Posts Tagged ‘bullshit’

Nu e invazie, in UE nu exista democratie, iar Vadim nu mai e

Septembrie 19, 2015

Conflictul din Syria este o lupta intre 2 parti, Assad (despotul secular) si fundamentalisti islamici (ISIS, ISIL, Al Qaeda etc). In acest raport declasificat al guvernului SUA, scrie clar negru pe alb ca Vestul, statele din Golf si Turcia sustin Statul Islamic, iar regimul Assad este sustinut de catre Rusia, China, si Iran. Statele din Golf (Arabia Saudita mai ales) si Turcia NU lupta cu Statul Islamic, ei lupta cu oponentii SI. Sauditii sunt ocupati sa bombardeze Yemenul, iar Turcia e ocupata sa-i bombardeze pe Kurzi (gherilele marxiste ale Kurzilor, din care fac parte femei si barbati, lupta impotriva ISIS, iar Turcii lupta impotriva lor). Nu exista o opozitie seculara in acest conflict, sau daca a existat si exista, ea n-are nicio importanta/relevanta in prezentul razboi civil. Ai de ales intre un regim secular dictatorial (Assad), insa unul care a pastrat granita cu Israelul fara conflicte, si intre un regim teocratic uber represiv cu ambitii pan-teritoriale… In astfel de situatii, de regula, te aliezi cu dracul cel mai mic. Vestul si aliatii au ales dracul cel mai mare.

In consecinta, acei oameni care si-au vandut toate acareturile ca sa fuga din tara si sa se indrepte catre Vest, unde au rude sau prieteni, NU sunt invadatori. La fel cum acei aproximativ 4 milioane de romani care sunt in afara NU sunt invadatori pentru Vest – insa foarte multe voci din tara acum manifesta aceleasi prejudecati si atitudini xenofobe si rasiste fata de acesti refugiati/imigranti, atitudini pe care vesticii le-au avut fata de noi. Oh, sa nu vina romanii ca aduc cu ei boli, violatori si criminali – toti sunt la fel!

Si sa adresez si logica asta tampita, „Stai, domne, acasa si lupta pentru tara! De ce vrei sa pleci si sa vii aici!?”

Am si eu intrebarea mea… Tu ce ai face daca prietenii tai ar face parte din ISIS, iar familia ta ar face parte din simpatizantii lui Assad? Tu ce ai face atunci cand armata lui Assad ti-ar bombarda orasul, pentru ca acesta a fost invadat de catre ISIS? Tu ce ai face daca ambele parti (sirieni unu’ si unu’) ti-ar zice, ori esti cu noi, ori esti mort? Aici nu e vorba de „noi” vs „straini”. Atunci cand te alfi intre ciocan si nicovala, incerci sa scapi catre alte meleaguri, si te duci acolo unde ai prieteni sau rude. Oamenii astia aleg Europa pentru doua motive foarte simple, aici nu exista regimuri represive si exista un safety-net social. In Arabia Saudita, insa, esti pasibil de biciure si puscarie daca aduci critici la adresa guvernului (daca aduci critici monarhiei), si primesti pedeapsa capitala daca protestezi impotriva guvernului. Astfel de masuri represive sunt valabile si pentru celelalte tari din Golf. Asadar, faza asta cu „Stai, domne, acasa si lupta pentru tara” avansata de ANAListi precum Mugur Ciuvica si altii sunt doar sofisme.

Olanda recent a manifestat pretentia (de stapan feudal) ca tarile din Estul Europei sa accepte cotele obligatorii pentru ca au primit in toti anii astia fonduri europene. LoL. De parca noi am fi primit aceste fonduri fara sa dam nimic la schimb, si de parca fondurile astea au si ajuns la cetateni si nu la magnatii de serviciu, preferati de ai nostri cat si de „baietii destepti” din afara.

UE isi arata pentru a nu-stiu-cata oara dezgustul pentru democratie si transparenta, si mai ales dezgustul pentru drepturile omului. E simplu sa-i critici pe altii ca nu le respecta, dar cand vine randul tau, iti e greu sa pui in practica ceea ce predici.

Eu unul sunt impotriva cotelor obligatorii. Asa ceva este profund nedemocratic. Dupa parerea mea, Comisia Europeana ar trebui sa incurajeze statele membre sa ia mai multi refugiati prin facilitati fiscale, nu sa-i penalizeze in caz ca nu vor prin masuri fiscale. Unde orbii vad numai costuri, eu vad compenanta de cerere cat si componenta de output in acesti oameni care si-au riscat viata si economiile sa scape din iadul de acasa. Potentialul agricultural ar Romaniei, daca ar fi utilizat in intregime prin masuri fiscale adecvate, ar putea hrani in jur de 80 de milioane de oameni. Ca sa va faceti o idee de cifra raportata la regiune, orasul Shanghai are o suprafata de peste 7000 km2, si o populatie de peste 14 milioane de oameni. Romania are o suprafata de peste 238 de mii de km2. Europa i-ar putea integra fara probleme pe toti acesti oameni, dar asta s-ar bate cap in cap cu ideologia austeritatii imbratisate de catre Berlin, si impusa tuturor catelusilor (vasalilor) din Periferie.

Aud tampenia asta vehiculata pe televizoare si prin social media, vezi doamne, sa intervina Americanii sau armatele statelor UE ca sa scape de Assad si de ISIS, ca acesti oameni sa se intoarca de unde au venit. BULLSHIT! Ar fi o mare nenorocire sa trimitem trupe in Siria, fiindca Rusia nu va sta cu mainile in san. N-are rost sa varsam sange aiurea. Americanii se pricep de minune la asta, oricum. I-au finantat si antrenat pe Talibani ca sa-i scoata afara pe Sovietici (sa dea jos un regim secular si progresiv), pentru ca Talibanii sa creeze un stat feudal – pentru ca mai apoi ei sa aiba motiv sa invadeze Afghanistanul si sa controleze flowul de opiu, printre alte obiective.

La fel ca si in Lybia. Vestul a dat jos un guvern secular prin metode directe si indirecte (prin proxi), ca apoi sa lase un haos total in urma lor. Ne aliam foarte bine cu Al Qaeda atunci cand ne convine, si ii demonizam tot atunci cand ne convine. Care e rezultatul net? Conflict perpetuu asigurat.

Ah, si a murit Vadim Tudor – un politician care a excelat in lipsa de consecventa. Pe toti pe care i-a scuipat si injurat, pe urma i-a pupat, a dat mana cu ei, si i-a ajutat in diversele campanii electorale. Va amintesc ca Tribunul, la ultimul referendum, era absent din dezbatere, in timp ce (faimoasele lui) ziare indemnau lumea sa stea acasa si sa nu se duca la vot. Vadim l-a sprijinit pe Basescu la ultimul referendum, si a luat parte la cea mai mare lovitura data acestei tari – lovitura comisa de catre stapanii nostri de la Berlin si CE si de CCR et comp. De foarte multe ori, Corneliu Vadim Tudor „castiga” dispute prin iesiri sifilitice (atacuri la persoana si alte paralogisme intentionate, aka sofisme) si tipete. Pe multi ii impresiona cu memoria sa foarte buna, ceea ce-i ciudat – deoarece eu nu sunt impresionat de HDD-uri, fie ele si organice. Mai recent, dupa ce sora lui Vadim i-a cerut lui Becali ajutor financiar, mai exact, sa le angajeze el pe fete – aia mare a Tribunului i-a transmis lui Becali sa uite de familia Vadim Tudor, ca vezi doamne el a jignit memoria tatalui lor prin comentariul lui vis-a-vis de caini. Becali a zis ca el ajuta familia, dar ca nu vrea ca banii lui sa se duca pe mancare de caini. Pana la urma, sunt banii lui si are tot dreptul sa decida pentru ce scop sa fie folositi. Vadim Tudor, ca om politic, a fost un curv. N-a lasat nimic in urma lui in afara de vorbe si praf in ochi. Ar trebui sa fie mentionat in dictionar, la Inconsecventionalism = vezi CVT, Traian Basescu si (multi) altii.

In incheiere, nu ma astept la nimic de la ortodocsii mei concetateni, nimic in afara de dublu-standarde. Dar nu-i nimic, prin faptele lor vor arata cat de crestini sunt ei (sarcasm) fata de „invazia” de refugiati.

Surprise, surprise… Referendumul din vara trecuta a intrunit cvorumul

Iulie 4, 2013

Conform Institutului National de Statistica, numarul persoanelor cu drept de vot este de 16.269.839. Astfel, cvorumul necesar la referendumul din vara trecuta pentru demiterea lui Basescu era de 8.134.920. Cetatii prezenti la referendum au fost in numar de 8.459.053.

Nu numai ca acel cvorum era un element profund antidemocratic… dar cetatenii l-au batut pe Basescu in ciuda acestui fapt. Ce e aia sa-ti trebuiasca 51% din populatie sa vina la vot pentru a demite un nenorocit de politician dintr-o functie publica, cand acestia sunt alesi FARA cvorum!? Primarii, parlamentarii, si presedintele sunt alesi FARA cvorum. Au iesit 20% din cetatenii cu drept de vot, 51% din aia 20% decid. De ce pula mea ne trebuie 51% din voturile a 51% din populatia cu drept de vot pentru a demite un nemernic sau altul? N-are nicio logica. Nu-i nimic altceva decat un dublu-standard, o mega ipocrizie antidemocratica. Dar nu mai conteaza, chair si asa, romanii prezenti la referendum au depasit cu mult acel nenorocit de cvorum si 87% dintre ei i-au zis „mars” lu’ Basescu.

Obama si Merkel, curva voastra (Basescu) este dictatorul nostru. Egiptenii-l privesc pe Morsi in aceeasi lumina.

Religion, the greatest affront to God

Ianuarie 2, 2013

The most disrespectful thing against GOD is religion. Religion has imposed on the Supreme Ultimate, on the prime mover, on the clock maker, on the principle which subsumes the universe, the ideas that god has a favorite corner of the universe, a favorite planet, a favorite people, a favorite religion, a favorite sex, a favorite sexuality, a favorite familial system, a favorite political-economic system, a favorite country, a chosen one or prophet, a favorite calendar, a favorite hat, a favorite day, a favorite „vicar on earth”, a favorite army, a favorite constitution, favorite leaders, parties, factions, and policies – that god has nothing better to do than catalog, prioritize, and discriminate between selfish human prayers. Religion is a sin against god and all creation.

That being said, it’s time to tackle atheism. Agnostics are not even worth mentioning, neither are the pantheists, who believe that the creator and the created is one and the same thing. By that reasoning, nature is god, and we are god. Last time I checked, the carpenter was not the same thing as a carpet. Nature derives from god, but it’s not god. God is the first spark, the first cause. In lack of this you only have circular logic. Leibniz’s clock maker example is the best. If an observer would shrink himself to go inside a clock to see how it works, all he’ll witness is the wheels working in perfect synchronization. The observer witnesses correlation not causality. The true cause lies in the one who made the clock, and winded it, in order to set its wheels in motion. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. If I have all the pieces of a table, and pile them up together, I’ll still have all the elements of the table, but I won’t have the table. What’s missing? The principle of organization. Atheism also has exaggerated claims of absolute truth, albeit they’re not as exaggerated as religious ones. I’ll just sum it up like this: even radical empiricism accepts the possibility of the existence of transempiric beings. But given their superior nature, such things are not worth the pursuit. That’s the view of radical empiricism. So if you’re an atheist and you’re being posed the question, „Is it possible for god to exist?” don’t say NO, and don’t try to beat around the bush. Say that transempirical entities may exist, and if they do, they’re certainly not the almighty, wroth, bigoted, patriarchal, human incarnated, or buddha characters of religions. But if they are, would you seriously pray to them and worship them? Would you pray to a human being who’s managed to go beyond his finite and weak form, and achieved an other plane of existence? I, for one, wouldn’t. I’d rather invoke the words of dead men and or principles which define my character and beliefs. To quote Dante Alighieri, „Consider your origins, you were not meant to live as brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge.” Virtue and knowledge cannot work as separate notions. Having virtuous people, who lack knowledge, who are ignorant, make for perfect slaves/obedient workers. However, in nature, if you stand still, it’s the same as going backward. So a virtuous and ignorant people will sooner or later descend into barbarism. Knowledge without virtue is as perilous. Why? Because such individuals are solely clever devils.  They’ll use knowledge only to further their own ambitions, their greed. They won’t care about the consequences of their actions. They’ll use all the means to steal, guard, protect knowledge, and attack all others who want to possess it as well. Progress and peace can only be achieved through the observing and practicing of virtue and knowledge. The only likeness between the human being and the nonreligious concept of god, is the human being’s willful creative reason. Just as the biosphere is organized by a higher principle, and has a fundamentally distinct quality compared to the abiotic sphere, so does the noosphere (the sphere of human ideas/thoughts) over the biosphere. Living matter is distinct but not separate from inanimate matter. Ideas are distinct from matter, but not separate. To quote Gottfried Leibniz, „Everything that is in the mind came first through the senses, except for the mind itself.”

Therefore, whilst we are part of creation, we’re also a willful creative force inside that creation.

Note: I can’t stand those who don’t believe, seeing themselves superior to those who do believe. And I can’t stand those who believe, seeing themselves as superior to those who don’t believe.  Thus, religion (aka institutionalized faith) is the greatest affront to the Supreme Ultimate.

Dr. Shlomo Sand, despre mitul exilului, despre mitul „etnicilor” evrei si nationalismul religios (zionism)

Decembrie 19, 2012

Shlomo Sand este profesor la Universitatea Tel Aviv si este autorul cartii, „Inventarea Poporului Evreu” – un studiu historiografic, care a generat controverse. De ce? Pentru simplu’ fapt ca pune niste intrebari incomode, al caror raspunsuri nu se regasesc in minciunile/legendele religioase ale bibliei, si ale miscarii politicoreligioase, numita zionism. Nu exista un „jewish people”, asa cum nu exista un „christian people”, sau „islamic people”, sau „zoroastrian people”, sau „buddhist people”, sau „atheist people” – si cand folosesc cuvantul people „ma refer la popor/popoare”. In schimb exista indivizi, crestini, evrei, budisti, ateisti etc. A folosi texte religioase ca pretext de a crea un stat religios, pentru a fura pamantul nativilor din Palestina (evrei, arabi, crestini) este doar un alt mijloc prin care imperialismul si colonialismul vestic a dat si continua sa dea peste cap tarile din Orient Mijlociu. A folosi argumentul conform caruia – Dumnezeu (in infinitatea lui perfectiune si suprematie) a decis sa-si aleaga un popor (asa zisul popor ales) si sa le dea ordine sa dea afara alte triburi de pe anumite pamanturi, ca respectivul popor ales sa traiasca acolo in locul lor – ales de Dumnezeu pentru ei – este total patetic. E ca si cand Egiptul ar spune ca mare parte din Orientul Mijlociu are trebui sa-i revina, pentru ca vointa zeilor le-a permis faurirea si extinderea Imperiului Egiptean de acum mii de ani. E ca si cand Romania ar emite pretentia ca anumite pamanturi din Turcia moderna ar trebui sa-i revina, deoarece romanii se trag din traci/Tracia. Nu se va ajunge niciodata la un acord/”two state solution” – deoarece radicalistii de dreapta din Israel nu vor sa respecte ONU si nici Comunitatea Internationala. Ei vor doar negocieri bilaterale cu autoritatea palestiniana, nu vor intermediari sau arbitri. Ca sa vedem iarasi ca viata prin definitie este ironica, zionismul are nevoie de radicalismul/fundamentalismul islamic pentru a suprevietui si pentru a pastra statu cvoul Apartheid impotriva palestinienilor, si pentru a extinde colonizarea in malul de vest.

Shlomo Sand has contested the claim that his book has been contradicted by recent genetic research published in Nature journal and the American Journal of Human Genetics. In a new afterword for the paperback edition of The Invention of the Jewish People, Sand writes:

„This attempt to justify Zionism through genetics is reminiscent of the procedures of late nineteenth-century anthropologists who very scientifically set out to discover the specific characteristics of Europeans. As of today, no study based on anonymous DNA samples has succeeded in identifying a genetic marker specific to Jews, and it is not likely that any study ever will. It is a bitter irony to see the descendants of Holocaust survivors set out to find a biological Jewish identity: Hitler would certainly have been very pleased! And it is all the more repulsive that this kind of research should be conducted in a state that has waged for years a declared policy of „Judaization of the country” in which even today a Jew is not allowed to marry a non-Jew.”

Propaganda zionista incearca sa justifice genocidul din Gaza

Noiembrie 21, 2012

Russia’s UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin convened an emergency session of the UN Security Council this afternoon, in an effort to get the Council to issue a statement condemning the brutal Israeli attacks on Gaza, which kicked off with the assassination of Hamas’ top military leader and peace negotiator Ahmed Jabari. But the effort was apparently stymied by the U.S. refusal to issue any statement condemning the Israeli action.

An international diplomatic effort, led by Egypt, has so far failed to achieve a ceasefire in the week-long Israeli air assault on the Gaza Strip, which has already resulted in more than 100 deaths and many more injuries. Monday, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon arrived in Cairo where he met with Egyptian President Morsi and Hamas secretary general Khaled Mashal. He will meet on Tuesday with Israeli President Shimon Peres. Tomorrow, the Turkish Foreign Minister will travel to Gaza with foreign ministers from Arab League states. The German foreign minister is also traveling to the region to meet with Palestinian and Israeli officials.

According to news accounts and sources directly involved in the attempts to negotiate a ceasefire, Hamas is demanding an end to the Israeli bombardment, an end to the naval blockade of Gaza, and the opening of the Rafah crossing. Israel is demanding an airtight guarantee from Egypt that there will be no more rockets fired from Gaza into Israel and an end to the smuggling of weapons into Gaza from Egypt. Israel is, according to sources involved in the negotiations, demanding that Egypt be the guarantor of the ceasefire, a role that Egypt is hesitant to play, unless there is some signficant concessions from Israel and the United States. Israeli officials have said that they are prepared to accept a ceasefire, but are prepared to launch a ground invasion of Gaza if necessary. The next days will be crucial in determining whether such a major military action can be avoided.

For his part, President Obama has continued to side with Netanyahu. Yesterday, he spoke to Egypting President Morsi and pressured him to get Hamas to halt all rocket fire into Israel. He then called Netanyahu to „get an update” on Israel’s thinking.

http://larouchepac.com/node/24519

Vladamir Jabotinsky, father of revisionist zionism said in 1923, „There can be no discussion of a voluntary reconciliation between us and the Arabs… Any native people…view their country as their national home… They will not voluntarily allow, not only a new master, but even a new partner… Colonization can have only one goal. For the Palestinian Arabs this goal is inadmissible. This is in the nature of things. To change that nature is impossible… colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy.”

Venice Commission think tanking for corruption (Romania)

August 7, 2012

B. Draft Law 2 relating to conditions of admissibility of a candidate as
member of the Constitutional Court (CDL(2006)008)

1. Exclusion of political party membership for candidates and their families 

10. One of the most important requirements concerning the composition of constitutional courts is the guarantee of the independence of constitutional judges already during the process of their selection, nomination or election within the national parliaments. This approach does, however, not mean that the process of the selection of the constitutional court judges can or should be absolutely free from democratic political influences. This would be unrealistic and contradict basic concepts of constitutional justice.
11. According to the new Article 5.4 candidates for the position of a judge at the Constitutional Court shall not be or have been members of any political party, nor be relatives in the first degree or second degree, nor spouses, sons in law or daughters in law of persons who are or were during the last five years members of the leadership of political parties.
12. Such a restriction seems clearly excessive, especially as the provision deals not only with current party membership but even with membership during the last five years.
13. Two arguments can be made against such a restriction, relating to the right to participate in political life of the country and the right of access to public functions. These two rights would be endangered by the proposal. In addition, in a democratic country it is even desirable that the Constitutional Court is composed of persons who do not only have a legal qualification but also experience in the democratic life of a country.
14. The establishment of a specialised Constitutional Court as conceived by Kelsen and first applied in the Austrian Constitution of 1920, rests on the recognition that the annulment of acts of Parliament, which represents the sovereign people, is different in nature from the ordinary civil, criminal or administrative jurisdiction. The composition of specialised constitutional courts is different from that of the ordinary judiciary because the constitutional court needs added legitimacy (see the Venice Commission’s study on the composition of Constitutional Courts, Science and Technique of Democracy, no. 20). The closer this composition reflects the various currents of society the higher this legitimacy will be.
15. In order to prevent direct influence of political parties, it is not necessary to ask for complete political abstention. It should be sufficient that the members give up any party membership upon appointment or presentation of their candidature. Once the members are appointed, they act independently and in their individual capacity. They even have the famous ‘duty of ingratitude’ towards the body which appointed them and the principle of collegiality will help them to live up to these standards.
See the link here: http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2006/CDL-AD(2006)006-e.pdf

What I’ve outlined in bold is in my opinion BULLSHIT. Those fossils in the romanian constitutional court were all the beneficiaries of Ceausescu’s nomenclature, in one way or an other. They were former PCR members and post ’89 they were members of the so called National Salvation Front (a den of traitors, criminals, former security collaborators and corrupt politicians), then of the other important political parties (which broke apart from the NSF). How the hell does this pro-oligarchical euro think tank (the Venice Commission), propose to keep the separation of powers intact and keep the judicial system independent, when they’re actually (textually) encouraging CCR judges to have political pasts?! (ergo to come from the political realm, and not the apolitical judiciary branch)