http://blogg.bt.no/sandvik/2011/09/05/malet-er-mindre-anonymitet-pa-nett/

http://www.bt.no/tv/?id=25579 http://www.bt.no/nyheter/valg/Venstre-i-medvind-en-uke-fr-valget-2569222.html

først i dag har det vært reklame for noe som helst annet parti enn venstre på deres sider. Og ikke bare er det reklame, men det er også egne artikler for hva dere har greid for partiet og en "videosnutt" med enda mer retorisk vissvass.

Det er en grunn til at folk rømmer fra avisene. Å gå på twitter og være litt taktisk så får man nyheter flere timer før nettavisene greier å få det ut. Og du slipper å få et ensidig retorisk spill med på "kjøpet".

Jeg stemmer blankt så jeg bryr meg ikke om hvilket parti dere absolutt skal støtte, men det får være grenser hvor dårlig skjult dere legger det.

Så også tidligere at flere reagerte at bare venstre hadde fått gode skussmål på "faktasjekken" som også igjen var tydelig farget ved bla søskenmoderasjonen. Den var rett og slett helt latterlig.

Dere vil ikke ha en åpen debatt, dere vil ha en debatt hvor alle sitter med fullt navn og sier alt. Kom dere ut av 1800 tallet og aksepter at vi faktisk lever i en verden hvor vi har internett, på godt og vondt.

Anonymitet er veldig viktig for at mennesker skal kunne få utløp for sine meninger. Er det ikke bedre at man får mulighet til å debattere slike meninger, anonymt eller under navn, og at ikke noen går som ABB og bygger opp et gigantisk hat som manifisterer seg i et fysisk angrep?

Men neida, massemediene i norge forstår ikke at skal de overleve som medier så må de forholde seg til at befolkningen ikke lenger aksepterer at vi skal fordøye alt svadaet som kommer ut i avisene og på tv. Vi vil undersøke selv, fordype oss hvis vi bryr oss og diskutere med hverandre.

Dette legger norske medier et fint lokk på ved å nekte kommentarer på 99% av alle politiske saker, uansett hvilken avis.
Men hvis rihanna har vist en nipple eller noe annet uvesentlig noe, da står vi fritt frem til å mene alt vi vil.
Hvis dere ikke forstår problemene dette skaper så får det være deres problem, men flere og flere blir lei av å bli belært av mediene (bare absorbere og ikke tenke kritisk eller gjøre egne vurderinger) gjennom deres vanlige propagandakanaler som tv, radio og aviser. De klassiske 1-veis kommunikasjonkanalene som kun krever en ting; at man absorberer.

På en pc er det minimum 2-veis kommunikasjon noe som gjør at man må reagere på helt andre måter. Man får referanser til kunnskap på helt andre måter.

Når ble massemediene vårt moralpoliti? Hvorfor skal noen fra eliten sitte og si at dette og dette er greit å mene, mens dette, nei det må vi slå ned på og sensurere?

Finn heller en annen måte å sortere kommentarene på hvor vi kan dele inn i seriøse (over en hvis lengde) og "spam" med w/e meninger.

Twitter; den nye nyhetskanalen hvor du er redaktør, hele strukturen er ikke hierarkisk og informasjonen kommer rett fra bakkeplan. Finnes ikke bedre måter å følge opprør, demonstrasjoner, katastrofer og "happenings".

Hvis ikke avisene greier å følge med i tiden så får man heller bare fase de mer og mer ut. Ingen tvinger noen av oss til å bruke disse sidene. Bruk den makten du har; ikke trykk inn på tabloide overskrifter du vet du ikke bryr deg om osv. Hvis de vil prøve å ha en "mindre anonym debatt" så kan de gjøre det til "øya spretter ut", ingen kan tvinge dette på noen. og de som vil tvinge deg, bør du absolutt ikke følge.

https://rt.com/news/turkey-host-nato-radar/comments/

https://rt.com/news/un-report-israel-assault/

Turkey is smart. Backing its military alliance with a gesture that doesnt really change anything, while throwing the glove at israel.

Why? Do Turkey want to show itself as the leading power in the region and reduce israels power?
Is this to force the US to take a choice; can it back israel, a country it has no alliance with (http://hnn.us/articles/751.html) or does it chose Turkey, a member of Nato, a allied nation.

Is this a way to get a new foothold in the changing middle east? Did the attacks on the MKK destroy what might have been more kurdish rebellion?
Or will the US just align their role, with a "special relationship" with israel, and to Turkey, as Turkey has with Iran, the main public enemy of the us and israel?

Can this be a secret hand to Tehran to force some changes that might remove turkey from the nato alliance and let it completely drop the idea of EU membership (who wants to board a sinking ship) and try to create a regional defence pact for the new middle east? Clearly it does not include israel, as it acts like all fascist states, its superiority is unquestioned and to admit mistakes is impossible.

The most troublesome is naturally the nuclear arsenal of israel. Only one country used such a disgusting weapon, and not even against soldiers but civilians, and the fearmongering/warmongering inside israeli politics is so insanely high and that the elite in israel are so paranoid and aggressive, we can only call them extremists.
Only extremists will ever use such horrible weapons and we have seen that terror is a weapon that has worked for israel in the past; why shouldnt these people, pushed up in a corner, might be able to use this?

I dont think its out of the world of concideration. People who hide those weapons do that for a reason and its damn not to help humanity.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out, but clearly a lot of mending has to be done and maybe israel for once will admit fault. But Im not holding my breath.

dagbokdel 3

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/cheney-honored-be-compared-darth-vader

debatt med amerikanse ignoranter. veldig kjekt.

dagbokdel 2

ye thanks for giving norway a bad name "norway".

you clearly have absolutly no idea what you are talking about, both when it comes to nato and reference to the evolution theory, do some more reading as this neo-imperialism idea of thought supposedly represent our view.

"Rebels" are lie to the mass media over and over to use that important propaganda tool. The same tool denies the other side the same opportunity.

How come HRW and other humanitarian groups contradicts the "facts" the rebels feed the media with? Especially important is the notion of mass-rapes spewed by the media, but contradicted by HRW and the so-called "impending genocide" the ghaddafi was supposedly building up to do.

Now we have 50.000 supposed prisoners that was taken after the revolution started that has not been released and the day after this was presented we hear "50.000 killed".

Question; can anything of this be verified independently? Can we trust their spew when we see what they have lied about earlier? 

I am not surprised that later on, these will be linked and that they supposedly got massacred in the jails and that they are totally bogus.

This is a way for the rebels to lie up their size, so we and the libyan civilians think these have the numbers.

Yes ghaddafi is a cut-and-dry ME dictator. But please, the hypocracy of the west and nato in this conflict has not only robbed the libyan people of their legitimate right to despose of their own dictator, but they will, as they always do, install a puppet regime to steal the oil from their people.

Dont disgrace our defence treaty by using it as a hammer on random people that the economical powers want you to attack. Its a defence treaty for a reason, not an aggression pact. But you clearly dont even know the difference from attacking and defending.

Letter to new york times 1948

http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/NYTimes1948.html - letter signed by, amongst other, Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, Zellig Sabbettai Harris and 2 dozen prominent jewish figures at that time.


Source can be found at the end of the letter, but I do trust Harvard would not accept something false would stay as a part of Einsteins legacy if it was not true.


Searching for some of the names on google shows some of these people have further bio's easily accessable for us.


So what does this letter contain and why is it so "hidden" from public eye? Here are some quotes;


"Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of 
ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority."

"The public avowals of Begin’s party are no guide whatever to its actual 

character.  Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism,
whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist
state."

"Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome 

his visit.  It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout
the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin’s political record and
perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he
represents."

More goodies can be found in the letter, but please note how unfriendly it is towards the zionist creation.

I feel I have to agree that israeli leaders really show signs of Jewish Supremacy ("racial supremacy") comparable to other supremacist groups like White Supremacy, Black Supremacy, Slavic Supremacy and so on. But it does not make it any better, actually much worse, as it can use it weapons to bolster and destroy the people getting presented as sub-humans. (for the religious; http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/leading-rabbi-encourages-idf-soldiers-to-use-palestinian-human-shields-1.320311, other examples are not hard to find)

So "ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority." is for me especially important, they all signed this letter when they knew that these were the powerstructures this group played on. And that it was so important to let people know what these politicians are promoting.

Copy + paste from wikipedia;

Ultranationalism

Ultranationalism is a zealous nationalism that expresses extremist support for one's nationalist ideals. It is often characterized by authoritarianism, efforts toward reduction or stoppage of immigration, expulsion and or oppression of non-native populations within the nation or its territories, demagoguery of leadership, emotionalism, scapegoating outsiders in socioeconomic crisis, fomenting talk of presumed,real, or imagined enemies, predicating the existence of threats to the survival of the native,dominant or otherwise idealized national ethnicity or population group, instigation or extremist reaction to crack-down policies in law enforcement, efforts to limit international trade through tariffs, tight control over businesses and production, militarism, populism and propaganda. Prevelant ultranationalism typically leads to or is the result of conflict within a state, and or between states, and is identified as a condition of pre-war in national politics.^{[citation needed]} In its extremist forms ultranationalism is characterized as a call to war against enemies of the nation/state, secession or, in the case of ethnocentrist ultranationalism, genocide.^[37][38]

Fascism is a form of palingenetic ultranationalism^[39] that promotes "class collaboration" (as opposed to class war), a totalitarian state, and irredentism orexpansionism to unify and allow the growth of a nation. Fascists sometimes promote ethnic or cultural nationalism. Fascism stresses the subservience of the individual to the state, and the need to absolute and unquestioned loyalty to a strong ruler.^[40]"

So the definition of the word might have changed since 1948, however its hard to find any arguments that this was commented as a positive sign of a healthy ideology. I dont find it hard to accept that this is still being used on the israeli population and i dont think its hard to find hebrew sources to back it up as well.

more when i get the time

dagbokdel 1

naturligvis er det nødvendig med anonymitet i noen debatter. Fordi noen ikke aksepterer andre meninger enn de som stemmer i deres verdensbilde.

Jeg ser heller at de som absolutt måtte sette verdien av "raser"/religioner/w/e så høyt at man mener at verden kan beskrives som et svart/hvitt bilde hvor alt beskrives av denne ene faktoren, at mennesker ikke er mer enn sine mest primitive instinkt, får uttrykke seg verbalt på nettet, enn å stenge dem inne og la f.eks alkohol fremprovosere vold. 

Men i stedet så stenges kommentarer ute fra mediene, man får ikke diskutere det befolkningen faktisk vil diskutere ved å blokkere debatt på temaene.

Når man ikke finner utløp for sine meninger ved å bli "moderert"(sensurert) eller blir stemplet/personlig angrepet, eller det ikke er åpnet for debatt i det hele tatt, så vil man lete etter et diskusjonsforum for å kunne få utløp for sine meninger.

Noe som er ekstremt vanskelig er da å finne et forum hvor motstridende meninger faktisk diskuterer med hverandre og ikke kun en gruppe individer som ikke kritiserer og diskuterer, men som hyller og svelger alt som blir fremmet fra denne personen. Men uten motstridende synspunkter. Et forum som kun fremmer sin egen ideologi eller meninger uten motstridende meninger, maksimalt stråmenn eller personer som er "lett å ta" (michael moore/george w. bush), for å "knuse" dem og meningene deres. En ekstremiseringsprosess foregår i gruppen og det fører aldri til noe positivt.

Mediene må forstå at mennesker aksepterer ikke å bli fødd meningene til journalistene lengre. Vi kan undersøke selv med internett. Vi kan knytte nyhetsnettverk uten redaksjoner. Vi må selv være kritiske for det vi leser, noe ALLE burde spesielt være mot massemediene. Private selskaper vil før eller siden ha de økonomiske interessene i høysete, og  oppskriften er veldig lett; det som generer mest penger, er viktigst og må fokuseres på. Hvordan måle "demokratisk" hva som er viktigst? antall "klikk" viser økonomisk hva som er "best" og hva generer mest "klikk"? Frykt, sensasjoner, katastrofer, privat "snusk" osv.

Jeg får vel bare vente og håpe at "det mest økonomiske" til slutt vil føre til at overskuddet/byråkratisk svinn vil kreve at avisene ikke "har råd" til å ha journalister ansatt. Sånn at vi alle kan påpeke feil, kommentere og diskutere.

first rant about whatever comes to mind.

Arab spring; I am interested in why this word is so much in use and what it represent.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/05/20080518-6.html

George W. Bush speech on how and why arabs would stand up. Wise words from a war criminal, but I also do not think he is "stupid" more then controlled. Stupid imply to me that you dont blame him for his actions and that he is somewhat excused for his crimes. No way I will accept that. He is to blame, as much as Obama, to keep the soldiers in both countries, just privatized in Iraq with the huge bases placed to circle Iran and to "defend american interests", and in Afghanistan where the 60.000 "pull out" was cheered as a peaceful sign. Well the same day the state department had to also remind the correct group of journalists that this still ment that there were more soldiers there then before Obama came into office.

So are we giving credit to Bush by using this phrase and somehow legitimize the murderous annexation and the ongoing occupation? I clearly dont want this and I see Bush as much the problem that caused the civilian populations of the Middle East then any of the dictators that control their arm of the empire.

I also dislike the "arab" part of it. It reinforces one group of people strongly together, but disenfranchize other big groups, that will be sorted by "face color". It also makes clear what borders this can occur in. It automaticly removes the revolts seen in Greece, Spain, Britain (not only the riots) and Wisconsin. Iran is sometimes accepted in it, but it being 50% arab only, sometimes its also not counted. The african revolts also gets downprioritized and limited in the press.

I guess Africans need to learn that this is not their time for freedom, the western news consumers cannot consume all these colored people acting up against their leaders, that we see shaking our leaders hands, when the other countries are so much worse? No, freedom is only for the few and will not be taken when not given.

Spring can also lead to a "time window" where it is accepted for these changes and that more cannot occur after this. If your country is to late, then to bad for them I guess. 

As with Syria we all know the horrors of the brutal regime that we knew would be able to act like this. I hope the people now have something they did not have in the 80's; communication on higher levels. The possibility to organize something without a leader, someone that can easily be corrupted, and stand up against the brutality. 

However it is not acceptable that we now see other dictators, like Saudi king, who even abuses the civilians in the neighbouring country and build his country on slavery, now have an enemy outside of its borders that the people can focus on. Willingly helped by the media, arab and western, to try and build up these demonstrations. Hopefully people will abuse the dumb king and just meet up at the "accepted" demonstrations and then show the true colors of how they feel at oppression at home.

I hope Israelis will keep it up and throw away their abusive and murderous leaders. How can warmongerers ever make peace? Only by control and violence. Why trust leaders using rethoric as weapons, both for stalling (palestinian papers), oslo agreement and all talks of "discussions". It holds no value when they say this and keeps on doing what they say they will not (settlements) and segregating Palestine. Its not the Gaza strip and the West bank, its Palestine and the state created by terror israel. Its a clear tactic to seperate this unity both physically (wall), mentally (hours of "checkpoints" to cross and being denied by a foreign state to walk in his own land), destruction of infrastructure (housedemolitions, bombing whatever) etc etc. Never accept this seperation, you will be playing into the zionist plans of divide and conquer.