New Mars Forums

Well, what to say about this outpouring? Another example of successful conditioning?
???

(DonPanic, what on Earth are you talking about?)

Yup, consequences are beginning to come down hard on nations, like Holland or Sweden, who believed raw nature was a state of harmony and therefore nothing needed regulation; that man, at least if he wasn't white and male, was good by nature and that artifice, like the state, and according to the same warped discourse (being a "construct"), patriotism and national community, were inherently bad.

Watching the news yesterday on the murder of van Gogh, in many ways resembling the murder of Pim Fortuyn, the entire emphasis was habitually put on avoiding collective guilt just because of some rotten eggs in the Muslim community (like we didn't know that!) and this to such an extent that in the end, it was almost as though the Dutch were really the guilty party of the acts committed against them, their principles and their society. Typical.

Whoever were the arsonists putting fire to a muslim school, the practice does conform to a pattern observed at closer distance. In Malmö, the third largest city/town in Sweden, several schools have burnt in the last couple of years, although these were ordinary schools located in immigrant dense areas. In other words, deeds not done by right-wing extremists.
If I know anything about organized right-wingers, immigration critics, National Socialists etc, terror or initiating violence does not constitute any of their methods. This is typical of the other side however, the one of conformist, left-wing, free immigration extremists, supported by and large by the establishment, media and government. Don't know about the Netherlands, conditions could be different there.

All this talk about collective guilt, and the first thing that happens are people trying to set fire to churches...

Why couldn't we have had a mushy swamp planet instead? :;):

Maybe we will find one out there?
Using Mars as a stepping stone.

Thanks, Cobra. Believe I get a rough idea of your perspective on things. Maybe I should have anticipated the sense of your reply.

Hm, you're not obliged to answer because I don't imply anything in particular, yet why do I always get this impression of plans within plans...

...said Clark in a shower of sarcasm.

Cobra Commander, I have one question for you that I've intended to put for a long time. As a Fascist, doesn't this bother you at all?

Isn't the social dimension and that you put the state above market forces the very defining point of Fascism?
How could you then support the globalist policies of the Neocon Bushites?

Cindy, just a quick reply.

As far as I can see, yes, you are entirely correct in your assumption. Excellent analysis, overall.

And it goes for the entire political spectrum, not just the Social Democrats in power but for the Moderates (equivalent to Republicans) and everyone else in Parliament as well. So on this issue we really have only one party in Sweden, but of many colours. Just like Saruman.

So what on Earth is the reason behind this absurd situation? It's true we were never a colonial power of any consequence, we didn't take part in the world wars etc, yet somehow people are taught to take a collective blame for everything white people can be imagined to have done anywhere. In a sort of strange general sense, that is, and the schools do of course tend to favour an education of history without too much regard to detail, but I digress...

It's more complicated than that, but one heavy, decisive factor though is undeniably the holocaust. In America you have the Indians and black slavery so the holocaust may not be so heavily emphasized, but over here it's the extermination of the Jews that count.
The reasoning goes something like this: so you're against immigration, so you don't like coloured people, so you're a racist, so you're a Nazi... aha, thought so!

Of course, Sweden didn't take part in the holocaust and the camps and all of that, on the contrary. In fact, the only reason the Jews of Denmark didn't end up in Auschwitz was due to a certain SS-governor in Copenhagen, contacting the Danish Resistance who contacted the Swedish government and the latter allowing for every Jew who could make it to cross the straits into Sweden before Eichmann arrived in October 1943. Some 6,000 people were saved this way.
At the end of the war the Swedish Red Cross also brought about 10,000 Jews to Sweden from the dying camps after consulting with Himmler, but none of it matters in relation to the syndrom. We are all, as blonde aryan beasts*, somehow unreedemingly and collectively guilty of the uncomparable Jewish suffering, thus we must relentlessly 'prove ourselves' or be punished... or something.

*= quoting Nietzsche

Oh, don't worry, Cobra! It's an international phenomenon.
Though I'm not sure I agree with the Nazi analogy. With a Nazi you could perhaps have an argument, and then he'll kill you. A commie liberal will kill you for trying to have an argument.

Any cream and strawberry for me?

Reason lies in 20th century history. The French are habitually admonished because the need to put blame on the the 'really bad guys', the Germans. Even when the opposite is true like regarding the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871. I'm sure most people actually believe this was started by Bismarck and not Napoleon III.
But really, the immense spiritual power of the left is a no brainer. There are no repurcussions for regarding the mass-murderer Lenin as a hero either.

I'd say the War on Terror is the perfect war, simply because it cannot be won and therefore will go on forever. Without an identifiable enemy, you can launch any sort of military campaign, invade any country, revise any matter of history with a simple reference to the neccessity of fighting "terrorism". It's the perfect excuse, straight out of 1984.

In reality, there is no such thing as the global terrorism the shadow of al-Qaeda is supposed to foment, although some is probably growing as a result of current events. I'll hand it to you and I'll say terrorism is not a threat to America and never has been. There's the instant of 9/11 but I'll wait with any judgement on that episode until the case is actually investigated. The world is still waiting for this to happen.
Only the fact that the very decision-makers in Washington held close ties to the bin Ladin family should be enough to cause some concern. Strangely, it doesn't. Nor the fact that the only aircraft that flew on the week following 9/11 were those that carried Saudi citizens, among them Osama bin Ladin's relations, back to their homeland.
If the government had ever taken its obligations seriously, why didn't it start with grounding and questioning these people?

Terrorism, or wide-ranged opposition and nearby hatred, is a reality for Israel, however, and it was Israeli affiliated proponents, regarding US and Israel as more or less the same thing, bridging both, who drew up the policy that the US government has been carrying out for the last couple of years under the formal head of that dim-witted president and all that started well before 9/11. This is a fact and you all know it. I could give you the names. The question is why you trust these people to have any particular concern for America and Americans?
It's not Israeli body bags that get shipped home every week.

By the way, saw a documentary yesterday with several re-runs of public speeches made at the eve of the second Iraqi War. Among other things, they repeatedly told the US public Iraq was making plans to produce or was already producing Anthrax. Well, the only source behind the Anthrax scare (anyone remember it?) I believe was traced back to the interior of the US.
Considering it took on such a role in describing Iraq's arsenal of "WMD's", I find it somewhat discomforting. In fact, it all looks, smells and feels like just a big farce!

Is there life on Mars? Sure, if we show some courage I guess we have to admit that there's no sane alternative explanation for the ammonia phenomena.
Jackpot would be finding life that is not related to earth life, but truly Martian in origin. It would mean life is everywhere in the galaxy and the reason they haven't called us yet is simply some bizarre joke.

Will we find it and prove it exists? Don't know. Can we ever prove or disprove anything nowadays?
Going to Mars to look for it seems to run against the age: this peculiar combination of profound insecurity and absolute stasis where nothing ever happens and nothing can be done about anything anymore.
:bars2:

Thank you for your replies. Well, I believe they are rather reasonable. The reason I asked in the first place is you sometimes get a feeling in these debates no one ever cares about sovereignity of nations or countries as such, just about how the world should be "fixed", no matter the scale or suffering imposed and typically provided the United States comes out on top.
So it almost begs the question why you should be particularly agitated by the policies of, for example, the third reich at all?

Some specific comments:

Well, yes it's correct. The Germans were put against an ultimatum they didn't react on, so at least one could say they didn't care at the time whether the Allies would launch a world war upon them or not.

Okay, as far as I can see, Germany was a land grabbing country in relation to areas in central Europe they thought should be part of the Greater German Reich. Primarily this means areas part of the Second Empire and Austria-Hungary up till 1918, realising at last, the greater German solution, originally unopted for by Bismarck as one country for all Germans. The new states formed after Versailles were ethnical hotch-potches, cointaining sizeable German populations and lacking basic legitimacy in the eyes of the Nazi regime, disregarding of course the fact that Poles and Czechs are not German.
Although there were also exceptions to this ambition. The independence of Hungary was respected, as was a nation state provided for the Slovaks upon the dissolution of Czechoslovakia.
It seems clear to me this is where their ambitions clashed with France and Britain, who had set up these countries primarily as a check on Germany. In other words, the Allies went to war on what was fundamentally a balance of power issue.

I think it's wrong to assume that the Nazis founded policies on the concept of revenge. Countries occupied after Sep 1939 should primarily be seen as contingencies of the war in my opinion. This goes for the Balkans, all of western Europe and also Denmark and Norway.
There were to be sure no resources to grab in Norway. The matter was about securing the flow of Swedish iron ore and prohibiting the Allies from opening a front in Scandinavia, outflanking Germany above all in matters of strategic air and naval power. The immediate reason for invasion were German doubts about Norwegian neutrality and the realisation that the Norwegians would probably not fight at all given a Franco-British landing, something which was contemplated at this time in the Allied camp. So the Germans unleashed a pre-emptive strike in what must be seen as one of the most daring and uncertain undertakings of the war. Definitely not something a land power like Germany would do for fun.

In relation to the western powers, or at least in relation to the United Kingdom, Nazi Germany was never actually a prime aggressor. It had no interests in destroying the British Empire and Churchill could in fact have sued for peace without territorial loss, or even prestige, more or less whenever he wanted to. The point is England refused to do this.
In other words, if England would have had any interest in using Germany as a bulwark against Communism, it for some reason failed to appreciate such an opportunity.
The German acceptance of a continued existence of official France (Vichy France) also hints at the probablity that the occupation was not viewed as a permanent state of affairs in Berlin, rather as a wartime solution.

Cobra, I agree Italian Fascism and National Socialism was not the same thing. It's also wrong to assume Nazism originally was somehow inspired by the duce's revolution, in fact they were contemporary movements. In a functional sense, however, I still think it's rather useful to refer to them both as Fascism since both were basically about combing nationalism/right-wing ideology and Socialism into a new revolutionary synthesis.
In relation to the above, differences between them also fall out in a possibly unexpected and maybe not so flattering way in the case of Italian Fascism. After all, Mussolini is the one making all those pompous remarks about 'the cleansing quality of war' while also integrating them into his foreign policy. Considering Albania, the Greek fiasco and Italy's entry into WWII, you'd be hard-pressed to find such an opportunist land-grabbing mentality anywhere in Europe in those days.

The most forgiving part about Italian Fascism in comparison to National Socialism would probably be the lack of an inherent racialist doctrine, which in the case of Nazism had a most brutal and unattractive revelation in the case of regarding Slav populatons as "Untermenschen".

Thanks for your assistance! Okay, maybe I'll up the ante and search out some scientific works of the variety you recommend, although my understanding is constrained when it comes to the math that use to accompany these sorts of publications.
Gillett has these types of works in his references but I disregarded that in my post since I was specifically asking for a more popular presentation initially.
Something on the level of Zubrin's works would have been optimal for a layperson like myself, but there it is.

Sure, but I don't need al-Qaeda to tell me that. I could grab any devout Muslim "refugee" off the street and he'll inform me that's why we "Christian" khuffirs are inferior, because we oppose God's purpose of global Islam. Wanting to have our own country is also the intrinsic reason why we are "racists". The thinking is kind of analogous to the faction of Globalists currently in power in the US. Here, a country is legit only if it respects “democracy” and keeps its borders wide open for immigration and world finance.
Muslims don’t have a country, they have a religion. To put a wordly state in front of Universalist faith, like the Baathists did, is more or less sacrilege.
There is also a loose end in Cole's otherwise impeccable reasoning. The US invaded Iraq seemingly for no reason. It just sort of happened. But wasn't Bush and the network eager to go into Iraq immediately following 9/11, expressing a fixed mindset  (to the extent that the campaign in Afghanistan almost appears as a detour) on how the act could (i.e should) be linked to Saddam?

What I'd like to know. At what moment in time did bin Ladin claim responsibility for 9/11? If I recall correctly, bin Ladin's initial reaction was to condemn the attacks. Pretty awkward for a terrorist organisation.
I'd also like to know what evidence there is for al-Qaeda being behind 9/11 at all.

From Cole's article:

So why do I get these visions of Nostradamus' AD 2080 suite flashing through my head?

You twits!