Alarm - Amerika Going to the Fascists

[pianistimo]

squanto became a favorite of the pilgrims.  he played with the children, taught the boys to trap game, and told the settlers to plant their corn as soon as the leaves of the white oak were 'as large as a mouse's ear.' he also taught them to put a fish in each hill to fertilize the growing grain, because the ground was so sandy.' 

what caused squanto to want to help the early settlers?  he could have let them starve.  manifest destiny?

the winter had been very damp, but the summer was just the opposite.  it was so dry that soon it seemed as if the pilgrims crop would perish for lack of rain.  a special day was set aside for prayer and fasting, and for nine hours the pilgrims prayed to God for help.  some indians, hearing that the pilgrims were going to pray for rain, watched the sky anxiously.  when the sky clouded over and a gentle rain began to fall, the indians remarked that the God of the white man had heard the white man's prayers.  TEN DAYS of rain followed this day of prayer!  the crops were saved.

this is also manifest destiny.

chief massasoit (who had come with squanto initially) and his tribe made a treaty with the pilgrims to never fight.  squanto remained on with the pilgrims - but chief massasoit (and 90 fellow indians) came to join in that first thanksgiving feast.  it lasted three days.  the indians listened as the bible was read and prayers of thanksgiving were given to God. 

by 1735 there were thirteen colonies in america.  they were:  virginia, mass, rhode is., new hampshire, new york, conn., maryland, delaware, new jersey, pennsylvania, north carolina, south carolina, and georgia.  the puritans came in 1630 (ten years later) and settled their colony in massachusetts.  the biggest town in that colony was boston.  the puritans are remembered today for their trust in God, their willingness to work hard, their high standards, their strict discipline, and their belief that everyone should have a good education.  john winthrop (who was elected governor 12 times!) had piety, liberality, wisom and gravity.  the indians recognized his good character, too.  they called him 'single tongue' - being a truthful man.  he was also generous. 

[pianistimo]

many amazing things happened with roger williams as well.  he asked the puritan leaders who came after the initial group if it was right to take land from the indians.  'how do you expect the indians to become christians when you as christians do not treat them fairly?'  he told them the indians should be paid for their land.  the puritans had become greedy and wanted to send roger williams back to england on the next ship.  but, he escaped into the wilderness when he heard of their plans (hearing of their plans was manifest destiny).  it was wintertime and he became very sick.  friendly indians found him and took care of him until spring (manifest destiny).  in the spring he moved further on.  he tried to buy some land from the indians, but they would not hear of it.  they liked him too much!  'take the land, you are our friend' -  roger williams said: 'i shall call this place PROVIDENCE, for surely God has directed me here' (manifest destiny).

that colony being rhode island!  george washington said this about rhode island:  'while the baptists have always defended the principles of religious liberty, they have never violated them.  they have had but one opportunity of forming a system of civil government, and they so formed it as to create an era in the history of civilization.  in the little baptist state of rhode island was the experiment first attempted of leaving religion wholly to herself, unprotected and unsustained by the civil arm. the principles which were here first planted have taken root in other lands, and have borne abundant fruit.'

[pianistimo]

ok - so move forward from these original thirteen colonies and we come to the summer of 1787.  that is when a meeting was held in philadelphia to discuss what could be done to make our government hold together so many people peacefully.  this meeting was called the constitutional convention.  it was held in independence hall where the declaration of independence had been signed eleven years earlier.  george washington was chosen as the president of this meeting.  been franklin (now 81) was there to help.  and james madison - later the fourth president of the US - helped to form much of the framing of this important document 'the constitution of the united states.'  the wisdom about politics that our founding fathers at the convention showed has never been equaled!

everyone was convinced that the HAND OF GOD was in the work that was being done at this convention.  manifest destiny?  yes!  at one point during the convention, benjamin franklin stood and said:

'i have lived a long time, and the longer i live the more convincing proofs i see of this truth:  that God governs in the affairs of men.  and if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, it is probable that an empire can rise without his aid?'  the purpose of this constitution was to protect the freedoms that the declaration of independence talked about.  the government would have to be powerful, but not too powerful. it would have to be strong enough to protect people from criminals and yet not so strong that it could not take away the freedoms of people who obey the laws.

this was what the FOUNDING FATHERS had in mind. now we have other laws made up by people who are NOT NATIONALS.  originally, the president was the head of the government.  now it is the head of the UN.  the president has to adjust our laws to international law.  this was not the reason the united states formed.  it formed independently of international rules, law, and thought.  united UNDER GOD ALONE.

you see, although the UN has supposedly a purpose to unite all the people of the world peacefully - it doesn't have the intention of preserving God-given rights.  by signing the US constitution, each state gave up its power to completely govern itself.  they were putting their trust in a brand new government, a government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, and FOR THE PEOPLE.  the UN is for the leaders, the bankers, and the planners.  the common folk are not allowed in.  why? 

[pianistimo]

let's compare governance:

USA

OTHER COUNTRIES:  anyone can add their own countries system of government

UNITED NATIONS


discuss!  ok - for starters - the united nations is not one nation - but a multitude of nations.  that requires a certain giving up of MAJOR RIGHTS right there.  NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY!  coastal rights, border rights, human rights.

HUMAN RIGHTS!  they let ahmadnijad address them (the UN) when he says the holocaust never happened!  do you want this type of government?  the entire US delegation walked out when he got up to speak.  did anyone else?  WHAT DOES THIS SAY?  the people who remained are going along with anti-semitism.  that is what it says. 

now, if you follow my train of thought (which admittedly can be a train wreck sometimes) - all i'm saying is that COMMON SENSE says 'hmm.  something smells fishy.'

[ramithediv]

everyone was convinced that the HAND OF GOD was in the work that was being done at this convention.  manifest destiny?  yes!

We all know about THE HAND OF GOD, bloody cheating Maradona.

Anyway pianistimo, do you realise that no-one is actually interested in your dribble?

[pianistimo]

you will be when israel goes to hell in a handbasket without the aid of friends.  also, when US goes down - israel does too.  do you care? NO you don't!  so, my friend - it's history in the making.  and - you'll have a part in tearing down the ONLY FREE COUNTRY FOR SO LONG IN HISTORY!

what is a 'bloody cheating maradona?'  i am for freedom.  you have not yet spoken much.  what do you believe?  and as for how many people read this thread - the post count says it all.

[ramithediv]

and as for how many people read this thread - the post count says it all.

So, people look at this thread because they're interested in your views?

[counterpoint]

let's compare governance:

USA

OTHER COUNTRIES:  anyone can add their own countries system of government

HUMAN RIGHTS!  they let ahmadnijad address them (the UN) when he says the holocaust never happened!  do you want this type of government?  the entire US delegation walked out when he got up to speak. 

Yes, the Holocaust happened - if Ahmadinejad denies this, that doesn't make him look good, but Ahmadinejad is not responsible for the Holocaust.

But now, Guantanamo and Abu Greib, they happen also. And that doesn't make Bush and the USA look good. And they are responsible!

[pianistimo]

it is a grave injustice, indeed.  but we have not spoken to the UN about taking over iran.  they are being given more freedoms within the international community for BEING ANTI-SEMITIC.  not only that.  they are fighting the us in iraq with syria's help.  they want iraq to be unstable.  for what?  so they can develop WMD's there!  convenient.

this is a warning.  blinkered lights.  the coming years are dark.  and, the bible says it won't be the middle east that betrays us.  it will be the UN.  president george washington's vision may be proven correct.  (btw, the word republic means 'a government controlled by the citizens, not by any one particular person or group).  nowdays - our government may seem less controlled by the citizenry - but it can happen that people revolt.  it is common in america for people to stage protests.  if anyone is against this - it is against the rights of the common people.  the UN is not responsible for our laws and ways of doing things.  especially if they DO NOT GUARANTEE THE RIGHTS OF ALL NATIONS.  ahmadnijad has said 'israel should be wiped off the map.'  should they then bargain with him?

i think this question 'is ameri k a going to the fascists' - would better be phrased ' is america going to be controlled by the UN?'  YES.

[ramithediv]

and, the bible says it won't be the middle east that betrays us.  it will be the UN.

Could you quote us that passage please.

[pianistimo]

the books of daniel and revelation show a beast and false prophet.  a group of nations (10) that form the 'toes' of the image that king nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream and that daniel interpreted.  the toes were representative of 10 nations that continued a world empire system that started with babylon so long ago. 

rev. 13 'and i saw a beast (this is the apostle john speaking of his dream) coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names...and it was given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them; and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him.  and all who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written (all names written in from the foundation of the world) in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.'

now - if you go back to daniel - the interpretation of the 10 nations and the beast of revelations are the same.  a world government.  a leader who desires rulership of the entire world.  daniel 7:23 'the fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms, and it will devour the WHOLE EARTH.'

[pianistimo]

daniel 7:24 'as for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise; and another will arise after them, and he will be different from the previous ones and will subdue three kings.  and he will speak out against the Most High (God) and wear down the saints of the Highest one, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law, and they will be given into his hand for a time, times and half a time.  (3 1/2 years - according to revelations 1290 days).

[ramithediv]

the books of daniel and revelation show a beast and false prophet.  a group of nations (10) that form the 'toes' of the image that king nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream and that daniel interpreted.  the toes were representative of 10 nations that continued a world empire system that started with babylon so long ago. 

rev. 13 'and i saw a beast (this is the apostle john speaking of his dream) coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names...and it was given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them; and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him.  and all who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written (all names written in from the foundation of the world) in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.'

now - if you go back to daniel - the interpretation of the 10 nations and the beast of revelations are the same.  a world government.  a leader who desires rulership of the entire world.  daniel 7:23 'the fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms, and it will devour the WHOLE EARTH.'

I still can't see where you've actually quoted the bible saying, "it won't be the middle east that betrays us.  it will be the UN."

Have you ever read any Nostradamus, I'm sure you could find something there to back the bible up.

[pianistimo]

the middle east is spoken of as the 'king of the south.'  the united 10 nations (as they will form into 10 - according to the bible) will be the 'king of the north.'  some of these prophecies have already come true.  and, some are yet to - like the north going into jerusalem and dividing it.  matthew speaks of watching for armies to surround jerusalem and fleeing before devastation (dividing the city happens).  the purpose will be for peace.  the end result - jews and christians will need to flee the city.  that is what Jesus Christ said.

matthew 24:15 'therefore, when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of through daniel the prophet (Jesus is repeating the words of daniel here), standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in judea flee to the mountains.  let him who is on the housetop not go down to get the things out that are in his house; and let him who is in the field not turn back to get his cloak....for then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall, and unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days shall be cut short....'

this is speaking of the dividing of jerusalem and another religion setting up shop on the temple mount.

[ahinton]

Susan, your views on Middle Eastern politics and the likely future for certain Middle Eastern states as you express them here are insensitive, blinkered, unhelpful, unbelievable and perplexing and they most certainly do not originate from properly detailed study of the present situations and recent history of any, let alone all, of the nations involved; instead, you cherry pick this and that from the Bible (the manifold shortcomings of which have already been discussed on this forum in considerable detail so I won't go into them again here), interpret these snippets therefrom in the way that you personally choose, or arbitrarily, or even both at the same time before you seek to apply them to every aspect of present-day Middle Eastern affairs as though your take on what you've read in these ancient texts is somehow solely responsible for governing those affairs. That alone is simply untenable; what is going on today is nothing to do with what was reported in the Bible about the Middle East in its own time or its then recent history. As to American involvement in that area, whatever one may think about it, there is absolutely no doubt that it is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Undeterred, however, you continue incessantly to pour forth reams upon reams of stuff as though all these things are not even merely directly related to but actually somehow inseparable from one another. It's more or less the same kind of thing when you go on about the new "Holy Roman Empire" that you seem to perceive is now in formation in the guise of the EU (tell that to the Belgians whose country looks increasingly like becoming the next European nation to divide!). It's fantasy and imagination, Susan - no more, no less.

The word fascism is still very much used today as Sorabji defined it years ago - i.e. everyone else's fascism other than one's own; the word "terrorism" and its derivatives, although of rather more recent etymological origin, seems equally often to be misused in the same convenient way - i.e. anyone else's terrorism except one's own (or that perpetrated by one's country). I am at least as aware as anyone else that there are individuals and organisations in the Middle East and elsewhere that can reasonably meet and accord to most people's definition of "terrorist" and, of course, I do not condone any of the kinds of activity that they perpetrate, but the examples cited above - Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo - are really not so very different definitionally; it seems, however, that you would nevertheless choose to regard these latter two organisations as less of a terrorist threat and consequently less of an "evil" than certain others which just happen not to be of American origin, which seems rather more convenient than realistic or credible.

For the record, I happen to believe that Israel has a right to exist as a nation in its own right and I believe that Palestine has precisely the same right; exactly where the border between them should be drawn I cannot say for certain, since I do not pretend to be an expert in this area. Even so, this is just my opinion.

Best,

Alistair

[ramithediv]

Thank you ahinton for taking over the cause of reason.

I've had enough for one day.

[m]

May I ask you if all those excrements you put on me, including the idea that Lenin is my idol and I hate America is also out of God-given freedom?
I would be more than curious to know as for where did they come from?

God?? or your dirty mouth?

dear marik,

i have not used words such as excretement and dirty on you - and yet you seem to project everything that you imagine of persecution on to me.  why?  do you have feeling for freedom?  do you care that people feel deeply about it?  where would we get this feeling if we had not read about our own american history.  when it is twisted - it is wrong.  of course, not all is perfect - but i admitted that already.  when you don't like what i say - you attack me personally.  what does this do?  make you feel superior?

Have I ever said that you used those words!!!???

Only your sick imagination could twist my words that way.
Even this little episode is a manifestation of that GLOBAL and MONUMENTAL confusion you have, in which main part takes twisting truth as you need to suite your "conclusions" as you pleased, whether it is history, Bible, or piano technique.

And after you dare to say with a straight face that:
When it twisted, it is wrong   

What a hypocracy!!!

But don't worry, you are only a very small screw in the whole system of gigantic corporotaion of twisting events, called "media".

As for my feelings for freedom, quite frankly, it is none of your business and I am not going to discuss it to you (as any other matters) because in any case you don't listen, you don't hear, you don't care about what people say, and anyway you will twist it the way you want or need to suit your pathetic propoganda needs.
All conclusions are already programmed in you looooong ago, anyway.

So why bother?

And no, all this interaction with you does not make me feel superior. It makes me mad, because instead of practicing and preparing for a concert tour I am leaving in a week or so I waste my time for pointless discussion, which leads nowhere.

[ahinton]

dear marik,

i have not used words such as excretement and dirty on you - and yet you seem to project everything that you imagine of persecution on to me.  why?  do you have feeling for freedom?  do you care that people feel deeply about it?  where would we get this feeling if we had not read about our own american history.  when it is twisted - it is wrong.  of course, not all is perfect - but i admitted that already.  when you don't like what i say - you attack me personally.  what does this do?  make you feel superior?

Have I ever said that you used those words!!!???

Only your sick imagination could twist my words that way.
Even this little episode is a manifestation of that GLOBAL and MONUMENTAL confusion you have, in which main part takes twisting truth as you need to suite your "conclusions" as you pleased, whether it is history, Bible, or piano technique.

And after you dare to say with a straight face that:
When it twisted, it is wrong   

What a hypocracy!!!

But don't worry, you are only a very small screw in the whole system of gigantic corporotaion of twisting events, called "media".

As for my feelings for freedom, quite frankly, it is none of your business and I am not going to discuss it to you (as any other matters) because in any case you don't listen, you don't hear, you don't care about what people say, and anyway you will twist it the way you want or need to suit your pathetic propoganda needs.
All conclusions are already programmed in you looooong ago, anyway.

So why bother?

And no, all this interaction with you does not make me feel superior. It makes me mad, because instead of practicing and preparing for a concert tour I am leaving in a week or so I waste my time for pointless discussion, which leads nowhere.

I should get back to practising, if I were you! Yes - I mean you plural - Marik and Susan...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

ahmadinijad has said publicly to everyone listening at columbia university (after much applause for him saying that israel and the usa have done evil) - that they don't have any homosexuals in iran.  wasn't that a surprising statement for columbian uni scholars to hear.  of course, all of a sudden they realized they were talking to a dictator who didn't like free religion OR homosexuality.  that's a new one for them.  they had to think a bit - swallow - and then boo.  so - you see - what you ask for - you get from a REAL FASCIST.  homesexuality in iran is a capital offense.  they are killed.

btw, i'm not saying that God is fascist to say that being homosexual is a sin.  there are many sins.  BUT HERE IN THE USA WE DO NOT KILL HOMOSEXUALS.  now, do you understand why i am discussing FREEDOM?!  if you are fighting for all freedoms - you must accept all freedoms.  the freedom of speech, of religion ,of the right to happiness.

you can't pick and choose.  what do you say to that?  and don't start picking on little words - but say something substantive.  and don't keep repeating 'i hate president bush.'  tell me why you can't stand your free country because you have freedom to speak about it?

[thalbergmad]

why do i quote the bible.  it is not madness. i assure you. 

You have proved it is.

Your reliance on this pathetic little antique guide book is laughable.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

So, people look at this thread because they're interested in your views?

I look at this thread for a laugh.

When i come home from a stessful day's work, it is relaxing to view the latest pile of crap to spew forth from this pea brained fanatic.

Nice way to wind down.

Thal

[ahinton]

ramseytheii has also done this - although i find saying anything back to him at this point has already been done by our fine ahmadnijad.

At the equally fine mis-spelling of whose name you have developed an expertise of such magnitude as o be out of proportion even with your Biblical babblings...

he has said publicly to everyone listening at columbia university (after much applause for him saying that israel and the usa have done evil) - that they don't have any homosexuals in iran.  wasn't that a surprising statement for columbian uni scholars to hear.

Dunno; ask them...

of course, all of a sudden they realized they were talking to a dictator who didn't like free religion OR homosexuality.

Er - hang on a minute - I thought that you said the he was talking to them, not the other way around...

that's a new one for them.  they had to think a bit - swallow - and then boo.  so - you see - what you ask for - you get from a REAL FASCIST.  homesexuality in iran is a capital offense.  they are killed.

btw, i'm not saying that God is fascist to say that being homosexual is a sin.  there are many sins.  BUT HERE IN THE USA WE DO NOT KILL HOMOSEXUALS.  now, do you understand why i am discussing FREEDOM?!  if you are fighting for all freedoms - you must accept all freedoms.  the freedom of speech, of religion ,of the right to happiness.

I should most certainly hope and expect that the legislative powers of US do not include the statutory killing of homosexuals! Are you trying to tell us all that, despite your own attitude towards homosexuals, it's generously human of the American administration to show them some kind of patronising lenience? These freedoms of which you speak are all very well, but to be free to do or think something is not the same as implementing legislation to make it compulsory; which of wants compulsory homosexuality or Christianity or whatever else?

you can't pick and choose.  what do you say to that?  and don't start picking on little words - but say something substantive.  and don't keep repeating 'i hate president bush.'  tell me why you can't stand your free country because you have freedom to speak about it?

I know that it is not me that you are addressing here but I'll answer anyway. You DO pick and choose! Sister Susan, pick an' choose 'n'. Yes, in your country one may at least in principle be free openly to be anti-Republican, yet you'd be fairly careful about harbouring such sentiments if you live in good ol' Texan redneck country, would you not? - you'd learn to keep you mouth fairly well shut and your head down for the sake of personal survival. I deprecate most of the activities of your president Bush but I do at least recognise that your country has, in principle, the means to allow its electorate to get rid of him and his administration. That said, the media hype and brainwashing that goes on almost everywhere is disturbingly prevalent in your country; not for nothing has the term "brainwashington" been coined. Yes, of course, such coercion of the public mood has been witnessed in far worse dictatorships, but it's still a pertinent part of present-day American life. Your obsessive Bible-pushing is just one example of it and its sheer stultifying inflexibility sadly demonstrates why this is so.

Yes, many great things have nevertheless come out of America and I hope very much that many more will do so in the future; in the interests of the latter, however, America needs to examine itself and certain of its governmental antics carefully in order to ensure that this possibility is not compromised...

Best,

Alistair

[ramseytheii]

For everyone's benefit, John Adams defines fascism as when all the branches of power - legislative, judicial, and executive - are concentrated in one person, or one of those branches.  The example we could potentially be seeing in the States - you'll all kindly noticed that in the initial post I asked for your thoughts, I didn't ask for your agreements (nor did I say I agreed) - is that the president is trying to corral all those powers for himself.

My point is, you can't say the definition of fascism is "killing homosexuals," and that because USA doesn't do that, there are no fascist elements.  That is something that could happen in a fascist state, or it could not happen.  It is up to who is holding the power.  All that matters in deciding whether a state is fascist or not is how the power is distributed, not what is done with it.

Walter Ramsey

[prometheus]

The US does kill homosexuals, I am sure. They just don't execute homosexuals because they are homosexual.

Eventhough some influential religious people have called for that.

[ramithediv]

The US does kill homosexuals, I am sure. They just don't execute homosexuals because they are homosexual.

Eventhough some influential religious people have called for that.

Most influential religious people are homosexual. 

[prometheus]

Yep.

[pianistimo]

i understand better what you are saying, ramseytheii - and concur that not only the issue of killing homosexuals -but the manner of the iranian government is to be dictatorial.  and, i should have sympathized also with your considering the freedoms that we used to have being restricted and limited.  there was no 'vote' to go to war.  although, had we voted - i don't think it would have happened.  therefore - saddam hussein would still be in power.  history never works in retrospect unless it is used.  people recognized the possibility of this turning into a vietnam.  it seems that they were right.  so - i do not disagree with you that our freedoms are being curtailed and that the war is lingering on much past the time we thought it would.  however, israel still exists!  and major terrorist threats to the usa, britain, and israel have been foiled - on their soil and not ours.  how are they foiled?  by not allowing them to have so many weapons, places to build them, supplies routes, training facilities, etc.

i don't know of any war that people voted for,though.  that is a difficulty! actions such as this are typically made by cabinet members in the know and and advising the president who is aware of minute-by-minute up-dates.

also, we have learned that the governments of the middle-east are locked into a time-warp and cannot get out.  perhaps that israel is too.  they are in a contemporary world with a middle-eastern mindset.  i'm not saying ALL of that is bad or anything - because they recognize God more than we do!  but, in terms of freedom from dictators -it is simply fear.  they fear the leaders and have to do as they are told or there are SEVERE consequences.  hands and heads chopped.  recently two more people were beheaded in the iraqi state for 'siding with the americans.'  there is no jury.  it's just execution.

in america, at least there are no executions without trial.  and they are not done right on the spot - or after torture.  people say - what about guantanamo?  this is a dillemma that most americans do not and never wanted to have to explain.  most americans i know wanted correct treatment UNDER THE LAW.  i am not disagreeing there, either.  but, that was guantanamo and not our entire country.  it doesn't make guantanamo ok, though.  i still feel very let down by the government.  it was a HUGE MISTAKE to mistreat prisoners because it makes us look just as cruel and inhumane.

[pianistimo]

i can't help but make the analogy between ahmadniejad and hitler, though. 

just because we don't agree with all the freedom restrictions due to terrorism -and voicing concern - shouldn't overrule our patriotism for our own country.  this is how i see it:

in 1930 - churchill started warning britain, the usa and other major countries that hitler should not be allowed to come to power.  prime minister chamberlain was a pacifist and sort of laughed about it.  halifax, who was truly expected to succeed chamberlain was a pacifist also.  churchill never convinced anyone until much later - and that is proven by the fact that when hitler was elected in 1933 - the newspapers never made a big issue of it.

i don't think even hitler's own people understood what hitler was about.  that is the way ahmadniejad is.  he speaks gentle kind words and promises to his people - but the basis of the promises is to destroy america, britain, and israel.  it would be, to them, a benefit for the entire world.  however, this is where the bible comes in.

in ezekiel 33 - it mentions that our leadership is like a watchman.  our president saw this all coming and warned us.  if our next president is not like president bush - these TRUE fascists will show what fascism is in the truest sense.  WAR.  they just take what they want. 

surprisingly, halifax (the thought next prime minister of britain) told the cabinet when things got ugly in france - that britain should consider making an agreement with hitler.  also, roosevelt told britain that perhaps they should send their ships to canada to at least protect some of the royal navy.  churchill was the only one that said basically, 'over our dead bodies.'  and, he went about to ensure that the country of britain was well-informed about how to do battle with hitler.

also, there was the matter of 'manifest destiny' at the battle of dunkirk.  britian could have lost millions if it weren't for a small glitch that happened with hitler's plans.  if that small glitch hadn't happened - germany might well have won the war.  that is not even considering that if halifax had been prime-minister - being a pacifict - he might have just handed an agreement to hitler.  churchill was different.  he saw it coming.  he told everybody - get ready!  and, then - he did something about it by making PLANS. 

the bible says that if we have no political plans - then at least we should have some spiritual ones.  our enemy is not actually a country or the UN or anyone else.  it is our loss of God to fight.  without God we have no 'manifest destiny' - and our blood is on ourselves for thinking that we've survived this long without His divine help.  when we lose - we will recognize that our place in history was divinely inspired.  it was to preach the gospel to the world.  therefore - i believe (this is my opinion) we were born as a free country to imitate Christ.  His love and mercy to the world.

[pianistimo]

the battle of dunkirk (manifest destiny):
https://itotd.com/articles/436/the-battle-of-dunkirk/

i forgot to say, too, that hitler himself on may 29th -told the german armour to stop it's advance on dunkirk and leave the operation to the slower infantry.

also, i've heard about the weather protecting soldiers in places from air strike. 

people can choose what they want to believe.  i don't think this was all chance.  it greatly determined the outcome of the war.

if iran obtains nuclear capabilities - it will check the UN.  so why isn't the UN stopping them.  THEY ARE COMPLICIT.  that should tell us right there, people. that the UN doesn't care a whit about the US.  and they slap us on our soil?  the strange thing is - that when iran obtains them - they check the UN - and what do you think happens next?

how did churchill know not to trust hitler?  that's another story - but i think he recognized the character of hitler.  ahmadinejad is the same sort of person as hitler.  in fact, he openly supports what hitler did.  shouldn't that tell us something?

[prometheus]

Get mental help.

[mephisto]

in fact, he openly supports what hitler did. 

I am in no way trying to defend Ahmadinejad, but if he actually liked Hitler why did he compare what Israel was doing to Lebanon last year to what Hitler was doing during WW2?

The direct quote:

"Just like Hitler, the Zionist regime is just looking for a pretext for launching military attacks" and "is now acting just like him."

Again I am not saying that I agree with him, but this is what he said.

[pianistimo]

so he looks like the 'good guy?'  hitler had his own propaganda, too.  one was that he had no intentions of war.  this was when he was building his military up.

syria and lebanon do not want israel to exist either - and when they hide ammunitions right near apartment complexes with civilians - they make it look like the israelis meant to hit civilians.  the israelis don't typically go after civilians, do they?

the wars everywhere don't stop because nobody sees each other as flesh and blood.  just 'the enemy.'  what if we were concerned for our enemies rights?  for their welfare.  then - we would have less and less war and more compassion.  i should hope.  although - some enemies do not want to change their positions of war and actually do not WANT peace.

the UN may actually make some foreseeable peace - at a cost.  i'm just concerned (and others call me a conspirist theory person) that the UN will go from policing international foreign policy to policing everything!  everything our typical governments do today.  and, even with foreign policy - one should be able to defend their country from attack.

imo, fascists will rule when all guns are taken.  the right to defend one's country is almost as sacred as the right to go to the bathroom and not be spied on.  actually, the right to defend one's country is probably the highest right there is aside from basic human rights (which would be taken away - should one's country be taken over by another government).

this leads me to hillary clinton.  how does she plan to defend the US from attack?  she has NO PLAN.  she is FOR THE UN !  she is socialist through and through and defends it at every turn.  if you want no freedom - pull out every stake of 'vote for hillary' and replace it with 'vote for ahmadinejad.'  basically - she wants to be some kind of gestapo woman.  why not cut to the chase - and go right to dictatorship? 

[pianistimo]

i take back what i say here about hillary clinton wanting ahmadinejad to speak.  apparently she said that he should not - and should not lay a wreath at ground zero.  i applaud her!  but, won't vote for her because of her socialist leanings. 

[thalbergmad]

prime minister chamberlain was a pacifist and sort of laughed about it. 

Welcome to RETARD HISTORY

[pianistimo]

ok.  tell me that chamberlain said anything to anyone before hitler was elected.  churchill DID.  that gave them a good three years.  he also wrote two books.  people were spoken to and given information to act on.

then, even AFTER hitler was elected - chamberlain preferred to think that hitler had no plans.  they laughed at churchill.

one of the first acts of hitler was called 'the enabling act of 1933' (same year as he was elected).  it improved his rights to be a dictator by spelling out more absolute powers for himself.

that is already obtained en masse by ahmadniejad through religious means.

[thalbergmad]

"In my hand i have a piece of paper.......hahahahahahahahahaha"

Chamberlain was always good for a laugh.

You are correct as usual.

Thal

[pianistimo]

it was funny at first to brits, probably - because he seemed like a little child in power.  i guess the very first act was to enable the reichstadt (officers)  'reichstag fire decree' - and then - hitler took all power to himself with the 'enabling act of 1933.'  after that - people who laughed were deluded as to what his goals were.

it started with state-sponsored medical complicity for those who were disabled or holding back the dream that hitler had of a revived germany.  to him, spending on the weak was irrational. 

[thalbergmad]

Well, you are an expert in "deluded", so i take your word for it.

Thal

[pianistimo]

he was not just deluded.  i believe he was possessed.  a small, but poignient matter is that his experiments on hypothermia are still not released to the public - but most all documentation of medical happenings ARE released to medical students.  this is not to say that discovery of things comes by doing nothing.  but, one can do this on cadavers - and not on live people.  and, the person has to consent before a body can be 'done' this way. 

do you know what one company has done with bodies of unidentified people, or from insane asylums?  randomly used them in germany for the plasticized human body exhibit held in nyc and philly and elsewhere.  it is interesting to see - but when you realize it's a form of nazi-behavior - it should be appalling rather than visited.

it's like saying - 'they had no right to their body after death.'  what is more appalling is that nobody says anything.  like there is some glory to medicine over human life.  besides, preserving a body doesn't really do anything occultishly - but supposedly - certain body parts were important for it.

[thalbergmad]

I kinda like Hitler after reading a few books about him. He loved animals and was really kind to his dog.

People always rattle on about the negative things he did.

Thal

[pianistimo]

you're silly.  he tested his cyanide pills on her and she went down with him. her name was 'blondie' and she was a german shepherd (alsatian).

if she wasn't killed this way - she was shot.  hitler wouldn't have wanted his dog to be paraded by russians and tortured.  interesting that he didn't want his dog treated this way.  btw, it had already been tortured by him.  why did he call it blondie?  traudl jung - his own secretary had something to say about his relationship with his dog.  that's the insane part.

[thalbergmad]

Very compassionate act. What a great bloke.

Can you imagine what would have happened to Blondie if the Russians got hold of her.

You talk rubbish.

Thal

[pianistimo]

he slept with his dog.  it makes one wonder.  i don't mean the dog slept on the floor.

in one of his first speeches - he brandished a dog whip.  here is more:
https://www.adolfhitlerresearchsociety.org/index8_files/Page487.html

btw, i do not believe that Jesus Christ came to him.  nor do i believe that Jesus Christ ever gave up his jewish identity.  how could he?  that is the most bizarre thing for someone to say.  let alone a political figure.  i think hitler wanted religious and political control and attempted some sort of religiousity.  but, he was ultimately into the occult.  sex with animals was a perversion that was saved for the initiated in occultish ways.

[thalbergmad]

Interesting, but check this link


www.pianistimoisadeludedfreak.com

Thal

[pianistimo]

also, he fostered in his own country promiscuity and illegitimacy by some of the enacted laws he made.  in his OWN country.  he was a pervert.

https://books.google.com/books?id=JnB7cM1zUG4C&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=hitler+had+a+sexual+relationship+with+his+dog&source=web&ots=D_Cn7rp2OL&sig=Z-QRbGBhg52qIVm9gNvDrPXfOHg#PPA161,M1

[wotgoplunk]

also, he fostered in his own country promiscuity and illegitimacy by some of the enacted laws he made.  in his OWN country.  he was a pervert.

https://books.google.com/books?id=JnB7cM1zUG4C&pg=PA159&lpg=PA159&dq=hitler+had+a+sexual+relationship+with+his+dog&source=web&ots=D_Cn7rp2OL&sig=Z-QRbGBhg52qIVm9gNvDrPXfOHg#PPA161,M1

And a Christian

[pianistimo]

ha.  that was a guise.  what happened is a deep darkening of his soul into the occult.  also, he was a product of an over-indulgent mother and a brutal father.  he watched his father beat his dog and this is why he beat his own dog.  maria reiter recalls 'he whipped his dog like a madman with his riding whip as he held him tight on the leash.  he became tremendously excited....'

and yet with eva he merely kissed her and pronounced a marriage the day before his death?  i don't think that he wanted a relationship with feelings.  that was not compatible with rulership - to him.  he couldn't be divided in his goals.  to him, sexuality was surrender or a game of women to control men.  therefore, he did not want anything to do with it in it's natural form.

here is more about hitler:
https://books.google.com/books?id=hW-7N2TAca0C&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=hitler+had+sex+with+his+dog&source=web&ots=xJJ_c-wEia&sig=Q-lfwSHKWM2Q3JHobKDO-oSSB3o#PPA168,M1

[pianistimo]

about hitler and the occult:

https://www.illuminati-news.com/hitler-occult.htm

it is interesting to note that hitler was quite confused.  on the one hand he promoted a 'pure' race of aryans (the name aryan coming from occultish book/magazine ostara) and quoted many times in 'mein kampf.'  on the other hand, he believed that darwin's theory of evolution would cause a better race to come if all the disabled, blind, etc were killed off.  now there's no sense to that if you don't understand true genetics.  if we were evolving - it wouldn't make sense to kill the disabled.  they were still evolving, according to that theory.

hitler - in has madness - was in fact, just giving himself reasons to kill and justify it.  he started out with 'innocent'  sterilisation centres.  now, it makes no sense whatsoever - if we are all ascending anyways with evolution.  only if we are 'descending.'  so, you see - both hitler and darwin helped each other - but were totally deluded as to genetics.  calling eugenics a purposeful thing.  however, hitler gives himself away as to what he truly knows by the number of people that he killed.  this was not killing only disabled - but he wanted to kill an entire race.  this is even more deluded because no race is 'pure' or was pure anyways.  none. 

i think he was aware of his illogic - joseph of the bible married aseneth (the egyptian princess) and so his sons ephraim and manassah were obviously 1/2 chaldean (as his father abraham came from the land of the chaldeans) and 1/2 egyptian.  the term 'jew' comes from the tribe of 'judah' - brother of joseph - and originated in chaldea in ur.  the only way hitler avoided guilt was to avoid the bible and JEsus christ in truth.  if he was a christian - he would have read the bible to see that ADAM AND EVE were the progenetors of the entire human race.

[thalbergmad]

Check this for further informaiton.

www.pianistimotalksoutofherarse.com

Thal

[thalbergmad]

it is interesting to note that hitler was quite confused. 

Well, he aint the only one at the moment.

Thal