פרסומים אחרונים במדור "ספרים"

Enjoy it while you can….

“In the end, the western freedom to plan and execute a global strategy depended on the ability of the Soviet and Chinese forces to hold the main enemies at bay while western air forces bombed the Axis motherlands flat. When victory is celebrated tomorrow, it is important that we pause to remember the almost 50 million Soviets and Chinese who perished to contain the imperial aggression of Germany and Japan.
Nor should we forget, when condemning Soviet repression in eastern Europe that allied airforces bombed German and Japanese cities up to the very end of the war, inflicting the deaths of more than 600,000 civilians and opening the nuclear age. After 1945 Britain and France re-imposed undemocratic imperial rule in Africa and south-east Asia. None of the victors has anything to feel smug about. The pursuit of victory made all the allies do things they might never have imagined themselves doing.”

Richard Overy “We Most Not Forget How the War Was Won”

Your article is nothing but (red) bait.

I could have start by asking why do you ascribe to a theory that was articulated and promoted by people like Brazinski, A man who was Carter’s national security Adviser during the height of the Cold-War. And have pledge his support and was active in protecting the Shah of Iran, a dictator who have killed thousands of Iranian activist through his secret police, the Shavak. A man who have planed and pushed, with the aid of the American National Security Council, for the arming and aiding of the Mojaheddin in Afghanistan against the Russian invasion.
I could have asked you, aren’t all those action, the support for a dictator who have killed thousands of political activists, and who have came to power through a military coup against a democratically elected president (Mosadeq) are not a contradiction to his theory of “totalitarianism”? Isn’t his support and organizing of an active resistance to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan through the Mujahadin, a Muslim fundamentalist group, who after the retreat of the Russians has established a theocratic religious state where women were executed for “crimes” of being accuse of not being faithful or “respectful” to their husbands, men were obligated to obey strict Muslim laws, and political opposition was not allowed, is not a proof to the fact that Brazinski theory of “totalitarian” is only a political scheme? That he “ignored” the atrocities and the undemocratic regimes of the Taliban and the Shah (and others who Washington supported) because for him, the importance was to beat the Russian in the fight over global economic control? How were the Taliban and the Shah less “totalitarians” than Stalin?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

I could keep going and ask, what have democracy ever gave to the people of the world, to the billions of humanity who are dieing daily due to economic policies. What have democracy, for example, gave to Indians (“the biggest democracy in the world”) who are dieing because of exploitative agreements with the west which are approved by their own government? What have democracy gave to the millions of Africans, who are dieing from preventable dieses and starvations due to debt owed by their “democratic” government to the imperialist?
Or, more fundamentally, how can democracy be achieved when only a section of the population control the means of production, the media, and consequently the state and the arm forces?
And since most democratic regimes are based on constitutions that supposedly provide their citizens with the equal rights, rights that are ignored again and again in “democratic” countries, isn’t democracy (and liberalism) an utopia?

And after that, I could ask why there is no “Black Book of capitalism”? A book that would document the billions of people who have died due to the economic laws of capitalism. Starting from the invasion and settlement of the “new world”, the killing of millions of the native population for the pursuit of economic profit to the slave tread that provided cheep labor to the capitalist. The colonization of the so-called “third world” through wars ( the opium wars) and genocide, only to provide the imperialist with cheep resources, to World War 1, resulting in the death of millions of people, which was a conflict over which imperialist country will gain more areas to exploit. World War 2, that was driven by Germany vulgar capitalism, to Washington need to establish itself as the leading imperialist country and started the Cold-War, by dropping a nuclear bomb and killing more than a quarter of million people. The invasion of Vietnam by America to protect economic resources (“the domino theory”) to the undermining of national democratic elected presidents, and the latest invasion of Iraq to obtain control over the world oil market, all of which have killed millions of people.
Since you are so good with numbers when it comes to communism, please tall me, how many billions of people have died under capitalism? Don’t forget to add the hundred kids that are dieing from preventable dieses and starvation while you are reading this. Kids who are dieing under your “democratic” countries, by economic policies constructed by other “democratic” European countries.

But than again I’m not a fish.

Interesting, so Hitler read a book about Ford, and believed that the Arian Nation will establish a glorified future, which automatically makes his ideology similar to communism, and as evidence you quote state officials who have pushed for the destruction of the rival imperialist countries by any means. You might as well have drown the similarities between an elephant and a panda, since both have four legs, and quoted the Wild Life Hunters Association as proof for your argument.

All political movement drew a future, Zionists are no different. I can write books about how the reality in Israel is so different from the utopian vision of the Orientalist founding fathers of Israel.

This is not an invitation for a debate.

תגובה 412292

More people should voice their opinion whether this should be censored. It’s very easy to fight for democracy only when it’s serves and protect one own privileged. It’s interesting that this is happening under a debate about totalitarianism.

That is a lie and you knew it. In the first part of my question I answered the person question and defined democracy in a class term:

“And what if I actually want to bring my ideology to this website? What if I, lets just say, do not have the means or the training of the people that constructed this website, but still want people here to be exposed to my views? Or more fundamentally, what if the ideas that I uphold are the theory and goals of the vest of humanity that do not posses the means to own electricity let alone a computer?
So this your democracy, democracy with limits? The people who have the privileges and the financial means have the right to censure and ignore ideas that contradict that outlook? Indeed, this is democracy in one sentence, the right of the privileged few to censure and shutout any idea that threatens their position in society.”

In the second part I called on liberals on this website to put their politics into action:

“I can’t stop hearing the echoes of liberals on this website shoving postmodernist politics in my face, demanding me to be “open” and respectful to ideas that objectively represent racism and ignorance. So this is your “liberalism”? This your “openness”? Do your commitment to democracy and freedom of thinking is only as it does not threaten your ability to write and correspond on this website? As long as it does not threatens your relations with the webmasters? Put your politics into practice and demand to know who was the clown who deleted and approved the comment above and most importantly, why? “

Amazing, people can write pages about the suppression of views under communism and not one sentence about the suppression of views, here, on this website.

I would like to thank both of the people that put their politics and ideology on the line. “

But I’m still interested to know how you would excuse the website decision to block my server. Is that democratic enough for you?

But you can delete this massage again, and give excuses and lies to why you did it.

Interesting, I could say the same thing to you.

“Cohelet” comment is a political statement. It is not very different from saying “if you don’t like this country, why don’t you leave”, or “I’m a democrat as long as my personal and narrow interest are protected”. Although “Cohelet” is not the U.N. nor is he a state, he does represent a political agenda that is are very common among Israelis. And this is what I replied too.

I can see how you would confuse my second statement as a personal attack. It was not intended to be understood this way. It was a call for liberals to uphold the democratic principles that they shove in my face every time I comment. Last time I checked this website I did not see guidelines that confine people answers to one person at a time. I’m not the only one who uses this method.

And even if all that you say is true how does that justify deleting my comment? How is that comment different from all of these?

תגובה 440101

תגובה 439182

תגובה 427179

תגובה 427186

תגובה 411214

Or this one, written by our very sensitive friend Cohelet.

תגובה 427256

Or personal attacks on me by the website editors.

תגובה 437819

תגובה 411753

You (and now I’m talking to you personally) ether allow personal attacks or you don’t. You ether uphold democracy to the fullest extant, or you don’t. You don’t change your policy according to the political views of the person involve.

I have no intention of keeping explaining what did or did not say. The question is this: was the deletion of my comment driven by a personal vendetta against me by some of the editors? Was it driven because of my political views? Why was my server blocked, is this a method of trying to silence me?