Posted on 12/20/2001 1:11:52 PM PST by Nachum
(IsraelNationalNews.com) Agence France Presse reported that thousands of protesters participated yesterday in a demonstration in Paris against Israel. According to the French news agency, it was the largest such demonstration in the past few years. Many protestors raised Palestinian flags, called Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Zionists “murderers.” The demonstration was organized and sponsored by the France-Palestine Solidarity Organization, the Human Rights League, the Anti-Racism Movement, the Communist and Green parties, organizations of the extreme left and workers unions.
The protest was preceded by a confrontation between the anti-Israel demonstrators and approximately 30 youths carrying the Israeli flag. There were several injuries in the ensuing brawl, but the demonstration itself continued without further incident.
The act of censoring or prohibiting may actually increase the demand for that which is denied, creating a backlash or behavior antithetical to that which the censor was attempting to acheive.
From above:
People should be equal and have equal access to discourse, in my opinion. ...Would ‘the hate laws’ apply to a discourse on the vestiges of the aristocracy influence?
It would be hard to argue that what is described below is not actually occuring.
Things changed with advent of ‘neo-liberalism’. Lectures of Milton Friedman manifested ‘outing’ of Mammonites, adepts of the new/old faith. They differ from ordinary greedy folks, as they elevate Greed to the level of jealous God, that does not suffer other gods. The traditional wealthy men would not dream of destroying their society. They cared about their land and community. They would like to be the first among their own kind. They still considered themselves ‘shepherds of men’. It is true, shepherds also eat sheep, but they would not sell the whole lot to the butcher just because the price is good.
The Mammonites see such consideration as a betrayal of Mammon. As Robert McChesney wrote in his Introduction to Noam Chomsky’s Profit Over People[iii], ‘they demand a religious faith in the infallibility of the unregulated market’, in other words, a faith of egoism and greed unlimited. They are devoid of compassion to the people they live amongst, they do not see the local people as ‘their own kind’. If they would be able to eliminate local folks and supplant them by poor immigrants, to optimise their profits, they would do it, as their brothers did in Palestine.
The Mammonites do not give a damn for the people of America, but use them as their tool to achieve world domination. Their ideal picture of the world is archaic, or futuristic: they dream of the world of slaves and masters. In order to achieve it, the Mammonites strive to destroy cohesiveness of social and national units.
As long as people stay on their land, speak their tongue, live among their own kith and kin, drink water of their rivers, worship in their churches and mosques, they can not be enslaved. But if their lands are flooded by masses of refugees, their social structure will collapse. They will lose their great advantage, the feeling of belonging together, the feeling of brotherhood, and they will become an easy prey for Mammonites.
There will be no race or religion exempted from the predation of the Mammonites. All people will be included, and all people must come this realization in order to have any hope of countering it.
In America, as I noted a couple of days ago, we need to get back to a society based on principles and values, turning away from the culture of consumerism we have embraced. The purpose of this site is the antidote to Mammonite expansion. When you vest the power of governing to the local people, as was intended by the constitution, then you hinder the mammonites.
One who would want to prohibit the dissemination and discussion of this creeping mammonism is, I would summit, a part of the problem, not a solution.
I posted what ANOTHER poster said at the top of Bush's picture.
D'oh!!!
George F. Will a conservative? You got to be kidding. Not only is he NOT conservative, but in addition to being a waterboy for the holocaust industry, he is simply a prejudicial SOS as far as making up stories about the nations that he does not like.
The French did not lose the war of 1940 because they were adverse to change. They lost the war because of their overwhelming confidence in the Maginot Line. As for the tanks, on May 10 1940 they had more tanks than the Germans 3,420 to 3,379 for Germany.
Something like this happened in 1967/1968 in the Soviet block when Jewish Communists tried to keep Communist countries on the pro-Israel course.
You buy that?
Hmm, I am not sure. Anyway, please tell me HOW the mass death in Dresden or Hiroshima was BETTER or less important than the one in Jewish camps of Treblinka, Majdanek or Birkenau(Auschwitz was for Polish prisoners, but administration of Birkenau was located in Auschwitz and this is the source of confusion for many).
And were the deaths of tens of millions under Bolshevik rule or Armenians under Turks any BETTER or less important?
An important point. I make no distinction between Hitler and Stalin, as embodiments of absolute evil. Likewise -- I think, having not read much about it -- the architects of Armenian genocide.
Dresden and Hiroshima are in a separate category, for reasons that IMO are so obvious they don't need to be spelled out. Someone more patient or less lazy than me can have a go at it.
Supposedly Hitler said he would 'get away' with (then assuming he would not lose WWII) the holocaust because the Turks 'got away' with killing the Armenians.
"Obvious"? You mean that they were as evil as those other massacres? I am not sure what you mean?
And Turks still get away.
Sorry if I was vague. No, they're in a different moral category altogether -- call it grim necessities of war (against an aggressor, btw), or being forced to choose among several courses of action, all of them very ugly.
Sorry if I was vague. No, they're in a different moral category altogether -- call it grim necessities of war (against an aggressor, btw), or being forced to choose among several courses of action, all of them very ugly.
What was the necessity of killing 100 000 civilians in Dresden and destroying one of the most beautiful cities in Europe?
I'm pinging three FReepers, far better qualified than me, to comment.
Good! It will be interesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.