It’s very simple, but very difficult to see that any political, legal or economic structure are comprehending it and if they do not comprehend it in our lifetime they and us we risk planetary suicide, murder and death.
destruction of the natural environment, especially when deliberate.”their crime is nothing less than attempted ecocide”
Why should this be the number one problem in a world full of problems.
Well I belive that with out an organic living breathing earth we will no longer have the bedrock to solve any and all other problems.
You can’t decide who lives and dies on a planet where everyone is dead and right now like no time ever, ecodide threatens to consume this planet.
Mass damage and destruction of nature is taking place globally. And right now, it’s legally permitted. We call it ECOCIDE and we’re working to make it an INTERNATIONAL CRIME.
Join the growing movement of Earth Protectors to help make this happen.
The Tiananmen Square protests or the Tiananmen Square Incident, commonly known as the June Fourth Incident (Chinese: 六四事件; pinyin: liùsì shìjiàn, literally the six-four incident) in mainland China, were student-led demonstrations held in Tiananmen Square in Beijing during 1989. The popular national movement inspired by the Beijing protests is sometimes called the ’89 Democracy Movement (Chinese: 八九民運; pinyin: bājiǔ mínyùn). The protests started on April 15 and were forcibly suppressed on June 4 when the government declared martial law and sent the military to occupy central parts of Beijing. In what became known as the Tiananmen Square Massacre (Chinese: 天安門大屠殺; pinyin: tiān’ānmén dà túshā), troops with assault rifles and tanks fired at the demonstrators and those trying to block the military’s advance into Tiananmen Square. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded.[2][3][4][5][6][7]
Set off by the death of pro-reform Communist general secretary Hu Yaobang in April 1989, amid the backdrop of rapid economic development and social changes in post-Mao China, the protests reflected anxieties about the country’s future in the popular consciousness and among the political elite. The reforms of the 1980s had led to a nascent market economy which benefited some people but seriously disaffected others, and the one-party political system also faced a challenge of legitimacy. Common grievances at the time included inflation, corruption, limited preparedness of graduates for the new economy,[8] and restrictions on political participation. The students called for greater accountability, constitutional due process, democracy, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech, although they were highly disorganized and their goals varied.[9][10] At the height of the protests, about 1 million people assembled in the Square.[11]
As the protests developed, the authorities responded with both conciliatory and hardline tactics, exposing deep divisions within the party leadership.[12] By May, a student-led hunger strike galvanized support for the demonstrators around the country, and the protests spread to some 400 cities.[13] Ultimately, Deng Xiaoping and other Communist Partyelders believed the protests to be a political threat and resolved to use force.[14][15] The State Council declared martial law on May 20 and mobilized as many as 300,000 troops to Beijing.[13] The troops advanced into central parts of Beijing on the city’s major thoroughfares in the early morning hours of June 4, killing both demonstrators and bystanders in the process.
The international community, human rights organizations, and political analysts condemned the Chinese government for the massacre. Western countries imposed arms embargoes on China.[16] The Chinese government made widespread arrests of protesters and their supporters, suppressed other protests around China, expelled foreign journalists, strictly controlled coverage of the events in the domestic press, strengthened the police and internal security forces, and demoted or purged officials it deemed sympathetic to the protests.[17] More broadly, the suppression ended the political reforms since 1986 and halted the policies of liberalization in the 1980s, which were only resumed partly after Deng Xiaoping’s Southern Tour in 1992.[18][19][20] Considered a watershed event, the protests set the limits on political expression in China up to the present day.[21] Its memory is widely associated with questioning the legitimacy of Communist Party rule and remains one of the most sensitive and most widely censored topics in China.
I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words “Equal Justice Under Law” are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand-one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values-our values as people and our values as a nation.
When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens-much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.
We must reject any thinking of our cities as a “battlespace” that our uniformed military is called upon to “dominate.” At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict-a false conflict between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part. Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them.
James Madison wrote in Federalist 14 that “America united with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat.” We do not need to militarize our response to protests. We need to unite around a common purpose. And it starts by guaranteeing that all of us are equal before the law.
Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that “The Nazi slogan for destroying us…was `Divide and Conquer.’ Our American answer is `In Union there is Strength.” We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis-confident that we are better than our politics.
Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people- does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.
We can come through this trying time stronger, and with a renewed sense of purpose and respect for one another. The pandemic has shown us that it is not only our troops who are willing to offer the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of the community. Americans in hospitals, grocery stores, post offices, and elsewhere have put their lives on the line in order to serve their fellow citizens and their country. We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution. At the same time, we must remember Lincoln’s “better angels,” and listen to them, as we work to unite.
Only by adopting a new path-which means, in truth, returning to the original path of our founding ideals-will we again be a country admired and respected at home and abroad.
No matter what your colour, creed or race to discriminate due to colour, creed or race will only lead to hate
hate/heɪt/ Learn to pronounce verbverb: hate; 3rd person present: hates; past tense: hated; past participle: hated; gerund or present participle: hating
feel intense dislike for.”the boys hate each other” h Similar:loathe
detest dislike greatly abhorabominate despise execrate feel aversion towards feel revulsion towards feel hostile towards be repelled by be revolted by regard with disgust not be able to bear/standbe unable to stomach find intolerable shudder atrecoil from shrink from hate someone’s guts disrelish h Opposite : love like
have a strong aversion to (something).”he hates flying”
used politely to express one’s regret or embarrassment at doing something.”I hate to bother you” h Similar:be sorry
be reluctant be loath be unwilling be disinclined regret dislike not like
hesitate
informal express strong dislike for; criticize or abuse.”I can’t hate on them for trying something new”
nounnoun: hate
intense dislike.”feelings of hate and revenge” h Similar:loathing
denoting hostile actions motivated by intense dislike or prejudice.modifier noun: hate“a hate campaign”
informalan intensely disliked person or thing.plural noun: hates“Richard’s pet hate is filling in his tax returns” h Similar:bugbear
bane bogey buga boopet aversion thorn in one’s flesh/sidebane of one’s lifebête noire
h Opposite:favourite thing
Origin
Religious views of Adolf Hitler
Adolf Hitler’s religious beliefs have been a matter of debate. Historians regard Hitler as having anti-Christian[1] and anti-atheist views.[2]
Hitler was born to a practicing Catholic mother, and was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church. In 1904, he was confirmed at the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Linz, Austria, where the family lived.[3] According to John Willard Toland, witnesses indicate that Hitler’s confirmation sponsor had to “drag the words out of him … almost as though the whole confirmation was repugnant to him”.[4] Rissmann notes that, according to several witnesses who lived with Hitler in a men’s home in Vienna, he never again attended Mass or received the sacraments after leaving home at 18 years old.[5]
In his book Mein Kampf and in public speeches prior to and in the early years of his rule, Hitler expressed himself as a Christian.[6][7][8] Hitler and the Nazi party promoted “Positive Christianity“,[9] a movement which rejected most traditional Christian doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus, as well as Jewish elements such as the Old Testament.[10][11] In one widely quoted remark, he described Jesus as an “Aryan fighter” who struggled against “the power and pretensions of the corrupt Pharisees”[12] and Jewish materialism.[13] In his private diaries, Goebbels wrote in April 1941 that though Hitler was “a fierce opponent” of the Vatican and Christianity, “he forbids me to leave the church. For tactical reasons.”[14]
It Shoots Further Than He Dreams by John F. Knott, March 1918.
The phrase “violence begets violence” (or “hate begets hate”) means that violent behaviour promotes other violent behaviour, in return. The phrase has been used since the 1830s.[1]
Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love… Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate the white man, but to win his friendship and understanding.[6]
What does Lady Liberty represent? The Statue of Liberty stands in Upper New York Bay, a universal symbol of freedom. Originally conceived as an emblem of the friendship between the people of France and the U.S. and a sign of their mutual desire for liberty, over the years the Statue has become much more.
The statue is a figure of Libertas, a robed Roman liberty goddess. She holds a torch above her head with her right hand, and in her left hand carries a tabula ansata inscribed JULY IV MDCCLXXVI (July 4, 1776 in Roman numerals), the date of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. A broken shackle and chain lie at her feet as she walks forward, commemorating the recent national abolition of slavery.[8] After its dedication, the statue became an icon of freedom and of the United States, seen as a symbol of welcome to immigrants arriving by sea.
1. the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.”we do have some freedom of choice” h Similar:right to
entitlement to privilege prerogative due
absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government. “he was a champion of Irish freedom” h Similar:independence
self-government self-determination self-legislation self rule home rule sovereignty autonomy autarky democracy self-sufficiency individualism separation non-alignment emancipation enfranchisement manumission h Opposite:dependence the power of self-determination attributed to the will; the quality of being independent of fate or necessity. h Similar: scope latitude leeway margin flexibility facility space breathing space room elbow room licence leave free reina free hand leisure carte blanche
h Opposite:restriction
2. the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.”the shark thrashed its way to freedom” h Similar: liberty liberation release emancipation deliverance delivery dischargenon-confinemen textrication amnesty pardoning manumission disenthralment h Opposite:captivity
the state of being unrestricted and able to move easily.”the shorts have a side split for freedom of movement”
unrestricted use of something.”the dog has the freedom of the house when we are out”
3. the state of not being subject to or affected by (something undesirable).”government policies to achieve freedom from want” h Similar: exemption immunity dispensation exception exclusion release relief reprieve absolution exoneration impunity letting offa let-offderogation h Opposite:liability4. Britisha special privilege or right of access, especially that of full citizenship of a city granted to a public figure as an honour.”he accepted the freedom of the City of Glasgow”5. archaicfamiliarity or openness in speech or behaviour. h Similar: naturalness openness lack of reserve/inhibition casualness informality lack of ceremony spontaneity ingenuousness impudence familiarity over familiarity presumption forwardness
cheek
Origin
Old English frēodōm (see free, -dom).Translate freedom toUse over time for: Freedom
Freedom Tree, Elizabeth Marina, St. Helier, Great Britain
Food for thought!
Ask not what you can do to your country but what your country can do to you.
President Trump is no Kennedy but let your country have a Future and your children have a Mother or Father an Uncle or an Aunt a Grandparent or guide or most importantly let your future seed have a life.
Ich bin ein Berliner
“Ich bin ein Berliner“ (German pronunciation: [ˈʔɪç ˈbɪn ʔaɪn bɛɐ̯ˈliːnɐ], “I am a Berliner“) is a speech by United States PresidentJohn F. Kennedy given on June 26, 1963, in West Berlin. It is widely regarded as the best-known speech of the Cold War and the most famous anti-communist speech. Kennedy aimed to underline the support of the United States for West Germany 22 months after Soviet-occupied East Germany erected the Berlin Wall to prevent mass emigration to the West. The message was aimed as much at the Soviets as it was at Berliners and was a clear statement of U.S. policy in the wake of the construction of the Berlin Wall. Another phrase in the speech was also spoken in German, “Lasst sie nach Berlin kommen” (“Let them come to Berlin”), addressed at those who claimed “we can work with the Communists”, a remark at which Nikita Khrushchev scoffed only days later.
The speech is considered one of Kennedy’s best, both a notable moment of the Cold War and a high point of the New Frontier. It was a great morale boost for West Berliners, who lived in an enclave deep inside East Germany and feared a possible East German occupation. Speaking from a platform erected on the steps of Rathaus Schöneberg for an audience of 120,000, Kennedy said,
I see the U.S.A. as the heart of the free world. With Covin-19, your President’s volatile nature where he bates and try’s to control or cancel all and any he see as his opposites or enemies, along with the recent protests over the death of George Floyd. The heart of the free world is really taking a heart beating and palpitating close to having a full on cardiac arrest.
I never wanted to visit the U.S.A. it always looked too dangerous, too scary and finally too expensive. But some of its people that I meet on the World Wide Web are hugely inspiring and influence my views and perspective on life. They appear if in the realms of fantasy and fiction like living legends, earth angels and walking saints.
So in essence the U.S.A is a paradox.
Paradox/ˈparədɒks/ Learn to pronounce nounnoun: paradox; plural noun: paradoxes
a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.
Throughout the history of the free world it has many times thought led and beaten back all in the name of freedom. Free thought, free economicsish (ok but true freedom should be a freedom to purchase the perfect product for example clean water not just the right to flog any old shit to anyone i.e. dirty chemically polluted water). Plus your normal lack of safety netting for those that need support to stand up and get back into the economy is just downright destructive to all.
When the U.S.A gifts freedoms to corporations it has forgotten or refused to equally gift both rights and responsibilities of not being ripped off, persecuted, shot, stolen from or killed to its own citizens regardless of race, creed or colour.
Universal suffrage (also called universal franchise, general suffrage, and common suffrage of the common man) gives the right to vote to all adult citizens, regardless of wealth, income, gender, social status, race, ethnicity, or any other restriction, subject only to relatively minor exceptions.[1][2] In its original 19th-century usage by reformers in Britain, universal suffrage was understood to mean only universal manhood suffrage; the vote was extended to women later, during the women’s suffrage movement.[3][4]
There are variations among countries in terms of specifics of the right to vote; the minimum age is usually between 18 and 25 years (see age of majority) and “the insane, certain classes of convicted criminals, and those punished for certain electoral offenses” sometimes lack the right to vote.[2]
In the first modern democracies, governments restricted the vote to those with property and wealth, which almost always meant a minority of the male population.[5] In some jurisdictions, other restrictions existed, such as requiring voters to practice a given religion.[6] In all modern democracies, the number of people who could vote has increased progressively with time.[7][8] The 19th century saw many movements advocating “universal [male] suffrage”, most notably in Europe, Great Britain and North America.[9][10]
A retort is a short, clever response to someone’s comment or question. … Today retort is used as both a noun and a verb, and both come from 16th- and 17th-century sources meaning “to twist or turn back.” To retort is to make a comeback, or a quick, witty answer or remark.
What is the greater good?
Can Computers Become Conscious and Overcome Humans?
What would be a computers definition of the greater good?
“Cutting off the nose to spite the face” is an expression to describe a needlessly self-destructive over-reaction to a problem: “Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face” is a warning against acting out of pique, or against pursuing revenge in a way that would damage oneself more than the object of one’s anger.
So President Trump claims wrongly the following in a fecking tweet!
Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump·….Twitter is completely stifling FREE SPEECH, and I, as President, will not allow it to happen!
The morons over reaction are to then, yep you have guessed it; threaten to shut down free speech. In other words. He claims he will do the very thing he is upset about. He claims they are stifling his FREE SPEECH so his reaction is to stifle everyone’s free speech. What a moron. It’s like he says because you will no longer entitle me to blatantly lie on social media then I isn’t going to let the world use social media.
Can you imagine the shit storm that would cause if he somehow tried to do what the moron is threatening? It would be most amusing.
His devil’s would most certainly be in his detail.
“The devil is in the detail” is an idiom that refers to a catch or mysterious element hidden in the details,[1] meaning that something might seem simple at a first look but will take more time and effort to complete than expected[2] and derives from the earlier phrase, “God is in the detail” expressing the idea that whatever one does should be done thoroughly; i.e. details are important.[1]
/https://public-media.si-cdn.com/filer/3b/7b/3b7b7627-b543-4c17-914a-6500a9a014c3/jones-fig-9_nine-african-american-women-w-nannie-burroughs.jpg)
