5 Filters

Covid-jabbed more likely to support Russian sanctions

#8

I’ll read the PCR article more thoroughly later, thanks Rhis, though I have found his blog a bit “all over the place” lately. As @PatB said, trust only the evidence of your own eyes.

I won’t claim to have some kind of extra-prescient perception but when the same System Pigs are spinning the new narrative, as have been spinning all the other Permanent BB, I tend not to conclude that they’ve suddenly decided truth. People are being herded from one supervillain to the next.

Happily it is possible to disengage, take some calming breaths, and go out and enjoy the sunshine. There is still an occasional citizen unwilling to practise Full Frontal Facial Nudity but they can wallow in their halitosis the rest of their lives for all I care. Life is a wonderful gift and anyone who tries to persuade you the world is a dark and perilous place is antiLife. It really is as simple as that.

1 Like
#9

Damn’ right! :slight_smile:

#10

I fully agree that the ‘west’ and ‘NATO’ has acted belligerently and holds a large share of the responsibility for what is happening in Ukraine. You might have already read the Chris Hedges piece I’m linking to in which he gives a good accounting of what has lead to this. That said, I don’t agree that aerial bombardment, destroying infrastructure, and upending the lives of tens of thousands?, hundreds of thousands? ordinary, innocent people is necessary and/or unavoidable.

I haven’t kept up with what’s being going on in the Donbass region. I will have to do some research on it.

1 Like
#11

Do look into it further, J. I recommend Pepe Escobar, Saker, bernhard at Moon of Alabama, the guys at The Duran, and Andrei Martyanov for some sound realworld enlightenment. I suggest that Russia isn’t bombing anything at all that doesn’t count as a source of military resistance to their cleansing action; and people running into refugeedom isn’t the Russian’s doing. There are already video testimonies about, of Ukrainians testifying to the restrained and actually helpful behaviour towards them of the Russian military: rescuing them from human shield situations, bus transport to receptions centres provided, food, medicine, shelter, many tons of humanitarian aid all laid on. In the midst of an on-going war!! The Russians do regard the Ukrainians as fellow Eastern Slavs, after all, to be assisted rather than brutalised. That’s what they say they’re doing, and I think they’re right.

Things you’ll never hear about from the West’s mediawhores and pocket-pols.

The key thing is to take nothing - absolutely nothing at all - from the Western lamestream media about all this. Despite people’s confident assurance that they’re not affected by the lying propaganda, they’re simply wrong about that. It seeps into your subconscious, whether you will or no. And the little bit of Radio 3 ‘news’ bulletinettes that I take in to see what the lie-de-jour is each day is plenty to get the outline, without exposing yourself to any more than that. Even that much has me cursing at the radio…! :slight_smile:

1 Like
#12

To decide whether an action is justified is not always clear. For a start, does one judge on moral terms, legal terms, or both? Was Britain justified to declare war on Germany in 1939? Were the Vietnamese justified in removing Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge by invading Cambodia? The US in removing Saddam Hussein?

Regarding the present case, the legality under International Law has become – thanks to all those unprovoked Western wars – completely meaningless. Certainly there are justifications*. The Russians (and indeed the Donbass Ukrainians) can point to this

– victims that were consistently ignored for 8 years. Indeed there would have been a huge number more if the Russians claim that the Donbass was about to be invaded is correct. Then there’s the recently articulated intention that Ukraine would start developing nuclear weapons. Russia has been trying for 8 years to settle these issues through eg the Minsk agreements, but all this is deliberately dismissed. Is that enough to `justify’ this operation/invasion? Perhaps not but there’s clearly a case.

Finally, wars are fought very differently, as my three examples were intended to convey. Carpet bombing a country (US in Vietnam + Laos), destroying civilian infrastructure (NATO bombing in Serbia, Libya, US `coalition’ in Iraq) are in my view truly evil and absolutely unjustified. But however much the MSM tries desperately to say this is happening in Ukraine, the evidence shows it’s not (or at least nothing on the scale of the above examples) – mainly because the Russians, quite logically, do not wish to create a population which hates them on their doorstep. I suspect there would be far fewer refugees if (i) they were not frightened by a screaming media that the evil Russians would kill them all and (ii) the EU didn’t just open their borders. (People are easily scared, as Covid has taught us.)

*I know this is difficult to argue because we’re up against a mountain of fake justifications over the last few decades – saving Afghan women, saving Kurds, bringing freedom and democracy, stopping dictators killing their people, etc.

2 Likes
#13

Hi @Willem , totally agree with your comments. One of the blackest moves of the British was the carpet bombing of civilians in German cities in WW2 with the stated intention of encouraging German citizens to rebel against Hitler and his nazis. It was more likely to be straight revenge for the German bombing of British cities, although at first this seemed to be aimed at strategic industries rather than people if I recall correctly.

NATO is built on the basis of an alliance so that an attack on one member will be defended by all members and the UN charter permits this as self defence. It’s really not far from this to point out Russia recognized the breakaway republics in the Donbass a few weeks ago and established an alliance with them so that all the Ukrainian State attacks against the people of the Donbass after the establishment of this Russia-Donbass alliance gave that alliance justification in legal terms to defend itself. There is not the slightest difference between these two world power blocks.

To ask whether war is moral is oxymoronic, imo the intentional killing of anyone can never be justified in moral terms. Surprisingly, or maybe not, is the religious support for war in many religions. But today’s society is rarely if ever organised on moral principles so it’s no surprise that international relations are also completely divorced from any moral code. The UN charter itself is sprinkled with “get out clauses” ! The establishment of sovereign states almost demands a willingness to wage war to protect one interest against another, if we accept one then we should not be surprised if the other happens down the line or even in the process of establishing the state in the first place.

We don’t have to like this conundrum and we should all seek alternative courses but if we accept sovereign states should have armies then we are in the end complicit in all actions they take…?? Don’t countries carry their own karma?

cheers

#14

I recommend Martin Luther King Jnr., Gandhi and Harry Patch (et.al)…

Harry Patch

Some on here should take note of what I have said on the nuclear issue too; depleted uranium used by both sides and vulnerable nuclear reactors which, if damaged, could also pollute counties with no interest in the war at all…

This isn’t “just” and it certainly isn’t responsible…!

I’m with you Jackie… (I’d post two of my Moments here -please check my recent thread-, but you’ll have to wait until I populate some blog posts with the same info)

DU round

See: Order Out Of Chaos: How The Ukraine Conflict Is Designed To Benefit Globalists [Russia, China and America all equally bad] #Globalism

#15

Support for war within Christianity came about by Papal edict at the time of the crusades…the notion of a “holy war” became necessary to protect the institutionalised patriarchy… more it was “a war with holes in” because Islam was also an institutionalised patriarchy…

There are none: Creedence Clearwater Revival - "Fortunate Son" - YouTube

Eye of sauron

CERN HADRON

Frodo1

5G mast

…and before you start Rhis these things are all connected, these are the shibboleths this is the paradigm…so much more serious than the chattering-classes realise…“words-matter” not “matter-words”…

BitCoinMine1

You can see that they are all connected…

UFO1

Know how they felt (I was “in the frontline” of a different war by the time I was eighteen): Paul Hardcastle - Nineteen (Destruction Mix) - YouTube

Education
Education679×679 77.3 KB

#16

I’ll ‘start’, G, no further than to say that if you see all the connections that you claim in this freight-train’s worth of words’n’pics, then you see better than I do.

Once again: an allusion doesn’t work if you don’t make sure your hearer gets it! Will you ever face that basic fact of prose-writing? Just larding on loads of unclear allusions that your reader doesn’t get, doesn’t cut it.

And CJ: again, on the critically important points that you bring up:

If one party to a dispute tries for years to point out politely and patiently that its vital national security concerns are getting trampled, and urges the other party to come to diplomatic discussions, in good faith, to sort the issues out peaceably, as equals, with due give and take, and instead the other party proceeds from start to finish with utterly untrustworthy bad faith and being “not agreement-capable”, and persistently steers the first party towards a plight where it has - literally - no good options left, and is forced into the damnable position of having to choose a least-bad option out of an all-bad set, so as to avoid copping a much worse option ultimately (you can see why VVPutin was so angry when he had to make the baleful announcement that Russia would be going into the Ukraine to stop the imminent genocidal attack on the Donbas, and to eradicate USuk’s carefully-cultivated and armed Ukro-nazis, can’t you?)… Well then yes, I’d say there really is a difference in blameworthiness between the two parties; one is in the right, the other in the wrong.

And G: Regarding DU. Its use is as deplorable as war itself. But we are all members of a species which - persistently - is indulgently addicted to these deplorable things. By all means work and hope to help us evolve past such bone-headed criminalities. But in the meanwhile, accept that that’s the way we are, and deal with it realistically. Anguished virtue-signalling doesn’t really suffice.

In the above case there IS a guilty party: the gangsters who run the Anglozionist empire; and there is a wronged party, who tried hard and in good faith to avoid these bad outcomes: the much tougher, long-history-hardened gangsters who run the Russian empire.

And now, having been driven to it, they’re giving a stunning demonstration of just how much better they are at it than their bad-faith, superiority-complex-crippled opposite numbers; who are screeching hysterically, because it’s dawning on them right now, whilst we watch, that they’re out-classed, that there’s nothing - literally nothing at all - effective that they can do to strike back (their bloated military NATOtumour notwithstanding), and that the ineffectual things that they are doing are bound to damage themselves disastrously whilst doing zero mortal harm to their opponent; and - to cap it all - the first appalled inklings are surfacing in their delusion-ridden collective understanding that their time as cocks of the walk is passing.

Irreversibly; the Long Descent has them in its teeth… The ‘New American Century’, indeed! Hah! :roll_eyes:

1 Like
#17

I think I’ve mentioned this before, but I’m now up to three elderly aunts, two of which have heart problems and one of which has serious thrombosis. None of them have ever had heart/circulation issues. All of them have had the jabs, of course.

Of those three aunts, only one understands that they’ve got a psycho in the corner of the room. My other two aunts largely believe what those nice, smiling telly people are saying to them.

#18

Don’t browbeat me Rhis if your feet were stuck any further in the clay you’d be completely immobile…my point is that if you don’t see the connections I cannot (no matter how much “chattering” I do), make you see them…we are all in the hands of Chronos: "Arafel": "Chronos"

How about this allusion: The Day After (1983) film - less in 8 minutes - YouTube?

Understand this old-mate: “Electro-Magnetic Pulse Weapons Make Nuclear Weapons Indispensable for the Old Empires”

“these articles downplay the threat (EMP nukes are very much in the armoury esp. for use against non-nuclear powers). Not effective against military installations? Maybe so but only the properly shielded (and this would need to be considerable in the case of air-burst nuclear EMP weapons). We are a technologically reliant culture” "Arafel": Welcome to the 21st Century: #EMPWeapons #TheSpaceMarine #UNNuclearBan

634×587 127 KB

Oh yeah and “dense inert metals” "Arafel": ""Strange and Horrific Wounds"; Dense Inert Metal Explosives (b***ard off-spring of D. U)" + updates from Gaza Also see: "Arafel": Electro-Magnetic Pulse Weapons Update (The GHE-O "Rescue")

& "Arafel": Tactical Nukes, "Rods of God" and Space Rocket X: The U.S Continues to Militarise Space #SpaceWeapons #NKorea #Proliferation

Playing gods with “just” war…I’ll tell you what is “just” about it….just one mistake…!

See this: Unthinkable: What Would a Russia-NATO Nuclear War Over Ukraine Look Like?

#19

G, would you like to put your latest waggon-load of disconnected material into a single explanatory essay of - say - five hundred words?

Not trying to browbeat you bro, heaven forbid! It’s just that I have no idea what you’re driving at with all this constant barrage of random material. Something vaguely alarming; that’s all I’m even slightly confident to say about it.

I am interested to hear, if you’ll just spell it out in one connected, rationally-comprehensible precis; truly!

Imagine you’re spelling things out simply in a single, connected narrative for a somewhat retarded twelve-year-old; seriously! I might be able to get what you’re on about, if you’ll only do that…

#20

Hi @RhisiartGwilym

I have no doubt that the controlling powers within Ukraine have acted with evil intent against innocent civilians and have threatened far more heinous crimes in the immediate future.

I also believe Putin has acted with justification in protecting the people of the Donbas and Russia itself by dismantling the Ukrainian military capabilities. Clearly Putin is aware of the danger of harming innocents in this process and seems to have demanded his military take great care to avoid this. Both legally and politically Russia is acting responsibly and many innocent lives will be saved because of Russia’s actions.

Nevertheless innocents will die from any military action and this is accepted by all States as a sort of necessary evil. They often wave a hand whilst claiming collateral damage and crying crocodile tears. But few statesmen stop to imagine themselves and their families in the position of innocent bystanders. The golden rule of “do as you would be done by “ never appears in armed conflicts.

So the question is how can we organise matters so that criminals armed with lethal weapons can be disarmed, arrested and tried for their crimes without endangering others. This was supposed to be the job of the UN but it has never been successful, afaik! Create defensive weapons that have far better accuracy and precision and/or only inflict minor injuries but incapacitate the target for a while?

The morality of killing reached a stage over 10 years ago where the BMJ felt comfortable in publishing this piece, essentially, to justify euthanasia to facilitate organ transplants:

  • this seems to be just another example of death by definition as are all moves away from the golden rule , “ first do no harm” as the authors seem to think doctors are suitable arbiters of whether they are doing harm, albeit sometimes with a judicial cover!

Ignoring law and realpolitics for the moment if you ask most people whether it’s OK to murder 3 year olds they would look at you as if you were mad! We need to ask where that moral compass is when judging the acceptability of deliberately killing humans in any circumstance. Why are there so many exemptions from this basic premise?

What is the difference between dropping a massive bomb on a village killing men women and children and murdering each one individually? I would say none.

But what if the bomb was targeted at a military installation a mile away and it just misfired? Most would say, accidents happen, it’s tough but not immoral. But what if we were told that every bomb kills innocents because no-one knows for certain who was present at the target site when it was dropped? If there was the possibility of the president of the USA being at the target site would the US drop a bomb anywhere near the site!? Double standards operate all the time and principles are discarded at whim.

At the moment it is clear we do not possess any system or process or weapons to eliminate danger to innocents we can only limit it by careful police or military personnel. This appears to be the approach of Russia and where innocents are harmed or killed it is likely because they are being used as human shields so the responsibility is also that of their captors. I would also accuse those States, supplying arms to these Ukrainian criminals, of aiding and abetting their crimes - we should be helping Russia to disarm and arrest the criminals!

Whether there is a full scale war or a limited policing invasion we should never forget the innocents no matter how justified the action, and in the case of Ukraine I can certainly see that NATO and the US psychopaths in particular are the prime causes of this conflict from the 90’s onward but 2014 on specifically.

If more money could be made from developing mass weaponry that incapacitated the enemy rather than killing and wounding then maybe we would see the moral argument returning to our screens. Until then all we hear and see is the same old story, imo.

  • sorry about the rambling.
    cheers
2 Likes
#21

Lots of thoughtful stuff there. What might qualify as a non-lethal weapon? “sanctions” are, essentially, “starving your citizens”. Cyberwarfare that knocks out a power station would hamper the supply chain of civilians and military alike. Bombing an oil depot does the same. I don’t really know the answer but a widespread belief that the world can support all our needs would certainly disarm the destructive thoughts that fuel hatred and ultimately fuel the missiles too. So so difficult not to be swept along.

2 Likes
#22

Hi @Kieran_Telo , I guess this stuff was sold to the Russians as the ideal answer but like the covid jab turned out to be poison for at least 15% of the innocents:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7439130_Unexpected_gas_casualties_in_Moscow_A_medical_toxicology_perspective

  • as you say it’s not easy but no-one appears interested in even researching it except in the limited local police actions and even here non-lethal often creeps effortlessly to life changing and lethal.

cheers

#23

Exactly, CJ. The problem you outline is an absolute sod!

My personal fall-back hope, though, is always the multi-lifetime long-haul towards a slowly-evolved improvement.

I think that ‘we’ - that’s to say the immortal-soul essence of us - re-incarnate serially, in pursuit of the Great Purpose of constantly reducing entropy. (Sic! :slight_smile: )

This odd imperative is imposed on all thinking entities simply by the basic - entropy-inclined - nature of reality, which threatens permanently to reduce all of us and all creation progressively into a state of total white-noise disorganisation.

For that background reason, I see what we do, in this virtual-reality holodeck where we play multi-player games between each death-and-rebirth, as a long, slow evolutionary process requiring multiple lifetimes.

The bugger of it all is another basic condition which is also apparently inherent in the nature of reality: In that, for any of this epic story that I’m sketching here to work, absolute free will has to be an inherent element in the body/ego avatars which our souls run during each incarnation. They - or rather we, the souls, their operators - have to be able to choose freely what we do, including the whole deluge of deeply unwise ‘bad’ things…

Lacking that in-built condition of sovereign free will, the whole enterprise of the Great Purpose of Big Mind - of which each of we individuated souls are all still-connected outgrowths - would fall flat; so it seems.

Big Mind, faced with the inherent ever-present slow slide towards absolute entropy - the white-noise-ing of everything - is obliged always to drive things towards low entropy, simply to go on existing as an organised, mind-based, self-aware entity. Awareness-entities, once they have appeared and evolved by pure, random accidents in the endless hiss of white noise, don’t want their organised being to die and fall apart again.

As Tom Campbell points out, a less desiccated, more humane way to characterise this process of working perennially at lowering inherent entropy is to think of it as “growing towards love”.

According to this Campbellian vision, that’s why we’re here: Each of we “Individuated Units Of Consciousness” - aka immortal souls - are in the nature of special organs of Big Mind, exactly analogous to the special-purpose organs of our (virtual! :slight_smile: ) physical bodies. We too serve vital, life-support purposes: driving down entropy by growing towards love. That’s why we come to the holodeck: to take part in this elaborate anti-entropy game.

And all around us, other IUOCs/immortal-souls also take part in the dance; hosts of us making lamentable mis-steps as we go, because - with free will - we can.

Yet I do believe that the whole bloody dance is indeed evolving, with near-intolerable slowness, towards the good: ten steps forward, nine bleedin’ steps back…!

I sympathise with your anguished turmoil about it all, CJ, especially when we’re in the thick of one of our repeated addictive bad-choice festivals, aka war.

1 Like
#24

Hi @RhisiartGwilym , it’s strange to look around the world and witness so much extreme inhumanity and at the same time realise that according to some esoteric beliefs all of humanity have reincarnated over eons just to reach the base level of humanity. To move beyond this base state to higher levels of existence requires us to make the right decisions, think the right thoughts and take the right actions in this less than enlightened state. Taking the wrong moral path is so easily done and yet could be literally a soul-destroying step!

cheers

1 Like
#25

Well, not exactly soul destroying, I think. But definitely a demotion: “Hm, didn’t do that too well, did you? You do agree, don’t you? There, there, take it easy. No blame here. Just see it clearly and do the necessary. Better go back and have another try, no? Some bad karma to amend…”

You just keep going round the Wheel of Rebirth (you can see why the buddhists aim to escape it altogether!) until you do a better job, and evolve into another upgrade…

2 Likes
#26

Hi @RhisiartGwilym , I’ve clearly been exposed to a more pessimistic school of thought where some thoroughly evil characters have been labelled ‘empty houses”- that is people so far involuted as to be devoid of that essence capable of rebirth!

cheers

#27

Quite frankly, the results of this ‘poll’ just reinforces my view that polls like this are total bullshit. First of all, nobody has been 'vaccinated’ok. The so called mRNA jab is an experimental concoction and in no shape or form constitutes a true vaccine which will actually prevent a disease.
My experience as Chairman of a committee some years ago taught me that if you ask at a meeting for an opinion on a motion, you will get multiple arguments and mostly crap opinions.
Never trust a poll company to produce a balanced result.
0Questions. Who are the subjects of these stupid polls, young? old?middle-aged? Men or women?, vaxxed or unvaxxed? Come on people demand some answers otherwise ‘poll’

results are totally meaningless.

1 Like