Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Did dinosaurs really exist? Can we really be certain that dinosaurs actually existed or are the fossils discovered remains of other species? During the Long Gilded Age in the Amerikkkas, which stretched from the end of Reconstruction (1877) to the start of the Great Depression (1900,) financial elites like...

maximumpain333's profile picture

🧬Maxpein🧬

277,576 subscribers

39,725 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

KunstBildungWissenschaft & Technologie
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Good morning. In the book of Enoch, it describes Leviathan and bemouths in great detail. Listening to the descriptions, it sort of sounds like dinosaurs or dragons. I always wondered how dinosaurs fit into the Bible. Perhaps this the link to where they fit in. Perhaps man and dinosaurs walked the Earth at the same times, but in different locations. The earth is a big place I don’t know. What are your thoughts?
2:36

Good morning. In the book of Enoch, it describes Leviathan and bemouths in great detail. Listening to the descriptions, it sort of sounds like dinosaurs or dragons. I always wondered how dinosaurs fit into the Bible. Perhaps this the link to where they fit in. Perhaps man and dinosaurs walked the Earth at the same times, but in different locations. The earth is a big place I don’t know. What are your thoughts?

🌺🌸🇺🇸✝️MAR✝️🇺🇸🌸🌺

14,359 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Whenever people say that Jurassic world turned the dinosaurs into nothing but killing machines and monsters I think back to this specific scene Blue and Owen in general are the antithesis of that criticism, and its a shame other aspects of the JW trilogy weren't like it entirely
1:07

Whenever people say that Jurassic world turned the dinosaurs into nothing but killing machines and monsters I think back to this specific scene Blue and Owen in general are the antithesis of that criticism, and its a shame other aspects of the JW trilogy weren't like it entirely

Krust

88,081 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

SNYDER: When I was growing up in '70s and '80s, existence of Soviet Union was as certain as anything could be in politics. People who predicted the end of Soviet Union were outcasts and outliers. And up to December 1991, it was American policy to try to preserve Soviet Union. So it's really striking that all that's solid really can melt into air. The things that seem like absolute bedrocks, or even axioms of political thought, can cease to exist. Breakup of Soviet Union also means that 1990s in Russia happened faster there than here. Time goes faster there than in US. That means that things that are going to happen in US start to happen faster there, such as political postmodernism or return of a certain kind of fascism or oligarchy. So the end of Soviet Union shows that things can come to an end, but it also shows some of the possibilities of 21st-century politics which we then wade into ourselves later on.
1:22

SNYDER: When I was growing up in '70s and '80s, existence of Soviet Union was as certain as anything could be in politics. People who predicted the end of Soviet Union were outcasts and outliers. And up to December 1991, it was American policy to try to preserve Soviet Union. So it's really striking that all that's solid really can melt into air. The things that seem like absolute bedrocks, or even axioms of political thought, can cease to exist. Breakup of Soviet Union also means that 1990s in Russia happened faster there than here. Time goes faster there than in US. That means that things that are going to happen in US start to happen faster there, such as political postmodernism or return of a certain kind of fascism or oligarchy. So the end of Soviet Union shows that things can come to an end, but it also shows some of the possibilities of 21st-century politics which we then wade into ourselves later on.

Kate from Kharkiv

24,365 Aufrufe • vor 25 Tagen

Bret Weinstein cuts straight to the chase: "We are going to have an endless battle in which those of us who see what we believe is clear evidence of some kind of election rigging or fraud are faced with indignation from a vast array of people portraying themselves as more rigorous and careful who say, 'Where is your evidence? Where exactly is your evidence that there was something wrong with this election?' And we are gonna be caught in the following predicament. No piece of evidence is sufficient to establish that case. And the sum total of all of the evidence contains true things and false things. So it is also no good. So the question is, can you logically deduce that something has gone wrong? I believe you can easily. Can you prove it? No. And not being able to prove it means that the election will proceed. It will be validated by all of the structures, including the courts. And that means that those who take on the power that derives from these elections will be the result of whatever process we just went through, whether it was an election that happened to be anomalous through organic means, or it was the result of some kind of fraud or election rigging. That is not an accident. That is not an accident. And the point that I wanna make primarily is the primary evidence against elections that look like this being organic is not actually in the trickle of evidence that we are actually able to see, the moment by moment vote count that does something strange during the night when some large tranche of ballots is suddenly counted or something like that. The evidence is in the structure of how the elections are actually carried out. These elections are designed to allow fraud that cannot be detected and will not be prosecuted. And that's really the thing that we must focus on." Bret Weinstein
2:10

Bret Weinstein cuts straight to the chase: "We are going to have an endless battle in which those of us who see what we believe is clear evidence of some kind of election rigging or fraud are faced with indignation from a vast array of people portraying themselves as more rigorous and careful who say, 'Where is your evidence? Where exactly is your evidence that there was something wrong with this election?' And we are gonna be caught in the following predicament. No piece of evidence is sufficient to establish that case. And the sum total of all of the evidence contains true things and false things. So it is also no good. So the question is, can you logically deduce that something has gone wrong? I believe you can easily. Can you prove it? No. And not being able to prove it means that the election will proceed. It will be validated by all of the structures, including the courts. And that means that those who take on the power that derives from these elections will be the result of whatever process we just went through, whether it was an election that happened to be anomalous through organic means, or it was the result of some kind of fraud or election rigging. That is not an accident. That is not an accident. And the point that I wanna make primarily is the primary evidence against elections that look like this being organic is not actually in the trickle of evidence that we are actually able to see, the moment by moment vote count that does something strange during the night when some large tranche of ballots is suddenly counted or something like that. The evidence is in the structure of how the elections are actually carried out. These elections are designed to allow fraud that cannot be detected and will not be prosecuted. And that's really the thing that we must focus on." Bret Weinstein

The DarkHorse Podcast

696,713 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

A supernova explosion in the galaxy NGC 2442 This distant explosion occurred approximately 60 million years ago, around the time the dinosaurs on Earth were going extinct. The dying star's luminosity was billions of times greater than that of our Sun and comparable to the entire center of the galaxy NGC 2442. Such supernovae are among the brightest and most powerful events in the Universe, leaving behind remnants and influencing the evolution of surrounding matter. This cosmic explosion is a reminder of the scale and dynamics of our universe, and how events millions of light-years away can coincide with important stages in the history of life on Earth.
0:32

A supernova explosion in the galaxy NGC 2442 This distant explosion occurred approximately 60 million years ago, around the time the dinosaurs on Earth were going extinct. The dying star's luminosity was billions of times greater than that of our Sun and comparable to the entire center of the galaxy NGC 2442. Such supernovae are among the brightest and most powerful events in the Universe, leaving behind remnants and influencing the evolution of surrounding matter. This cosmic explosion is a reminder of the scale and dynamics of our universe, and how events millions of light-years away can coincide with important stages in the history of life on Earth.

Black Hole

62,116 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Coleman Hughes pushes Glenn Greenwald on the Israel lobby’s influence in Washington. Coleman Hughes: “The entire pro-Israel lobby was outspent...during the Obama years by the dentistry lobby…It’s not nearly powerful enough to get us involved in all these wars that people like to blame on it.” Glenn Greenwald: “If we are going to frame it as binaries—either AIPAC is all powerful and omnipotent…or the alternative is AIPAC is really kind of weak—I think it’s a disservice to the discussion. The truth lies in the middle, but far closer to the end of the spectrum where they’re extremely powerful… “This is a lobby devoted to the interests of a foreign country. And there’s nothing that remotely competes with the power of the pro-Israel lobby in terms of lobbies that come from other countries. And that's the reason why it gets so much attention. It’s just such a bizarre phenomenon of American political life.” Watch Coleman’s response—and the rest of their debate on Israel and U.S. foreign policy—now:
5:46

Coleman Hughes pushes Glenn Greenwald on the Israel lobby’s influence in Washington. Coleman Hughes: “The entire pro-Israel lobby was outspent...during the Obama years by the dentistry lobby…It’s not nearly powerful enough to get us involved in all these wars that people like to blame on it.” Glenn Greenwald: “If we are going to frame it as binaries—either AIPAC is all powerful and omnipotent…or the alternative is AIPAC is really kind of weak—I think it’s a disservice to the discussion. The truth lies in the middle, but far closer to the end of the spectrum where they’re extremely powerful… “This is a lobby devoted to the interests of a foreign country. And there’s nothing that remotely competes with the power of the pro-Israel lobby in terms of lobbies that come from other countries. And that's the reason why it gets so much attention. It’s just such a bizarre phenomenon of American political life.” Watch Coleman’s response—and the rest of their debate on Israel and U.S. foreign policy—now:

Conversations with Coleman

490,433 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

"Today, we can see the futility of the political route and the bankruptcy of the political system writ large." "Scotland is annexed, a dominion under the English crown. And it is the English crown, not the fictional UK crown, that we're all told about. "Not a partner, not of any kind. In fact, the whole partnership story is a concoction fashioned to convince the world that Scots are part of a joint state and to disguise the fact that Scotland is, in reality, nothing other than a colony. "It's not a partner in a marriage, but a kidnap victim. And you do not escape from a kidnapper by filing for divorce from a fictional marriage. "Second, even if it were possible to break free through a referendum or an election, or to propose any other route that would be approved as lawful by the kidnapping state, the political system in Scotland would not guarantee any of the things that sing in our bones as Scots. We dream of justice, compassion, equality, prosperity and care for all without preference or privilege. "But what we have is an english system of concentrated power and privilege, which those Scots who enjoy it will not give up easily. Where the government sits in authority over the people, and the people surrender their hopes, their ambitions and their human and civil rights to the whims of their elected representatives. Where all that we hold dear, all that we depend on for decency, fairness and security, depends on the honor, honesty and good faith of those elected. "Because once it is elected, we have no means of curbing, challenging or preventing anything a government may choose to do, whether or not that's lawful, just, rational or humane. "Today, we can see the futility of the political route and the bankruptcy of the political system writ large. Our helplessness in the face of the state marching side by side with destitution and despair. "This is why liberation was born. Because the route to the Scotland we dream of neither can nor will come through the present political system, but through the restoration of the political, territorial and judicial rights, the constitutional provisions that belong to the people of this nation, in law and in justice, even under the terms of this fraudulent union, and certainly under international law. "They mean that we, the people, are sovereign, in fact, not in sound bite, the ultimate authority of this nation of Scotland. "They mean that the interests of the people, collectively known as the common good, are not only the primary purpose of government, but the only condition on which it's permitted to exist. "They mean that we are entitled to overrule, remove or replace a government that violates that condition of its existence, that fails to honour its promises, to consult the people or to act according to their wishes and welfare. "And in the modern world, that means the right to all the mechanisms that we see in a nation like Switzerland, which will make that sovereign power a reality. "All this is part of what we call decolonization, true Scottish self determination. And it is the soul and purpose of liberation Scotland. "Impossible? Other nations have trodden the path to decolonisation. Not one has bowed to the kidnapper and asked for permission. "We know now that we can gain our independence as a state by first gaining independence from a colonizing power. So that instead of waiting to reclaim real sovereignty of the people after independence, we gain our independence by first reclaiming our sovereign Scottish rights. "The next step on this road is establishing the committee of the Scottish Liberation Movement. This committee will be elected from the membership of Liberation and will operate under a ratified constitution. "And it will register Scotland's Liberation Movement with the United Nations." Sara Salyers @TheScotCongress Iain.lawson27 Salvo.Scot Colette Walker
4:19

"Today, we can see the futility of the political route and the bankruptcy of the political system writ large." "Scotland is annexed, a dominion under the English crown. And it is the English crown, not the fictional UK crown, that we're all told about. "Not a partner, not of any kind. In fact, the whole partnership story is a concoction fashioned to convince the world that Scots are part of a joint state and to disguise the fact that Scotland is, in reality, nothing other than a colony. "It's not a partner in a marriage, but a kidnap victim. And you do not escape from a kidnapper by filing for divorce from a fictional marriage. "Second, even if it were possible to break free through a referendum or an election, or to propose any other route that would be approved as lawful by the kidnapping state, the political system in Scotland would not guarantee any of the things that sing in our bones as Scots. We dream of justice, compassion, equality, prosperity and care for all without preference or privilege. "But what we have is an english system of concentrated power and privilege, which those Scots who enjoy it will not give up easily. Where the government sits in authority over the people, and the people surrender their hopes, their ambitions and their human and civil rights to the whims of their elected representatives. Where all that we hold dear, all that we depend on for decency, fairness and security, depends on the honor, honesty and good faith of those elected. "Because once it is elected, we have no means of curbing, challenging or preventing anything a government may choose to do, whether or not that's lawful, just, rational or humane. "Today, we can see the futility of the political route and the bankruptcy of the political system writ large. Our helplessness in the face of the state marching side by side with destitution and despair. "This is why liberation was born. Because the route to the Scotland we dream of neither can nor will come through the present political system, but through the restoration of the political, territorial and judicial rights, the constitutional provisions that belong to the people of this nation, in law and in justice, even under the terms of this fraudulent union, and certainly under international law. "They mean that we, the people, are sovereign, in fact, not in sound bite, the ultimate authority of this nation of Scotland. "They mean that the interests of the people, collectively known as the common good, are not only the primary purpose of government, but the only condition on which it's permitted to exist. "They mean that we are entitled to overrule, remove or replace a government that violates that condition of its existence, that fails to honour its promises, to consult the people or to act according to their wishes and welfare. "And in the modern world, that means the right to all the mechanisms that we see in a nation like Switzerland, which will make that sovereign power a reality. "All this is part of what we call decolonization, true Scottish self determination. And it is the soul and purpose of liberation Scotland. "Impossible? Other nations have trodden the path to decolonisation. Not one has bowed to the kidnapper and asked for permission. "We know now that we can gain our independence as a state by first gaining independence from a colonizing power. So that instead of waiting to reclaim real sovereignty of the people after independence, we gain our independence by first reclaiming our sovereign Scottish rights. "The next step on this road is establishing the committee of the Scottish Liberation Movement. This committee will be elected from the membership of Liberation and will operate under a ratified constitution. "And it will register Scotland's Liberation Movement with the United Nations." Sara Salyers @TheScotCongress Iain.lawson27 Salvo.Scot Colette Walker

ScotNews

20,333 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

DIVINE MATHEMATICS Number One (1) is the Number of God. Everything is from Number. Number One (1) is the Number of Hydrogen. Your DNA is written in the Divine Mathematics of the Fibonacci Geometric Patterns/Sequences. Your DNA is written in Mathematical Number Patterns. That is why Science is filled with Calculations. Nature is written in the Fibonacci Geometric Patterns/Sequences. You do not need religion to know God. You need to understand the nature of existence from the angle of Science and Mathematics. Galileo Galilei, who deserves to be called the Father of Physics said thus how God created the Universe: "God created the Universe in the language of Mathematics" Everything in the Universe is Governed by Numbers. For this Purpose, Zero or Nothing or the Void is counted, not just as a Number, but as the Source of All Numbers. Zero or Nothing or the Void is mentioned in the Bible as early as Genesis because the Zero or the Void or Nothing is the Basis of All Numbers. In Genesis 1: 1-3 it is written thus: 1. In the Heaven and Earth. 2. And the Earth was without Form and Void; and Darkness was upon the Face of the Deep.... 3. And God said Let there be Light and there was Light. What follows are the 7 Days of Creation. Religion deceives and brainwashed the Masses that these are 7 literal Days. They're really about the Fibonacci Geometric Patterns/Sequences. Numbers govern the Chemical Elements that constitute the Universe, with Hydrogen being Number One to emerge from Zero and is the Same as the Zero with the Zero being the Darkness that was upon the Face of the Great Deep mentioned in Genesis 1:2. Number One became the Light which emerged from the Darkness. Without Darkness, there can be no Light. Everything is essentially a Mirror of the Same Thing. This is what is called Polarity. In other Words, Opposite Things depend on the each other in order to exist. Without Darkness, you cannot know what Light is. This is also represented by Gender, with the Female and the Male being diverse Forms of the Same Thing. The Hermetic Principles explain the relationship between everything in some details. In that regards, I suggest that you should look up the Hermetic Principles in the Kyballion. It is because the Numbers begins from Zero or Nothing or the Void that it is said that God made the Universe from Nothing. As already mentioned Number One is the Number of Hydrogen. The Hydrogen Atom permeates Everything in the Universe. It is because there is Hydrogen that there is a Material Universe. Hydrogen is Number One (1) on the Chemical Periodic Table. There is Nothing in the Material Universe that is not from Hydrogen. Hydrogen is the Basis of all Physical Existence. That is why Number One (1) is also the Number of God. The Sun and the Stars and Planets are All comprised of Hydrogen. Oxygen is constituted by the Thermonuclear Synthesis Hydrogen in the Nuclei of Stars. Hydrogen then COMBUSTS with Hydrogen to produce Dihydrogen Monoxide aka WATER. Your very being is literally powered by Hydrogen. As already indicated, Oxygen first came into Existence through Thermonuclear Fusion of Hydrogen Atoms in Stars. Stars are composed of the Hydrogen. Hydrogen is the Medium of Consciousness and Medium of the Material Universe of which we are an Intrinsic part. All of Nature is powered by Number One (1) aka Hydrogen. You're literally made of Hydrogen that has been transformed in Stars. The Sun, as a Star is composed of Hydrogen Atoms. The Circle which represents Zeros Nothing or the Void or the Darkness and also the Light represents the Hydrogen Atom. That is why the Sun and Moon are Circles. The Circle is the Basic Geometric Pattern. The multiplication of identical Circles create the Patterns and Sequences of the Flower of Life which is in All Indigenous Cultures. ✨🙌🏾💫
3:25

DIVINE MATHEMATICS Number One (1) is the Number of God. Everything is from Number. Number One (1) is the Number of Hydrogen. Your DNA is written in the Divine Mathematics of the Fibonacci Geometric Patterns/Sequences. Your DNA is written in Mathematical Number Patterns. That is why Science is filled with Calculations. Nature is written in the Fibonacci Geometric Patterns/Sequences. You do not need religion to know God. You need to understand the nature of existence from the angle of Science and Mathematics. Galileo Galilei, who deserves to be called the Father of Physics said thus how God created the Universe: "God created the Universe in the language of Mathematics" Everything in the Universe is Governed by Numbers. For this Purpose, Zero or Nothing or the Void is counted, not just as a Number, but as the Source of All Numbers. Zero or Nothing or the Void is mentioned in the Bible as early as Genesis because the Zero or the Void or Nothing is the Basis of All Numbers. In Genesis 1: 1-3 it is written thus: 1. In the Heaven and Earth. 2. And the Earth was without Form and Void; and Darkness was upon the Face of the Deep.... 3. And God said Let there be Light and there was Light. What follows are the 7 Days of Creation. Religion deceives and brainwashed the Masses that these are 7 literal Days. They're really about the Fibonacci Geometric Patterns/Sequences. Numbers govern the Chemical Elements that constitute the Universe, with Hydrogen being Number One to emerge from Zero and is the Same as the Zero with the Zero being the Darkness that was upon the Face of the Great Deep mentioned in Genesis 1:2. Number One became the Light which emerged from the Darkness. Without Darkness, there can be no Light. Everything is essentially a Mirror of the Same Thing. This is what is called Polarity. In other Words, Opposite Things depend on the each other in order to exist. Without Darkness, you cannot know what Light is. This is also represented by Gender, with the Female and the Male being diverse Forms of the Same Thing. The Hermetic Principles explain the relationship between everything in some details. In that regards, I suggest that you should look up the Hermetic Principles in the Kyballion. It is because the Numbers begins from Zero or Nothing or the Void that it is said that God made the Universe from Nothing. As already mentioned Number One is the Number of Hydrogen. The Hydrogen Atom permeates Everything in the Universe. It is because there is Hydrogen that there is a Material Universe. Hydrogen is Number One (1) on the Chemical Periodic Table. There is Nothing in the Material Universe that is not from Hydrogen. Hydrogen is the Basis of all Physical Existence. That is why Number One (1) is also the Number of God. The Sun and the Stars and Planets are All comprised of Hydrogen. Oxygen is constituted by the Thermonuclear Synthesis Hydrogen in the Nuclei of Stars. Hydrogen then COMBUSTS with Hydrogen to produce Dihydrogen Monoxide aka WATER. Your very being is literally powered by Hydrogen. As already indicated, Oxygen first came into Existence through Thermonuclear Fusion of Hydrogen Atoms in Stars. Stars are composed of the Hydrogen. Hydrogen is the Medium of Consciousness and Medium of the Material Universe of which we are an Intrinsic part. All of Nature is powered by Number One (1) aka Hydrogen. You're literally made of Hydrogen that has been transformed in Stars. The Sun, as a Star is composed of Hydrogen Atoms. The Circle which represents Zeros Nothing or the Void or the Darkness and also the Light represents the Hydrogen Atom. That is why the Sun and Moon are Circles. The Circle is the Basic Geometric Pattern. The multiplication of identical Circles create the Patterns and Sequences of the Flower of Life which is in All Indigenous Cultures. ✨🙌🏾💫

🧬Maxpein🧬

25,608 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Panjura will definitely be getting a TLC update at some point in the future! We have already started some improvements to all the foliage in the game, including some on Panjura. Grasses will ripple in the wind and trees will sway in the breeze. This isn't the final TLC for the map, but is a result of other overall game improvements. All of the foliage is now on its own shader, allowing further tweaks across every plant to be made easily and quickly. We would also like to ensure when we tackle this TLC in the future that flyers are able to work on Panjura, and to introduce more water and waterways for swimming creatures. #pathoftitans #dinosaurs
1:00

Panjura will definitely be getting a TLC update at some point in the future! We have already started some improvements to all the foliage in the game, including some on Panjura. Grasses will ripple in the wind and trees will sway in the breeze. This isn't the final TLC for the map, but is a result of other overall game improvements. All of the foliage is now on its own shader, allowing further tweaks across every plant to be made easily and quickly. We would also like to ensure when we tackle this TLC in the future that flyers are able to work on Panjura, and to introduce more water and waterways for swimming creatures. #pathoftitans #dinosaurs

Path of Titans

11,428 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Pax Americana Is Collapsing: Trump as Yeltsin-Gorbachev, Brzezinski’s Plan Fails, and the West’s Financial Bubble Heads for Oblivion Sergey Glazyev: Unfortunately, the change from one system of management to another — I call this change from one world order to another world order — is going through a world war. And Americans are doing the same as the British did 100 years ago, trying to maintain their geopolitical dominance. They were trying to do this by creating conflicts all over the world and putting competitive nations in a struggle with each other. So Americans are doing the same. They introduced a trade war against China and a financial war against Russia. They supported the Nazi regime in Ukraine. They undermined their competitors and satellites in Europe. Finally, the idea maybe was to concentrate capital and power, but in fact, the result of this is the collapse of Pax Americana, and you see everything is going on according to the theory of long cycles. The transition period usually takes maybe 33–35 years, or one third of a century. The previous transition period started with World War I and finished with the collapse of the British Empire, maybe in 1947. But the final point was the Suez Crisis in 1953 or ’54, when Britain and France wanted to get control again over the Suez Canal, but the Soviet Union and the United States didn’t support this — from both sides — and everybody understood that the world changed. It became a new world system; I call it an imperial world system with a few superstates which divided the world between themselves. The present transition period started with the collapse of the Soviet Union and now is finishing with the collapse of the United States. The collapse of the Soviet Union happened because of the decrease in efficiency of the Soviet planning system, which the Chinese partially inherited. The collapse of Pax Americana now is explained by the decline in efficiency of the American financial system, which created financial bubbles instead of growth of production. But the point is that the leaders of the previous cycle really do not understand what is going on, and they’re trying to maintain their leadership through wars, using any instruments to maintain their dominance, but it doesn’t work in the situation when these states are losing their efficiency. And you see, I call President Trump like President Yeltsin and Gorbachev together in one person. So they really try to maintain their dominance, but in fact, they undermine their leadership by their own actions. And unfortunately, they are trying to implement, as I mentioned, the Brzezinski plan, which was focused on Ukraine and Iran, but it doesn’t work. And it was quite clear that these two conflicts will not lead to the results that Western geopoliticians expected. They expected that the Russian political system would collapse after the hybrid war started with the West because of sanctions, because Brzezinski thought that Russian oligarchs are very powerful and will change the power if the West introduces sanctions. But that didn’t happen, because Western politicians do not really understand the nation’s psychology: if our country is under any aggression, the population becomes concentrated around the power and supports the power, as well as in Iran, we see the same situation. So this plan didn’t work, but it was quite clear that it would not work, and it’s a pity that Western politicians really do not understand this and are trying to continue this kind of crazy policy in spite of the fact that the cost of this policy becomes higher and higher.
4:44

Pax Americana Is Collapsing: Trump as Yeltsin-Gorbachev, Brzezinski’s Plan Fails, and the West’s Financial Bubble Heads for Oblivion Sergey Glazyev: Unfortunately, the change from one system of management to another — I call this change from one world order to another world order — is going through a world war. And Americans are doing the same as the British did 100 years ago, trying to maintain their geopolitical dominance. They were trying to do this by creating conflicts all over the world and putting competitive nations in a struggle with each other. So Americans are doing the same. They introduced a trade war against China and a financial war against Russia. They supported the Nazi regime in Ukraine. They undermined their competitors and satellites in Europe. Finally, the idea maybe was to concentrate capital and power, but in fact, the result of this is the collapse of Pax Americana, and you see everything is going on according to the theory of long cycles. The transition period usually takes maybe 33–35 years, or one third of a century. The previous transition period started with World War I and finished with the collapse of the British Empire, maybe in 1947. But the final point was the Suez Crisis in 1953 or ’54, when Britain and France wanted to get control again over the Suez Canal, but the Soviet Union and the United States didn’t support this — from both sides — and everybody understood that the world changed. It became a new world system; I call it an imperial world system with a few superstates which divided the world between themselves. The present transition period started with the collapse of the Soviet Union and now is finishing with the collapse of the United States. The collapse of the Soviet Union happened because of the decrease in efficiency of the Soviet planning system, which the Chinese partially inherited. The collapse of Pax Americana now is explained by the decline in efficiency of the American financial system, which created financial bubbles instead of growth of production. But the point is that the leaders of the previous cycle really do not understand what is going on, and they’re trying to maintain their leadership through wars, using any instruments to maintain their dominance, but it doesn’t work in the situation when these states are losing their efficiency. And you see, I call President Trump like President Yeltsin and Gorbachev together in one person. So they really try to maintain their dominance, but in fact, they undermine their leadership by their own actions. And unfortunately, they are trying to implement, as I mentioned, the Brzezinski plan, which was focused on Ukraine and Iran, but it doesn’t work. And it was quite clear that these two conflicts will not lead to the results that Western geopoliticians expected. They expected that the Russian political system would collapse after the hybrid war started with the West because of sanctions, because Brzezinski thought that Russian oligarchs are very powerful and will change the power if the West introduces sanctions. But that didn’t happen, because Western politicians do not really understand the nation’s psychology: if our country is under any aggression, the population becomes concentrated around the power and supports the power, as well as in Iran, we see the same situation. So this plan didn’t work, but it was quite clear that it would not work, and it’s a pity that Western politicians really do not understand this and are trying to continue this kind of crazy policy in spite of the fact that the cost of this policy becomes higher and higher.

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

68,126 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Millions of years ago, a fragile dinosaur egg approximately 2 inches long washed out to sea and was protected in layers of sediment for an incredible journey. In the 1970s, the fossilized egg was discovered by a group of teens near Selma, Alabama. One of those teens, Prescott Atkinson, would later conduct a CT scan on the egg after completing medical school. The dinosaur egg, which includes an intact embryo that is the most complete dinosaur specimen in the eastern United States, is on display at the AUMNH. The paleontologist holding the egg is Skye Walker at Alabama’s National Fossil Day, hosted by Alabama Museum of Natural History in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. #whydinosaurs #dinosaurs #dinosauregg #paleontology #fossils #jurassicpark #jurassicworld #paleontologist
0:32

Millions of years ago, a fragile dinosaur egg approximately 2 inches long washed out to sea and was protected in layers of sediment for an incredible journey. In the 1970s, the fossilized egg was discovered by a group of teens near Selma, Alabama. One of those teens, Prescott Atkinson, would later conduct a CT scan on the egg after completing medical school. The dinosaur egg, which includes an intact embryo that is the most complete dinosaur specimen in the eastern United States, is on display at the AUMNH. The paleontologist holding the egg is Skye Walker at Alabama’s National Fossil Day, hosted by Alabama Museum of Natural History in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. #whydinosaurs #dinosaurs #dinosauregg #paleontology #fossils #jurassicpark #jurassicworld #paleontologist

WHY DINOSAURS?

12,178 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

At a Q&A, John MacArthur is asked about Christian nationalism. The kingdom of God is not of this world. Jesus said that. He said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would [fight].” His kingdom is not of this world. The kingdom of this world is a separate world; they’re not linked together. Let me say it another way: Nothing that happens in any nation, whether it’s a Communist nation, a Muslim nation, or a “quasi-Christian” nation, or an atheistic nation—nothing in that nation politically, socially has anything to do with the advancement of the kingdom of God, because the kingdom of God is separate from that system. God, in His sovereignty, is building His church, “and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it,” Jesus said. So the idea that you should link up some political effort, some political process, some social process, some gain of power or influence in a culture as part of the advance of Christianity is alien to Christianity. You never have our Lord approaching anything like that, nor the apostles, and particularly the apostle Paul. He sought to gain no favor with the Roman Empire whatsoever, or for that matter, with any other of the rulers that he ran into during his life. Now, that is not to say that we are indifferent to what happens in the nation. We’ve been talking about that the last couple of Sunday mornings. We have to be the people who uphold righteousness. When we come to vote, we want to vote for that which is the most righteous option. Obviously, we can’t vote in righteousness, but we have to vote in a way that reflects our commitment to the righteousness of God. So we couldn’t possibly elect somebody who was an abortionist, somebody who was LGBTQ or LGBTQ-affirming, or any other deviation from God’s righteous moral standard. So it gets harder, doesn’t it, nowadays, because even sometimes when politicians are more conservative and anti-abortion, they may be sinful and wicked in some other categories, and it’s very hard to find out who is really honest and who is simply dishonest and seeking power. But in the end, we do what we can with the understanding that the responsibility of the church is not to advance the kingdom of this world. That’s a faulty viewpoint. Christian nationalism is usually tied to what is called post-millennialism, and that is the view that the church, somehow, by influencing the culture, can bring in the kingdom of Christ. In other words, it’s the idea not that Christ returns and sets up His kingdom, but that the church establishes His kingdom and then hands it to Him. That is not what Scripture teaches. What Scripture teaches is what we’re learning from the book of Revelation. Things are going to get worse and worse and worse. And the end of human history is not the church triumphant, reigning in the world and taking over the structures of human kingdoms; that’s not what happens. At the end of human history, the believers are persecuted and murdered, and that’s the very opposite of what Christian nationalism would anticipate. So we believe the Bible teaches that things get worse and worse, headed toward the wrath of God, which we’re seeing in Revelation, and then our Lord returns, Himself, to establish His kingdom is clearly what we read in the book of Revelation. OK?
5:08

At a Q&A, John MacArthur is asked about Christian nationalism. The kingdom of God is not of this world. Jesus said that. He said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would [fight].” His kingdom is not of this world. The kingdom of this world is a separate world; they’re not linked together. Let me say it another way: Nothing that happens in any nation, whether it’s a Communist nation, a Muslim nation, or a “quasi-Christian” nation, or an atheistic nation—nothing in that nation politically, socially has anything to do with the advancement of the kingdom of God, because the kingdom of God is separate from that system. God, in His sovereignty, is building His church, “and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it,” Jesus said. So the idea that you should link up some political effort, some political process, some social process, some gain of power or influence in a culture as part of the advance of Christianity is alien to Christianity. You never have our Lord approaching anything like that, nor the apostles, and particularly the apostle Paul. He sought to gain no favor with the Roman Empire whatsoever, or for that matter, with any other of the rulers that he ran into during his life. Now, that is not to say that we are indifferent to what happens in the nation. We’ve been talking about that the last couple of Sunday mornings. We have to be the people who uphold righteousness. When we come to vote, we want to vote for that which is the most righteous option. Obviously, we can’t vote in righteousness, but we have to vote in a way that reflects our commitment to the righteousness of God. So we couldn’t possibly elect somebody who was an abortionist, somebody who was LGBTQ or LGBTQ-affirming, or any other deviation from God’s righteous moral standard. So it gets harder, doesn’t it, nowadays, because even sometimes when politicians are more conservative and anti-abortion, they may be sinful and wicked in some other categories, and it’s very hard to find out who is really honest and who is simply dishonest and seeking power. But in the end, we do what we can with the understanding that the responsibility of the church is not to advance the kingdom of this world. That’s a faulty viewpoint. Christian nationalism is usually tied to what is called post-millennialism, and that is the view that the church, somehow, by influencing the culture, can bring in the kingdom of Christ. In other words, it’s the idea not that Christ returns and sets up His kingdom, but that the church establishes His kingdom and then hands it to Him. That is not what Scripture teaches. What Scripture teaches is what we’re learning from the book of Revelation. Things are going to get worse and worse and worse. And the end of human history is not the church triumphant, reigning in the world and taking over the structures of human kingdoms; that’s not what happens. At the end of human history, the believers are persecuted and murdered, and that’s the very opposite of what Christian nationalism would anticipate. So we believe the Bible teaches that things get worse and worse, headed toward the wrath of God, which we’re seeing in Revelation, and then our Lord returns, Himself, to establish His kingdom is clearly what we read in the book of Revelation. OK?

Terri Green

13,029 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

David Friedberg predicted the Rise of Socialism in the US back in January "The party line is that socialism was defeated in this election cycle and that there was a resounding vote from the American populace against socialism." "My contrarian belief is that we'll see a rise, a dramatic rise, in socialist movements in 2025 in the United States." "We're gonna see an unleashing of economic growth because of deregulation and AI." "There's gonna be some parts of the economy that are gonna be big winners and some parts of the economy that are gonna be big losers." "When you have this sort of a change this fast, there are often large contingents of people that are left behind." "And when that happens, I do think that the socialist policies and socialist movements gain steam." "Growth does not mean that it benefits everyone equally." "And I think that some folks will see people go from being billionaires to hundred billionaires to the world's first trillionaire, and it will also start to fuel this rise." "So I think that we will see an increase in the breadth and depth of socialist movements in the United States."
0:58

David Friedberg predicted the Rise of Socialism in the US back in January "The party line is that socialism was defeated in this election cycle and that there was a resounding vote from the American populace against socialism." "My contrarian belief is that we'll see a rise, a dramatic rise, in socialist movements in 2025 in the United States." "We're gonna see an unleashing of economic growth because of deregulation and AI." "There's gonna be some parts of the economy that are gonna be big winners and some parts of the economy that are gonna be big losers." "When you have this sort of a change this fast, there are often large contingents of people that are left behind." "And when that happens, I do think that the socialist policies and socialist movements gain steam." "Growth does not mean that it benefits everyone equally." "And I think that some folks will see people go from being billionaires to hundred billionaires to the world's first trillionaire, and it will also start to fuel this rise." "So I think that we will see an increase in the breadth and depth of socialist movements in the United States."

The All-In Podcast

138,498 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

50 years ago yesterday: U.N. General Assembly adopts initial draft resolution declaring Zionism to be “a form of racism.” U.S. Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan delivered this historic speech when the infamous act was ratified on Nov. 10, 1975: 🇺🇸 “There appears to have developed in the United Nations the practice for a number of countries to combine for the purpose of doing something outrageous, and thereafter, the outrageous thing having been done, to profess themselves outraged by those who have the temerity to point it out, and subsequently to declare themselves innocent of any wrong-doing in consequence of its having been brought about wholly in reaction to the “insufferable” acts of those who pointed the wrong-doing out in the first place. Out of deference to these curious sensibilities, the United States chose not to speak in advance of this vote: we speak in its aftermath and in tones of the utmost concern. The United States rises to declare before the General Assembly of the United Nations, and before the world, that it does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act. Not three weeks ago, the United States Representative in the Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural Committee pleaded in measured and fully considered terms for the United Nations not to do this thing. It was, he said, “obscene.” It is something more today, for the furtiveness with which this obscenity first appeared among us has been replaced by a shameless openness. There will be time enough to contemplate the harm this act will have done the United Nations. Historians will do that for us, and it is sufficient for the moment only to note the foreboding fact. A great evil has been loosed upon the world. The abomination of anti-semitism — as this year’s Nobel Peace Laureate Andrei Sakharov observed in Moscow just a few days ago — the Abomination of anti-semitism has been given the appearance of international sanction. The General Assembly today grants symbolic amnesty — and more — to the murderers of the six million European Jews. Evil enough in itself, but more ominous by far is the realization that now presses upon us — the realization that if there were no General Assembly, this could never have happened. As this day will live in infamy, it behooves those who sought to avert it to declare their thoughts so that historians will know that we fought here, that we were not small in number — not this time — and that while we lost, we fought with full knowledge of what indeed would be lost. Nor should any historian of the event, nor yet any who have participated in it, suppose, that we have fought only as governments, as chancelleries, and on an issue well removed from the concerns of our respective peoples. Others will speak for their nations: I will speak for mine. In all our postwar history there had not been another issue which has brought forth such unanimity of American opinion. The President of the United States has from the first been explicit: This must not happen. The Congress of the United States in a measure unanimously adopted in the Senate and sponsored by 436 of 437 Representatives in the House, declared its utter opposition. Following only American Jews themselves, the American trade union movements was first to the fore in denouncing this infamous undertaking. Next, one after another, the great private institutions of American life pronounced anathema in this evil thing — and most particularly, the Christian churches have done so. Reminded that the United Nations was born in struggle against just such abominations as we are committing today — the wartime alliance of the United Nations dates from 1942 — the United Nations Association of the United States has for the first time in its history appealed directly to each of the 141 other delegations in New York not to do this unspeakable thing. The proposition to be sanctioned by a resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations is that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.” Now this is a lie. But as it is a lie which the United Nations has now declared to be a truth, the actual truth must be restated. The very first point to be made is that the United Nations has declared Zionism to be racism — without ever having defined racism. “Sentence first — verdict afterwards,” as the Queen of Hearts said. But this is not wonderland, but a real world, where there are real consequences to folly and to venality. Just on Friday, the President of the General Assembly, speaking on behalf of Luxembourg, warned not only of the trouble which would follow from the adoption of this resolution but of its essential irresponsibility — for, he noted, members have wholly different ideas as to what they are condemning. “It seems to me that before a body like this takes a decision they should agree very clearly on what they are approving or condemning, and it takes more time.” Lest I be unclear, the United Nations has in fact on several occasions defined “racial discrimination.” The definitions have been loose, but recognizable. It is “racism,” incomparably the more serious charge — racial discrimination is a practice; racism is a doctrine — which has never been defined. Indeed, the term has only recently appeared in the United Nations General Assembly documents. The one occasion on which we know the meaning to have been discussed was the 1644th meeting of the Third Committee on December 16, 1968, in connection with the report of the Secretary-General on the status of the international convention on the elimination of all racial discrimination. On that occasion — to give some feeling for the intellectual precision with which the matter was being treated — the question arose, as to what should be the relative positioning of the terms “racism” and “Nazism” in a number of the “preambular paragraphs.” The distinguished delegate from Tunisia argued that “racism” should go first because “Nazism was merely a form of racism.” Not so, said the no less distinguished delegate from the Union Soviet Socialist Republics. For, he explained, “Nazism contained the main elements of racism within its ambit and should be mentioned first.” This is to say that racism was merely a form of Nazism. The discussion wound to its weary and inconclusive end, and we are left with nothing to guide us for even this one discussion of “racism” confined itself to world orders in preambular paragraphs, and did not at all touch on the meaning of the words as such. Still, one cannot but ponder the situation we have made for ourselves in the context of the Soviet statement on that not so distant occasion. If, as the distinguished delegate declared, racism is a form of Nazism — and if, as this resolution declares, Zionism is a form of racism — then we have step to step taken ourselves to the point of proclaiming — the United Nations is solemnly proclaiming — that Zionism is a form of Nazism. What we have here is a lie — a political lie of a variety well known to the twentieth century, and scarcely exceeded in all that annal of untruth and outrage. The lie is that Zionism is a form of racism. The overwhelmingly clear truth is that is it not. The word “racism” is a creation of the English language, and relatively new to it. It is not, for instance, to be found in the Oxford English Dictionary (appears in 1982 supplement to Oxford Dictionary). The term derives from relatively new doctrines — all of them discredited — concerning the human population of the world, to the effect that there are significant biological differences among clearly identifiable groups, and that these differences establish, in effect, different levels of humanity. Racism, as defined in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, is “The Assumption that . . . traits and capacities are determined by biological race and that races differ decisively from one another.” It further involves “a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its right to dominate over others.” This meaning is clear. It is equally clear that this assumption, this belief, has always been altogether alien to the political and religious movement known as Zionism. As a strictly political movement, Zionism was established only in 1897, although there is a clearly legitimate sense in which its origins are indeed ancient. For example, many branches of Christianity have always held that from the standpoint of biblical prophets, Israel would be reborn one day. But the modern Zionism movement arose in Europe in the context of a general upsurge of national consciousness and aspiration that overtook most other people of Central and Eastern Europe after 1848, and that in time spread to all of Africa and Asia. It was, to those persons of the Jewish religion, a Jewish form of what today is called a national liberation movement. Probably a majority of those persons who became active Zionists and sought to emigrate to Palestine were born within the confines of Czarist Russia, and it was only natural for Soviet Prime Minister Andrei Gromyko to deplore, as he did in 1948, in the 299th meeting of the Security Council, the act by Israel’s neighbors of “sending troops into Palestine and carrying out military operations aimed” — in Mr. Gromyko’s words — at the suppression of the national liberation movement in Palestine.” Now it was the singular nature — if, I am not mistaken, it was the unique nature — of this national liberation movement that in contrast with the movements that preceded it, those of that time, and those that have come since, it defined its members in terms not of birth, but of belief. That is to say, it was not a movement of the Irish to free Ireland, or of the Polish to free Poland, not a movement of the Algerians to free Algeria, nor of Indians to free India. It was not a movement of persons connected by historic membership to a genetic pool of the kind that enables us to speak loosely but not meaninglessly, say, of the Chinese people, nor yet of diverse groups occupying the same territory which enables us to speak if the American people with no greater indignity to truth. To the contrary, Zionists defined themselves merely as Jews, and declared to be Jewish anyone born of a Jewish mother or — and this is the absolutely crucial fact — anyone who converted to Judaism. Which is to say, in terms of International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted by the 20th General Assembly, anyone — regardless of “race, colour, descent, or nationally or ethnic origin …..” The state of Israel, which in time was the creation of the Zionist Movement, has been extraordinary in nothing so much as the range of “racial stocks” from which it Orient and Jew from the West. Most such persons could be said to have been “born” Jewish, just as most Presbyterians and most Hindus are “born” to their faith, but there are many Jews who are just converts. With a consistency in the matter which surely attests to the importance of this issue to that religions and political culture, Israeli courts have held that a Jew who converts to another religion is no longer a Jew. In the meantime the population of Israel also includes large numbers of non-Jews, among them Arabs of both the Muslim and Christian religions and Christians of other national origins. Many of these persons are citizens of Israel, and those who are not can become citizens by legal procedures very much like those which obtain in a typical nation of Western Europe. Now I should wish to be understood that I am here making one point, and one point only, which is that whatever else Zionism may be, it is not and cannot be “a form of racism.” In logic, the State of Israel could be, or could become, many things, theoretically, including many things undesirable, but it could not be and could not become racism unless it ceased to be Zionist. Indeed, the idea that Jews are a “race” was invented not by Jews but by those who hated Jews. The idea of Jews as a race was invented by nineteenth century anti-semites such as Houston Steward Chamberlain and Edouard Drumont, who saw that in an increasingly secular age, which is to say an age made for fewer distinctions between people, the old religions grounds for anti-semitism were losing force. New justifications were needed for excluding and persecuting Jews, and so the new idea of Jews as a race — rather than as a religion — was born. It was a contemptible idea at the beginning, and no civilized person would be associated with it. To think that it is an idea now endorsed by the United Nations is to reflect on what civilization has come to. It is precisely a concern for civilization, for civilized values that are or should be precious to all mankind, that arouses us at this moment to such special passion. What we have at stake here is not merely the honor and the legitimacy of the State of Israel — although a challenge to the legitimacy of any member nation ought always to arouse the vigilance of all members of the United Nations. For a yet more important matter is at issue, which is the integrity of the whole body of moral and legal precepts which we know as human rights. The terrible lie that has been told here today will have terrible consequences. Not only will people begin to say, indeed they have already begun to say that the United Nations is a place where lies are told, but far more serious, grave and perhaps irreparable harm will be done to the cause of human rights itself. The harm will arise first because it will strip from racism the precise and abhorrent meaning that it still precariously holds today. How will the people of the world feel about racism and the need to struggle against it, when they are told that it is an idea as broad as to include the Jewish national liberation movement? As the lie spreads, it will do harm in a second way. Many of the members of the United Nations owe their independence in no small part to the notion of human rights, as it has spread from the domestic sphere to the international sphere exercised its influence over the old colonial powers. We are now coming into a time when that independence is likely to be threatened again. There will be new forces, some of them arising now, new prophets and new despots, who will justify their actions with the help of just such distortions of words as we have sanctioned here today. Today we have drained the word “racism” of its meaning. Tomorrow, terms like “national self-determination” and “national honor” will be perverted in the same way to serve the purposes of conquest and exploitation. And when these claims begin to be made — as they already have begun to be made — it is the small nations of the world whose integrity will suffer. And how will the small nations of the world defend themselves, on what grounds will others be moved to defend and protect them, when the language of human rights, the only language by which the small can be defended, is no longer believed and no longer has a power of its own? There is this danger, and then a final danger that is the most serious of all. Which is that the damage we now do to the idea of human rights and the language of human rights could well be irreversible. The idea of human rights as we know it today is not an idea which has always existed in human affairs, it is an idea which appeared at a specific time in the world, and under very special circumstances. It appeared when European philosophers of the seventeenth century began to argue that man was a being whose existence was independent from that of the State, that he need join a political community only if he did not lose by that association more than he gained. From this very specific political philosophy stemmed the idea of political rights, of claims that the individual could justly make against the state; it was because the individual was seen as so separate from the State that he could make legitimate demands upon it. That was the philosophy from which the idea of domestic and international rights sprang. But most of the world does not hold with that philosophy now. Most of the world believes in newer modes of political thought, in philosophies that do not accept the individual as distinct from and prior to the State, in philosophies that therefore do not provide any justification for the idea of human rights and philosophies that have no words by which to explain their value. If we destroy the words that were given to us by past centuries, we will not have words to replace them, for philosophy today has no such words. But there are those of us who have not forsaken these older words, still so new to much of the world. Not forsaken them now, not here, not anywhere, not ever. The United States of America declares that it does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act.”
24:35

50 years ago yesterday: U.N. General Assembly adopts initial draft resolution declaring Zionism to be “a form of racism.” U.S. Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan delivered this historic speech when the infamous act was ratified on Nov. 10, 1975: 🇺🇸 “There appears to have developed in the United Nations the practice for a number of countries to combine for the purpose of doing something outrageous, and thereafter, the outrageous thing having been done, to profess themselves outraged by those who have the temerity to point it out, and subsequently to declare themselves innocent of any wrong-doing in consequence of its having been brought about wholly in reaction to the “insufferable” acts of those who pointed the wrong-doing out in the first place. Out of deference to these curious sensibilities, the United States chose not to speak in advance of this vote: we speak in its aftermath and in tones of the utmost concern. The United States rises to declare before the General Assembly of the United Nations, and before the world, that it does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act. Not three weeks ago, the United States Representative in the Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural Committee pleaded in measured and fully considered terms for the United Nations not to do this thing. It was, he said, “obscene.” It is something more today, for the furtiveness with which this obscenity first appeared among us has been replaced by a shameless openness. There will be time enough to contemplate the harm this act will have done the United Nations. Historians will do that for us, and it is sufficient for the moment only to note the foreboding fact. A great evil has been loosed upon the world. The abomination of anti-semitism — as this year’s Nobel Peace Laureate Andrei Sakharov observed in Moscow just a few days ago — the Abomination of anti-semitism has been given the appearance of international sanction. The General Assembly today grants symbolic amnesty — and more — to the murderers of the six million European Jews. Evil enough in itself, but more ominous by far is the realization that now presses upon us — the realization that if there were no General Assembly, this could never have happened. As this day will live in infamy, it behooves those who sought to avert it to declare their thoughts so that historians will know that we fought here, that we were not small in number — not this time — and that while we lost, we fought with full knowledge of what indeed would be lost. Nor should any historian of the event, nor yet any who have participated in it, suppose, that we have fought only as governments, as chancelleries, and on an issue well removed from the concerns of our respective peoples. Others will speak for their nations: I will speak for mine. In all our postwar history there had not been another issue which has brought forth such unanimity of American opinion. The President of the United States has from the first been explicit: This must not happen. The Congress of the United States in a measure unanimously adopted in the Senate and sponsored by 436 of 437 Representatives in the House, declared its utter opposition. Following only American Jews themselves, the American trade union movements was first to the fore in denouncing this infamous undertaking. Next, one after another, the great private institutions of American life pronounced anathema in this evil thing — and most particularly, the Christian churches have done so. Reminded that the United Nations was born in struggle against just such abominations as we are committing today — the wartime alliance of the United Nations dates from 1942 — the United Nations Association of the United States has for the first time in its history appealed directly to each of the 141 other delegations in New York not to do this unspeakable thing. The proposition to be sanctioned by a resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations is that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.” Now this is a lie. But as it is a lie which the United Nations has now declared to be a truth, the actual truth must be restated. The very first point to be made is that the United Nations has declared Zionism to be racism — without ever having defined racism. “Sentence first — verdict afterwards,” as the Queen of Hearts said. But this is not wonderland, but a real world, where there are real consequences to folly and to venality. Just on Friday, the President of the General Assembly, speaking on behalf of Luxembourg, warned not only of the trouble which would follow from the adoption of this resolution but of its essential irresponsibility — for, he noted, members have wholly different ideas as to what they are condemning. “It seems to me that before a body like this takes a decision they should agree very clearly on what they are approving or condemning, and it takes more time.” Lest I be unclear, the United Nations has in fact on several occasions defined “racial discrimination.” The definitions have been loose, but recognizable. It is “racism,” incomparably the more serious charge — racial discrimination is a practice; racism is a doctrine — which has never been defined. Indeed, the term has only recently appeared in the United Nations General Assembly documents. The one occasion on which we know the meaning to have been discussed was the 1644th meeting of the Third Committee on December 16, 1968, in connection with the report of the Secretary-General on the status of the international convention on the elimination of all racial discrimination. On that occasion — to give some feeling for the intellectual precision with which the matter was being treated — the question arose, as to what should be the relative positioning of the terms “racism” and “Nazism” in a number of the “preambular paragraphs.” The distinguished delegate from Tunisia argued that “racism” should go first because “Nazism was merely a form of racism.” Not so, said the no less distinguished delegate from the Union Soviet Socialist Republics. For, he explained, “Nazism contained the main elements of racism within its ambit and should be mentioned first.” This is to say that racism was merely a form of Nazism. The discussion wound to its weary and inconclusive end, and we are left with nothing to guide us for even this one discussion of “racism” confined itself to world orders in preambular paragraphs, and did not at all touch on the meaning of the words as such. Still, one cannot but ponder the situation we have made for ourselves in the context of the Soviet statement on that not so distant occasion. If, as the distinguished delegate declared, racism is a form of Nazism — and if, as this resolution declares, Zionism is a form of racism — then we have step to step taken ourselves to the point of proclaiming — the United Nations is solemnly proclaiming — that Zionism is a form of Nazism. What we have here is a lie — a political lie of a variety well known to the twentieth century, and scarcely exceeded in all that annal of untruth and outrage. The lie is that Zionism is a form of racism. The overwhelmingly clear truth is that is it not. The word “racism” is a creation of the English language, and relatively new to it. It is not, for instance, to be found in the Oxford English Dictionary (appears in 1982 supplement to Oxford Dictionary). The term derives from relatively new doctrines — all of them discredited — concerning the human population of the world, to the effect that there are significant biological differences among clearly identifiable groups, and that these differences establish, in effect, different levels of humanity. Racism, as defined in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, is “The Assumption that . . . traits and capacities are determined by biological race and that races differ decisively from one another.” It further involves “a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its right to dominate over others.” This meaning is clear. It is equally clear that this assumption, this belief, has always been altogether alien to the political and religious movement known as Zionism. As a strictly political movement, Zionism was established only in 1897, although there is a clearly legitimate sense in which its origins are indeed ancient. For example, many branches of Christianity have always held that from the standpoint of biblical prophets, Israel would be reborn one day. But the modern Zionism movement arose in Europe in the context of a general upsurge of national consciousness and aspiration that overtook most other people of Central and Eastern Europe after 1848, and that in time spread to all of Africa and Asia. It was, to those persons of the Jewish religion, a Jewish form of what today is called a national liberation movement. Probably a majority of those persons who became active Zionists and sought to emigrate to Palestine were born within the confines of Czarist Russia, and it was only natural for Soviet Prime Minister Andrei Gromyko to deplore, as he did in 1948, in the 299th meeting of the Security Council, the act by Israel’s neighbors of “sending troops into Palestine and carrying out military operations aimed” — in Mr. Gromyko’s words — at the suppression of the national liberation movement in Palestine.” Now it was the singular nature — if, I am not mistaken, it was the unique nature — of this national liberation movement that in contrast with the movements that preceded it, those of that time, and those that have come since, it defined its members in terms not of birth, but of belief. That is to say, it was not a movement of the Irish to free Ireland, or of the Polish to free Poland, not a movement of the Algerians to free Algeria, nor of Indians to free India. It was not a movement of persons connected by historic membership to a genetic pool of the kind that enables us to speak loosely but not meaninglessly, say, of the Chinese people, nor yet of diverse groups occupying the same territory which enables us to speak if the American people with no greater indignity to truth. To the contrary, Zionists defined themselves merely as Jews, and declared to be Jewish anyone born of a Jewish mother or — and this is the absolutely crucial fact — anyone who converted to Judaism. Which is to say, in terms of International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted by the 20th General Assembly, anyone — regardless of “race, colour, descent, or nationally or ethnic origin …..” The state of Israel, which in time was the creation of the Zionist Movement, has been extraordinary in nothing so much as the range of “racial stocks” from which it Orient and Jew from the West. Most such persons could be said to have been “born” Jewish, just as most Presbyterians and most Hindus are “born” to their faith, but there are many Jews who are just converts. With a consistency in the matter which surely attests to the importance of this issue to that religions and political culture, Israeli courts have held that a Jew who converts to another religion is no longer a Jew. In the meantime the population of Israel also includes large numbers of non-Jews, among them Arabs of both the Muslim and Christian religions and Christians of other national origins. Many of these persons are citizens of Israel, and those who are not can become citizens by legal procedures very much like those which obtain in a typical nation of Western Europe. Now I should wish to be understood that I am here making one point, and one point only, which is that whatever else Zionism may be, it is not and cannot be “a form of racism.” In logic, the State of Israel could be, or could become, many things, theoretically, including many things undesirable, but it could not be and could not become racism unless it ceased to be Zionist. Indeed, the idea that Jews are a “race” was invented not by Jews but by those who hated Jews. The idea of Jews as a race was invented by nineteenth century anti-semites such as Houston Steward Chamberlain and Edouard Drumont, who saw that in an increasingly secular age, which is to say an age made for fewer distinctions between people, the old religions grounds for anti-semitism were losing force. New justifications were needed for excluding and persecuting Jews, and so the new idea of Jews as a race — rather than as a religion — was born. It was a contemptible idea at the beginning, and no civilized person would be associated with it. To think that it is an idea now endorsed by the United Nations is to reflect on what civilization has come to. It is precisely a concern for civilization, for civilized values that are or should be precious to all mankind, that arouses us at this moment to such special passion. What we have at stake here is not merely the honor and the legitimacy of the State of Israel — although a challenge to the legitimacy of any member nation ought always to arouse the vigilance of all members of the United Nations. For a yet more important matter is at issue, which is the integrity of the whole body of moral and legal precepts which we know as human rights. The terrible lie that has been told here today will have terrible consequences. Not only will people begin to say, indeed they have already begun to say that the United Nations is a place where lies are told, but far more serious, grave and perhaps irreparable harm will be done to the cause of human rights itself. The harm will arise first because it will strip from racism the precise and abhorrent meaning that it still precariously holds today. How will the people of the world feel about racism and the need to struggle against it, when they are told that it is an idea as broad as to include the Jewish national liberation movement? As the lie spreads, it will do harm in a second way. Many of the members of the United Nations owe their independence in no small part to the notion of human rights, as it has spread from the domestic sphere to the international sphere exercised its influence over the old colonial powers. We are now coming into a time when that independence is likely to be threatened again. There will be new forces, some of them arising now, new prophets and new despots, who will justify their actions with the help of just such distortions of words as we have sanctioned here today. Today we have drained the word “racism” of its meaning. Tomorrow, terms like “national self-determination” and “national honor” will be perverted in the same way to serve the purposes of conquest and exploitation. And when these claims begin to be made — as they already have begun to be made — it is the small nations of the world whose integrity will suffer. And how will the small nations of the world defend themselves, on what grounds will others be moved to defend and protect them, when the language of human rights, the only language by which the small can be defended, is no longer believed and no longer has a power of its own? There is this danger, and then a final danger that is the most serious of all. Which is that the damage we now do to the idea of human rights and the language of human rights could well be irreversible. The idea of human rights as we know it today is not an idea which has always existed in human affairs, it is an idea which appeared at a specific time in the world, and under very special circumstances. It appeared when European philosophers of the seventeenth century began to argue that man was a being whose existence was independent from that of the State, that he need join a political community only if he did not lose by that association more than he gained. From this very specific political philosophy stemmed the idea of political rights, of claims that the individual could justly make against the state; it was because the individual was seen as so separate from the State that he could make legitimate demands upon it. That was the philosophy from which the idea of domestic and international rights sprang. But most of the world does not hold with that philosophy now. Most of the world believes in newer modes of political thought, in philosophies that do not accept the individual as distinct from and prior to the State, in philosophies that therefore do not provide any justification for the idea of human rights and philosophies that have no words by which to explain their value. If we destroy the words that were given to us by past centuries, we will not have words to replace them, for philosophy today has no such words. But there are those of us who have not forsaken these older words, still so new to much of the world. Not forsaken them now, not here, not anywhere, not ever. The United States of America declares that it does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act.”

Hillel Neuer

68,720 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten