NWO; Totalitarism/Libertarianism; leftism...

Remove all ads!

Let us see for how long you will keep your arrogant attitude.

I dont know if all of them, but millions of them are, as we can prove by simply looking at immigrant statistics.

Who do you think have it worse? The absolutely majority of Frenches are Christian. It is obvious who this is affecting the most.
Second of all, you missed the main point, which is that today's goverments disregard fully individual freedom, even banning the use of religious symbols. Unless you are a totalitarist, I am curious how you could support that.

How so?

Oh really? Do you want a noble prize for your incredibly smart conclusion? The fact the Law in germany is different to the one of the US does not make it moral or right.
It comes down to this: American Law gives people liberty to raise their children as they see fit and right, german's dont. germans law proihibits parents to give their children an education that is not in touch with the ideological stances of the goverment. Yes, I agree it is "as easy as that".
The law in some muslim countries allows that some women are put to death for the minimal infringes of islamism. It is perefectly legal to do so there. It is legal, so it must be right, according to your logic.
Plus, once again, it is the same issue: European Nations disregard the rights of the civil society to rule over itself. A bunch of politicians have the legal power - yet totally imoral - to decide how parents should raise their children - as if Burocrats would know better than the average citzen how should children be raised.

If I am a xenophobe, you are in the extreme opposite end and is a socialist.
NWO is something widely discussed. It is not my fault you have your head sunken who knows where.

How can someone discuss with someone who says Fox is "extreme right wing"? Maybe they are extreme right wing if we use standards of socialism. Otherwise, talking about paranoia...
As for links, it has been a while since this has happened. I will have to look for them.

Where should I start... Someone who is going to charge husbands who do not "lift a finger" to help their wives back in home is not a totalitarist? How moronic is that? This is the measure someone very respectul of the individual would take, right?
Do you think communism can not reshape itself to it's times? Do you think neo nazism is the same as nazism? Dont you think it has made adjustments to be more effective in our times?
I already mentioned reading material to everyone in this regard. Go reading about the fabian communists and Antonio Gramsci to know how this should develop. Because, with all due honesty, I am sick and tired of repeating the same stuff over and over because some people either can not grasp the first two times, or because they chose to ignore so.
I dont feel like enlightening you about Gramsci or the Fabian communists, at least not now, but I am sure you can find info about them by yourself very easily.
On a side note, you should do yourself a research on the political past of all the "social democrats" politicians.
I wonder who looks ignorant now.

Twisting my words is the best that you can do? There is a HUGE diference between shooting people who try to come to your land, and to make all efforts possible to bring in the most number of foreigners to your land, just for the sake of it.
Methinks the role of the president is to work for the well being of the population, not to apply his own moral and ideological standards to bring in millions of people because he thinks it is the right thing to do.

The church and the state are separated already for a long time.
As such, it would be good if Zapatero and his henchman would stop to meddle in the church's business.
By the way, I hardly think someone who reduces the complexity of the issue to "if the church cant handle, get lost" is any worthy discussing with. And yet you call yourself a Christians? Yes, Christians today believe the church should adapt itself to their own selfish will, instead of otherwise. You are not obliged to follow the church's ethos, but then do not call yourself a Christian.

Oh, sure. If that fits you.
So far you have been the easiest to deal with, because your post is full of sophisms and twistings, with zero real argumentative value. Now let grow ups continue this.
--------------------------------------------------

You are talking about nazism, which I am not supportive of.
Interesting that you would say a Nationalism regime and a small goverment is an oxymoron, when I already proved "humanist" European social democracies act in the most totalitarian ways and disregard personal freedom and autonomy. But yet you dont criticize them.
For the last time, you know nothing of my Nationalist background, simply because you have no knowledge of the people who influenced me. However, I can assure you it were not people like hitler and himmler.
Talking about generalizations...

Does that come as a surprise to you? The NWO is against National values/Culture and Traditionalism. Who do you think would denounce the NWO? It's own supporters? I dont see the point of your quote.
Lastly, why would I care for hitler? Why cant people like you stop bringing nazism when discussing against conservative people? Because you dont have real arguments and have to appeal to negative emotions nazism arise within people?
---------------------------------------------------

Want to laugh even more, tell us about your magical powers.

[ September 25, 2005, 20:14: Message edited by: Svyatoslav ]

 

I'm not talking about nazism, I'm talking about nationalistic regimes (even if nazis are included in the nationalistic regimes) like Franco in Spain, Metaxas and the Colonels in Greece, Kemal and his succesors in Turkey, Pinochet in Chile and so on. So still you haven't answered to my question, show me just one nationalistic regime that has introduced less government intervention and more freedom for the people.

As far as your arguments about the totalitarian ways of the european social democracies, I challenge you again to show me one social democracy (not a communist country) that has sent people to the exile or to prison because of their ideas,that has issued certificates of political beliefs, that has not allowed the existance of nationalistic parties. The democracies that have risen after WWII are far from perfect, they have many flaws but they are the best that this continent have ever had.

As you said I have no knowledge about the men who influenced your thought, but I'm willing to bet on one name, Zirinowsky.

 

I wish you had a better context for this statement. It appears to be just hanging out there, without a great deal of meaning. But I would take it to mean that it includes all "mankind" including gays, women, blacks, etc. If you wish to base this comment in the context of the Revolutionary generation, keep in mind that most of these groups were excluded from equal protection regarding life, liberty and property at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. It was not until much later that these groups received equal protection under the law.

But certainly most of the more liberal Framers of the Constitution believed that in the long term such protections based on notions of "equality" would be accomplished. An example of one such Framer would be Ben Franklin, and although he argued passionately against slavery, he still signed the Constitution, which permitted the institution of slavery to exist for at least another 20 years, in order to satisfy most of the Southern delegations and to fix their agreement on the final document. But again you may not be referring to the American Revolutionary generation at all.

[ September 25, 2005, 21:23: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Umm. You do.
How about backing your point up with something instead of trying to discredit other forum members?

 

Ok, lets do it.

To begin with, you should not believe everything you hear from the leftist media. The same people who bash Franco and Pinochet are the ones praising fidel and his thughs.
Fact is, both Franco and Pinochet fought against communist criminals who wanted to take over their countries.
Let me tell you something about the Spanish Civil War. The communists used to invade monastaries and rape nuns, shoot down priests, etc. It is hard for me to write this down and keep myself calm. How do you think one should deal with these kind of creatures? Do you think those are human beings? There were many Russian volunteers fighting for Franco. One of the highest officers from Pinochet was Russian. Why do you think is that? Because Russians had a taste of communism and communist's way of doing things, and to them it was quite clear what was their moral duty: To combat communism through out the World, so others would not suffer the same ill fate.
It was an extreme situation. Some measures had to be taken to avoid the spreading of communism. I know people who lived in Francos and Pinochet regimes, and none said they had not freedom. People were allowed to live their lives at their will, except the ones who wanted to overtake the goverment and stablish a communist order.

As I said, your examples are unfair. Those were results of a Civil War, in which the winning side had to take measures to defend their countries against communism.
Economically, I assure you both Spain and Chile were more liberal back then that Scandinavian countries are nowdays, with their gigantic welfare system and high taxes.
That said, I would like to know if what sense the goverment is smaller now.

You joking? I know personal cases of people who faced trial because they were labeled "nazis" in germany. Indeed, there are no political exiles, but you can most certainly be put into jail if your ideology is regarded as "extreme".
Also, you are focusing on political issues to prove these social democracies respect individual freedoms, but what about the rest? Did you not read my posts so far? People being jailed because they want to educate their children according to their will; a president which wants to legally oblige husbands to do domestic work; people being denied the right to use religious symbols; all kinds of laws to regulate the interaction between people in civil levels. Do you ignore all that? This is not totalitarism?

You see, that is why it is hard to discuss rationally, when the idea you have of Nationalism is so wrong. How could this guy be a "Russian" Nationalist when he is not even Russian? That is why we call him Zhidnovsky. He is no Russian, he is jewish, and he does nothing more than embarassing Russians internationally; not to say he is a terrible example for Nationalists. He is just an agent to discredit real Nationalists. You should not take seriously any infiltrator that deceively portrays himself as a Nationalist.
Being under the lies of the mass, it is no surprise to me the totally wrong idea you have of Nationalism.
I am a bit busy now, if my reply was not self explanatory enough, let me know. Just do not make me repeat the same point yet again.
---------------------------------------------------

You TOTALLY missed my point. I will briefly repeat it.
The liberal justice system was a huge step because it assumed people are equal under the law. It is not the role of the justice system, though, to interefere in the civil society, by deciding what we can do and what we can not; or to enforce laws which restrict our freedom in the name of fixing social conflicts. In other words, this is something a totalitarian state would do, which is totally opposite to the idea of liberalism.
---------------------------------------------------

I backed, all of them. On a side note, he was the one who called me a fool before. But maybe you chose to ignore that.
Anyway, you are the one jumping in this discussion with a parachute, adding nothing at all to either side. If you want to challenge my arguments, feel free to do so, and if I have time to answer to even one more person, I shall. Otherwise, I will give myself the right to ignore you.

[ September 25, 2005, 21:40: Message edited by: Svyatoslav ]

 

I have always thought that the increasing of government is just a natural consequence of the increasing of population density seen in every country worldwide. A more dense population requires a more structured social rule set to allow for productive and peaceful coexistence.

Take sexual harrassment laws for example. I have had the privilage to live in both a small town and spend significant time in a city. In the small town, life is, of course, quite different. Many husbands work with their wives so sexual harrassment laws in that case are nonsensical. But for the majority of small town women, that is not true. However, they have a significant advantage over women of the cities: They all know each other! The men whom act like pubescent boys are all known to them! An urban woman has no such protection; many unsuspecting young ladies are subjected to blatant sexual tones, both over and under, which make for an extremely uncomfortable and ackward work environment. Not only that, but the lack of maturity seen in adult men acting pubescent results in them having vindictive behavior; the harrassed woman must now worry over the job reference upon leaving. And when she leaves that company, unlike in the small town where her new employer would have knowledge of the creepiness of her former employer, the urban potential employer has no knowledge of the behavior of the previous and must take his word as fact.

Without a more stringent and visible social rule set, the urban woman would suffer.

Cities need an authority to spell out the social rule set. If, as you claim, bureaucrats are incapable of this role, then whom shall do it? Religious officials? That is a bad idea as made evident by the former Taliban and the current system in Iran.

So we are left with bureaucrats. It is the only viable option. Just make sure you vote!

 

Ah, which leftist media would that be? As a genuine liberal, I certainly wish we had one - or do you mean those "leftists" at the FOX News Channel?

I want to respond to this but the forum rules are specific, and politics should be redirected to AoLS...

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/34/253.html

[ September 25, 2005, 21:51: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

First time, I've ever heardthis before.
Usually, The NWO is claimed to be faking the terrorist attacks, in order to:
a) drive up oil prices
(most involved claimed to be high up in current governments + banks
b) de-stabilise regions where they have no authority (excuse to invade and place their own representatives in charge)
c) trick the victims of their attacks into giving up their "freedom2
d) bring about armageddon so they can enter heaven

and finally e)
It never is even remotely liberal
ie 1984 type scenario.

How do immigration statistics prove all muslims are out to get the west?

Christians who aren't required by their religon to wear crosses, or muslims required to wear hijab, etc + jews required to wear that hat (forgot proper name)

Only in Islamist states (NOT the same as thats with the state religon being islam), and thankfully there aren't that many of them left.

These are the same parents who sue not being told that using a microwave to dry a dog (the animal) is a bad idea. You really believe that you should allow parents to determine their childs future career?
I take it you weren't home schooled.

If fox isn't right-wing can you name a news programme that is?

That's still not communism, rather quite the opposite.

Fabian Communists
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/nl016.htm

Fabian Socialists
http://www.alor.org/Library/FabianSocialistContributiontotheCommunistAdvance.htm

Gramsci
http://www.marxistsfr.cjb.net/archive/gramsci/index.htm
http://www.pearlegg.net/gramsci.html

And just who's doing that, without a justifable reason.

That bdepends on where your standing

So by that logic the below quote from the bible should be accepted/allowed

It approves rape.

[ September 25, 2005, 22:03: Message edited by: edorien ]

 

Now that Bush has been brought (by name) into this topic it definitely needs to be in AoLS...

 

Chandos,

So, what should I do? It was not my intent that this be a political discussion. Can I continue this argument?

 

Yes, you can. We just ask that political issues be discussed in AoLS. I created a thread there for some aspects of this discussion that appear to be more political. You can also use that thread if you wish to respond to the political aspects of this debate.

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/34/253.html

 

I belive it is imperative to treat both religions with the same importance , most normal it would to allow religiose simmbols , but if that think is not possible both religions should be treated equally ,personally i belive that most religions brought a lot of troubles trough history by generating a lot of conflicts and halting progress (despite the fact that most promote peace)

Most people are nationalists , a lot of modern countries have or had in recent history a nationalist government (Austria , Israel) the fact that a countrie is ruled by a democratic government does not mean that nationalism dosen't exist

 

@Syvatoslav:
Who said I was laughing? I'm simply glued to the edge of my seat waiting for the mods to finally come down on you for repeatedly assuming that because the other board members don't agree with you, they must be stupid and unable to understand such simple ideas as xenophobia, nazism, fascism, communism, government, etc. I'm also wondering what terrible tragedy has made you so defensive that you phrase all of your arguments as attacks upon the person you're debating.

A good rule of thumb for anyone as ... spicy as you is to let someone impartial read your writings before you post them. Failing that, simply wait an hour and try to consider your response from the other person's point of view.

So, until you can discuss this matter rationally like the rest of the people here at SP, I will simply sit back and read your ... entertaining posts. Good luck.

 

We don't need the mods...

Syvatoslav is quite intelligent and aggressive, but despite those qualities he is also quite wrong. Reason will prevail....at least until he starts invoking religious dogma...

 

Really? Strange because I bash equally Fidel with Franco and Pinochet. Also, Aliente was not a criminal thug, he was an elected leader and I guess that you have never heard about Guernica.

The baltic volunteers of the Waffen SS as well as Vlassov's ROA can claim the same thing but I remember you bashing them in another thread. Double standards?

Again, Pinochet has overthrown an elected goverment and people were allowed to live their lives as long as they bowed their head and accept the robbery of their civil rights.

The only result of civil war is Spain, Pincohet, Metaxas and the Colonels have overthrown democratically elected goverments and Kemal was the leader of a liberation movement (from the turks' point of view). Still, I'm waiting for an answer.

I know that there are antinazi laws in germany but also, I have seen veterans of Waffen SS being the leaders of rightwing parties. Also, were those people convicted just for their views or because they were provoking acts of violence against immigrants and other groups?

I'm focusing on political issues and civil liberties because they are the ones, which give you the right to protest about the other things you mentioned. In the nationalistic regimes the single protest even for minor issues is enough reason to send you to prison.

The fact that he is of jewish origin doesn't makes him less Russian, unless you believe in the purity of blood. I have italian blood in me (an anscestor of mine came from Italy to Greece 800 years ago) does this mean that I'm not Greek?
Anyway, I have seen him in the news expressing opinions similar to yours, especially about Turkey, so that's why I jumped to this conclusion. BTW, what Zhidnovsky means? I guess that it is a word play but since I don't know Russian...

 

Late Night Thinker,

I replied to you in the thread opened by Chandos in the political section.
-----------------------------------------------------

FOX news is typical pro-israel neo con type of midia. While they are most certainly not leftists, I dont regard them as rightist either.
As for leftist vehicles, here are some: CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, almost all newspapers, with the exception of the Wallstreet journal and the Washington Post, but those two are not rightists in the real sense of the word. They are just suckers to israel really. They are biased as well, and dont have much credibility.
If you want to further debate this, I can tell you why both are not very different in their goals really.
---------------------------------------------------

No, the NWO has nothing to do with this. I mean, B and C are sensical to me, but honestly I could not understand much from your quote.

Why dont you pay to attention to what I write before replying? I said the immigration statistics prove millions of them are, not all of them.

Yes, they are not required to. But what if they wish to? They are denied the right...

True, but my point was not that all islamist countries are evil, but rather than being legal does not mean it is right or moral - regarding what he said about german law prohibiting homeschooling and being as easy as that.

Sorry, but could you re-write this sentence?

Most certainly not. I believe the parents should have the right to educate their children according to their will and beliefs. When their offspring is old enough to decide for themselves, then they must do it, by all accounts.
However, before they are old enough to have a saying in their own lives, it is a matter of either letting to the parents, or to the state, the right to raise them. I dont think there should be any doubt who should be given this right, unless you are a supporter of the Big Brother.

As I said to Chandos, FOX news is what we could label as neo con and pro-israel. I hardly think these neo cons differ much from the leftists in their policies though. I mean, Bush and his neo cons control both senate and the house of representatives, but what moves do they take against illegal immigration - Bush actually mentioned giving amnesty to them? What have they done against abortion, which is still fully legal in the first three months? Again, they control both the White House and the Congress, so they could easily pull a few things about it.
Ok, so Bush is a Warmonger. Didnt Clinton bombed the hell out of Serbia as well?

Which is not? Zapatero's measure, or both Gramsci and the fabian communists? I can easilly prove all of them are.

Given the fact I am replying to lots of people at the same time, I would humbly ask that people read what I post before replying, as to avoid me unnecessary work.
Didnt I say Zapatero will focus all of his efforts into bringing immigrants into Spain? He did not say he will allow them to come, if there is a just reason, he said he will make policies for them to come...

I thought it was clear we are talking about Europe.

No it does not. And I said people should not expect the church to adapt itself to their own selfish desires and will. Nothing more than that. Dont twist my words.
--------------------------------------------------

I believe people should chose themselves. If Europeans want to follow this path, let them do as they please.
However, Orthodoxy is key to Eastern Slavic Culture, and so it is the the will of most of us that it remains as the most important religion of our Nations - Western Ukraine is Uniata, let them do as they wish too.
It is only natural that the Russian goverment should attend people's demands and promote the Orthodox religion.
As for halting progress, I am not going to discuss the role of the Church in Europe, but in Russia Orthodoxism was always a bastion of Russian Culture, and can not be accused of acting against us.
---------------------------------------------------

You implied my posts were a motive of fun to you - I would assume because they are stupid or nonsensical.
I just made a point they are not not the least more so than your's regarding your self proclaimed magical powers.
As simply as that.
---------------------------------------------------

I provided a lot of evidence and backing up. If your response to them is "reason will prevail", then I suppose you are the one being dogmatic.
--------------------------------------------------

Good to know you are an exception. Yes, I have heard about Guernica. It was "majestically" portrayed by the communist Picasso. Before you say something, he was a self proclaimed communist, so no need to say I am making this up.

Yes, because they allied themselves against people who wanted to exterminate/enslave us. Can you not see the difference?
By the way, Vlasov, as I said before, I have mixed things about him. It is not like he was a criminal coward like Bandera.

What civil rights were robbed? Only communists were persecuted...

That is not exactly what quite happened. What answer? I already said I have no reasons to believe Franco or Pinochet are any more totalitarians than Schirrac and Zapatero.
Anyway, I not sure what you mean by Nationalist goverment. In a way, the French Revolution might be ragarded as Nationalist.

Because they wore swastykas, or because they shout heil hitler or sieg heil.

So, meddling into our lives, like the millions of examples that I gave is ok, as long as you have the illusion that you can "protest"?
Also, I am not quite sure about your deffinition of Nationalist. You would be right, in a way, if you said fascists instead.

I am not sure how do you deal this situation in Greece, but in Russian language there are two different words that serve their purposes right. Russkii and Rossyanin.

He is good at making himself looking like a clown, and by result all of us, even though he has nothing to do with Russians, much less Russian Nationalists.
zhid means jewish. No big deal.

[ September 26, 2005, 01:13: Message edited by: Svyatoslav ]

 

Made a bit of search
From WIKIPEDIA

Ignoring the predictions that seem generated by paranoia like 9 or 5 , or the ones I support(abolition of gun ownership ) it seems that NWO wants to change the world in one big state witch will eventually happen sonner or later anyway ,I truly do no belive that people can be controlled for long periods of time so if there is a NWO who wants to control the world they will fail

 

Thanks! That is a good summary! I believe this should offer people an easier and more up to the point explanation of what is the NWO than what I have provided so far.
Of course this is only a summary - albeit a good one.
We can discuss from point 1 to 9 some other time - I am kind tired now. But this should provide a starting point for some people in the mean time.
Notice these points share a lot in common with some of the things I have said.

 

Not a really reliable source...

 

Well, it is a discussion about the supposed NWO, Chandos - they'd hardly be handing out brochures...

In the end, extreme-right-wing and extreme-left-wing positions end up similarly autocratic positions, although motivated by different impulses. In both cases, they involve an appeal to a supposed "higher law/moral authority" as a justification to hand over near-absolute power to a group of people who may or may not have anything other than ideology to direct them.

One of the reasons, I guess, why being a liberal centrist (with some leftist leanings) suits me down to the ground.