[ Show ]
[ Shrink ]
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 01:56:01 06/08/05 Wed
Author: Leif Erlingsson, heretic®
Subject: Understanding freedom, UN, etc.
In reply to:
's message, "Understanding of what freedom is." on 01:42:57 06/04/05 Sat
I have now watched and pondered both "911: The Road to Tyranny" and "Martial Law 9/11 - Rise of the Police State". And your views. As for Alex Jones I have now concluded (since a few days, actually) that a MAJOR problem with Alex Jones and these films is that he seems to assume "guilty until proven innocent" rather than the other way around. I prefer to try to interpret peoples actions in the best possible light, given my knowledge of facts. (Though I consider it a fact that the Northwoods documents, that I have studied, prove that there were high level plans to fake attacks and I consider it proven that CIA and FBI were heavily involved in the killing and coverup of the Kennedy murder and likewise in the planning (that took many, many years), execution of and coverup of the 9-11 events. But this is from entirely different sources. Alex Jones gives me negative "vibes". Probably because he interprets facts in the worst possible light for whoever he accuses, rather that in the best possible light.)
As for the UN, while Alex Jones certainly are correct in that the US and other security council members forced it's setup in such a way that they could stop things they don't like, I think that your view of the UN is overly pessimistic. It is not the ideal tool, but the two states that has sabotaged the most is the US and Israel, US:s little helper there. Israel is also the worst criminal ever when it comes to ignoring UN resolutions, and if it wasn't for the symbiotic relationship between Israel and the US, the UN could have done a lot of good in the Middle East. To blame the UN for what is the fault of the US is just to externalize guilt on someone else. I am aware that for some in the US it is practically a tenet of faith that the UN is bad. I don't belong to that religion. If you wish to convince me that it is correct you have to PROVE to me with actual examples how the UN might have affected the US in a negative way. (And not the other way around...)
When you discuss not being able to build a shed, etc without a permit, those are local laws. I understand that you have about 12 000 or more different jurisdictions in the US (we have just 1 in Sweden). Therefore there's plenty of places with weird laws and abuses of freedom but 1) you can move someplace else with different local laws if you absolutely want to have your lawn-mover visible from the alley, and 2) you can run in the County elections and work to change the weird laws where you live, or lobby with those who already serve there. There's a difference between the local perspective, that you can (I hope!) change through local democracy, an the global perspective (outside local politics), where none of us really have much power to change things since none of the available choices in national politics in either your or my country in reality gives us a choice between death policies and life policies. Just different brands of death policies.
But to accuse the US for the errors in the US is totally absurd. Prove it!
And by the way, I think that the book "Value Wars : The Global Market Versus the Life Economy" by John McMurtry may be the most
important book on political philosophy since a certain other thinker wrote another work that since has divided political thinking into "left" and "right" thinking, over 100 years ago (1867). The new way of dividing political thinking will, I think, be between "death" and "life" thinking. John McMurtry is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Guelph and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. His articles in philosophy, economics and politics have been published across the world. His recent books include "The Cancer Stage of Capitalism".
Leif Erlingsson, heretic®.
``Ignorance is Strength.'' -- George Orwell
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |