Irish politician, Clare Daly, calls Obama a "war criminal" and a candidate for "Hypocrite of The Century"
(picture borrowed from Leftwing-Christian)
How do you recognise evil?
It's destructive .... and with intent.
'Good', if you like, is creative, supportive and life giving. Evil is the opposite. It is destructive and anti-life.
Killing people is obviously evil. But controlling people, be they individuals, ethnic groups or whole nations, is to constrict their lives. It is 'anti-life' and is therefore also evil. People will usually submit to their lives being diminished through control if the alternative is seen as even more limiting such as imprisonment or death. The threat can come from one's own government or a real or manufactured enemy. But control leads to evermore control and therefore evermore life diminishment and slow death one way or another for the hapless victims.
Evil seeks therefore to control and this is the driving force behind the people who are behind zionism which, in turn, is behind the policies of the governments of israel, Britain, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the US, to name the main players.
Control is Plan A with these people. Control is slow destruction but with low risk for the perpetrators. Plan B is destruction through physical violence if acquiescence to Plan A is not forthcoming from the target person, ethnic group or nation. Plan B is much quicker, of course, and even if evil 'loses' its war it wins because it has brought about destruction. But the risk of not surviving the confrontation for evil is higher. So it is usually not the preferred course of action unless evil has overwhelming advantage or it can use patsies. Evil is, if nothing else, cowardly.
It helps to remember that many people we may see as evil are, in fact, just patsies for the truly evil and are set up as targets for us to encourage us to violence and so become as they are; both patsies and evil.
James Corbett interviews Prof Chossudovsky of GlobalResearch who gives a good overview of the evil of control/destruction as it relates to Syria and the wider world in the first 25 mins or so of the podcast at the link just above (h/t Penny)
So recognising that the 'battle' is between peace/creativity/construction on the one hand and war/constriction/destruction on the other, how do we overcome destruction without engaging in violence ourselves? The first thing to recognise is that evil wants us to engage it with violence, even with words, because destruction is its aim and the more the better.
The first step in combating evil then is not to escalate the conflict with aggressive behaviour and judgemental language. That is not to say that physical attacks need be tolerated. In fact, vigorous defence is necessary to limit the present and future violence of evil including military action when all else fails. Force can be used, and in some circumstances must be used, but only to the limit of what is needed for defence. Force past this point becomes violence and will, in the end, through its own nature become self defeating. I point to the Russian reaction to the Georgian attack on Russian people in South Ossetia in 2008 as an example of this defence rather than violence.
This willingness to defend oneself needs to be present if one is going to be taken seriously in any negotiations. But it is important that this does not morph into posturing and threats while negotiating as the goal is to reduce if not eliminate violence, after all. Accusatory and judgemental language reinforces division and competition which is the precondition for war.
So avoiding war depends on inclusive language being used and credence given to the other point of view, their fears and aspirations. This does not mean discerning observations cannot be voiced. Truth needs to be faced and expressed. Indeed, insisted upon because no lasting agreement can happen if built on lies or even misperceptions. However, it can be and must be done without condemnation as this is destructive and will therefore be self defeating.
For two very good examples of this approach, we have two recent interviews of Russian leaders showing the world how it's done.
The first is an interview on CBS with the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The link comes courtesy of Penny and freethinker who commented on Penny's post.
Notice how the interviewer tries unsuccessfully to draw Foreign Minister Lavrov into taking sides and thus turning it into a contest and defeating his primary objective of drawing everyone together to stop the violence.
The truly evil in this world are very much a small minority and their violence prevails and grows through the unwitting participation of many of the rest of us who actually want peace. By bringing warring people together, the truly evil are identified by their divisive words and behaviour and are much more likely to be rejected by those who genuinely want problems resolved. Once their methods of division are rejected, the evil are powerless over us. So just as increasing the violence and divisions are both the goals and the strategies of the evil, stopping the violence is both the aim and the strategy of the good.
Violence is sold to us as an effective way to solve problems. If people can be brought together in an atmosphere of respect, then it becomes clear that violence is the cause of problems and not the answer to them. This is how evil is defeated.
This second video is an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Russia Today. (h/t McJ)
Note again the inclusive and non-judgemental language together with pithy and truthful observations
Sergey Lavrov and Vladimir Putin (source)
Penny at Penny For Your Thoughts has put together another excellent series of articles on Syria and from which I've drawn heavily for this post here
A mercenary in Syria squealing to his employers about the plight that he has brought down on himself.
The moron should have asked about the character of the people he was going to work for before he signed the deal. Never, never make a deal with liars. Will they ever learn ....? Then again, we keep voting every election. Same same, I guess.
Speaking of liars, he sounds very much like another group in the Middle East when he asks for help from the group he's squealing about and calling 'traitors' at the same time!! It's the same pre-adolescent illogic we are so used to hearing here in the west from zionists.
From the news article -
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-26/french-soldier-stabbed-in-neck-while-on-patrol-near-paris/4713376Defence minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told journalists near the site of the attack: "The soldier was attacked because he is a soldier.
It seems to me that whenever an official very quickly comes out with either the identity of the perp or knows their motivation before any reasonable investigation could have been done, we have state complicity.
So why would the British and French governments want their soldiers to feel unsafe amongst their fellow citizens?
I recall how during the police dragnet for the Chechen brothers that it was reported that a policeman was killed. The same thing happened during the hunt for Lee Harvey Oswald. You don't suppose it could have anything to do with the state wanting to put their police into a state of unthinking fear regarding their fellow citizens, too, do you?
(image from crooksandliars.com)
Recent events in and around Syria have seemed both alarming and odd at the same time. What's going on?
Israel and/or NATO supplied chemical weapons to their mercenaries in Syria and blamed the Syrian govt for their use. This failed to be convincing.
"U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday." (curiously reported by Reuters)
Meanwhile, the paid NATO mercenaries (the Orwellian Free Syrian Army - FSA) are losing ground literally in their battle with the Syrian army. Things are not going well for Tel Aviv and Washington.
Netanyahu plans a trip to China and John Kerry is in Russia. Kerry meets with Vladimir Putin over Syria apparently to no avail.
Then israeli jets attack sites in and around Damascus in an overt act of war.
Netanyahu quickly tries to tell the Syrian govt and people that the israeli attacks are not meant to hurt Syria or help the NATO mercenaries who are bringing chaos (just like israel is) to Syria. No, no, it is really aimed at Hezbollah.
Syria states the obvious that they are now in a state of war with israel and vow retaliation.
More after the jump
Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. This is an ancient saying credited to Euripides, the Greek dramatist who lived in the fifth century BC. Why would the gods, and I will take that to mean the demonic realm (and their agents here) for our purposes, want to or need to drive us mad first? People who become mad become, to varying degrees, unthinking and unable to act in their own best interests.
If we are driven mad by the powers that be, our authorities, then we could then become complicit in our own destruction. Something that wouldn't happen otherwise. And that point is of supreme importance. They can only destroy us (en masse) with our co-operation one way or another. Otherwise there would be no need for all this crazy-making stuff. Therefore, it is those amongst us that have the ability to understand what is happening that have the chance to foil the plan of the 'gods' for us all. But we need to stay sane for this to happen. We should not lose our heads or we will lose our heads, so to speak. An article that I'll link to below is well worth reading as it speaks a lot about what is happening to us psychologically. OK, I'll link to it here as well!
We've had the Boston bombing and there has been a lot of emotional fallout. So many unanswered questions and so much division has been sewn. There are those who take their thinking and perspective from the authorities and those who take their thinking from themselves, friends and alternative news sites amongst others. The major division has been over whether the bombs were fake or real; whether the injuries were fake or real. And more fundamentally, is the government involved as a perpetrator or not?
Is it possible that there was a fake bomb and fake injuries as well as a real bomb and real injuries? What if both sides of the argument are right? Each side being fed evidence to support their case? Divide and Conquer? Divide and conquer as a strategy is equally ancient as the saying that is the title of this article and has been used successfully by tyrants since at least the Roman Times.
Below are some short videos that show clearly that there has been actors involved. After all, it was announced to the crowd at the finish line that there would be a bomb drill which requires people to be acting one way or another.
Here is a video about bomb drills using actors who are amputees -
More after the jump