RI "contributor" to the Truth Seeker?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

The old Religion card.

Postby slimmouse » Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:13 am

The "religion" card - not placed in inverted commas by accident <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START ;) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br> Works every damn time doesnt it ?<br><br> Exactly how many universal creators are there out there ?<br> <br> One is my best guess. The force which gave us natures software programmes such as the acorn, and the sperm, which give us the Oak tree or the Human being.<br><br> Only takes a few enlightened rectums however to decide to throw us of that track huh ?<br><br> The same enlightened few have done it almost ever since.<br><br> 2006 - The war on terror. A "PTB" production in association with divide and conquer films.Not much changes right ? <p></p><i></i>
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: the other Truth Seeker

Postby albion » Sun Feb 26, 2006 7:32 am

Qutb said:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The connections between extremist politics and the fringe world of conspiracy/alternative spirituality/UFOlogy/[etc] type stuff is something we should probably be more aware of.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I would say that's probably an understatement.<br><br>As for the San Diego Truth Seekers, I'm <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>almost </em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->convinced that now they're just harmless theosophists. But I do wonder about a possible historical connection (i.e. aside from just the coincidence of the name). <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=albion@rigorousintuition>albion</A> at: 2/26/06 5:26 am<br></i>
albion
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 11:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

on American values and the meaning of free speech

Postby robertdreed » Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:18 am

Recently, someone in one of the comments sections on Jeff's blog pointed toward yet another terrific blog, Unclaimed Territory, by Glenn Greenwald. <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/">glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>The guy is so articulate that on reading his posts, all I can do is admire how he covers so much ground so succinctly. One point after another, like a brilliant pool player on a run of shooting 9-ball. <br><br>I've found one of his recent posts to have a good deal of relevance to the discussion on this page <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/02/are-there-american-political-values.html">glenngreenwald.blogspot.c...alues.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Tuesday, February 21, 2006<br>Are there American political values that transcend ideology?<br><br>The British historian David Irving was sentenced yesterday by an Austrian criminal court to three years in prison for violations of an Austrian law which criminally punishes "whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media." In sum, Irving was convicted and imprisoned for expressing ideas which the Austrian Government has banned.<br><br>Every American blogger whom I found discussing this issue – from the left wing to the Far Right and everything in between – was in complete agreement regarding this event. They all unambiguously expressed the opinion that while those who deny or downplay the Holocaust are deplorable, nobody should be imprisoned or prosecuted by the State for expressing an idea, no matter how repugnant the idea might be. That sort of trans-ideological consensus is almost unheard of these days with regard to any issue, and it raises what I think are several extremely interesting and important points... <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/02/are-there-american-political-values.html">glenngreenwald.blogspot.c...alues.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 2/26/06 5:27 am<br></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: on American values and the meaning of free speech

Postby albion » Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:39 am

By the way, I happen to think the Irving sentence is a scary-bad precedent. The reason I'm not addressing it in any of my posts in this thread isn't because I'm trying to enforce "political correctness" or be divisive or anything like that, I'm just trying to figure out how the whole dynamic of disinformation works. <p></p><i></i>
albion
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 11:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: You're All Making Me Look Like antiaristo, Here....

Postby antiaristo » Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:28 am

Floyd,<br>Sorry, hadn't seen you asking for an explicit answer to your post.<br>It was implicit in what I wrote.<br><br>I believe in freedom of speech, SO LONG AS IT APPLIES ACROSS THE BOARD. But it doesn't, does it?<br><br>Some groups are "special".<br><br>I have two approaches to something I find offensive.<br><br>I can rebut it.<br>Or I can ignore it.<br>What I won't do is to forbid it.<br><br>PS Horror! The very last thing I would wish on even my own worst enemy is to make them look like antiaristo. There ARE limits: <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: on American values and the meaning of free speech

Postby antiaristo » Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:37 am

An example.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE FONT START--><span style="font-size:small;">Suicide bomb film set to shake Oscars</span><!--EZCODE FONT END--> <br><br>Pressure is rising for Hollywood <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong><!--EZCODE FONT START--><span style="font-size:small;">to disqualify</span><!--EZCODE FONT END--></strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> a controversial movie about Palestinian jihadists <br><br>Emma Forrest in Los Angeles<br>Sunday February 26, 2006<br>The Observer <br><br><br>The preview posters for Paradise Now declare, 'From the most unexpected place, a bold new call for peace'. The trailer suggested the same thing: a Palestinian suicide bomber deciding not to go through with his mission.<br>But by the time the film was nominated for this year's Best Foreign Feature at the Oscars, certain audiences started to feel it was not as balanced as it had appeared in the trailer: the bomber's decision in the film to choose peace is actually short-lived. He goes through with the attack and, as the film's hero, his act is unarguably portrayed as heroic. It is set to give the 78th Academy Awards one of their most controversial years since the Seventies.<br><br>At the Laemmle Fairfax cinema in Los Angeles, Sarah Rosen, a self-described left-leaning Jew, exited Friday's 5pm screening shaking her head. 'I appreciated the unique touches, like a suicide bomber being put off his final video by the sight of a cameraman eating a sandwich. But it bothers me that Israel being the evil aggressor is taken as given.'<br><br>It is the subject of how to resist Israel - jihadists Said and Khaled say violence is the only way, while Suha, the daughter of a martyr, argues for peaceful protest - that allows for the grey area. In the end violence wins for numerous reasons - most explained by the bomber's back story. But the Hollywood looks of Said, played by Kasi Nashef, who is matinée idol handsome, are also causing discomfort. There is, for many, an uncomfortable implication that his less attractive friend, Khaled, played by Ali Suliman, hasn't the courage to bomb buses because he isn't a leading man. The charismatic directing and acting combine to create a kind of sexy jihad that has US Jewish groups calling for its disqualification.<br><br>The tensions are rising with a week to go before the big night, which is on track to be one of the most successful and most watched ceremonies ever. The campaign against Paradise Now is gathering pace. An internet campaign against the film has quickly gathered steam. It started with an open letter from Yossi Zur, whose 16-year-old son had been killed by a suicide bomber, asking that the Academy disqualify Paradise Now<br><br>'They have been given a seal of approval to hide behind,' he said. 'Now they can see that the world sees suicide bombing as legitimate.' The petition he inspired has received more than 25,000 signatures. The nomination probably won't be rescinded, but with 70 being the median academy voter age, and Judaism the predominant religion, it is something of a surprise, even to insiders, that the film has been nominated at all, let alone that it is a strong prospect to win.<br><br>Although the director, Hany Abu-Assad, and the female lead, Lubna Azabal, both live in Europe, the film is credited to 'Palestine', a country that does not technically exist. No foreign film entry has, in academy history, been attributed to such a place. It was filmed in Nablus, a West Bank town controlled by the Palestinian Authority. 'There is a likelihood,' said the show's producer, Gil Cates, 'that come Oscar night it will be attributed to "Palestinian territories".'<br><br>'The film is intended to open a discussion, hopefully a meaningful discussion,' says Abu-Assad. 'I hope that the film will succeed in stimulating thought.' Certainly the message boards on popular movie websites are buzzing.<br><br>Surprisingly, after Paradise Now won a Golden Globe in January, Abu-Assad took to the stage to generous applause, with no reticence or even booing. That can perhaps be attributed to the fact that the Golden Globes comprises non-US press. Come Oscar night, Abu-Assad may find a Hollywood audience less enthusiastic.<br><br>Or perhaps Hollywood's perceived allegiance to Israel has changed. There are five nominations for Munich, Steven Spielberg and Tony Kushner's deeply critical take on the hunt by Israelis for the Munich Olympic killers.<br><br>Either way, the Academy must feel lucky to have as host this year the sharp-witted Jon Stewart, Comedy Central's 'fake news' anchor beloved for calling it as he sees it across the political board. He and his writers, along with Abu-Assad, could watch, as research, the tape of the 1978 Oscars when Vanessa Redgrave, a supporter of the PLO, was awarded Best Actress for Julia. She thanked Jane Fonda and condemned 'Zionist thugs'.<br><br>Giving a writing award, dramatist Paddy Chayefsky walked out on stage and said: 'There's a little matter I'd like to tidy up, at least if I expect to live with myself tomorrow morning. I'd like to suggest that winning an Academy Award is not a pivotal moment in history, does not require a proclamation and that a simple "thank you" would have sufficed.'<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1718128,00.html">observer.guardian.co.uk/w...28,00.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Question for Qutb and Smoots

Postby Qutb » Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:33 am

Seventhson - I'm sorry to hear that. I'm not saying radiation can't be harmful, I've just noticed that websites, magazines etc of the type that is concerned with far-out conspiracism, Maya prophecies, alternative spirituality etc also tend to pander to the fears of their readers regarding such things as radiation and all kinds of poisons in the food and water and so on. Sometimes, these fears are a bit exaggerated in my experience (though not in your experience, obviously, which again I'm sorry to hear), but what I wanted to convey was rather that the proposed solutions to "Protect Yourself From Radiation" don't work anyway. They're conning people, which is what they do regarding other things as well (prophecies, lizard conspiracies...). And surprisingly often, they harbor extremist political views. I just find that interesting, that's all. <p></p><i></i>
Qutb
 
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 2:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

finding it "interesting"

Postby darkbeforedawn » Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:57 am

I'm sure you do, Qutb. This perception of those who question the big pharma and oil kings version of "our" reality as "kooks" and "conspiracy nuts" with wild lizardmen taking over everything helps to prop your lies. These lies include the "official" version of 9-11 and the idea that MSM has a shred of respectibility or credibility left to its name. You're a laughing stock. <p></p><i></i>
darkbeforedawn
 

Re: hate speech

Postby Qutb » Sun Feb 26, 2006 1:56 pm

Aw shucks antiaristo, a "leading member of the wise ones"? That's the nicest thing anybody has ever called me.<br><br>What posters on this board and American blogosphere commentators in general fail to realize when debating this issue is how sensitive the Germans and Austrians still are about their past. They have also experienced, during the last decade or two, a resurgence of xenophobic, racist, anti-Semitic sentiments, racist violence, and efforts to reevaluate and rehabilitate the Third Reich (and not just from the fringes of the political spectrum, but far into the mainstream). <br><br>From an American perspective, this is all about the First Amendment and everyone's God-given right to have their own opinion. It is therefore no surprise that the American blogosphere is unanimous in its condemnation of these prosecutions. This is, as Glenn Greenwald points out, a basic American value which transcends political divisions. <br><br>From a Central European perspective, however, the context is quite different, and can be summarized as follows: If the Weimar Republic had laws against "hate speech" and the means to enforce them effctively, it might have been able to withstand the forces of darkness that eventually consumed it. The fall of the liberal Weimar Republic is etched into the German collective conciousness and it's necessary to understand this in order to understand their strict laws against hate speech (for instance, to use the swastika as a political symbol is illegal in Germany). When skinheads march through the streets of Berlin, their anger fueled by Zündel's propaganda, liberal Germans don't see just a fringe political movement, but the Sturmabteilung of the 1920s and 30s. <br><br>It's not that David Irving and Ernst Zündel in themselves posed immediate threats to the established liberal order of Germany and Austria - Irving has been totally discredited as a "historian" and Zündel has a relatively limited following (though he's a prominent figure within the international neo-Nazi movement). The Austrian and German states have chosen to make examples of them, to show that these laws aren't dormant and to show that the liberal establishment (or the liberal faction of the establishment) is willing to defend its values against those who threaten them.<br><br>This is unfortunate, because it will inevitable result in martyr status for the two gentlemen, which they certainly don't deserve. I think in particular the Irving sentence was too harsh. I think the prosecution of Zündel made more sense, as he has been a key spider in the international fascist movement and has nourished the violent neo-Nazi/skinhead movement in Germany with massive amounts of propaganda as well as with funding. I think the American libertarian defense of Zündel in the name of free speech is somewhat misguided, and based on a lack of knowledge about who this guy really is. <br><br>As for the Irving trial, the Austrians are hyper-sensitive about being seen as "permissive" regarding racism, xenophobia and fascism after the Jörg Haider/Freedom Party affair which made them an outcast in the EU for a while. They probably saw Irving's visit as a golden opportunity to show that they're "tough on fascism". <p></p><i></i>
Qutb
 
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 2:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: finding it "interesting"

Postby Qutb » Sun Feb 26, 2006 2:16 pm

DBD - I question big pharma and oil kings myself. However, I think this "questioning" sometimes takes the form of an unhealthy and self-centred obsession with avoiding poisons, "toxins", etc. For the record, I think pollution of the seas, drinking water and food chains is a serious problem... but obsessing about what's in the water you drink etc can be unhealthy in itself and distract you from more urgent things.<br><br>Eat whole foods, lots of fruits, berries, nuts and vegetables, drink water and red wine and not Coca-Cola, and get some excercise and enough sleep, and Big Pharma will get less of your hard-earned money. <p></p><i></i>
Qutb
 
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 2:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: hate speech

Postby sunny » Sun Feb 26, 2006 2:27 pm

Floyd said:<br>__________________________________________________<br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>The bastard who made 'n' displayed that piece of F(art), was on a Government Grant, paid for by your (and my) tax dollarsl. I have always held the opinion that "if yo' artistic ASS" is worth a damn, then people will pay you for your work. If it AIN'T, as in "piss-Christ Boy's" case, then yo' ASS ain't a real artist, and you should probably go the heck home and just shoot yourself dead.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br>__________________________________________________<br><br>What you seem to be saying Floyd, is that we shouldn't have publicly financed art, right? Well, that would truly make us uncivilized and barbaric. If you are not saying this, then you <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>are</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> saying that art that is publicly financed should be <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>censored</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->. You can't have it both ways Floyd. Free speech or not?<br><br>Qutb said:<br>__________________________________________________<br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>The fall of the liberal Weimar Republic is etched into the German collective conciousness and it's necessary to understand this in order to understand their strict laws against hate speech (for instance, to use the swastika as a political symbol is illegal in Germany). When skinheads march through the streets of Berlin, their anger fueled by Zündel's propaganda, liberal Germans don't see just a fringe political movement, but the Sturmabteilung of the 1920s and 30s.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <br>_________________________________________________<br><br>We don't restrict the speech of the KKK here in America, even though they have caused great harm, and brought shame on this country around the world. The solution to such speech is not to restrict it, but to make sure the debate is open to those who would oppose them. As you said, it make martyrs of them to jail and silence them. Open debate would discredit them, even, possibly, in the eyes of those who might otherwise sympathize with that point of view. Just because Germans and Austrians have good reasons, in their view, to enact "hate speech" legislation doesn't make it right. It's a slippery slope to approve of such laws. <p></p><i></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: hate speech

Postby Dreams End » Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:23 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>We don't restrict the speech of the KKK here in America, even though they have caused great harm, and brought shame on this country around the world.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I'm very sympathetic to the concerns about free speech..and agree with them. However, the KKK never officially took OVER the U.S. so the comparison is not really completely valid.<br><br>However, I think there is something else going on as well...sort of a "political correctness." Now, the "true history" of the term "politically correct", before the rightwing hijacked it as a subsitute for "communist" or "marxist" in order to go after academics, etc, was as a term of derision from "legitimate" political activists (I'm thinking primarily of college campuses) toward those who wore tie-dye and talked the talk but that you knew were heading into the corporate world the moment that diploma was in their hands.<br><br>In other words, it implies that the concepts themselves are not the problem, it's those following those concepts insincerely who deserver our scorn. As such, for example, fighting racism is good, but ONLY being concerned about terminology while not addressing more systemic factors is bad.<br><br>I think there is maybe some of that here. While not really addressing the deeper forces that have allowed the Reich, as it were, to continue on more subterrenean levels and simply emphasizing language, nothing really gets changed. And it would take some pretty substantive changes to change the power structure that has so completely been dominated by the military/industrial/narco/corporate complex which currently runs the show. And that is the true fascism that will not be outlawed anytime soon. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

One Way Suits Me Fine, Artistically...

Postby Floyd Smoots » Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:46 pm

sunny, lest you think I waffle here, I AM totally against "publically funded art", because that is not the purpose of government, in my libertarian political view. I fancy myself an artist of sorts, but I neither desire nor expect any of your hard-earned income to be available for my financial support.<br><br>I disagree on your view of "civilization" in that respect only. Good art, down through the ages of humankind, has always had its patrons, and always will. I even find no fault with displaying privately funded artworks on public property so that all may enjoy or disparage it through public discussion. We will agree to disagree, OK?<br><br>DE, you are, alas, all too correct in your posit about the existence and current location(s) of today's True Fascists.<br> <p></p><i></i>
Floyd Smoots
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:50 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: hate speech

Postby Qutb » Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:07 pm

Sunny said - "We don't restrict the speech of the KKK here in America".<br><br>That's true, but the KKK never took over the US government after an electoral victory and transformed the US into a totalitarian dictatorship which invaded all of its neighbor countries and slaughtered millions solely because of their ethnic origin.<br><br>This is what is unique about the German experience with the Nazi ideology and anti-Semitic mythology.<br><br>Maybe some time in the future, using the elephant as a political symbol will be outlawed in the US... <p></p><i></i>
Qutb
 
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 2:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: hate speech

Postby robertdreed » Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:53 pm

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>From a Central European perspective, however, the context is quite different, and can be summarized as follows: If the Weimar Republic had laws against "hate speech" and the means to enforce them effctively, it might have been able to withstand the forces of darkness that eventually consumed it.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>I reject that notion. It's facile. <br><br>There were ways to ward off that disaster, but giving the German government political censorship power wasn't one of them. <br><br>And what was going on in Germany from 1919-1933 was a lot more than "free speech." Armed Communist revolutionary movements, right-wing and monarchist reactionary coup attempts, assasinations, and pitched battles in the streets began erupted almost as soon as Germany fell. <br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 2/26/06 3:55 pm<br></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to FIRE PIT

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests