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.

Operation Mockingbird

Something I came across on youtube and further found some documents about it well worth for everyone to know about.

This was the first I found;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1E7s7XaV7E - video from House intelligence comitee hearing 1975 when the Cia director was questioned on how the Cia was acting towards the media. Very revealing. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC_cgxtkTRE - Next, a compilation on the very limited findings about this operation and when it is being asked. One very special interesting information is that the Sig Mickelson, former CBS News chief saying he was contacted by the Cia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIGdWsxHJlM&feature=related - How facebook was set in motion by the Cia and its companies. (note: I have not checked out these sources, if anyone has, please let me know.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird - quick walkthrough of the history. might be a long read, but you will get the main idea. Some of the sources have some fascinating reads as well.

There is a lot more to read if anyone is interested.

Most people dont know about this and the ramifications it can have for us all. Do we trust the Cia at all? Can we find traces of this in the mass-media to support this? How can we identify this? Is it even possible to do so?

At least we should be aware that several decades ago, the Cia was involved in feeding the media with fake news, and we do not know what they do now.

For me this was a part of my turn of mind when it came to how I read and watch news. I do not "absorb" it anymore, I note how it is presented and how things suddenly fits.

Cia is just one of many power structures the empire uses. From its constitution in the National defence act it is ment to coordinate the intelligence of the different agencies. 

Mitt første innlegg

Takk til Magnus, http://jumhuriyetmagnus.wordpress.com/, som fikk meg til å prøve å lage en blogg.

Min eneste regel vil være:

Ingen sensur utenom klar spam (hvis disse kan sorteres bort i en "spam" kommentarliste så vil dette bli gjort uten å slette)

_______________________________________________________________________________

Kommentarer vil både være på aktuelle saker og på ubelyste temaer. Noen viktige definisjoner av ord vil forekomme og kildekritikk er ekstremt viktig. Diskuteres sitater fra f.eks Obama, så forholder vi oss til transcrips fra state.gov, ikke en selektiv journalist fra tv2, nrk, vg, dagbladet, bt osv. Engelsk er viktig og store deler av det jeg skriver vil være på engelsk. Skrivefeil kan forekomme, bare prøv å forstå meningen, men hvis noe er uklart så setter jeg pris på rettelse.

Jeg vil prøve å dele opp innlegg i f.eks;
Kildepresentasjon (link, link, kort presentasjon uten subjektiv mening)

Din mening (hva du mener, hvordan du begrunner tankerekken osv)

Konklusjon: hvordan du ser dette i en sammenheng, hvordan ble dette presentert på den tiden vs hva vi vet nå)

Kan muligens ende opp som en slags dagbok, man vet aldri.