 |
Faith Freedom International
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Scandinavian infidel
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 623
Location: Norwegian ex-pat, living in "the belly of the beast"
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 3:52 am Post subject: Freedom of speech finally abolished in Sweden? |
 |
|
Sweden, already the most suicidally Politically Correct country in the Western world, has finally taken the logical step and abolished freedom of speech all together:
STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - Sweden's broadcasting watchdog says it is censuring an Oprah Winfrey talk show for showing bias towards a U.S. military attack on Iraq.
The censure means Swedish television network TV4, which broadcast the show in February, must publish the decision but there are no legal or financial penalties, Annelie Ulfhielm, an official of Sweden's Broadcasting Commission, told Reuters.
"Different views were expressed, but all longer remarks gave voice to the opinion that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States and should be the target of attack," Sweden's Broadcasting Commission said on Wednesday.
Hey, Loranga, I hear they have good beaches in Cuba. Almost no muslims, cute girls and sunny weather, as well. Now, they even have as much freedom of speech as Sweden. Something to consider, perhaps?
On a more serious side: Let Sweden serve as a reminder to others of how bad things can get if we don't fight. The situation in Europe looks so much like the 1930s that it is starting to become quite scary. Some people are waking up, but most are still in denial. It will require a European 9/11, or worse, for this to change.
_________________
The Islamic world is involved in up to 90% of the wars and terrorist attacks on the planet. If Islam is a religion of peace, how does a religion of war look like?
Last edited by Scandinavian infidel on Sun Sep 21, 2003 9:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
loranga
Joined: 01 Jan 2003
Posts: 1391
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 9:52 am Post subject: Re: Freedom of speech finally abolished in Sweden? |
|
|
| Scandinavian infidel wrote: | | Hey, Loranga, I hear they have good beaches in Cuba. Almost no muslims, cute girls and sunny weather, as well. Now, they even have as much freedom of speech as Sweden. Something to consider, perhaps? |
I gather Cuba is even better in the sense that the people know that they live in an oppressive political climate. Their mouths are silenced, but the are still free in their minds. While the Swedes are fully convinced that they live in a democratic paradise on Earth, and regularly express their enthusiasm over it privately. The Swedes are completely indoctrinated by the leftist newspeak, where democracy no more means "folkstyre" but "folkstyrning" (Sorry for the Swedish, but that would roughly translate into "control by the people" compared to "control of the people").
The political norm -- the centre point of the political spectrum -- is far left in Sweden. And anything beyond centre-right is condidered undemocratic. And undemocratic opinions are not supposed to be voiced, it becomes a civic duty to shut the mouths of such people, and thereby increasing the democracy according to the prevailing Swedish definition.
| Quote: | | On a more serious side: Let Sweden serve as a reminder to others of how bad things can get if we don't fight. The situation in Europe looks so much like the 1930s that it is starting to become quite scary. |
I'm pondering upon when this could have been stopped. The whole fundament for the current situation was built during the golden years (50's and 60's), when Sweden (almost literally speaking) was the best country in the world, with an amazing economic as well as social development, and everybody was hilarious about it. Well, it was easy to be the best after avoiding both WWI and WWII, and the socialists got all the credit for it.
Swedish people still thinks that Sweden is much more democratic and socially developed than the rest of Europe (governmental propaganda works as always), this is why they just voted "no" to the Euro (it might have been the right decision, but it was made for all the wrong reasons). The Swedes fail to see that Sweden has turned into the new DDR (Easter Germany) both socially and democratically (like that would be a surprise after 70 years of socialist hegemony). The standard of our schools and hospitals are disastrous, and Sweden has evolved into a queueing society. The public sector is the largest in the world, so most of your basic needs are controlled from there, and whatever you need you have to queue and queue, often for years.
I guess if you put all the focus on distribution, and no focus on production (and even harrass emerging companies that are successful), eventually there will be nothing left to distribute. Even Karl Marx understood the progressive force of capitalism. The socialist politicians of Sweden are more like the sabotage branch of socialists (comes from French word sabot (clog), since the French farmers put clogs in the new agricultural machines in the early days of industialization). The Swedish socialists put clogs in the machinery of vital business, just because capitalism is their image of evil, and since such successful people are the biggest threat to their dream utopia of a society of equal outcome for everybody.
So much value value has been created in Sweden, thanks to the extremely business friendly climate we had in 1870-1930. This was the real golden era with a boom in creativity, productivity and industrialisation. The number of world class inventors and entrepeneurs created in this period of time is probably still unmatched in history (considering the size of the country). So there is still a lot of value more to be destroyed by the clogs in the machinery politics, before it is all gone, even though they have been going on already for 35 years (until the end of the 60's, politics of distribution generally made sense). But suddenly one day, the Swedes will be standing on an ash-pile wondering what happened to their paradise.
Sweden is actually still the ideal country for leftists around the world. Maybe we do not need a 9/11 to make people wake up. Maybe we should just let the Swedish politicians finish their job. Soon also the economical level will be like in DDR, and the ethnic situation like in Balkan. At some point even the leftist might understand that this is what their politics leads to. Or will they just go on finding new excuses?
Sometimes I think that Sweden is the most absurd country there is. I think one has to live the experience to really understand it. I understand that people are left-wing in many places of the world, just because they are in opposition to some right-wing government where they live. But hey, wake up, and have a closer look at Sweden. It is the best place for studying what really happens when the Left is in full control.
_________________
There is no PeeCee way out of PeeCeeism, just as there is no Islamic way out of Islam. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bush badee
Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 1442
Location: usa
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ioranga wrote
| Quote: |
(Sorry for the Swedish, but that would roughly translate into "control by the people" compared to "control of the people").
|
That is a remarkable psalm.
Very interesting.
I will have to remember that.
I wish I could remember it in swedish, it has more punch in swedish than English but translation does not do the saying any harm.
_________________
to answere directly email to
Bushbadee@aol.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loranga
Joined: 01 Jan 2003
Posts: 1391
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bush badee wrote: | Ioranga wrote
| Quote: |
(Sorry for the Swedish, but that would roughly translate into "control by the people" compared to "control of the people").
|
That is a remarkable psalm.
Very interesting.
I will have to remember that.
I wish I could remember it in swedish, it has more punch in swedish than English but translation does not do the saying any harm. |
A language with words as produktkorrelationskoefficienten is of course unmatched when it comes to reaching the real poetic hights  .
_________________
There is no PeeCee way out of PeeCeeism, just as there is no Islamic way out of Islam. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bush badee
Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 1442
Location: usa
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
language with words as produktkorrelationskoefficienten is |
Is that like antidisestablismentarianism?
_________________
to answere directly email to
Bushbadee@aol.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loranga
Joined: 01 Jan 2003
Posts: 1391
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bush badee wrote: | | Quote: |
language with words as produktkorrelationskoefficienten is |
Is that like antidisestablismentarianism? |
Well, I guess English could serve as a good language for poetry too then.
Some more Swedish poetry:
arbetslöshetsförsäkringsdelegationen
kommunikationsforskningsberedningen
olycksfallsförsäkringslagstiftningen
järnvägsvagnsreparationsverkstäder
universitetsbibliotekarietjänsten
_________________
There is no PeeCee way out of PeeCeeism, just as there is no Islamic way out of Islam. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bush badee
Joined: 21 Nov 2002
Posts: 1442
Location: usa
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | arbetslöshetsförsäkringsdelegationen
kommunikationsforskningsberedningen
olycksfallsförsäkringslagstiftningen
järnvägsvagnsreparationsverkstäder
universitetsbibliotekarietjänsten
|
You are kidding arent you ?  
_________________
to answere directly email to
Bushbadee@aol.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loranga
Joined: 01 Jan 2003
Posts: 1391
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 3:07 pm Post subject: Re: Freedom of speech finally abolished in Sweden? |
|
|
| loranga wrote: | | The political norm -- the centre point of the political spectrum -- is far left in Sweden. And anything beyond centre-right is condidered undemocratic. And undemocratic opinions are not supposed to be voiced, it becomes a civic duty to shut the mouths of such people, and thereby increasing the democracy according to the prevailing Swedish definition. |
Just to give an example most of you might know about. In year 2000, when the Freedom Party (FPÖ) entered the government together with ÖVP in Austria, all the other EU countries unanimously froze all diplomatic ties with Austria. At the time the vast majority of the EU countires had socialist governments. The EU freeze out of Austria was orchestrated by the Austrian socialist party, as a means to promote socialism at the expense of FPÖ domestically. FPÖ had gotten 27% of the votes in the election, and for the first time in Austrian history, the position of the socialists was threatened.
The motivation for this way of acting from the hegemonial left-wing establishment of the time was that Jörg Haider was xenophobic and undemocratic (see BBC e.g.). No respect was show to the fact that 27% of the Austrian voters had voted for FPÖ. (It is absolutely amazing how shameless these Leftists are!)
Of course, there are no rules for how countires must act when it comes to diplomatic relation. The 14 EU countries were in their full right to do what they did, regardless of how unfair or how inconsequent it was. My point is not about that. My point is about the cluelessness when it comes to Leftists about the meaning of democracy. In the view of the Leftist establishment, democratic means having the right opinions. The ones that have to much wrong opinions are labelled with the term undemocratic, and according to the left the most democratic measure possible then is to do everything in order to silence that person or organisation.
As I said before. Countries are entitled to act like that. But Leftists of the world: please stop abusing the concept of democracy! However, with this kind of mentality, you can imagine what will happen within a country when these Leftists are totally dominating the political scene. It's all propaganda, brainwash and no free speech in practice about critical issues.
BTW, Jörg Haider was an idiot, but that's beside the point. FPÖ was an important party for the democratic dynamics of Austria. With leftist totalitarian bullying, free speech crumbles, democracy decays, and that means that the democratic dynamics of a country disappears, the innovation of ideas and confrontation between ideas disappear, and the only thing that remains is stagnation, intellectual stagnation, political stagnation and moral stagnation, even worse: propaganda brainwash and nihilism.
_________________
There is no PeeCee way out of PeeCeeism, just as there is no Islamic way out of Islam. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spinoza
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 1214
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 11:03 pm Post subject: Re: Freedom of speech finally abolished in Sweden? |
|
|
| Quote: | | BTW, Jörg Haider was an idiot, but that's beside the point. FPÖ was an important party for the democratic dynamics of Austria. With leftist totalitarian bullying, free speech crumbles, democracy decays, and that means that the democratic dynamics of a country disappears, the innovation of ideas and confrontation between ideas disappear, and the only thing that remains is stagnation, intellectual stagnation, political stagnation and moral stagnation, even worse: propaganda brainwash and nihilism. |
You are *so* right about the FPO, we've had near similar scenes here with the LPF (though the LPF was nowhere near as radical as the FPO) and the Belgians have their Vlaams blok.
It's always a mystery to me how so called democrats whish to deal with anything too far from centre...I should say too far *right* from the centre of the political spectrum. Since in Europe the extreme left has always been free to go about their business. In the states it's the other way around I think: there it's anything that's too leftish that gets branded 'communist' or 'liberal'.
I actually say that particular Oprah show a fiew months ago, and it is a biased show: but WHO cares? Journalists, magazines, newspapers and tv shows are ALWAYS biased. I'm not sure if they 'should' or 'shouldn't' but it's a simple fact of life that they just are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Susan
Joined: 06 Apr 2002
Posts: 2727
Location: none
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/09/FreedomofTreason.shtml
Read this whole thing (especially the bottom part, where the law applicable to this woman is explained) and see why Americans are beginning to loathe Europeans. BBC prints shameless lies about our country and Europeans buy it hook, line and sinker.
Yes, every news outlet is biased but what's the excuse for the outright lies printed by the BBC?
_________________
The Sudanese Civil war has killed 2 million people and pushed 4 million tribespeople off their ancestral lands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loranga
Joined: 01 Jan 2003
Posts: 1391
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 8:55 am Post subject: Re: Freedom of speech finally abolished in Sweden? |
|
|
| Spinoza wrote: | | You are *so* right about the FPO, we've had near similar scenes here with the LPF (though the LPF was nowhere near as radical as the FPO) and the Belgians have their Vlaams blok. |
Some comments:
1. And LPF or at least their leader Pim Fortuyn made a lot of sense, compared to anything else, and especially compared to FPÖ and Jörg Haider. But the Leftist Establishment do not distinguish at all. They give the same suffocation treatment to each and everyone that threatens their core values and utopian fantasies.
2. My main point about this is how the Leftist Establishment in Sweden have succeeded completely in this mission, and there is no threat whatsoever to their utopian fantasies from within the country. And how viscously suffocating the political climate of a country turns when the Leftist Establishment controls all the information.
| Quote: | | It's always a mystery to me how so called democrats whish to deal with anything too far from centre... |
This proves that they are no longer democrats in spirit. The vast majority of the Westerners live extremely comfortable lives. I compare them with domesticized animals. We could also compare them with the aristocracy of the old times, consdiering the way they lead their lives. These people do not have a clue at all. They never lived under such circumstances that would give them a clue. Instead it is today radicals from a background of oppression (as Ali Sina or Ibn Warraq, just to mention a few), that fully understands and breathes the spirit of freedom and democracy. Trust these people. But never trust a Westerner. Consider all Westerners as Marie Antoinettes. The are just the same. All these "world improvers" going around the world, imposing their cultural imperialism upon other cultures, having little clue about what they are really doing (since they completly lost track of their own history -- I guess they focused too much on eating deserts and drinking wine). Their ideas of how to "help" the poor countries in the world generally sounds like a "Let them eat cakes" in my ears.
So we should not be surprised that these aristocratic-like Westerners no longer have an idea of the meaning of democracy. The only thing they care for is to build and image around themselves that looks good considering the prevailing trends. They adhere to political correctness, which means only focusing on etiquette, and leaving ethics all behind.
It must become clear to all the people of the world, we cannot trust these people at all. The have no clue about politics or ethics or why it is important, no more than a domestic animal has about the life conditions in a real forrest. Just as a domestic animal is unable to find its own food and protect itself in the real world, but are fully dependent on the very protected environment where they exist, so are these aristocratic-like Westerners fully dependent on the protected environment that they live in. However, just as the domestic animals they have not a clue about how this environment was created, so now that they are in charge of it they will destroy the preconditions for it.
Trust the real radicals! The domestic animals have the finest fur and speaks more beautifully, due to their aristocratic-like background. But these people just don't have a clue.
| Quote: | | In the states it's the other way around I think: there it's anything that's too leftish that gets branded 'communist' or 'liberal'. |
Do you think that the label 'liberal' in the US is comparable to the labels 'undemocratic' or 'xenophobic' of Europe?
Do you imagine that when the New York Times label someone as 'liberal', they aim att achieving the same effect as the BBC does when they write that Jörg Haider is undemocratic and xenophobic?
Maybe, you ought to aquaint yourself a little more with the country USA? I'm sure that you have a lot of important things to say about the US. But don't you think that the Americans would listen a little more to what you want to say if you would have at least a little more clue about the US? Or is your purpose not to try to influence Americans with the ideas you believe in?
_________________
There is no PeeCee way out of PeeCeeism, just as there is no Islamic way out of Islam. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spinoza
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 1214
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 10:31 am Post subject: Re: Freedom of speech finally abolished in Sweden? |
|
|
| Quote: | | 1. And LPF or at least their leader Pim Fortuyn made a lot of sense, compared to anything else, and especially compared to FPÖ and Jörg Haider. But the Leftist Establishment do not distinguish at all. They give the same suffocation treatment to each and everyone that threatens their core values and utopian fantasies. |
Well, the LPF didn't make a lot of sense to me, especially once they got into power. I agree with you on that leftwing-has-a-blurred-vision on reality point. I do think that the political right suffers from the same distorted view on 'the left' though. Just take a look at []'s post about nazism, communism and liberalism: it's all pretty much the same to him.
| Quote: | | 2. My main point about this is how the Leftist Establishment in Sweden have succeeded completely in this mission, and there is no threat whatsoever to their utopian fantasies from within the country. And how viscously suffocating the political climate of a country turns when the Leftist Establishment controls all the information. |
Well, you'd be quite surprised how fast these things can change. Here in the Netherlands we were were the Swedes were at (maybe not as bad, but close) about 3 years ago...
| Quote: | | It's always a mystery to me how so called democrats whish to deal with anything too far from centre... |
| Quote: | | This proves that they are no longer democrats in spirit. |
*every* politician should be in oposition every now and then...it's healthy.
| Quote: | | The vast majority of the Westerners live extremely comfortable lives. I compare them with domesticized animals. We could also compare them with the aristocracy of the old times, consdiering the way they lead their lives. These people do not have a clue at all. They never lived under such circumstances that would give them a clue. Instead it is today radicals from a background of oppression (as Ali Sina or Ibn Warraq, just to mention a few), that fully understands and breathes the spirit of freedom and democracy. Trust these people. But never trust a Westerner. Consider all Westerners as Marie Antoinettes. The are just the same. All these "world improvers" going around the world, imposing their cultural imperialism upon other cultures, having little clue about what they are really doing (since they completly lost track of their own history -- I guess they focused too much on eating deserts and drinking wine). Their ideas of how to "help" the poor countries in the world generally sounds like a "Let them eat cakes" in my ears. |
I agree wholeheartedly: if you want to know what freedom is or prosperity: talk to those who don't have it.
| Quote: | | So we should not be surprised that these aristocratic-like Westerners no longer have an idea of the meaning of democracy. The only thing they care for is to build and image around themselves that looks good considering the prevailing trends. They adhere to political correctness, which means only focusing on etiquette, and leaving ethics all behind. |
I beg to differ: even in a fact-cat-country like my own Pim Fortuyn could stand up and stir up the people.
| Quote: | It must become clear to all the people of the world, we cannot trust these people at all. The have no clue about politics or ethics or why it is important, no more than a domestic animal has about the life conditions in a real forrest. Just as a domestic animal is unable to find its own food and protect itself in the real world, but are fully dependent on the very protected environment where they exist, so are these aristocratic-like Westerners fully dependent on the protected environment that they live in. However, just as the domestic animals they have not a clue about how this environment was created, so now that they are in charge of it they will destroy the preconditions for it.
Trust the real radicals! The domestic animals have the finest fur and speaks more beautifully, due to their aristocratic-like background. But these people just don't have a clue. |
Well, I do think that radicals in general are more open about what they have to say: that doens't make what they have to say wisdom. I'm someone of the moderate middle road.
| Quote: | | Do you think that the label 'liberal' in the US is comparable to the labels 'undemocratic' or 'xenophobic' of Europe? |
Yes. And most certainly are the labels: atheist, homosexual, unpatriotic or socialist.
| Quote: | | Do you imagine that when the New York Times label someone as 'liberal', they aim att achieving the same effect as the BBC does when they write that Jörg Haider is undemocratic and xenophobic? |
No, the in the US one would use 'unpatriottic' or start dumping manure in front of people houses (like they did with 'lefty' Micheal Moore)
| Quote: | | Maybe, you ought to aquaint yourself a little more with the country USA? I'm sure that you have a lot of important things to say about the US. |
Well, I actually LIVED in the states. Attended University there and I have a score of American friends. I like to think I know the country pretty well.
| Quote: | | But don't you think that the Americans would listen a little more to what you want to say if you would have at least a little more clue about the US? Or is your purpose not to try to influence Americans with the ideas you believe in? |
I think I can safely say that my first hand experiences with the US are pretty accurate. I've met people from New-York to Texas and I have spend considerable time in the twin-Cities, Missouri, Chicago and Florida (Tampa Area). I doesn't make me an expert on thing but I can safely say that Americans 'fear' the left as much as Europeans 'fear' the right.
Both types of fear cloud the judgement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loranga
Joined: 01 Jan 2003
Posts: 1391
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 12:58 pm Post subject: Re: Freedom of speech finally abolished in Sweden? |
|
|
| Spinoza wrote: |
Well, the LPF didn't make a lot of sense to me, especially once they got into power. |
LPF didn't make a lot of sense since Pim Fortyun was shot. Another victory for those people with the "creative" interpretation of democracy.
| Quote: | | I agree with you on that leftwing-has-a-blurred-vision on reality point. I do think that the political right suffers from the same distorted view on 'the left' though. Just take a look at []'s post about nazism, communism and liberalism: it's all pretty much the same to him. |
1. My point was not about blurred vision on reality point. My point was about lack of understanding of the concept of democracy. Voltaire's motto could easily be extended: "I have a fully blurred vision about what your opinion really is, but I'm defending your right to voice it".
2. I do not believe that according to LL all these ideologies are the same. But I leave that for him to sort out.
3. Liberalism and socialism, and their different offsprings, all have common roots in the French Revolution. It is important to understand that. I already wrote about it here:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=95492#95492
| Quote: | | Quote: | | 2. My main point about this is how the Leftist Establishment in Sweden have succeeded completely in this mission, and there is no threat whatsoever to their utopian fantasies from within the country. And how viscously suffocating the political climate of a country turns when the Leftist Establishment controls all the information. |
Well, you'd be quite surprised how fast these things can change. Here in the Netherlands we were were the Swedes were at (maybe not as bad, but close) about 3 years ago... |
An important difference between Christianity and Islam, as we all know, is that there were cracks in the wall of Christianity, making it possible to reform it, while Islam is written in stone (the Quran being a perfect copy of the divine bok in heaven, so nothing can be questioned).
Holland had cracks in the wall. Sweden have no cracks in the wall. The only threat to the Swedish establishment is reality. But the Swedes are caught in the symbolic world of the national press, so they pay little attention to reality.
| Quote: | | *every* politician should be in oposition every now and then...it's healthy. |
Yes, indeed. Otherwise there will only be a democracy on paper. And for every government there must always be a serious and strong opposition. Otherwise no real democracy.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | So we should not be surprised that these aristocratic-like Westerners no longer have an idea of the meaning of democracy. The only thing they care for is to build and image around themselves that looks good considering the prevailing trends. They adhere to political correctness, which means only focusing on etiquette, and leaving ethics all behind. |
I beg to differ: even in a fact-cat-country like my own Pim Fortuyn could stand up and stir up the people. |
Politics hasn't changed that much in Holland. It is according to the same formula only that there is a new additional "trend" to be taken into the equation. But the problem I describe goes much deeper, and no profound change has happened yet. But the current development could be the initiation of a more profound change. But it hasn't happend yet.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Trust the real radicals! The domestic animals have the finest fur and speaks more beautifully, due to their aristocratic-like background. But these people just don't have a clue. |
Well, I do think that radicals in general are more open about what they have to say: that doens't make what they have to say wisdom. I'm someone of the moderate middle road. |
Radicals are the ones we need to listen to when in times of major social changes (like early 20th century, or today). Please note that I do not mean any kind of radical here, but only the honest ones bravely standing up against real oppression, giving voice to people never heard elsewhere (once e.g. workers rights or women rights issues were like that, and of course the slavery issue).
Otherwise I agree with your general idea, although I would describe my position as "a balanced view", away from any kind of extreme. "Middle-of-the-road" sounds more like staying in the middle of the crowd in any given context. But if the context is extremist (like for example Sweden today), middle-of-the-road will mean adapting to an extreme position. Sorry, to be a nitpick about this, but do you see my point?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Do you think that the label 'liberal' in the US is comparable to the labels 'undemocratic' or 'xenophobic' of Europe? |
Yes. |
You are out of your mind!
Even if though you lived both in Europe and the US, you severely lack understanding of at least one of the two.
_________________
There is no PeeCee way out of PeeCeeism, just as there is no Islamic way out of Islam. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muad'Dib
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Posts: 157
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Susan wrote: | | Yes, every news outlet is biased but what's the excuse for the outright lies printed by the BBC? |
Whatever. I would still have the BBC's news coverage to tell me things that Rupert Murdoch and CNN might not think I ought to know about. According to Michael Moore in his "Stupid White Men" the American channels wouldn't touch his BBC-screened "TV Nation" program with a barge pole. Long live the licence fee!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spinoza
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 1214
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 2:41 am Post subject: Re: Freedom of speech finally abolished in Sweden? |
|
|
| Quote: | | LPF didn't make a lot of sense since Pim Fortyun was shot. Another victory for those people with the "creative" interpretation of democracy. |
Well, Pim was very good at daring to point out a few major problems in Dutch society, but his proposed solutions were a bit off. But that's a matter of opinion.
I liked the man, I really did, but I didn't vote for him or his party.
| Quote: | | I agree with you on that leftwing-has-a-blurred-vision on reality point. I do think that the political right suffers from the same distorted view on 'the left' though. Just take a look at []'s post about nazism, communism and liberalism: it's all pretty much the same to him. |
| Quote: | | 1. My point was not about blurred vision on reality point. My point was about lack of understanding of the concept of democracy. Voltaire's motto could easily be extended: "I have a fully blurred vision about what your opinion really is, but I'm defending your right to voice it". |
Point taken. Regard that 'blurred' vision of the left (lack of differentiation of the oposites in the policical spectrum) my sole opinion then.
| Quote: | | 2. I do not believe that according to LL all these ideologies are the same. But I leave that for him to sort out. |
Well, you see || is examplary for the exact same lack of understanding for 'anything left of the middle' as is the left's idea of anything on the right.
Yes, agreed.
| Quote: | | An important difference between Christianity and Islam, as we all know, is that there were cracks in the wall of Christianity, making it possible to reform it, while Islam is written in stone (the Quran being a perfect copy of the divine bok in heaven, so nothing can be questioned). |
Christianity had similar dogmas to deal with (infalibilty of the Pope for instance). I do think that Islam van change (think of the Alevits or the Ismailis and the Suffis for example). I just don't see any reason why one should start out on a flawed and wicked basis (the Quran and Mohammed)
| Quote: | | Holland had cracks in the wall. Sweden have no cracks in the wall. The only threat to the Swedish establishment is reality. But the Swedes are caught in the symbolic world of the national press, so they pay little attention to reality. |
They will eventually. When cities like Stockholm start to look like Rotterdam. And trust me, I was in Sweden a year ago and you are not at that point yet.
| Quote: | | Yes, indeed. Otherwise there will only be a democracy on paper. And for every government there must always be a serious and strong opposition. Otherwise no real democracy. |
Indeed.
| Quote: | | Politics hasn't changed that much in Holland. It is according to the same formula only that there is a new additional "trend" to be taken into the equation. But the problem I describe goes much deeper, and no profound change has happened yet. But the current development could be the initiation of a more profound change. But it hasn't happend yet. |
Well, they have changed allright. A lot of touchy subjects that would have been swept under the carpet not too long ago are out in the open now. New mosques cannot be built unless they participate in good citizenship programs, laws are changed to be able to investigate and prosecute Islamic radicals, christian (the majority of school here) schools can BAN the Hijaab, public school now publically BAN the niqaab etc.etc.
| Quote: | | Radicals are the ones we need to listen to when in times of major social changes (like early 20th century, or today). Please note that I do not mean any kind of radical here, but only the honest ones bravely standing up against real oppression, giving voice to people never heard elsewhere (once e.g. workers rights or women rights issues were like that, and of course the slavery issue). |
Well, radicals are often good indicators of underlying social and political problems, they are not always the best providers of solutions. That's my usual experience. Take the communists for example; they were very good at pointing out what was wrong with the Tsaristic Russia (or capitalist Europe) but their solutions were dissasterous.
| Quote: | | Otherwise I agree with your general idea, although I would describe my position as "a balanced view", away from any kind of extreme. "Middle-of-the-road" sounds more like staying in the middle of the crowd in any given context. But if the context is extremist (like for example Sweden today), middle-of-the-road will mean adapting to an extreme position. Sorry, to be a nitpick about this, but do you see my point? |
Yes, I understand you completely. I think I even agree with you here. I think of it as a 'balancing' problem. m1xd1 = m2xd2
| Quote: | | You are out of your mind! |
In certain quite powerfull circles it most certainly is. Just like the words Atheist or Socialist.
You do realise that in the states it is not right wing politicians that get schot but Doctors working in abortion clinics? You do realise that not too long a go the States experienced a rather oppressive witch hunt to root out anything too leftish?
If Western Europe's allergy is the right than by Jove, the US' allergy is anything too leftish.
| Quote: | | Even if though you lived both in Europe and the US, you severely lack understanding of at least one of the two. |
Since you give nothing to back up that rash statement I choose not to take it very seriously. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
l l
Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Posts: 1625
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 9:08 am Post subject: Re: Freedom of speech finally abolished in Sweden? |
|
|
| Quote: | [quote="Spinoza"]
........................
....... I do think that the political right suffers from the same distorted view on 'the left' though. Just take a look at []'s post about nazism, communism and liberalism: it's all pretty much the same to him. |
My dearest Spinoza,
You could have filled the space in the bracket []. I am not allergic to have my name mentioned nor my ideas attributed to me.
| Quote: |
Spinoza writing in another post:
Well, you see || is examplary for the exact same lack of understanding for 'anything left of the middle' as is the left's idea of anything on the right. |
Spinoza,
I am elated That you remember me and refer to me so often regarding my views which you do not comprehend nor agree with that :
Totalitarianism = Certain flavors of 19th century Euro liberal Atheists (see note)= Marxists = no-god Bolsheviks and Communists = neo-pgan Fascists and Nazis = American Liberal Left = Islam
Note- Atheists and Liberals as groups are not one type but many types. When I speak of Atheists or Liberals, I mean a particular type that fits within the family of Totalitarians
The elites of above share among many characterstics a sick lust to gain total control over men in mind, body and soul. They commit all abominations to control, and claim they do it for the public good.
I do not have time to go into details. And anyway dogmatists blow their own horn to their own tune regardless of what ever is said by contrarians.
However, and I hope loranga does not mind if I reprint an essay by him (loranga) which he posted on another thread.
| Quote: | | Quote: | Spinoza wrote responding to l l:
I claim no knowledge of knowledge nor am I a manipulator; I merely pointed a gross error you made when you called Communism, Nazism and Fascism offspring of atheist liberalism, that’s all. |
Loranga responding to Spinoza:
Communism, Fascism/Nazism and Atheist Liberalism are all offsprings of the French Revolution. They may appear as opposites in a narrow context and while each of them base its idenity on defining the other two as its opposite:
* The communist will define both liberalism and fascism/nazism as a right-wing pro-capitalistic ideologies and therefore the opposite of coummunism, which the communist defines as the good ideology.
* The liberal will define communism as well as fascism/nazism as collectivistic and therefor the opposite of liberalism, which the liberal defines as the good ideology.
* The fascists/nazi will define both communism and liberalism as anti-nationalistic.
So it is inherent in all their self identities that they are the opposite of the others. But from a logic point of view from a neutral distance it is trivially clear that it is not possible. These kind of opposites are rather of the kind when we say that a black Volvo and a white Volvo are opposites.
All being children of the French Revolution these ideologies have a lot in common:
1. Basing their political reasoning on an vision of a Utopian society.
2. Basing politics on simplified slogans.
3. Being in favor of violent mobs as a political force, if they percieve it as a justifiable cause, which they will do if the prevailing power incarnates symbols defined as the main evil and enemy of the ideology.
While Communism and Fascism/Nazism are both unthinkable without the French Revolution, liberalism was already there before, for example a thinker like John Locke. However, the French Revolution split the liberal movement in two. Where one half -- those who are today the nominal liberals -- were generally in favour of the French Revolution, and see it is something symbolically good. And the other half were in opposition, the Whig-liberal Edmund Burke being the intellectual leader of this branch of liberalism, today known as conservatism.
While communism, facism/nazism and athesit/radical liberalism all see the French Revolution as a positive symbol and find a lot of inspiration from it (when it comes to slogans, Utopias and ways of taking over the power), the conservatives differs fundamentally from all of them. The whole raison etre of conservatism is to be in opposition of the French Revolution.
However, being a branch of the liberal tradition it is equally in opposition of l'ancien regime. It is the methods conservatism oppose to: violent mobs, populism, utopism, simplified slogans, and radicalism which is something all the others have in common. This fact, though, is something that the offsprings of the French Revolution try to obscure, and since they have been dominating the political scene of Europe for long they have succeeded really well. And they have managed to make people swallow their (interrelationally contradictive) definitions of opposites. When people see communists and fascists fight and kill each other, it surely strongly suggests the image that they are opposites of each other. But it is quite like when Shites and Sunnis are fighting and killing each other. They are opposites just in the same meaning, i.e. most things they actually have in common. |
best regards |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loranga
Joined: 01 Jan 2003
Posts: 1391
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 4:40 pm Post subject: Re: Freedom of speech finally abolished in Sweden? |
|
|
| l l wrote: |
Totalitarianism = Certain flavors of 19th century Euro liberal Atheists (see note)= Marxists = no-god Bolsheviks and Communists = neo-pgan Fascists and Nazis = American Liberal Left = Islam
Note- Atheists and Liberals as groups are not one type but many types. When I speak of Atheists or Liberals, I mean a particular type that fits within the family of Totalitarians |
LL,
I suppose that you by '=' mean equality. You call the American Liberal Left totalitarian. That's absurd.
Liberalism is a political term that can mean almost anything. We have classical liberals, social liberals, libertarians, etc. And they all claim that they are the true liberals. Some people would claim that most nominal liberals of the West of today have just hijacked that term liberal, but that they have stooped to groupthink and letting so-called cultural rights have higher precedence than individual rights (and thereby in essence support the oppression of e.g. women, as long as they are women out side of their own ethnocentric circle).
Some people would claim that it is only among conservatives that true liberalism can be found. Some would claim that there is a true liberalism, but it is not represented anywhere today.
You use the term (atheist) liberalism, LL, in an historical context. To let it represent the whole framework of thought in the modern society, as opposed to the frameworks of thought that were prevailing before the French Revolution. Regardless of the type of offspring, all the offsprings of the French Revolution (and Enlightment etc.) have the visionary idea of the bettering of mankind. Visionary projects can bear good fruit, given that the tree was planted in the right type of soil. Some of these visionary projects were in essence totalitarian. Some were not. The weakness is not fundamentally there, but in the weakness of visionary projects for the bettering of mankind, as such. The problem is that these visionary ideas always become formulated in an utopian way. If the conditions are right, the utopian formulation hightens the strength of the visionary project. You get a large and focused crowd of followers, and can thereby succeed in building your vision. But it is the factual context that will decide if the visionary project will bear good fruit, but the utopian formulation makes the followers blind to the factual context. Herein lies the fundamental problem.
All visionary projects have an expiration date, a date after which the factual context does no longer exist. However, due to its utopian formulation, the followers of the visionary project will be blind to when this point of time has been passed. The only visionary projects without and expiration date are the ones that never works well in any kind of context, e.g. communism or nazism (or Islam).
Liberalism (in all its forms) and democratic socialism, though, are ideologies that have acted as positive forces in different phases of modern western history. Two fundamental and common traits of these sister ideologies are: egalitarianism and radicalism. Radicalism as in getting rid of the old society. Radicalism as in a visionary project. In a historical context of immense techical achievements, of immense rise in literacy (due to printing press, reformation, etc.), of capitalism and idustrialism, and all the things that for the first time in history created the material foundation for the liberation of men (and women!), a society that produced enough surplus to made it possible to leave static social structures without leading to a breakdown of the society, etc.
In such a society egalitarian visionary projects found its perfect soil, and the radicalism garb worked as an admixture catalysing the process. Nobody asked where the limits were for these visionary ambitions, instead the discourse was to always make an effort to expand the limits. Given the vast progressive potential that the innovation capitalism offered, it has been possible to push these limits during centuries, and has even given the impression of no limits.
We are living in a time today in the West when the limits have been reached. The two sister ideologies, socialism and liberalism, have reached the goals that can be achieved by political means, there is (generally speaking) not more for them to do, no more limits to push. They are running idle. They cannot see it themselves, because of their Utopian nature. They go on like before, in search for new causes of their egalitarian expansionism. The expiration date for democratic socialism expired long before the one of liberalism, but since the expiration date of liberalism has been passed too, they are now joined in the dark world groupthink and support for all kinds of viscious cultural oppression, all in the name of egalitarianism and in the name of overthrowing the old. The two sister ideologies are now once again looking more and more the same (early 20th century they were mostly also on the same side). The core properties, egalitarian expansionism and radicalism, becomes outstanding, while the differences between the two (which were outstanding most of the 20th century) now becomes obscured. The two sister ideologies have walked two different paths during history, starting from the same point, meeting inbetween, and now once again met at the end of their journey.
There's no more progressive potential that can be offered by captitalism as a means for egalitarian expansionism in the West. The only good that can be done in this respect is to spread capitalism to other parts of the world, offering them the same room for progressive politics as we have enjoyed ourselves.
In the West it is time to go back to a framework of thought that is eternally valid. Just to give a clearcut example of such a thinker, I can mention Machiavelli. Clearly his works did not constitute any visionary project aiming at bettering the mankind. He just aimed at writing the truth. Followers of visionary projects will always consider thinkers as Machiavelli as immoral.
The early liberals, before the French Revolution, as e.g. John Locke or Adam Smith, represent thinkers whose ideas are valid given the level we have developed to today. I would not say their ideas are eternal, but as long as the current Western society with its capitalistic system won't break down completely, we can consider their ideas to be without expiration date. The point is that these thinkers were more careful, basing their theories on generalisations of phenomena they say that actually happened as a result of the emerging capitalism, rather than constructing utopias. Later liberals were much more "ambitious". Today's liberals are generally so ambitious that the lost track of reality check.
One of these early liberals, that saw the limits of the egalitarian expansionism and radicalism of liberalism clearer and earlier than anyone else was Edmund Burke. He became the father of political conservatism. Burke provides such insights in politics that I found nowhere else. Since his project was not a visionary one for the bettering of mankind, but instead an thorough investingation of the question "How to govern a country?" (the very core question of politics) -- how to govern a country, given how people already are, always have been, and will always be. How to achieve freedom in practice by the way of governing a country? Freedom is easy to achieve, it is just to let everything free. Steering a country is also easy (just read Machiavelli!). But how to achieve "free steering", to govern a country in a way resulting in freedom for the people? Burke addresses this question, among many others. This approach is in stark constrast to the Leftists who mainly focus on different "issues". Issues can be fine, but in the end politics is about how to govern a country (making it all ading up, making it into a whole, making it sustain for the future).
I believe Burke's ideas are more eternal than those of (nominal) liberalism or (democratic) socialism. Therefore I label myself as a conservative (liberal). And this even though I on many specific issues end of on the same side as the liberals/socialists rather than the conservatives. (I should add that I think I have understood Burke much better than the average conservative). I acknowledge that liberalism and democratic socialism has done a lot of good. This since I'm in favour of egalitarianism whenever it is possible. However, it is the immensely progressive force of capitalism that made it all possible. But there is a limit even to this progressive force (in the political aspect, the technical limit we have not seen yet).
So what we can do for a good social/political/economical development of the societies of the world, is to:
1. Consolidate the achievements made so far (stop destroying it!)
2. Help spread capitalism in other parts of the world. When they have their own capitalist systems, progressive social development can start there too.
This should be obvious to all, I think. But the power of utopian thinking is so strong that it makes people failing to see the obvious.
Well, I guess this post drifted away from what I initially intended to write. But it gave me a chance of better describing my position. I could add that Christianity as well was a visionary project for the bettering of mankind, that met its expiartion date long ago. Just as for the two sister ideologies, radicalism and egalitarian expansionism was at the core. Jesus was extremely radical (and would still be today!). But also Paul was highly radical 2000 years ago. Also 500 years ago the thoughts of Paul could be used in a radical way by Luther in the Reformation. But Christianity is no longer radical, it has served its historical purpose, it has reached its expiration date.
Two interesting observations:
1. Christianity serves well as an example of how strongly utopian thinking sticks to the minds of people. We can expect the same of the two sister ideologies.
2. Since Christianity has "matured" during the milleniums it no longer has a radical garb today. It has more the shape of an old retired man, more defensive than anything else. Thereby, Christianity is in no way as destructive as the two sister ideologies, that are more like men in their best years, being very activing in trying to push their utopian fantasies onto societies. But this is just due to them being in different phases of their life processes. Potentially the are equally dangerous.
I should add that in my opinion that vast majority of the bad and evil caused to this world has been caused by politicians and other followers of visionary projects for the bettering of mankind (projects that went wrong or passed their expiration date). I suggest people should be very careful about such projects in the future.
_________________
There is no PeeCee way out of PeeCeeism, just as there is no Islamic way out of Islam. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
l l
Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Posts: 1625
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 1:11 pm Post subject: Re: Freedom of speech finally abolished in Sweden? |
|
|
Loranga,
I will make few observations.
| Quote: | [quote="loranga"] | l l wrote: |
Totalitarianism = Certain flavors of 19th century Euro liberal Atheists (see note)= Marxists = no-god Bolsheviks and Communists = neo-pgan Fascists and Nazis = American Liberal Left = Islam
Note- Atheists and Liberals as groups are not one type but many types. When I speak of Atheists or Liberals, I mean a particular type that fits within the family of Totalitarians |
LL,
I suppose that you by '=' mean equality. You call the American Liberal Left totalitarian. That's absurd.
Liberalism is a political term that can mean almost anything. We have classical liberals, social liberals, libertarians, etc. And they all claim that they are the true liberals. Some people would claim that most nominal liberals of the West of today have just hijacked that term liberal, but that they have stooped to groupthink and letting so-called cultural rights have higher precedence than individual rights (and thereby in essence support the oppression of e.g. women, as long as they are women out side of their own ethnocentric circle). |
Loranga,
You always make good analyses based on wide experience from various sources and your ideas.
I would love to elaborate on a certain or certain types of Liberal Left being equal to no-god Communist, Islamic type totalitariarians. The objectives are the same, the methods employed are different due to different circumstances. The cause is a lust for total control over men in mind, body and soul. It would take too long and distract from main mission of FFI. I do not have time to make an elaborate response on this issue
The more people are honest, the more they are informed, the more they are educated (not equated with a school diploma) the more thet are liable to see or approach things differently. They look through many windows and honestly see different possiblities.
| Quote: | | All visionary projects have an expiration date, a date after which the factual context does no longer exist. However, due to its utopian formulation, the followers of the visionary project will be blind to when this point of time has been passed. The only visionary projects without and expiration date are the ones that never works well in any kind of context, e.g. communism or nazism (or Islam). |
I would add that the end of something is not its extinction but its fullfillment.
| Quote: | 1. Christianity serves well as an example of how strongly utopian thinking sticks to the minds of people. We can expect the same of the two sister ideologies.
2. Since Christianity has "matured" during the milleniums it no longer has a radical garb today. It has more the shape of an old retired man, more defensive than anything else. Thereby, Christianity is in no way as destructive as the two sister ideologies, that are more like men in their best years, being very activing in trying to push their utopian fantasies onto societies. But this is just due to them being in different phases of their life processes. Potentially the are equally dangerous. |
You cover several issues. I agree with some and disagree with others.
Christianity is both visionary and practical. It has been capable of regenerating, redeveloping from within and regrowing to adapt to changing circumstances without changing its core principlals. Its core principals are in the supernatural (no need to argue about this now). These principlas do not change although, they may require re-explanations due to changing usage of language. Its secular teachings change due to changing circumstances even if some change slowly maintaining continuity. Christianity has always been dynamic and flexible. It has to be observed independently of the ideologies that consider Christianity a hindrance and an impediment to their agendas.
You do read a lot and I believe you would not find it a burden to read a book I am suggesting "Jesus, CEO" (Chief Executive Officer) by Laurie Beth Jones (USA). If you can not find a copy in Europe, you could buy it from AMAZON.com. Please do not be turned off by the title since you are an Atheist. I learn from you. This is not a book about religion. It is a book about leadership, What the auther describes as OMEGA type leadership. I am sure you will be impressed by the insights of the auther who is a very successful business woman.
Christianity and the West have decpoupled. All monopolies in the West have been dismantled. It is no longer necessary in the West for all to carry the Christian badge, or the communist badge, or the socialist badge, or the liberal or conservative badge. The decopupling and individualism has diluted the apparent strength of any ideology to which everyone had to subscribe at the times of total conformism.
I am not saying that Christianity may not become extinct once it fulfills its mission. I do not know. you do not know. However, political and economic ideologies, parties, institutions become extinct much sooner. These deal with secular issues. Secular issues changerapidly, speaking relatively
best regards |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MarkT
Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 1152
Location: On the globe that gave me birth-the cool green hills of Earth
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Susan wrote: | | ...and see why Americans are beginning to loathe Europeans. |
Speak for yourself dear Susan. 
I know Lefties like to believe they are the Voice of the People and thus compelled to work in BBC jobs and such but others can still speak their own voice in Europe. The folk I've met there are not unlike lor, scan, maria, bridgette, french, bob, steven, and my own wife. The Euros I know are the types who came out in droves for 9-11 ceremonies.
We have our own version of these compelled Voices too and many of them seem to be Bowling for Hollywood. Why do Hollywood liberals make violent TV shows and movies? One would think they would do the opposite. Maybe they believe their own movies are reality. The vast majority of Americans are just like the ones we saw after 9-11, but we have people like "friend" looking over his shoulder for the American boogieman to stab him in the back scripted out of some silly drama.
Why do we give these Voices of Authority so much weight?
_________________
"—to find one's happiness in truth, to oppose illusion, to value integrity above God, and character above salvation." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentazure
Joined: 24 Mar 2002
Posts: 737
Location: Mobile, AL
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MarkT said: | Quote: | Speak for yourself dear Susan.
I know Lefties like to believe they are the Voice of the People and thus compelled to work in BBC jobs and such but others can still speak their own voice in Europe. The folk I've met there are not unlike lor, scan, maria, bridgette, french, bob, steven, and my own wife. The Euros I know are the types who came out in droves for 9-11 ceremonies.
|
Well, you can bury your head in the sand if you want to MarkT, but take a look at this beautiful comment made by Spinoza:
| Quote: |
Dear Lord, I knew American Education was crap, but this does it....how on EARTH can such a statement be made by someone at least intelligent enough to operate a computer? I sincerely hope you were joking when you wrote this.
Most fascists where highly devout Christians, the Nazis ALL had 'Gott mit uns' on their belt buckles and communisms is a pseudo religion by my standards: they ALL are the opposite of liberalism when it come to individual freedom or politics. But I guess this kind of lecturing will fall on deaf ears, judging by previous statements of intellectual beacons such as Antonia. |
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=93057&highlight=devout+christians#93057
I am afraid Spinoza's attitude represents a substantial percentage of the population in Europe.
_________________
"If you ever find yourself on the side of the majority, you should pause and reflect" Mark Twain
"Critically examine everything, hold on to the good." 1 Thessalonians 5.21 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Susan
Joined: 06 Apr 2002
Posts: 2727
Location: none
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Susan wrote:
...and see why Americans are beginning to loathe Europeans.
Speak for yourself dear Susan. |
I didn't say that I personally loathe Europeans. (Although I do totally loathe the Europress quite insanely, and am proud of it.) I said that if all Americans see from Europe is the garbage spewed out by BBC et. all, then that is what Americans will think represents Europe and its people.
I don't have a right to be angry at the BBC, Mark? If you tracked it as closely as I do you would be appalled to find out what it says and does. Pravda in its Soviet heyday couldn't match it for spreading sheer hate and propaganda against the US. And it's global reach and "credibility" is far, far greater than that of Pravda's. In fact the former Soviet gulag guest Vladimir Bukovsky (remember him?) is now a British citizen who campaigns against the BBC because it reminds him so very, very much of Soviet media.
Already the Euromedia (led by the BBC) by its appalling moral relativism, aids and abets Islamic terrorism against Israeli old people and children. They are now setting the stage to foment and encourage terrorism against India and against the USA. American children will die and the BBC's sick agenda will be partly responsible.
_________________
The Sudanese Civil war has killed 2 million people and pushed 4 million tribespeople off their ancestral lands. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Susan
Joined: 06 Apr 2002
Posts: 2727
Location: none
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
