What if God is the devil could he still get on my level,
they say justice and equality, but i could do without both honestly,
cause lately it seems like the government is robbing me,
and CEOs, lobbyists are like needy hoes,
they wait for the evening shows, what is the treatment?
pretentious conversations about SEOs.
You cannot be a liberal Zionist. Why?
1. Liberalism entails a separation of church and state.
2. In order for Israel’s democracy to be established, it required the theft of land based on religious grounds (that might or might not have historical basis), which is a violation of human rights laws as well as the aforementioned tenet of liberalism.
3. Palestinians currently outnumber Israelis by 3,000,000 which suggests an apartheid-esque scenario – i’m quite sure this is incompatible with liberalism.
4. Israel touts itself as a democracy that is for all people, but the reality is that the concept of Israel is religiously tied to Judaism thereby making it insulting for non-zionists to accept such an unrepresentative and arbitrary authority.
5. Palestine is a secular creation that existed prior to the rise of Islam, that is not particular to any religious group whereas Israel is particular to Judaism.
CONCLUSION: it cannot be denied – Israel is a dogma and therefor is incompatible with liberalism and any form of idealist thought.
DISCLAIMER: the definition of liberalism does not vary; there are other labels for that; conservative, neo-conservative, communist, libertarian, etc.
The existence of #Hamas and other militant organizations with a more radical message does not legitimize the existence nor the expansion of the state of Israel, partly because it is precisely due to the existence of this unnatural ‘zionist’ nation-state that has caused groups like this to prop up again and again and gain popularity among the impoverished, deprived and uneducated peoples of the Middle East. Israel has created an environment that breeds hatred, terrorism and extremism, yet blames the arab people. Furthermore, I would like to point out that no ‘extremist’ Islamist organization represents Islam or the Middle Eastern culture – they are hired agents of the West. If that is too hard to believe – if you dismiss that as some sort of conspiracy theory – then perhaps that implies that the political science degree awarded to me from a U.S. public university which provided the textbooks that taught me these historical realities is just part of this one big giant conspiracy theory too. There is political reality and then there are crazed conspiracy theorists…big difference. It seems to me like the biggest conspiracy theorists are zionists themselves – diseased with a constant paranoia that they are being undermined; thereby needing to create their own state and constantly justify security measures that undermine the liberties of other nations.
ISIS, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood.
All of these claim to be muslim organizations aimed at ‘liberating men from tyranny’.
Who chose you and what tyranny are you liberating me from? How do I know you yourself are not a tyranny?
Hezbollah is hated by many sunnis thanks to a very successful pro-sunni propagation machine initiated mainly by the Gulf. Hezbollah is viewed as an extension of Iran, and even Syria, and ultimately, as a representation of ‘heresy’ that leads only to slavery.
The Muslim Brotherhood is often viewed as the victim of disenfranchisement and in Syria, socialism and Ba’athism, prevented this group from gaining freedom.
The conflict between socialism and capitalism – I believe – has been manifested here.
The Islamists claim to be fighting for freedom, yet want to institute a system that subjugates freedom for the sake of religion. Hezbollah claims to be resisting Israeli occupation and Western imperialism. Syria is a battleground for these two ideologies; Palestine, Egypt & Lebanon too. In fact, the entirety of the Middle East has been turned into the global battleground of competing ideologies thanks to Western imperialists and their cohorts.
It is pretty clear that groups of right-wing persuasion are supported by the strongest power house of Islamism in the Middle East: Saudi Arabia, which also happens to be Israel’s quiet little bitch, sitting idly as Palestinians are murdered, claiming to be a beacon of ‘pure’ Islam.
Iran is viewed as the ‘kfir’ (or heretic, in arabic) of the Middle East simply because of its sympathy for cultural diversity and artistry as well as its reluctance to submit to the influence of zionism, western imperialism and eastern expansionism.
Right now, Israel is more desperate than ever to legitimize its illegitimate and irrational religious existence in the heartland of the Middle East – and what better way to do that than to prop up a bunch of radicalized islamist groups that seek to delegitimize the genuine voice of the muslim people and the arab people as a whole, and the rest of the Middle East. ISIS is the new al Qaeda – it’s just going to be harder to deceive the average global citizen in today’s world. Bush’s WMD lies and 9/11 were our eye openers.
Capitalism is not about supply and demand according to a billionaire.
That’s quite a statement. Not to say it is wrong, but it is quite a statement.
This billionaire, Nick Hanauer, also believes a nation’s economy cannot grow without a strong Middle Class.
According to him, supply and demand are not the foundation of an economy – but rather, human innovation and the ability to reduce our ‘problems’ in society.
The question that came to my mind was: what are these ‘problems’ he speaks of?
I believe we have to separate problems into three categories: individual & collective, and a combination of the two: IC.
The individual (who believes it or knows it) respects prosperity as the sum of individual innovation and poverty as individual failure.
The collectivist respects prosperity as the sum of sharing resources.
The moderate respects prosperity as the sum of sharing resources in order to correct fallacies in human choice and to maintain a state of social equilibrium that permits individuals to compete and feel fulfilled.
Here is an excerpt from the article highlighting the author’s emphasis on the importance of a thriving middle class:
So middle out economics is essentially a 21st century way of understanding how an economy works – not as this linear mechanistic system — but as an ecosystem, with the same kinds of feedback loops. The fundamental law of capitalism is if workers don’t have any money, businesses don’t have any customers; that prosperity in a capitalist economy is a consequence of a circle of feedback loops between customers and businesses, which means that a thriving middle class isn’t a consequence of prosperity. A thriving middle class is the source of prosperity in capitalist economies, which is why a policy focused on the middle class is and has always been the thing that drives prosperity and growth — not pouring money into rich people, which simply makes rich people richer.
The first question that pops into my mind is – don’t people want to get ‘out’ of the Middle Class?
Perhaps not everybody – the argument here is that some people are content living average-income lives as long as their minimum requirements are met.
For me, personally, I thrive on my ambition to be financially fulfilled as much as spiritually fulfilled…in the mind of a conservative; whose primary focus is money (and not perhaps fulfilling his spirit; expressing himself), this Middle-Out Economics theory would seem nothing short of communism – an attempt to keep individuals where they are at in an economy.
In the eyes of the heroic libertarian, there is always a conspiracy against the individual, his enterprise, his intellectual property, and his ambitions in life to achieve success and fortune.
Perhaps the source of this paranoia is the potential for human beings to desire ‘vanity’ – that is, to desire to be regarded as exceptional beyond standard human capacity to such an extent that freedom and happiness are only awarded to those exclusive human beings.
At the end of the day, in a functional democracy – human necessities are met; but unfortunately, capitalism does not serve these means. Just as communism concentrates wealth at the top preventing individuals from obtaining a level of freedom; so to does fundamentalist capitalism.
So it goes to show that Mr. Hanauer is not far off in his critique of the dogmatic model of capitalist economics. A mixed economy, or a Middle-Out Economy, as he calls it, respects individual ambition, competition, as well as the dignity of human beings by assuring them of healthcare, housing, and a decent wage.
Wages are largely determined by supply and demand with minor interference from public factors; and the assumption in capitalism is the man who strives can create his own wealth. But this assumption is grounded in a human fear: there aren’t enough resources for all of humanity to live ideal lives; some human beings prefer to be slaves to power and economy-control; originality will be compromised.
Why must we rely on money to survive? This system has convinced us that it is the only rational one – that capitalism and supply and demand and the exchange of currency is the natural mode of human affairs; scarcity, that is, is the reason why capitalism is necessary. The USSR told us that the lies and shortcomings of capitalism vindicate the necessity for communism as its replacement.
But why is it always one or the other? Why must we worship concepts? DEMOCRACY. COMMUNISM. CAPITALISM. These are not my gods. These are the gods of the extremists; the fundamentalists; the hypocrites; the power-grabbers; the usurpers of freedom; the IMPERIALISTS.
In the East, they don’t believe in God. In the West; they believe they are God.
Somewhere in the Middle (the Middle East), are those who trust in the Infinite. The Infinite the God which we worship; permitting us to take from concepts like capitalism and communism without becoming hostage to any one of them entirely – allowing for a mixed economy so to speak.
So what does that say about the course of history as taught in the East and West? What does that mean about the twentieth century narratives? How have the East and West successfully torn apart the Middle East? How have they used these extremities to divide individuals all across the world? How have they been able to secure their empire at the expense of a moderate individualist-collectivist hybrid sovereignty?
The enemy is imperialism and its symbols and gods are evident. Its enemy is the golden rule – the straight path – the anomaly – the infinite. Instead of a mixed economy, and a national boundary – these guys want ISMS and expansion.
They succeeded in the Middle East by creating a new version of Islam which can be more appropriately labeled as wahhabism, salafism, etc. and by introducing self-idolatry and paranoia into our societies. The establishment of a zionist state in 1948 only furthered this objective by further implanting a power-house of fundamentalism, religious exclusivity and imperialism in the center of the Middle East, crashing any hopes for sovereignty, independence and prosperity for the Middle Eastern people.
Who are the victims? All the moderate secularists, liberals, and moderate monotheists who are struggling to secure their peace.
How does this translate into our tangible reality? The House of Saud and Israel as well as every other monarchy in the Middle East have allied themselves together with every brand of islamism and zionism and have secured a support system with the West (US, UK & EU) as well as the East (Russia, India & China).
There are two forces at war: imperialism (hubris) and sovereignty (equality). Choose your side.