Iran wants war

Not just Iran, the Israel/US coalition wants to dominate the entirety of the Middle East so Israel can continue to survive as a country; as everybody else in the region wants them, Israel, the invaders, the occupiers, out.

Just the level of damage inflicted across the entire region makes the situation only worse, and the entire world to turn against the US as the situation, specially true nowadays, is clear for all to see  - in its own ways also turns the US against itself, as the economic damages imposed across all of the way in the form of propaganda and military expenditure, a very much needed money, should have been spent at home, not literally burnt in a war in the other side of the world for Israel.

Palestine in a British map in 1924, this map is now in the National Library of Scotland

Palestine in a 1924 British map, a map now stored in the National Library of Scotland

A map showing the massive destruction of Palestinian villages and cities

A map showing the massive destruction of Palestinian villages and cities

Netanyahu: America Won’t Get in Our Way (2001)

English transcript

Bibi:…The Arabs are currently focusing on a war of terror and they think it will break us. The main thing, first of all, is to hit them. Not just one blow, but blows that are so painful that the price will be too heavy to be borne. The price is not too heavy to be borne, now. A broad attack on the Palestinian Authority. To bring them to the point of being afraid that everything is collapsing…

Woman: Wait a moment, but then the world will say “how come you’re conquering again?”

Netanyahu: the world won’t say a thing. The world will say we’re defending.

Woman: Aren’t you afraid of the world, Bibi?

Netanyahu: Especially today, with America. I know what America is. America is something that can easily be moved. Moved to the right direction.

Child: They say they’re for us, but, it’s like…

Netanyahu: They won’t get in our way. They won’t get in our way.

Child: On the other hand, if we do some something, then they…

Netanyahu: So let’s say they say something. So they said it! They said it! 80% of the Americans support us. It’s absurd. We have that kind of support and we say “what will we do with the…” Look. That administration [Clinton] was extremely pro-Palestinian. I wasn’t afraid to maneuver there. I was not afraid to clash with Clinton. I was not afraid to clash with the United Nations. I was paying the price anyway, I preferred to receive the value. Value for the price.

In the following segment, Bibi boasts about how he emptied the Oslo Accords of meaning by an interpretation that made a mockery of them:

Woman: The Oslo Accords are a disaster.

Netanyahu: Yes. You know that and I knew that…The people [nation] has to know…

What were the Oslo Accords? The Oslo Accords, which the Knesset signed, I was asked, before the elections: “Will you act according to them?” and I answered: “yes, subject to mutuality and limiting the retreats.” “But how do you intend to limit the retreats?” “I’ll give such interpretation to the Accords that will make it possible for me to stop this galloping to the ’67 [armistice] lines. How did we do it?

Narrator: The Oslo Accords stated at the time that Israel would gradually hand over territories to the Palestinians in three different pulses, unless the territories in question had settlements or military sites. This is where Netanyahu found a loophole.

Netanyahu: No one said what defined military sites. Defined military sites, I said, were security zones. As far as I’m concerned, the Jordan Valley is a defined military site.

Woman: Right [laughs]…The Beit She’an Valley.

Netanyahu: How can you tell. How can you tell? But then the question came up of just who would define what Defined Military Sites were. I received a letter — to me and to Arafat, at the same time — which said that Israel, and only Israel, would be the one to define what those are, the location of those military sites and their size. Now, they did not want to give me that letter, so I did not give the Hebron Agreement. I stopped the government meeting, I said: “I’m not signing.” Only when the letter came, in the course of the meeting, to me and to Arafat, only then did I sign the Hebron Agreement. Or rather, ratify it, it had already been signed. Why does this matter? Because at that moment I actually stopped the Oslo Accord.

Woman: And despite that, one of our own people, excuse me, who knew it was a swindle, and that we were going to commit suicide with the Oslo Accord, gives them — for example — Hebron…

Netanyahu: Indeed, Hebron hurts. It hurts. It’s the thing that hurts. One of the famous rabbis, whom I very much respect, a rabbi of Eretz Yisrael, he said to me: “What would your father say?” I went to my father. Do you know a little about my father’s position?

…He’s not exactly a lily-white dove, as they say. So my father heard the question and said: “Tell the rabbi that your grandfather, Rabbi Natan Milikowski, was a smart Jew. Tell him it would be better to give two percent than to give a hundred percent. And that’s the choice here. You gave two percent and in that way you stopped the withdrawal. Instead of a hundred percent.” The trick is not to be there and be broken. The trick is to be there and pay a minimal price.”

djonesowens1writes: At a point in the middle of the video Netanayhu asks the camera man to stop taping, but he continues… Netanyahu says what he really thinks for the first time: He brags about how easy is to manipulate the USA and he proudly explains how he sabotaged the Oslo process.

Anyone who believes Israel is a dependable ally or that Netanyahu is going to make peace is in need of psychiatric help – immediately. – argonium79

Related article: A few words on Zionism and the Middle East

Aesthetics, sensory-emotional manipulation, dictatorship and tyranny

 

Everything that is superficially mass imposed in one way or another is largely based on aesthetics up to a point, including modern media, as a large mass with no particular intellect often doesn’t looks beyond it, and adopts a dualist view to it – pretty = good, ugly = bad.

Just, there is no absolute nor universally accepted concept of pretty or ugly, nor aesthetically acceptable; what is ugly for one might be pretty for another. Racism itself is largely based in this same dualist sense of aesthetics.

Aesthetics appeal to a sense of belonging, and a sense of belonging brings a group together.

An artificial sense of aesthetics brings an artificial sense of belonging (not that a sense of aesthetics is not artificial in itself), and an artificial sense of belonging brings a group together under an artificial, created cause.

By controlling the people’s, up to a society, sense of aesthetics, one gains control of their sense of belonging, which in itself is a foundation for the formation of one’s personality.

By controlling the people’s sense of belonging, one forms a group. By forming a group, one controls the characteristics and being of such.

By controlling the group’s being, one manipulates a group to its own direction at its own wish, since the group was artificially created, is an artificial, non-natural entity with no or with a decapitated primary sensory of its own. When the mist starts to fade and people that can see beyond the veil start raising their voice that this is not who nor what they are, the creator of such a group already have enough means to suppress and silence the voices, and uses them accordingly, giving this artificial sense of belonging a new face: tyranny and dictatorship.

But the foundations for this society’s character is already so sedimented that other means, such as propaganda or turning this people against their own group will get the dictatorial and tyrannic face to fade away in time.

Thus everything that is superficially mass imposed in one way or another is largely based on aesthetics up to a point, and aesthetics is a tool used in people, personality and behavioral manipulation, not only in politics, but also in finance, commerce, religion, sports, or anything involving a mass of people manipulated up to a sheep-like state.

Aesthetics (also spelled æsthetics) is a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste, with the creation and appreciation of beauty.

It is more scientifically defined as the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste.

Now ask yourself – at its core, what is your own sense of aesthetics, where does it comes from, and what do you use it for ? How much of it is your own, and how much of it is externally influenced, brought to you as granted by an external entity, and so natural in your sensory-emotional values that you have never even argued or thought about beyond it ?

 

Why is Monarchy the best form of government?

A monarchy in whatever form provides the stability to a country that democracy in many situations is unable to provide. In a monarchy the successor is bred from birth to fulfill his or her position rather than with an elected head of state who may have considerably less experience. In a republic (a country without a monarch) the head of state owes his power to the private interests that got him elected, and thus becomes indebted to them once he or she assumes power.

In this way the president must satisfy those special interest groups first before he can act for what would be best for his or her country. In a monarchy however the monarch is king or queen simply because he or she was born into the role, and thus doesnt owe anyone or group for where he or she is, thus allowing the monarch to reign more freely and make decisions that are best for the country rather than the group of rich and powerful people that would have gotten him/her there as in a republic. Because the monarch reigns for life there becomes a greater amount of pressure on the monarch to rule as best as he/she can and so that things won’t be messed up for the next generation.

In a republic however, the presidents term is often short, and whatever longterm problems or screw-ups that occurred in one presidents term become carried over to the next man in office who may or may not deal with them, potentially creating a snowball effect of presidents deferring difficult decisions to later presidents (such as the immense debt problem in the US).

A monarchy is ultimately cost saving because the personal fortunes of the royal family can usually cover the costs that incur for the institutions support.

In the UK for example, the monarchy is paid for by a tax (which is like one cent per person per year) for the monarchy’s upkeep. In turn however the private income from the Queen’s estates is turned over to the treasury which in total becomes a net gain for the national treasury (see the link about the civil list). In addition the amount of money gained from tourism brings added revenue for the state. In a republic the salary of the president is paid for by the state, and the private income of the president is kept by the president.

After the president leaves office, his support is still born by the state in the form of pensions which are paid until his or her death. This can be very costly when combined with the dozens of other ex presidents living off of pensions from the state.

Because a monarch is not apart of any one political party he or she is able to be above the factions of politics and make decisions based on his or her conscious not based on what his or her party policy is. The monarch would also be able to mediate between the different levels of government should any emergency arise.

Monarchy is not necessarily backwards and republics are not necessarily better.
Some of the most stable and prosperous nations (Denmark, Norway, The Netherlands, Sweden the UK) are monarchies.
Republics are not more modern and monarchy is not old fashioned.

Anyone with the simplest knowledge of history knows that the ancient world had both monarchical forms of government and republican ones.

Source(s):