conventions and international law, of the protection of the civilian population. Systemically, for their reduction of yardage for the use of weapons like this, and the weapons were fired with no immanent threat because the said rockets were fired the night before, by the confession of the very crew that fired! I am sure Tutu has these facts in front of him, and the ruling should be made accordingly.
They specifically targeted these homes, and no confession of "Israel is deeply sorry" will suffice. Israel is always "deeply sorry," they are sorry every day of the week! "So sorry we bombed your home with rockets, shells, bombs, etc. We were trying to get the terrorist, and those children were just in the way."
Israel is also sorry that the chief reason for death by weapon of children in the Occupied Territories is gunshot wound to the head administered by the IOF! "Sorry" does not cut it, "you have the right to legal recourse" does not cut it (especially in the corrupt, racist, and skewed legal system which imprisons innocent people with impunity and taints the entire institutional structure). Are they sorry for forced pauperism, severe restriction of movement, enforcing starvation, house demolitions, constant spurious arrests, building of illegal settlements, theft of resources, massive continuous destruction of agriculture (tree uprooting, etc.), pouring waste from their illegal settlements into the drinking water, strangulation of land, air and sea, indiscriminate disproportionate use of violence against civilians, using human shields, and denying critical care to patients for whom supplies and medical equipments have been cut off (I am sure I have missed much)? Yes, they are "sorry" 24 hours a day, seven days a week - some "cry" after they kill innocent people.
I am sure the good bishop is keeping these facts in mind as he makes his rulings. Worse that Apartheid, it is a veritable genocide.
v | Homepage | 05.29.08 - 4:42 pm |
It has been a mess over there for more than 3,000 years now. We are not sure when it really started, it's 3,000 at least because the holy writings (Bible, Q'ran) give us some historical sheets with the King Solomon (that you can find in the Q'ran) and his son David. Maybe the story of David and Goliath is just b/s, it never happened, but Philistines has always been a mess for the longest period of time. It's also the only country in the world that is subject through historical changes; so there'll never be peace over there. They'll destroy churches replacing them with mosques, then they'll destroy mosques replacing them with churches or synagogues. It all started with tribal rivalries, when the holy writings did not exist yet. Back then the israeli slaves belonged to the warriors of Philistines. The worse is that people should abolish their religion if they want peace but too few of them will be able to trade their religion for peace, so they'll keep waging wars over there.
Steve, wars over there had nothing to do with religion. Not even the current zionist one, which is all about plunder and colonialism.
That the "hibiru" had adapted old mesopotamian and persian epics and invented a god-realtor for their own is another matter altogether.
Be it in old times, or in current times (babybush) you'll always find characters trying to manipulate the public by saying "god speaks directly to me and told me so and so"
Religion has nothing to do with these paranoid deliriums.
-
"It has been a mess over there for more than 3,000 years now. We are not sure when it really started, it's 3,000 at least because the holy writings (Bible, Q'ran) give us some historical sheets with the King Solomon (that you can find in the Q'ran) and his son David."
------------
The next thing you will be telling me is the Gilgamesh epic is true...LOL Please believe me Steve, I am not trying to be crass - but your Sunday school teacher (common purveyors of myth) is wrong. There has been no constant clash here, except in the minds of those who wish to exploit the region. People got along famously here until the Zionist junta arrived. I know it is not your fault, it is what you were taught, but please understand it's source - relegate it to the "manifest destiny" X file.
HISTORICAL MYTHS REGARDING ISRAEL/PALESTINE
Lucia | 05.29.08 - 6:16 pm | Of course not, not until they wrote b/s in the Bible (David and Goliath).
They called them the "israelis" and the "philistines" way before it was written by the Bible, and the Bible is completely anachronistic on the types of clothes they were wearing.
It was tribal rivalries for sure with the Edomites perhaps. But now I would say it does have a problem with religions because it's indicated in the Bible and the Q'ran. So yes it's the fault of the religions, 100% sure. If it was not the case, and I want you to think about that, then why people are not able to give up on their religion?
v | Homepage | 05.29.08 - 7:03 pm Have you heard about the suicide daggers? It was during the occupation of the roman empire that the Jews were going postal on the roman legions. There are many many cases in History, the most extraordinary ones are in Jerusalem and Hebron. I never said it was only a fight between Paletinians and Jews, it's been a fight for autonomy in the region for many milleniums (the Persians, the Egyptians, the roman empire, the Jews, the Palestinians, the Jordanians....etc). Please don't tell me it is peaceful over there, I won't believe you at all 
There never was a Jewish people, only a Jewish religion, and the exile also never happened -- hence there was no return. Zand rejects most of the stories of national-identity formation in the Bible, including the exodus from Egypt and, most satisfactorily, the horrors of the conquest under Joshua. It's all fiction and myth that served as an excuse for the establishment of the State of Israel, he asserts.
-
That's exactly what I said. It's all b/s but please notice that the Bible and the Q'ran keeps in memory this mess. Why then? There is a reason,
and I'm trying to find it out all by myself instead on relying by external sources. Solomon's mentioned in the Q'ran, correct? I'm working on some research, it is going to take me decades to elucidate this problem because the farther you go down in History, and the more evasive it becomes. History became more precise only during the Xth century. So it means that all facts before this period are not necessarly true. Example: Socrates never wrote his books by himself, people added more stuffs through the century.
I'm not keeping my hopes high but the translation of the assyrian tablets should give us some key factors inside the region. It's too bad they did not invent the paper over there, they had to write everything on stones.
I pasted the above prior to seeing your post, Steve. However, the philistine have been known as "sea people", coming from Crete and mixing with the indigenous Canaanites.
In Egypt, a people called the "Peleset" --generally identified with the Philistines-- appear in the Medinet Habu inscription of Ramesses III, where he describes his victory against the Sea Peoples, as well as the Onomasticon of Amenope (late Twentieth Dynasty) and Papyrus Harris I, a summary of Ramesses III's reign written in the reign of Ramesses IV.
Nineteenth-century Bible scholars identified the land of the Philistines (Philistia) with Palastu and Pilista in Assyrian inscriptions, according to Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897).
-
I know all of that Lucia.
Hibiru, habiru, and similar denominations meaning "from beyond the river" were the nomadics from Mesopotamia that invaded the Fertile Crescent. That is, what is known as "jews or hebrews".
More info in Wiki: habiru
But I can't say it's all b/s either you see. For example Gaza is mentioned in the Old Testament, and it was one of the five cities belonging to the Philistines, and it's the burial place of Hashim ibn Adb Manaf, the great-grandfather of the Prophet Muhammad. So yes it's also about religion, we can't really deny that. Some facts are true, other facts are wrong, we just have to know which ones are, and for that you need your human judgement to investigate on many many reliable and unreliable sources.
There are wierd stuffs anyway. For example in the Muslim countries, they often say that Jesus was not crucified on the cross and it was Juda instead.
We just need to do comparative history; lots of people are interested in globalizations, but they never cared to normalize History on this globe; so depending on which country you are from, there will always be a place in which they tell you lies.
Ole! Ole! Ole!
You cannot take a gram of truth from the Old Testament, Steve. (This said with no pun intended for believers). You only have to think the depiction of god that is made in the Bible: a murdeous vengenful, bloodthirsty individual, i.e., the most unthinkable idea of a god that can be.
The Old Testament is a work of propaganda, mixing perhaps bits of historical fragments with lots of stories borrowed from the mesopotamian epics. That'S all. And then the christians revived it, translated it, and made it the most printed book ever. Go figure!
-
David and Solomon are no more historical figures than King Arthur.
-
Lucia | 05.29.08 - 8:19 pm |
Ahem read again what I previously wrote.
Are you a roman catholic? Because it seems like you are denying the whole orthodox religion by implying that, and even the New Testament.
Así mismo, como la revelación de la Escritura es progresiva, el Nuevo Testamento trae a la luz enseñanzas de las que solo se aludían en el Antiguo Testamento. El libro de Hebreos describe cómo Jesús es el verdadero Sumo Sacerdote, y Su sacrificio único reemplaza todos los sacrificios anteriores que fueron solo semejanzas de ese sacrificio. El Antiguo Testamento expone la Ley, compuesta de dos partes: los mandamientos y las bendiciones/maldiciones que provienen de la obediencia o desobediencia de esos mandamientos. El Nuevo Testamento clarifica que Dios dio esos mandamientos para mostrar al hombre su necesidad de salvación y nunca se pretendió que fueran un medio para la salvación (Romanos 3:19).
El Antiguo Testamento describe el sistema sacrificial que Dios dio a los israelitas para cubrir temporalmente sus pecados. El Nuevo Testamento clarifica que este sistema era solo una alusión al sacrificio de Cristo, únicamente a través del cual se encuentra la salvación (Hechos 4:12; Hebreos 10:4-10). El Antiguo Testamento vio el paraíso perdido; el Nuevo Testamento muestra cómo el paraíso fue recobrado para la raza humana, a través del segundo Adán (Cristo) y cómo un día será restaurado. El Antiguo Testamento declara que el hombre fue separado de Dios a causa del pecado (Génesis 3), y el Nuevo Testamento declara que ahora el hombre puede ser restaurado a su relación con Dios (Romanos 3-6). El Antiguo Testamento predijo la vida del Mesías. Los Evangelios registran principalmente la vida de Jesús, y la Epístolas interpretan Su vida y cómo debemos responder a todo lo que Él ha hecho y hará.
Nuevamente, mientras que el Nuevo Testamento es la “aclaración” del cuadro, el Antiguo Testamento no es menos importante. Además de contener los cimientos para el Nuevo Testamento, sin el Antiguo Testamento no tendríamos una base para sostenernos contra el error de las perversiones políticamente correctas de nuestra sociedad, en la que la evolución es vista como creadora de todas las especies a través de millones de años (en lugar de ser ellas el resultado de la creación especial de Dios en seis días literales). Aceptaríamos la mentira de que los matrimonios y la unidad familiar son una estructura evolutiva que debe continuar cambiando ante los cambios sociales, en vez de ser vista como un diseño de Dios con el propósito de criar buenos hijos y para la protección de aquellos que de otra manera serían utilizados y abusados (más frecuentemente las mujeres y los niños).
De la misma manera, sin el Antiguo Testamento, no entenderíamos las promesas que Dios cumplirá en un futuro en la nación judía. Como resultado, no veríamos propiamente que el período de la Tribulación es un lapso de siete años en el cual Él trabajará específicamente con la nación judía que lo rechazó en Su primera venida, pero que lo recibirá en Su segunda venida. No entenderíamos cómo el futuro reinado de Cristo de 1,000 años, encaja en Sus promesas a los judíos, ni cómo los gentiles encajarían en
http://www.gotquestions.org/
Espa...Testamento.html
David and Solomon are no more historical figures than King Arthur
It's very possible. But if David is, so is Goliath. Things changed recently after a recent archaeological discovery 3 years ago in the land of Yisrael. They found a stone with the inscription of "Goliath" (the city of Goliath) but I haven't been convinced yet because the original world in assyrian is "alwt", then they say that the pronunciation through the times changed, from "gath" to what we know now and it's called "goliath". So I'm going to ask to a friend what she thinks about it, since she's an expert in assyrian/aramaic scriptures.
Don't forget that "David and Goliath" is a story that also exists in other holy writings than the Old Testament.
For sure they keep tracking this story through all the holy writings.
Steve, the catholic church forbade reading the old testament for many years. Only accepted it since concilio vaticano II, if I am not mistaken.
I -anyway- read the old testament when I felt like, and never trusted it, even in my childhood when all those stories seemed kind of exotic to me. Common sense simply prevents me from believing it. It is beyond me (as many things the pope(s) said, are too.
All that stuff explaining the old testament by interpreting it through the new one, seem a load of crap to me. Actually Jesuschrist turned everything upside down. He founded a new system of belief of his own. Yet more; 99 per cent of what the catholic church (or any other christian one, for that matter) says -and/or does- has nothing to do with Christ's preachings, which are the only reliable source for anyone trying to follow the christian path. So, in my view, are not convincing.
And, even so, we cannot be completely sure. Only four gospels have been "officially" acknowledged, among the many apochryphal ones existing.
-
Chika, do you remember when the spanish conquistadors christianised the people from the Americas? It's always the same silly thing with the Bible, this time it was "Maria de la Guadalupe" that appeared in Mexico.
Hilarious.
Steven Rix | 05.29.08 - 8:55 pm | I forgot to mention that I don't even know the odds with all these names we would have to go through a statistical methods to be sure 100%. David is a common name anyway, but not Goliath. Michel also is a common name (it comes from the name Mishayal).
Oh what the heck, we'll never know. This is why people should give up on their religion for peace, this is exactly why.
"I never said it was only a fight between Paletinians and Jews, it's been a fight for autonomy in the region for many milleniums (the Persians, the Egyptians, the roman empire, the Jews, the Palestinians, the Jordanians....etc). Please don't tell me it is peaceful over there, I won't believe you at all"
-----------------
That's fine Steve, however, the fact of the matter is you brought it up in the context of an occupation post. Now if you want to defer to the battles that occurred in "history" that is another matter. However, keep in mind that there are epic battles worldwide, it is not merely within these regions.
Secondly, we may say that these battles arose via religious auspices, but it is another matter to say the animus is "in" the religion (or the writings) itself. Elites have classically used religious means to inflame the people, whether it be (as an example) Judaism, Muslim, or Christianity. Yet, there are entire swaths of individuals who embrace these religions that have never been given to violence.
So you need to parse the religion from the use of its writings, and the interpretations. It is quite different for someone to know that they have a grouping of fairy tales, and another to believe it word for word. It is usually the fundamentalisms that incite the violence, and are used by elites to garner wars or violence of any kind. To be frank, one can also be a scoffer at religion, hold to the sciences, and skew those also - like Darwinism, for instance (there are many examples), or in archeology as seen in the perpetuation of fairy tales to divest people of their land, like the Zionists do to the Palestinians.
Now, if we are going to reduce down to the "biblical" narrative, here is what I find to be acceptable -
A BETTER CONCLUSION TO BIBLICAL NARRATIVE
I would also refer you to a short article I wrote in August of last year -
SKEWED SCIENCE, COLONIALISM AND ETHNIC CLEANSING
I could go on, but I think this will suffice for this venue. If there are any further questions I can elaborate.
Lucia | 05.29.08 - 8:59 pm |
I'm not a believer anyway, because I think they've been trying to trap people with their religion. I noticed that believers are happier than atheists, but so what, I'm looking at the truth first. That said, I study theology (Islam, Xism) to understand the thought and the philosophical context, and I would have terrible things to say about it, but I won't say it, because it's not the right place. I collect all the holy writings from all over the world in many languages, and sometimes I check into them.
I don't work lately so I read books (theology, islamist philosophy, archeology, philosophy, history, ...etc) and I watch documentaries whenever I can. It is so good to put your hands on knowledge, but in the meantime I can't keep up like that all my life coz I need to work to make a living lol. But if I could, I think I would spend my whole life studying, it's something that makes me alive.
Knowledge is not power to me, but a social skill that should be shared by anyone else. In the medieval ages, not enough people had time to study, so knowledge that only among wealthy people. Luckily things changed after Guttenberg was able to print everything in mass but the 1st book he chose to was the Bible (yuckie).
LOL
Hasta luego
Oh what the heck, we'll never know. This is why people should give up on their religion for peace, this is exactly why.
Steven Rix | 05.29.08 - 9:03 pm
-
But the point is people need religion.
There is kind of an inner drive to transcend.
And there's nothing wrong with that, nor with religions themselves.
It is the use -abuse- others make of it what transforms religion into people's opium, as that guy said
(and as "V" is also aptly signaling)
-
Lucia | 05.29.08 - 9:34 pm |
I don't take the same intellectual approach, because we are the responsible ones that elect governments with a messianic vision. For that you'd need to change the people first before changing the institutions because they are the ones that wage wars and their vision has always been based on messianism even during the XXIst century. So of course, we can't really generalize 100% all other the world, there are different variations with cultural understandings that differ from my point of view, as well as religious variations; but denying the fact that religions are not the source of wars is simply a pure mistake, whether it pleases us or not. I'm not talking about the good side of religion, because there is one of course, I'm talking about the hidden face of religion. That said, if I refer to the case of the USA, US citizens got screwed up by their government, and the transition happened without people noticed anything during the 1960s. Between a speech of Harry Truman and the one of George Bush in less than 60 years, there are differences that make you wonder what happened in this country. It's even stranger because it was atheism that allowed this country to get rid of the Brits. So in any point of history, people always turn into atheists to justify their politics, because they want to impose their vision, then once their political goal has been accomplished, they'll still need religion to re-affirm their sovereignity. There is in another words this close association between religion and politics. Politics need religion to convince themselves, while religion does not necessarly need politics. It's the fault of our governments for the West, and it's our fault too. For the East, it depends on which country you go, but you guys have been doing the same thing than the West in a philosophical point of view, you take religion to justify wars. The Hamas did understand it, they only had to take the seeds of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 70s in Q8 so that they can fight the zionists. The zionists did it, and nobody told them anything about it, so why not the Hamas then?
For the misuse of religion, in the context of the discussion, look at a man who hits the nail on the head, Ricard Dawkins. Used within the context of the "absolute truth" of the biblical narrative, and how this influences young minds, it is quite chilling -
RELIGION AND ETHNIC CLEANSING
Now, from the misuse of science, as an example - in the years after Antebellum slavery, there was an actual re-enslavement of the Black population. This was very well put within the new book by Douglas Blackmon - "Slavery By Another Name." Where in the South, after the removal of federal troops, the actual laws were used to re-enslave freed slaves. Who were than put into a regime of deadly labor in mines, on the railroads, in coal mine, where they died like flies. Beset by "fines" and charges for false incarceration, made to work themselves to death, beaten like animals, starved, and divested of any freedoms they thought they had received after emancipation in the South.
Here is an excerpt from the book, on how they justified their acts of racist re-enslavement, using science, after they had stripped them of schools, and disenfranchised them again from the system -
"Many whites were thrilled by the patina of legitimacy presented by the new concepts of human evolution, which were being twisted to offer a genetic , seemingly objective rationale for black inferiority. The dark skinned race was capable of learning less, so blacks needed fewer and smalled schools, according to this logic. Blacks could only work effectively under the threat of a whip." pg. 107
SLAVERY BY ANOTHER NAME
Need I say more?
"The Hamas did understand it, they only had to take the seeds of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 70s in Q8 so that they can fight the zionists. The zionists did it, and nobody told them anything about it, so why not the Hamas then?"
-------------
I think you put the horse before the cart, whether there is any religious motivation to Hamas or not, who attacked who first? Who came under the auspices of colonial empire and took from whom? I'll give you a hint, it certainly was not the Palestinians.
Second, the leaders of Zionism in the main were not religious at all. In fact they were atheists. What did they do? They used and twisted Judaism, just like I posted above - elites using religion, remember? They said they could have settled anywhere in the world, but they chose the "biblical" region to get more bang for the buck.
My recommendation to you is to study a little more. Now, this does not mean to say there is no religious twisting being done by Hamas, it just says who started the process. However, the fight of the Palestinians is not based on religion, it is based on humanity - whether they are Muslims or not. It is, that is their conflict, based on divestiture of what belongs to them, and the slow genocide they experience. To be even more to the point, even suicide bombing is not motivated by religious fervor (although they might pray, just like a Christian solider does in a foxhole), they are moved by social justice.
Yes I know Richard Dawkins, he's amazing, and I'm reading your blog.
Zionist vision changed around the 60s, I think we all can agree on that.
I don't think you understand me, we agree in essence. Hamas needs the islamic philosophy if they want to get rid of the zionists, and that's what they did, and it started in the 70s. I don't see any problem with that. So that's why I said if the zionists can do it, when why should we forbid Hamas?
I wrote a post about slavery earlier today at this link:
http://advant.blogspot.com/2008/
...n.html#comments
Check the comments of "politiquesusa", that's me.
v | Homepage | 05.29.08 - 10:35 pm | The only way for the Arabs to get rid of their master is to adopt islamist philosophy, the philosophy in the land of prophecy, but it won't happen I guess because people over there don't really know in depth about islamist philosophy, it's not taught at all in schools, except if you go to theology or philosophy school, or if you are in the muslim brotherhood or minor philo-political movements like that. It can be a good thing and a bad thing too. The good thing is the transcendance of theurgic divinization, the bad thing is it's very hard to dissociate politics from philosophy.
For clarification, Benny Morris the Israeli historian has compared what they are doing to early America. His argument is that what was done to the indigenous population in America is what they are doing, and "look at the good thing" that arose out of that - "America the beautiful." They used manifest destiny as a motivation, even the founding fathers called their country the new "Israel." Now, Benny Morris' view is what you call a judgment, it is a Nazi judgment, but it is a judgment none the less.
The indigenous population fought against the colonists. Do you know how ridiculous it would sound to get up in front of a classroom and say - "the American indigenous fought because they hated the religion of the colonists; or, the indigenous population fought because they hated the whiteness of the white man." It is just as ridiculous to say that the Palestinians are fighting the Israelis because of religion, or because they are mostly European in their leadership, or because they hate "our values," or because of some other equally spurious reason. They fight, because just like the indigenous population of the Americas, they feared the loss of their land, their homes, and their way of life. I would say, without equivocation, that their fears are well founded, and to disagree with that conclusion is sheer lunacy.
I agree with you in the equal use of Islamic tenets, my point is that this rises beyond and is quite apart from mere religious disputes. However, I can see how one religio-philosophical position can be pitted against the other. I just don't want the view of the conflict to devolve to the present motivations for the current tragedy, but I can agree with you in the thrust of your hypothetical point.
v | Homepage | 05.29.08 - 10:53 pm | FYI I'm a french socialist libertarian that lives in Houston. I don't understand what happened exactly in the USA for the last decades, but it seems like the broiling frog stayed in the hot water and did not have enough time to jump out of the pan. For sure the decisions came from the US government in the 60s and they were spread in the Universities, I'm 100% categoric about that. But then why didn't people notice anything and said "Hey there is something wrong with what you are doing", that I just don't know how to explain it. It seems like they have a plan in mind, and I found some historical pieces to explain it but it's partial.
People are too busy with their own life trying to make a living. In doing so, there is a real problem though: american psychology became strong on one side, and completely irrealistic on the other side. It's called the paradox of Heiddger the Nazi. And now it would seem it's too late because it's completely anchored in the civilizational principles.
For the Founding Fathers, in european philosophy we always say that these people were in exhile because they refused the calvinism, but many of the earliest US Presidents were not really believers. So many people from all over the world disagree on this point. The skeptics will say what I said, the more categorical ones will say that the whole thing was bad since the beginning.
LOL yes the sentence "they hate our values" is completely irrational, but many people believed this guy. The wars under Bush have been propagandas.
"v | Homepage | 05.29.08 - 10:53 pm | FYI I'm a french socialist libertarian that lives in Houston. I don't understand what happened exactly in the USA for the last decades, but it seems like the broiling frog stayed in the hot water and did not have enough time to jump out of the pan. For sure the decisions came from the US government in the 60s and they were spread in the Universities, I'm 100% categoric about that. But then why didn't people notice anything and said "Hey there is something wrong with what you are doing", that I just don't know how to explain it. It seems like they have a plan in mind, and I found some historical pieces to explain it but it's partial."
-----------------
I guess you would classify me under the rubric of "the more categorical ones." Rather than belabor you with my writing at this site, I will refer you to another post -
PLUTOCRACY = DEMOCRACY ?
v | Homepage | 05.29.08 - 11:26 pm |
With your "A" sign on your blog, I know how politically you are situated lol.
I know there is a good book called "10 things my teacher lied about".
On your blog "America from the beginning was not an egalitarian, middle class society." Yes I agree with you. Have you checked my posts on advantblogspot.com? I was asking Americans if they knew anything about how the US constitution was elaborated so that it can get the approval of the South (lobbyism) but no answer so far.
On his deathbed the last words of George Washington were "we can't go back now, it's too late".
We exploded the thread with 42 messages wow.
I have to finish a book, talk to ya later gators.
Nobody cares.
Commenting by HaloScan
