Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Henry-Finland · 03-12-2003, 03:09 PM

Lamma wrote:
[quote]Point to other nations that might do one or two things better than the U.S. but as a whole, no one really comes close.[/b]

Well I just put here my country, Finland:
- paper-industry,
- wooden industry, some parts of it
- mobile telephones
And as far as I know, we are now coming up in the bio-industry also. But I do not understand anything about it.

For some other countries I would put:
- fighting terrorism
US is not the top country in this field, but I hope we can work together on this, the whole world I mean. With the arrogant, bribing-black-mailing style, USA comes nowhere.

I hope You do not believe in isolation. That is history.

Can You now tell me where the USA is a sole leader, that has not to do with arms?
(Maybe we should open a new thread?)
You see, we all need each other. Well, You will see when You do Your list, in where You are very good.

Henry

Gleb · 03-12-2003, 03:15 PM

It's hard to say whether GWB is a dupe or if he's just pretending to be driven by the belief that wars and interventions around the world can protect America from terrorists and violence. It sould be clear for everyone that bombing and invading a single country doesn't end terrorism but more likely breeds more fanaticism and acts of violence.

Zar · 03-12-2003, 03:52 PM

This discussion has again reminded me of a passage of Jacques Ellul's book Propaganda that I've quoted from before.

Since we're talking about believing in certain principles, etc., I thought this would be appropos to repeat it again here. Take it or leave it, and it doesn't necessarily apply to anyone here, but it is a caution that is worth thinking about, IMHO:

Quote:

What am I saying then? That propaganda can promulgate a democratic doctrine? Absolutely. That it can be used by a government elected by majority vote? Absolutely. But this gives us no guarantee that we still are dealing with a democracy. With the help of propaganda, one can disseminate democratic ideas as a credo and within the framework of a myth. With propaganda one can lead citizens to the voting booth, where they seemingly elect their representatives. But if democracy corresponds to a certain type of human being, to a certain individual behavior, then propaganda destroys the point of departure of the life of a democracy, destroys its very foundations. It creates a man who is suited to a totalitarian society, who is not at ease except when integrated into the mass, who rejects critical judgments, choices, and differentiations because he clings to clear certainties. He is a man assimilated into uniform groups and wants it that way.

With the help of propaganda one can do almost anything, but certainly not create the behavior of a free man or, to a lesser degree, a democratic man. A man who lives in a democratic society and who is subjected to propaganda is being drained of the democratic content itself -- of the style of democratic life, understanding of others, respect for minorities, re-examination of his own opinions, absence of dogmatism. The means employed to spread democratic ideas make the citizen, psychologically, a totalitarian man. The only difference between him and a Nazi is that he is a "totalitarian man with democratic convictions," but those convictions do not change his behavior in the least. Such contradiction is in no way felt by the individual for whom democracy has become a myth and a set of democratic imperatives, merely stimuli that activate conditioned reflexes. The word democracy having become a simple incitation, no longer has anything to do with democratic behavior. And the citizen can repeat indefinitely "the sacred formulas of democracy" while acting like a storm trooper.

Jane Bovary · 03-12-2003, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lamma
Protocals of the Elders of Zion anyone? It's the DAMN JEWS!

I understand that there's a new breed of psychotropic MAOA inhibitors to help with the devastating effects of clinical paranoia.

Edited to add: At first I almost didn't post this reply, but after re-reading the OP, I had to.
What's being put forth as probability is so outlandish that it seems that any critical thinking skills about it have gone out the window. With no sources to back your outrageous conjecture... I don't know what to say. The words "whole cloth" keep coming to mind.
Comparisons to Hitler's Germany have once again come up.
You do know that if this war is as unpopular as many think it to be that Dubbya will no longer be president in less than two years? Forgive me if I'm forgetful, but who did Hitler run against in the Chancellorship elections every four years?

What outrageous conjecture? I'm aware Lamma, that there's more to the neo-conservatives than their Jewish backgrounds, as there is alot more to US politics than the neo-conservatives. But I wasn't trying to tell the whole story of US politics, if that's what you mean by "whole cloth"... just this one aspect of it. My post was an attempt to understand what has helped to shape the political perspective of this influential group and I found it interesting to contemplate that the devastating outcomes of Hitler's rancid politics had it's hand in forming the political consciousness of the policy makers of today. That's why I made the historical connection with Hitler...and because I found a certain irony in the imperialist ambitions of a monster and the imperialist ambitions of those who had suffered the effects of his insanity . Should I not mention that many of neo-conservatives have a Jewish background or that the holocaust had an immense inluence on their sensibilities, for fear of being labelled anti-Jewish?

Disagree if you will, tell me the neo-conservatives are the best thing since sliced bread. Argue they are not interested in protecting Israel or US imperialism, that they're not influential...that the holocaust had little effect on them. That you believe their Jewish background is irrelevent. Say what you like, but DON'T try to claim I'm some kind of warped anti-semitic conspiracy theorist...that's a pathetic response.

I think the neo-conservatives are a dangerous bunch. I don't think they are the only tree in the picture but I believe they are fanatically idealistic and that their agenda finds support many quarters. As Ruy said The Iraq plan satisfies many varying interests across US leaders and groups; therein lies its attractiveness or support.

Fanaticism finds succour in opportunism...and vice versa.

Zar · 03-12-2003, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Disagree if you will, tell me the neo-conservatives are the best thing since sliced bread. Argue they are not interested in protecting Israel or US imperialism, that they're not influential...that the holocaust had little effect on them. That you believe their Jewish background is irrelevent. Say what you like, but DON'T try to claim I'm some kind of warped anti-semitic conspiracy theorist...that's a pathetic response.

Jane Bovary, well said.

AdamWho · 03-12-2003, 04:54 PM

I know some Jewish conservatives and it always confused me. They say they are conservative because the conservaties (read=christians) support Isreal.

Ion · 03-12-2003, 05:46 PM

I used to like president Clinton, an outsider to the inner circles of politics in US, who was getting a beating for views in favor of the population:

.) universal health care;

.) raising of the minimum wage; (not that I am on the minimum wage, but I respect such a leader);

.) alignment of US policy with the World Court in Hague, Netherlands.

The good thing about the current neo-conservative dementia for war, is that the Democrats are bound to produce in 2004 better candidates than Gore was in 2000, and better candidates than what they submitted for Senate in 2002:
they should be people who tackle the issues with more problem solving skills than Bush.

The bad news about the current neo-conservative dementia for war, is that the dementia will go almost all the way, before an intelligent Democrat will step up to help US.

faman · 03-13-2003, 11:37 AM

Quote:

They say they are conservative because the conservaties (read=christians) support Isreal.

Some powerful Fundamentalists/Millenialists (Pat Roberton included) believe that, among other things, that the return of the Jews to the Biblical Israel is a requirement for the prophecies in (IIRC) Daniel/Revelations fortelling the Apocolypse. The major event for the Christians will be when the second Temple of Solomon is built. The fundie far right is financing sympathetic parties (Likud) in Israel that will help make this happen.

There's a rather nice book on the topic called "The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount" by Gershom Gorenberg that details the many connections between the (American) Christian Fundamentalist movement and the far right of Israeli politics. They have similar goals for Israel but entirely different motivations (Robertson's plan actually ends in the extermination of the Jews thru divine retribution).

AdamWho · 03-13-2003, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Some powerful Fundamentalists/Millenialists (Pat Roberton included) believe that, among other things, that the return of the Jews to the Biblical Israel is a requirement for the prophecies in (IIRC) Daniel/Revelations foretelling the Apocalypse. The major event for the Christians will be when the second Temple of Solomon is built. The fundie far right is financing sympathetic parties (Likud) in Israel that will help make this happen.

I didn't want to bring up this point in my previous post but I think it is a concern of fundamentalists not Christians in general. Ironically, many prominent fundamentalist types have a track record of anti-Semitism which makes me wonder what their real motivations are. I have expressed my concern to conservative Jewish friend, saying that I wouldn't trust the religious right as an honest partner when it comes to Israel because of their Apocalypse death wish.

This doesn't sound too much like a conspiracy theory does it?

faman · 03-13-2003, 02:39 PM

Pat Rorbertson has said some "colorful" (okay hateful) things about Jews in the past, but also some supportive things, that really make no sense unless viewed through the lense of Christian Millenialism.

The Jews and Israel are only a tool of the Millenialists to create the right conditions for the return of Christ. They have absolutely no love whatsoever for Jews (they fully expect the non-converting Jews to be annihilated by God on Judgement Day), but the Millenialists are ironically Zionists.

Since Jews don't believe in the same End Day mythology, why should they worry about the death wish the Millenialists have for them? Why not take the ample political support of the Christian Far-Right and the cash and run? It strengthens both of their movements.

Is it in their best interest? Probably not. One of these days, the Millenialists are going to ask Israel's powers-that-be to knock down the Dome of the Rock (the 3rd most holy site in Islam, I believe) so that Solomon's second Temple can be built to fulfill Revelations. What then?

It's a really strange partnership...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-12-2003, 03:09 PM	#21
Henry-Finland Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Finland Posts: 7,018	Lamma wrote: [quote]Point to other nations that might do one or two things better than the U.S. but as a whole, no one really comes close.[/b] Well I just put here my country, Finland: - paper-industry, - wooden industry, some parts of it - mobile telephones And as far as I know, we are now coming up in the bio-industry also. But I do not understand anything about it. For some other countries I would put: - fighting terrorism US is not the top country in this field, but I hope we can work together on this, the whole world I mean. With the arrogant, bribing-black-mailing style, USA comes nowhere. I hope You do not believe in isolation. That is history. Can You now tell me where the USA is a sole leader, that has not to do with arms? (Maybe we should open a new thread?) You see, we all need each other. Well, You will see when You do Your list, in where You are very good. Henry

03-12-2003, 03:15 PM	#22
Gleb Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Finland Posts: 14	It's hard to say whether GWB is a dupe or if he's just pretending to be driven by the belief that wars and interventions around the world can protect America from terrorists and violence. It sould be clear for everyone that bombing and invading a single country doesn't end terrorism but more likely breeds more fanaticism and acts of violence.

03-12-2003, 04:54 PM	#26
AdamWho Contributor Join Date: May 2001 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 13,389	I know some Jewish conservatives and it always confused me. They say they are conservative because the conservaties (read=christians) support Isreal.

03-12-2003, 05:46 PM	#27
Ion Banned Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 2,817	I used to like president Clinton, an outsider to the inner circles of politics in US, who was getting a beating for views in favor of the population: .) universal health care; .) raising of the minimum wage; (not that I am on the minimum wage, but I respect such a leader); .) alignment of US policy with the World Court in Hague, Netherlands. The good thing about the current neo-conservative dementia for war, is that the Democrats are bound to produce in 2004 better candidates than Gore was in 2000, and better candidates than what they submitted for Senate in 2002: they should be people who tackle the issues with more problem solving skills than Bush. The bad news about the current neo-conservative dementia for war, is that the dementia will go almost all the way, before an intelligent Democrat will step up to help US.

03-13-2003, 02:39 PM	#30
faman Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 5	Pat Rorbertson has said some "colorful" (okay hateful) things about Jews in the past, but also some supportive things, that really make no sense unless viewed through the lense of Christian Millenialism. The Jews and Israel are only a tool of the Millenialists to create the right conditions for the return of Christ. They have absolutely no love whatsoever for Jews (they fully expect the non-converting Jews to be annihilated by God on Judgement Day), but the Millenialists are ironically Zionists. Since Jews don't believe in the same End Day mythology, why should they worry about the death wish the Millenialists have for them? Why not take the ample political support of the Christian Far-Right and the cash and run? It strengthens both of their movements. Is it in their best interest? Probably not. One of these days, the Millenialists are going to ask Israel's powers-that-be to knock down the Dome of the Rock (the 3rd most holy site in Islam, I believe) so that Solomon's second Temple can be built to fulfill Revelations. What then? It's a really strange partnership...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.