Terrorism
from Nihilist view
anus.com
" A terrorist is generally seen as one who uses terror, or random attacks on civilians, to achieve political or military goals. While this definition would seem straightforward, there are exceptions. If the person attacking civilians is on our side, then that person is not a terrorist, especially if they attack civilians from military planes. However, if they're from some third-world Islamic backwater, they're clearly a terrorist and shouldn't be compared to decent Americans and Israelis bombing civilians from planes.
Questions that always come to mind are as follows: If someone's nation is militarily outclassed by the world's largest and wealthiest nation, why not use terror to strike at that which will otherwise surely crush you, thus nullifying your chances of achieving your objective? Also, if the wealthy nations are going to retaliate against civilians even in the case of military attack, as occurred in Iraq, why not first strike their civilians and increase the chances of their backing out?
Terrorism at its core is like any other political-psychological technique. The goal is to intimidate the enemy with uncertainty and potentially horrifying consequences, similar to the way the threats of nuclear war and superpower intervention are used against the unallied world. The question that is most relevant to Americans is, "How long will people put up with the name game of calling one side 'terrorists' and the others 'peacekeepers'?"
Former Haganah officer, Col. Meir Pa'el, upon his retirement from the Israeli army in 1972, made the following public statement about Deir Yasin that was published by Yediot Ahronot (April 4, 1972): "In the exchange that followed four [Irgun] men were killed and a dozen were wounded ... by noon time the battle was over and the shooting had ceased. Although there was calm, the village had not yet surrendered. The Irgun and LEHI men came out of hiding and began to `clean' the houses. They shot whoever they saw, women and children included, the commanders did not try to stop the massacre .... I pleaded with the commander to order his men to cease fire, but to no avail. In the meantime, 25 Arabs had been loaded on a truck and driven through Mahne Yehuda and Zichron Yousef (like prisoners in a Roman `March of Triumph'). At the end of the drive, they were taken to the quarry between Deir Yasin and Giv'at Shaul, and murdered in cold blood ... The commanders also declined when asked to take their men and bury the 254 Arab bodies. This unpleasant task was performed by two Gadna units brought to the village from Jerusalem."
Zvi Ankori, who commanded the Haganah unit that occupied Deir Yasin after the massacre, gave this statement in 1982 about the massacre, published by Davar on April 9, 1982: "I went into 6 to 7 houses. I saw cut off genitalia and women's crushed stomaches. According to the shooting signs on the bodies, it was direct murder." * "
Globalism
"At some point in human history, it was suggested - perhaps by a religious leader - that conflict is the source of all human suffering, and suffering can be taken away. When people pointed out the obvious inevitability of disease and death, this leader quickly spoke of the more important things, like an afterlife and moral behavior that is more important than survival itself. These grand emotional symbols took some time to sink in.
When they did, people formed a class of the politically active now called "liberals." Liberals believed in equality, in unity, in compassion and in raising up the downtrodden impoverished, racially discriminated against, gender-unequal and socially rejected. In exchange for doing this, liberals got to feel as if they were morally more important than the divisions of life itself between those who could do and those who could not.
After WWII, America and the Soviet Union tussled for control of large chunks of the world. At some point, the Soviets became corrupted by the depressing nature of egalitarian communism and power-hungry forces from within, causing their system to collapse and vaulting Americans to the top spot in the human power chain. Being of a fundamentally liberal nature on social policy, but a conservative nature in economics, Americans began to create an environment friendly for American corporations to go multinational.
Because this new arrangement would be a new form of colonialism, and because colonialism had created such a disaster none wanted to revisit it, the process of exporting raw materials from the third world to the first had to be dressed up in a "positive" form that all the television-fed sheep would find rewarded their sense of self image. As a result the current age takes the yearning of the last age, for a world without a constant threat of nuclear conflict from its partisanship, into unipartisan government.
The problems with this are manifold. First, it will contribute to the utter destruction of the environment, as this centralized government will like America before it make token concessions every year without addressing the real problem. Second, it will strengthen corporations across continents and in every voting market possible, causing them to be more powerful than ever before. Third, it will standardize cultures, languages, medias and heritage across the globe, normalizing humanity into a conformity to an average.
While the mythos of globalism and a peaceful world under one government seems appealing, it is this emotional appeal that is a hallmark of social manipulation for the further profits of those who recognize the rules are fake and act accordingly. A more sensible world order would allow local governments to decide whether or not they want to participate in Colonialism II without the presence of a superpower breathing down their necks. Whether this will be acceptable to the masses looking for an ego-boost remains to be seen."
anus.com
anus.com |
