Visigoth Fontaine's Bookmarks tagged people → View Popular

You are here: Diigo Home > Visigoth Fontaine's Bookmarks

Expand All 1 - 20 of 25 Next ›

24Expand

600 Year Old Amazon Mummies of the Chachapoyas Caught In Terror

Tags: peru, south-america, amazon, cloud-warriors, people, chachapoya, inca, spaniards, warriors, kuelap, andes, european-origin on 2008-07-06 -All Annotations (0) -About

in list: Spanish-Americas, ANCIENT AMERICAS

more fromwww.redicecreations.com

600 Year Old Amazon Mummies of the Chachapoyas Caught In Terror
2007 01 13


From: thisislondon.co.uk
Hands over her eyes and her face gripped with terror, the woman's fear of death is all too obvious.
The remarkable mummy was found in a hidden burial vault in the Amazon.
It is at least 600 years old and has survived thanks to the embalming skills of her tribe, the Chachapoyas or cloud warriors.
Eleven further mummies were recovered from the massive cave complex 82ft down.
The vault - which was also used for worship - was chanced upon three months ago by a farmer working at the edge of northern Peru's rainforest.
He tipped off scientists who uncovered ceramics, textiles and wall paintings.
The Chachapoyas were a tall, fairhaired, light-skinned race that some researchers believe may have come from Europe.
Little is known about them except that they were one of the more advanced ancient civilisations in the area.
Adept at fighting, they commanded a large kingdom from the year 800 to 1500 that stretched across the Andes.
It is not known what the Chachapoyas actually called themselves - they are identified by the name given to them by their rivals and eventual conquerors, the Incas.
It comes from the Inca's Quechua language and means 'cloud people', because of the high forests in the clouds that the Chachapoyas inhabited.
Virtually all record of the tribe was lost when the Incas were themselves overrun by the Spanish conquistadors who landed in 1512
They have, however, left behind a spectacular citadel, called Kuelap, 10,000ft up in the Andes.
It has more than 400 buildings and defensive towers, many of them with decorated walls, cornices and friezes.
Some experts rate Kuelap more highly than the Incan ruins at Machu Picchu.
Herman Crobera, the leader of the archaeological team that explored the cave, said: 'This is a discovery of transcendental importance.
'It is the first time any kind of underground burial site this size has been found belonging to Chachapoyas or other cultures in the region.'
He said walls near the mummies in the limestone cave were covered with paintings of faces and warriorlike figures which may have been drawn to ward off intruders and evil spirits.
'The remote site for this cemetery tells us that the Chachapoyas had enormous respect for their ancestors because they hid them away for protection,' added Mr Crobera.
'Locals call the cave Iyacyecuj, or enchanted water, because of its spiritual importance and its underground rivers.'
The archaeologists have not yet established an accurate age for their finds.
Once they have finished exploring and excavating the tomb, Peruvian authorities want to turn it into a museum. The mummies are going on show at the Museum of the Nation in the capital Lima.

45Expand

POLITICS-U.S.: Strong Must Rule the Weak, said Neo-Cons' Muse

Tags: leo-strauss, neocons, u.s.-policy, lies, people, republican-party, george-w-bush, fascism, plato, elite, shadia-drury, america on 2008-07-03 -All Annotations (20) -About

in list: NWO-USA, POLITICAL Criminal CLASS

more fromwww.ipsnews.net

POLITICS-U.S.: Strong Must Rule the Weak, said Neo-Cons' Muse
Analysis - By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, May 7 (IPS) - Is U.S. foreign policy being run by followers of an obscure German Jewish political philosopher whose views were elitist, amoral and hostile to democratic government?
Add Sticky Note
- A wise individual told me in 1993 that the future world order to which the Antichrist would rule from would be "fascist" on the order of Hitler's Germany. Imagine Hitler's Germany in control of the world. This observation given to me in 1993 was long before most had heard of the Neocons or Leo Strauss except for a small handful of scholars and political scientists. Remarkable now that we see all over the shadow and in some instances, the substance of an application of Nazi/Fascist governance in the United States as well in Europe.
  posted by visigoth on 2008-07-03 13:00:37
Suddenly, political Washington is abuzz about Leo Strauss, who arrived in the United States in 1938 and taught at several major universities before his death in 1973.
Thanks to the ”Week in Review'' section of last Sunday's 'New York Times' and another investigative article in this week's 'New Yorker' magazine, the cognoscenti have suddenly been made aware that key neo-conservative strategists behind the Bush administration's aggressive foreign and military policy consider themselves to be followers of Strauss, although the philosopher - an expert on Plato and Aristotle - rarely addressed current events in his writings.
The most prominent is Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, now widely known as ''Wolfowitz of Arabia'' for his obsession with ousting Iraq's Saddam Hussein as the first step in transforming the entire Arab Middle East.
Wolfowitz is also seen as the chief architect of Washington's post-9/11 global strategy, including its controversial pre-emption policy.
Two other very influential Straussians include 'Weekly Standard' Chief Editor William Kristol and Gary Schmitt, founder, chairman and director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC),
a six-year-old neo-conservative group whose alumni include Vice President Dick Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, as well as a number of other senior foreign policy officials.
PNAC's early prescriptions and subsequent open letters to President George W. Bush on how to fight the war on terrorism have anticipated to an uncanny extent precisely what the administration has done.
Kristol's father Irving, the godfather of neo-conservatism who sits on the board of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) where a number of prominent hawks, including former Defence Policy Board chairman Richard Perle, are based, has also credited Strauss with being one of the main influences on his thinking.
While the Times article introduced readers to Strauss and his disciples in Washington, interest was further piqued this week by a lengthy article by The New Yorker's legendary investigative reporter, Seymour Hersh, who noted that Abram Shulsky, a close Perle associate who has run a special intelligence unit in Rumsfeld's office, is also a Straussian.
Add Sticky Note
- Nazis...American style.
  posted by visigoth on 2008-07-03 13:03:35
His unit, according to Hersh, re-interpreted evidence of Iraq's alleged links to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network and possession of weapons of mass destruction to support those in the administration determined to go to war with Baghdad.
The article also identified Stephen Cambone, one of Rumsfeld's closest aides who heads the new post of undersecretary of defence for intelligence, as a Strauss follower.
In his article, Hersh wrote that Strauss believed the world to be a place where ''isolated liberal democracies live in constant danger from hostile elements abroad'', and where policy advisers may have to deceive their own publics and even their rulers in order to protect their countries.
Shadia Drury, author of 1999's 'Leo Strauss and the American Right', says Hersh is right on the second count but dead wrong on the first.
''Strauss was neither a liberal nor a democrat,'' she said in a telephone interview from her office at the University of Calgary in Canada.
''Perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical (in Strauss's view) because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them.''
Add Sticky Note
- And did we not fight a revolution over two centuries ago to cast off and be rid of such political thuggery?
  posted by visigoth on 2008-07-03 13:05:37
''The Weimar Republic (in Germany) was his model of liberal democracy for which he had huge contempt,'' added Drury. Liberalism in Weimar, in Strauss's view, led ultimately to the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews.
Like Plato, Strauss taught that within societies, ''some are fit to lead, and others to be led'', according to Drury. But, unlike Plato, who believed that leaders had to be people with such high moral standards that they could resist the temptations of power, Strauss thought that ''those who are fit to rule are those who realise there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior''.
Add Sticky Note
- It still anazes me that as an Evangelical Christian, the vast majority of my fellows went blindly and ignorantly after George W. Bush and his henchmen and worst...voted again for the same crew in 2004. At that time and even today (though how much longer is debatable) information on the political philosophy of the Neocons and Leo Strauss was available for thr seeking. Intellectually lazy...and the nation is the worst for that ignorance and the Evangelicals who went blindly marching in step with the Neocons, will themselves rue the day.
  posted by visigoth on 2008-07-03 13:09:39
For Strauss, ''religion is the glue that holds society together'', said Drury, who added that Irving Kristol, among other neo-conservatives, has argued that separating church and state was the biggest mistake made by the founders of the U.S. republic.
Add Sticky Note
- Therefore..the hypocrisy of appealing to the Evangelicals as if the deceptive Neocons were one with the Christian Right. Satan must be laughing uncontrollably at the folly of the Church.
  posted by visigoth on 2008-07-03 13:11:15
''Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing'', because it leads to individualism, liberalism and relativism, precisely those traits that might encourage dissent, which in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats.
Add Sticky Note
- I have not researched how many Roman Catholics set up their tents beneath the Neocon banner but this statement should appeal to historic Roman Catholicism. SEE: the Roman Church and European secular rulers.
  posted by visigoth on 2008-07-03 13:13:41
''You want a crowd that you can manipulate like putty,'' according to Drury.
Strauss was also strongly influenced by Thomas Hobbes. Like Hobbes, he thought the fundamental aggressiveness of human nature could be restrained only through a powerful state based on nationalism.
''Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed,'' he once wrote. ''Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united - and they can only be united against other people''.
''Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat,'' Drury wrote in her book. ''Following Machiavelli, he maintains that if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured.
Had he lived to see the collapse of the Soviet Union, he would have been deeply troubled because the collapse of the 'evil empire' poses a threat to America's inner stability.''
Add Sticky Note
- Thus the "Al Qaeda" threat...
  posted by visigoth on 2008-07-03 13:15:09
''In Strauss' view, you have to fight all the time (to survive),'' said Drury. ''In that respect, it's very Spartan.
Peace leads to decadence.
Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in.'
Add Sticky Note
- SEE: John McCain's "100 years war" in Iraq statement. Now do you understand? McCain, no matter what he says or how he tries to distance himself from Bush, is a Neocon.
  posted by visigoth on 2008-07-03 13:16:47
Such views naturally lead to an ''aggressive, belligerent foreign policy'', she added.
As for what a Straussian world order might look like, Drury said the philosopher often talked about Jonathan Swift's story of Gulliver and the Lilliputians. ''When Lilliput was on fire, Gulliver urinated over the city, including the palace. In so doing, he saved all of Lilliput from catastrophe, but the Lilliputians were outraged and appalled by such a show of disrespect.''
For Strauss, the act demonstrates both the superiority and the isolation of the leader within a society and, presumably, the leading country vis-a-vis the rest of the world.
Add Sticky Note
- And this would explain George W.'s stubborn and uncorrected course these past 7 and 1/2 years. But I believe given George's less than sharp intellect, he has had to receive coaching and propping from Dick Cheney to maintain the Neocon course inspite of record setting unpopularity at home and abroad.
  posted by visigoth on 2008-07-03 13:19:24
Drury suggests it is ironic, but not inconsistent with Strauss' ideas about the necessity for elites to deceive their citizens, that the Bush administration defends its anti-terrorist campaign by resorting to idealistic rhetoric.
''They really have no use for liberalism and democracy, but they're conquering the world in the name of liberalism and democracy,'' she said. (END/2003)
Add Sticky Note
- I see no irony here..It is simply the application of Strauss' formula that leaders should and ought to lie to the populace.
  posted by visigoth on 2008-07-03 13:20:37

58Expand

Germany and England by Nesta Webster - Chapter 4

Tags: agriculture, bolsheviks, capital, england, europe, fascists, greed, loss, marx, peasants, people, russia, sacrifice, socialism, socialists on 2008-03-09 -All Annotations (0) -About

in list: Conspiracy

more fromwww.sweetliberty.org

Germany and England

by: Nesta Webster

Chapter IV

BOLSHEVISM AND FASCISM
The defence of Czechoslovakia
having been only a pretext for the world war into which we have narrowly
escaped being plunged, and the destruction of the Dictatorships – other
of course than Stalin’s – its real object, let us consider the
nature of those systems which, at the cost of countless human lives and untold
suffering, it was held necessary to destroy.
On this subject most people
in our country depended for their information on the Press and especially
on the newspapers, which in the main opened their columns freely to anti-Fascist
views and firmly closed them on contrary opinions and even on authoritative
statements of fact.
England has thus become a gigantic
parrot house in which words pass from mouth to mouth without any comprehension
of the real issues at stake.
The analogy perfectly applies to the methods
employed. For in the teaching of a parrot the procedure is, I believe, to
place a thick cloth cover over its cage and then to go on clearly enunciating
the same phrases over and over again until it has learnt to repeat them of
its own accord.
This is precisely what has been
done to the British public;
it has been kept in the dark as to the truth
of world events and misleading statements have been made to it by the press
and by that whisper that the secret directors of world events well know how
to set in motion so that from the most raucous macaws down to gently twittering
budgerigars the same catch-phrases are obediently repeated.
The two most current and the
most absurd of these are

(a) that “Bolshevism is the outcome of
Fascism” and

(b) that “Bolshevism and Fascism are really
the same thing” and therefore equally to be fought.

(It will be noted, however,
that the people who say this seldom display any inclination to fight
Bolshevism.)
Now with regard to the first
phrase, that Bolshevism is the outcome of Fascism, history shows exactly
the contrary; no “Red” rising has ever followed on a system for
forcibly preserving law and order unless an attack had first been made on
that system by subversive forces.
From the French Revolution onwards
a “White Terror” has always been the sequel to a Red.
Fascism – under
which term for the sake of brevity we must here include Nazi-ism – was
both in Italy and Germany the reaction to the destructive activities of the
Communists.
And if in all such reactions
there has been an element of violence, it is because terrorism can only be
put down by counter-terrorism and a nation which has been kept in a state
of fear and subjection under a tyranny once know as Jacobin and now as Bolshevik,
inevitably turns with fury upon its oppressors as soon as its liberty has
been restored.
As a French historian has well
expressed it:

“Nothing is so terrible as those who have been
afraid and are afraid no longer!”
As to the second phrase, what
could be more ludicrous than to bracket Bolshevism and Fascism together?
The only point they have in common is that both are autocracies.
But the
police force is an autocracy, demanding unquestioning obedience from its
subordinate ranks; is that then a reason for bracketing it with a band of
Chicago gangsters who have to obey the murderous dictates of their leaders?
The difference between the two
is no greater than the difference between Bolshevism and Fascism.
For Bolshevism
is destructive of all that constitutes civilisation whilst Fascism sets out
to correct those parts of civilisation which, in common with all sincere
social reformers, it regards as defective.
A further and most important
difference between the two is that whilst Bolshevism seeks to spread its
doctrines all over the world and organises Communist Parties in every country,
working under the obedience of Moscow for the overthrow of constitutional
government and supplying them freely with funds, Fascism has never sought
to proselytise and has never been accused, even by its bitterest enemies,
of forming affiliations abroad or of financing any foreign group.
Indeed Mussolini, somewhat
egotistically, declared at the onset that Fascism was for Italy alone and
that Italians only were capable of comprehending its ideals. The various
groups of “British Fascists” became the butt of his pleasantries.
Hitler expressed himself in
much the same way with regard to Nazi-ism and in his insistence on
“race” and the superiority of the German race over any other
discouraged imitators. And that is only logical, since the essence of
Fascism and Nazi-ism is Nationalism, whilst that of Bolshevism is
Internationalism.
This being so why should Fascism
be continually denounced as a menace to this country whilst Bolshevism is
declared to be innocuous?
People who exclaim with an air of heroic determination:
“We will not have Fascism here!” are really making themselves supremely
ridiculous – they have never been asked to have it. But if the Italians
and Germans choose to have it what business is it of ours to interfere?
It
is this “governessing” of other nations with regard to their internal
arrangements as much as their foreign policy that led Hitler to
protest.
What then is this monstrous
thing against which we are warned, so repeatedly?
In Italy the word Fascism
is now seldom used since it signifies only the first point in Mussolini’s
programme – the suppression of Bolshevism in Italy, and that was
accomplished long ago.
Fascism was thus only a means to an end, and that
end was the establishment of “the Corporate State.”
This took place quite
constitutionally; the King remained on his throne, in fact it was he who,
after the march on Rome, sent for Mussolini and gave him full discretionary
powers.
After four years of reconstruction the Corporate State was created
in 1926 by an act of legislation.
Its principles are a system
built up on Trade Unions of organised labour on the one part, and Capitalism
on the other, and its object is to promote peaceful relations between the
two. Together they form a corporation or guild and enter into agreements
which cannot be infringed without rendering the defaulting party liable to
prosecution, so that Capital cannot tyrannise over Labour and Labour cannot
hold a pistol at the head of Capital.
Space forbids a fuller exposition
of the system, but that it is one which has contented the workers of Italy
is clearly apparent; at the same time it has forcibly suppressed the stirring
up of class hatred. For the same reason the Press is now not free.
When we observe the mischief-making
role of many of our newspapers, we cannot help wishing that Fleet Street
could be put under a like control.
In Germany the same ideals inspired
Hitler.
He himself, like Mussolini, had sprung from the ranks of the workers
and felt keenly the misery of their lot at the hands of heartless employers;
he felt too, as every thinking man must feel, the injustice between extreme
poverty and vast riches acquired by the exploiters of labour.
At the same
time he realised the wickedness and futility of the class war. For this reason
he hated Marxism, which he saw as “a world pestilence” to be destroyed
before any constructive new order could be introduced.
That both in Germany and Italy
immense reforms have been effected nobody can deny.
Agriculture has been
encouraged so as to provide the population with home-grown food – in
Germany at any rate superior to that which is to be found in Great
Britain* - and thus to render the country
self-supporting.
*G. Ward Price, “I Know These
Dictators,” p. 115, and confirmed to me on the day of writing this by
an English friend just returned from Bavaria who speaks with particular
enthusiasm of the marvellous vegetables grown there. Mr. Ward Price’s
book should be read by everyone who wishes to know the truth about Germany
and Italy under Hitler and Mussolini.
The housing problem has been
dealt with and slums abolished; the workers’ conditions of life have
been raised, their physique improved; holidays and amusements are provided
for them; and their self-respect is stimulated so that each worker feels
himself of value to the State.
How far this frame of mind will
last we cannot guess; the weakness of all Socialist schemes lies in the fact
that they depend on the degree of enthusiasm their originators are able to
keep up; all we can say now is that in both these countries the people as
a whole seem happy.
Undoubtedly in both, the new
order has pressed hardly on the upper classes, but why Socialists should
rave against it seems at first inexplicable.
The fact that the upper classes
are allowed to live in peace, provided they do some useful work for the State,
no doubt arouses the fury of the Bolshevik who holds that the hated bourgeois
should be “liquidated,” after perhaps having his eyes gouged out.
The fact that the drawing-room
Socialists, who disclaim all ideas of violence and have long preached the
doctrines which Hitler and Mussolini have put into practice, not only disapprove
but foam at the mouth when the names of the “Dictators” are mentioned,
suggests one or both of two conclusions – either that they do not really
wish for Socialism but adopt it as a pose, or that Socialism is a camouflage
for something else.
If it were not so they would
praise the Dictators’ social reforms, even if they condemned their methods
of government.
But no, the Dictators and their systems are condemned by them
as wholly evil.
It may be that both these
conclusions are correct.
The vast number of “Socialists” to be
found in drawing-rooms, universities, newspaper offices, etc., or whose ideas
are set forth in books well boomed by publishers and Press, are undoubtedly
actuated by the primitive instinct of self-preservation. They know that the
sort of stuff they talk and write will pay, and that to profess
“Left” views is the only way to a successful career. Of the real
doctrines of Socialism many of them know nothing.
But there are those who know.
And these are the secret directors of
world
revolution, who use Socialism and Communism alike in order to achieve
their real aim – world domination.
For this reason they stir up
strife between classes and nations. For this reason they hate “the
Dictators” who have rendered them powerless in the lands that the Dictators
control.
In order to judge of the influence
the Dictators exercise one has only to compare the effect on the character
of the populations rules respectively by Hitler and Mussolini and on the
other hand by Stalin:
in the first: hope and purpose; in the second: dull
despair; in the first: the friendly salute of the raised arm; in the second:
the clenched fist of hatred and blood lust.
The great evil of Marxism
lies in its appeal to the basest instincts of human nature – to self
interest, to greed and envy.
The only honest Socialist I
have ever talked with – who had known Marx personally and for this reason
detested him – used to say:

“We have not got to tell people what they would
gain by Socialism but to ask them what they are prepared to lose. True Socialism
means sacrifice, self-denial in the common sense".
This is the Socialism that both
Hitler and Mussolini have set out to inculcate and because the noblest instinct
in human nature is its passion for self-sacrifice, they have met with a
tremendous response: in Italy the women brought their wedding rings to help
the cause, in Germany families sit down contentedly to their single dish
meal once a month in aid of the Winter Relief Fund.
It is natural that the drawing-room
Socialists in our country would not enjoy this sort of thing at all.
It is
one thing to write and talk of the beauties of Socialism, it is quite another
to have to buy a cheaper make of car because some people are starving.
Still less can the Italian or
German systems please those who are using Socialism merely as a cover to
their own scheme of world domination.

44Expand

The Cult Of The Obamagogue

Tags: 1936, 2008, antichrist, barack-obama, candidate, cycles, democrat, demogogue, great-year, hitler, hysteria, people, president, seducer, usa, voters, yang, yin on 2008-03-01 -All Annotations (0) -About

in list: Politics USA

more fromwww.rense.com

The Cult Of The Obamagogue
Senator Barack Obama - The Great Seducer

In A New Age Run By Emotions

By John Hogue

3-1-8
A critical mass is approaching in US politics; the Obama
campaign may soon become a tsunami that washes away Senator Hillary Clinton's
last-ditch sea walls of support in primary runs in Texas and Ohio.
History's color is changing from mindful to emotive.
It happens every 36 years in what is called the day-night cycle of the
Cosmic Year.
This is the time it takes the Vernal Equinox position of the
sun -- moving ever so slightly westward with every new year in regards
to how it is seen from earth moving against inertial space - to circle
all the 12 constellations of the tropical zodiac: approximately 25,765
years.
A "day" on the Cosmic Calendar is a 36-year period of
history where decisions and actions are a little more mental in nuance
because like the sun soaked day it is a period of history in the yang.
It is masculine time. The last "day" began in the normal years
of 1972 -- 1973 and is ending in 2008.
Now we are entering a 36-year period
of history where decisions and actions are subtly more emotionally driven
because like moonlit night, we enter a period of history in the yin. It
is a feminine time.
Our emotions will be stronger. Leaders who skillfully
appeal to them will succeed more often than not to positions of power over
us from 2008 through 2044.
The pendulum of politics is swinging from yang to a yin
age.
It would appear now to be postponing or indeed preventing Hillary
Clinton's destiny to become president of the United States.
Though she
is a woman, and the coming feminine age will aid many more women coming
to power than ever before in history, she has chosen to speak in a voice
better suited to the Cosmic Day that had set.
Her appeals to voters are
through reason, facts, and the detailing of substance. She does not emotionally
inspire.
A candidate who is the more adroit demagogue
more easily manipulates the masses.
The word "demagogue" is defined in the American
Heritage Dictionary as "a leader who obtains power by means of impassioned
appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace."
What I am about to tell you requires in these emotionally
touchy times that I tread carefully with footfalls shaped in the right
words to keep advancing on the razors edge of reason. One verbal misstep
might see my point fall into the reader's hot stomach pit of emotionally
fanned fires.
We have two significant leaders, one thankfully extinguished
by history and one of audacious hope on the rise, both at the dawn of two
Cosmic Nights -