National arrest inquiry
ROBE LOCKS
2018.06.03 02:11 P1ac3h01d3r ROBE LOCKS
roblxo
2012.11.29 11:56 The310Investigator Investigations: News Uncovering Truths.
Investigations is a place for news junkies who cherish reporting over echoing and answers over spin. Run by a collection of investigative news reporters and producers, Investigations is a place to get news that digs deeper to uncover truths.
2013.05.08 06:53 meursaultfoster Korean Art & Architecture
The Korean art, art history, architecture, and archeology subreddit
2024.06.01 13:56 genericusername1904 H.G. WELLS’S, THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME (1933) VS. 1984 AND BRAVE NEW WORLD
 | ID, IX. MAIORES. V, CAL. IUNI. FORTUNA PRIMIGENIA.I discovered this book by complete chance last year – a very old hardback copy was given to me as gift (in a situation which was certainly weighted with the most unlikely of synchronicities), “huh,” I thought, “it’s a first edition of H.G. Wells,” the book itself almost cannot be opened because it is so old and falling apart so I procured a text and audio file of the thing relatively easily and began to read. In hindsight not only for myself but I fancy for the generations of the last fifty years - in all totality, it is deeply strange that this book has not been more widely recognized or taught in schools, as like 1984 and Brave New World, as being the third contender (although technically the second, published one year after Huxley – seemingly written at the same time interestingly enough) in “visions of dystopia” – except that the book is not so much a vision of dystopia tomorrow but a vision of dystopia ‘today’ or rather ‘life as we know it’ of the 19th, 20th and 21st Centuries (endless war, endless pandemics, economic and logistic chaos), narrated from the comfortable and reassuring position of a society far far in the future who have long since revised their culture and solved all of the causes of the problems and become a society of genius polymaths “with (every Man and Woman) the intellectual equal of the polymaths of the ancient world.”Now, I do not mean here to seem to ‘sweet-talk’ the reader into rushing out and buying this book or to hold it up in the manner of those other books as if it were some ideological blueprint but instead to assay the thing in the natural context which seems to me to be universally unrealized and which presents itself to us as a thing which is plainly self-evident, that is: that in the depressing and miserable dichotomy of 1984 and Brave New World; two extremely atomizing and miserable narratives, that there is also – far more empowering – The Shape Of Things To Come wherein the miserable protagony and antagony of both 1984 and Brave New World might read as merely a footnote somewhere in the middle of the book as an example of the witless measures mankinds old master undertook to preserve their power in an untenable circumstance. In other words, we know all about 1984 as children; we have this drummed into our heads and we glean our cultural comprehension that dictators cannot be cliques of business people but only lone individuals, usually in military uniform, and then we graduate from that to Brave New World to gain a more sophisticated comprehension of the feckless consumerism and ‘passive egoism’ by which our society actually operates, but then we do not – as I argue we ought – continue along in our education with this third book which actually addresses the matters at hand at a more adult level. For instance, here, from ‘The Breakdown Of Finance And Social Morale After Versailles’ (Book One, Chapter Twelve) addresses in a single paragraph the cause of our continual economic chaos (of which all crime and poverty and war originates from) and highlights the problem from which this chaos cannot be resolved yet could easily be resolved, “adjustment was left to blind and ill-estimated forces,” “manifestly, a dramatic revision of the liberties of enterprise was necessary, but the enterprising people who controlled politics (would be) the very last people to undertake such a revision,” …the expansion of productive energy was being accompanied by a positive contraction of the distributive arrangements which determined consumption. The more efficient the output, the fewer were the wages-earners. The more stuff there was, the fewer consumers there were. The fewer the consumers, the smaller the trading profits, and the less the gross spending power of the shareholders and individual entrepreneurs. So buying dwindled at both ends of the process and the common investor suffered with the wages- earner. This was the "Paradox of Overproduction" which so troubled the writers and journalists of the third decade of the twentieth century.It is easy for the young student to-day to ask "Why did they not adjust?" But let him ask himself who there was to adjust. Our modern superstructure of applied economic science, the David Lubin Bureau and the General Directors' Board, with its vast recording organization, its hundreds of thousands of stations and observers, directing, adjusting, apportioning and distributing, had not even begun to exist. Adjustment was left to blind and ill-estimated forces. It was the general interest of mankind to be prosperous, but it was nobody's particular interest to keep affairs in a frame of prosperity. Manifestly a dramatic revision of the liberties of enterprise was necessary, but the enterprising people who controlled politics, so far as political life was controlled, were the very last people to undertake such a revision.There is a clever metaphor I fancy that Wells worked in to this for the ‘actual’ defacto controlling class of things, that is: not really the politicians (sorry to disappoint the Orwell and conspiracy fans) but instead the ‘Dictatorship of the Air’ which might easily read as the ‘Dictatorship of the Airwaves’ – in colloquial language, that being radio and then television. Certainly we might imagine Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner or Sumner Redstone (of yesterday) entering into honourable retirement as like the ‘dictators of the air’ of the very last days before the establishment of a one world state – in any case that is how things would work out, as the power of, say, Ted Turner to eradicate a political party in the United States – at any time he wishes – by simply green-lighting coverage of their bad actions relentlessly for months until revolution occurs is a real power of which no other institution possesses nor possesses any means of defence against, i.e. the ‘real power’ in our world to end a war or begin or war or end this or begin that is that power held by the organized press. This metaphor is somewhat of a more mature view, I think, than Wells earlier conception of the press in The Sleeper Awakes (1899) where the press of a dystopian future is visualized as a “babble machine” spreading circular nonsense to preoccupy the citizenry (although this is arguably a true representation of the mental processes of the Twitter and Facebook user, or of the general baby-speak and extremely infantile form of the news reports on the front page of the BBC News website) which is more or less what the press depicted as being in Brave New World also.However the construction of sudden new realities (or sudden ‘actualities’) presented by the equation of interdependent technological innovations (i.e. the radio and the television in this instance) is mentioned early on in The Shape Of Things To Come in ‘How The Idea And Hope Of The Modern World State First Appeared’ (Book One, Chapter Two), The fruitlessness of all these premature inventions is very easily explained. First in the case of the Transatlantic passage; either the earlier navigators who got to America never got back, or, if they did get back, they were unable to find the necessary support and means to go again before they died, or they had had enough of hardship, or they perished in a second attempt. Their stories were distorted into fantastic legends and substantially disbelieved. It was, indeed, a quite futile adventure to get to America until the keeled sailing ship, the science of navigation, and the mariner's compass had been added to human resources. (Then), in the matter of printing, it was only when the Chinese had developed the systematic manufacture of abundant cheap paper sheets in standard sizes that the printed book—and its consequent release of knowledge—became practically possible. Finally the delay in the attainment of flying was inevitable because before men could progress beyond precarious gliding it was necessary for metallurgy to reach a point at which the internal combustion engine could be made. Until then they could build nothing strong enough and light enough to battle with the eddies of the air.In an exactly parallel manner, the conception of one single human community organized for collective service to the common weal had to wait until the rapid evolution of the means of communication could arrest and promise to defeat the disintegrative influence of geographical separation. That rapid evolution came at last in the nineteenth century, and it has been described already in a preceding chapter of this world history. Steam power, oil power, electric power, the railway, the steamship, the aeroplane, transmission by wire and aerial transmission followed each other very rapidly. They knit together the human species as it had never been knit before. Insensibly, in less than a century, the utterly impracticable became not merely a possible adjustment but an urgently necessary adjustment if civilization was to continue.In other words, then, a global state (or, rather, such power in general held by the press as I see the analogy extending to them as being the ‘Dictatorship of the Airwaves’) was impossible to imagine and completely laughable before the technologies had stacked together to reveal as like in a simple piece of arithmetic which produced a single outcome of the equation; that no sooner had the technologies existed then the thing had become an actual reality – in that 1) unassailable political power had been unthinkingly dropped into the lap of the owners of the press, but that more importantly as consequence that therefore 2) mankind was subject to that power, that is: the situation existed the moment the technologies did – and this whether any living person had even realized it, as I think quite naturally all the time Men and Women invent things that they really have no notion of the fullest or most optimal uses of (“nothing is needed by fools, for: they do not understand how to use anything but are in want of everything,” Chrysippus), e.g. in no metaphor the television was quite literally invented as a ‘ghost box’ to commune with ghosts imagined to reveal themselves by manipulating the black and white of the static until someone else had the idea that there was at least one other use for that contraption.It is quite strange, also, that in contemporary times we have for ages been heavily propagandized ‘against’ the idea of a “one world state” as if, say, all the crimes and fecklessness that have gone on in our lifetimes are somehow secretly building towards the creation of such a thing – not a thing you would naturally conclude from an observation of those events nor a thing advocated for by anybody (insofar as I have ever heard) but it is a thing which would be the first logical response to ‘preventing’ such crimes from ever occurring again – such as like the already widely practiced concept of a Senate-Style Federation of Sovereign States rather than a hundred or so mutually antagonistic polities capable of bombing themselves or screwing up their economies and creating waves of refugees or mass starvation or pandemics, and so on. For instance, All Egypt is dependent on the flow of the Nile which originates in what is today another country, that other country recently decimated the flow of the Nile by gumming up the Nile with a Hydroelectric Dam; such an outcome would not occur if the total mass of the land itself was governed as the single interconnected economic and environmental system that it is in physical reality of which, when divided along arbitrary borderlines, there is no means to govern the entirety of the region in an amicable and prosperous manner for all as a whole and no recourse to the otherwise intolerable situation but War which is unlikely to occur – as most Nations are comprised of civilized peoples who rightly loath the concept of War – but it is the single and unavoidable outcome to resolve such a situation until that situation has dragged on for decades, causing immense suffering, until it reaches that point of desperation – the matter of Palestine and Israel, fresh to my mind in these days, raises itself also. Of the matter of War itself, in ‘The Direct Action Of The Armament Industries In Maintaining War Stresses’ (Book One, Chapter Eleven), Wells relays in 1933 what United States President Eisenhower would later remark in 1961 in his farewell address of the dangers of the Military Industrial Complex; albeit far more analytically on Wells part, that: it is not so much the ‘desire to harm’ on the part of the armament industries which sees them engage in unnecessary build-up of weapons stockpiles but that it is simply their business to produce, to stockpile, produce more deadly variants and stockpile the more deadly variants and sell off their old stockpiles to whomsoever rings their doorbell; for instance the on-going War in Ukraine is no different in this regard to the Viet Cong and NATO Warfare in Vietnam in that massive quantities of cheap munitions were necessary for the war to be fought in the first place and massive quantities of munitions happened to exist as a by-product of the Armaments Industries to be dumped onto the warring parties in order to facilitate their macabre impulses at the expense of the citizenry; both at their cost in terms of the debt taken on to procure the weaponry on the part of their governments and in terms of their lives when the weaponry was utilized to the outcome of massive loss of life of a single peoples within a bordered space – a thing of no value to themselves. Simply put, albeit in a very simplistic reduction to the bare basics: the War would not reached such catastrophic inhuman proportions without massive quantities of cheap Armaments that otherwise sat taking up warehouse space for more valuable Armaments on the part of the producer and seller. In a perpetual progress in the size and range of great guns, in a vast expansion of battleships that were continually scrapped in favour of larger or more elaborate models, (Armament Firms) found a most important and inexhaustible field of profit. The governments of the world were taken unawares, and in a little while the industry, by sound and accepted methods of salesmanship, was able to impose its novelties upon these ancient institutions with their tradition of implacable mutual antagonism. It was realized very soon that any decay of patriotism and loyalty would be inimical to this great system of profits, and the selling branch of the industry either bought directly or contrived to control most of the great newspapers of the time, and exercised a watchful vigilance on the teaching of belligerence in schools. Following the established rules and usages for a marketing industrialism, and with little thought of any consequences but profits, the directors of these huge concerns built up the new warfare that found its first exposition in the Great War of 1914-18, and gave its last desperate and frightful convulsions in the Polish wars of 1940 and the subsequent decades.Even at its outset in 1914-18 this new warfare was extraordinarily uncongenial to humanity. It did not even satisfy man's normal combative instincts. What an angry man wants to do is to beat and bash another living being, not to be shot at from ten miles distance or poisoned in a hole. Instead of drinking delight of battle with their peers, men tasted all the indiscriminating terror of an earthquake. The war literature stored at Atacama, to which we have already referred, is full of futile protest against the horror, the unsportsmanlike quality, the casual filthiness and indecency, the mechanical disregard of human dignity of the new tactics. But such protest itself was necessarily futile, because it did not go on to a clear indictment of the forces that were making, sustaining and distorting war. The child howled and wept and they did not even attempt to see what it was had tormented it.To us nowadays it seems insane that profit-making individuals and companies should have been allowed to manufacture weapons and sell the apparatus of murder to all comers. But to the man of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries it seemed the most natural thing in the world. It had grown up in an entirely logical and necessary way, without any restraint upon the normal marketing methods of peace-time commerce, from the continually more extensive application of new industrial products to warfare. Even after the World War catastrophe, after that complete demonstration of the futility of war, men still allowed themselves to be herded like sheep into the barracks, to be trained to consume, and be consumed, by new lines of slaughter goods produced and marketed by the still active armament traders. And the accumulation of a still greater and still more dangerous mass of war material continued.The book is, if the reader has likely already gathered from the excerpts, not written in the style of a protagonal narrative; i.e. not as a story, i.e. no hero and no villain, but as a sort of a Historia Augusta – that is really the most fitting comparison I think of when trying to describe this to a new reader (or perhaps J.J. Scarisbrick’s Henry VIII), that is to say it is written ‘as’ a History in the classical style we are familiar with from the better of the ancient writers, as like Appian or Cassius Dio, but unlike Suetonius or Tacitus it is absent of the sloppy hinging of all bad things on the highly personalized propaganda ad hominem (i.e. blame the fall of empire on one guy) that goes in those narrative works as we are typically familiar with them.It is, of course, a work a fiction; although Wells did predict World War Two beginning in late 1939-1940 (although he had Poland putting up much better and longer of a fight against the Germans) and various other innovations, beginning from his own day with a true account of events prior to his own day – giving us a valuable account of affairs and actors prior to 1933 which would otherwise not come easily to any of us to discover. But the book, ultimately, is vehicle for the transmission and discussion of these societal (i.e. social, economic, industrial, logistic) matters presented to the audience of the day fresh, in their own minds, from the abject horror recently witnessed in World War One – and the economic catastrophes of which Roosevelts reforms had not yet come into tangible reality (i.e. relief for the poor, public works projects such as the motorways across America) as is discussed in that other seemingly little known H.G. Wells literary offering in his face-to-face interview with Josef Stalin the following year in 1934 (something which I think is of far more historical value than say, Nixon and Frost or Prince Andrew and Emily Maitlis), so as to ‘avert’ another crisis and pluck from the ether a seemingly alternate trajectory of where Mankind might at last get its act together. This ‘novel’ (thought it seems strange to call it that) ought be read, I would advise, in conjunction with ‘The Sleeper Awakes’ (1899) and also the (actually very depressing – I would not advise it) short-story prequel ‘A Story Of The Days To Come’ (1897) – set in that same universe – which, perhaps it is because I am English, seems to me to be a black horror show of the reality that we actually find ourselves living in this far into an actually dystopic future – or perhaps yet with the ‘strange windmills’ powering the mega cities that this a future yet to come (no pun intended); the broken speech, the babble machines, the miserable condition of the Working Class and their consumption of pre-packaged soft bread, the desire to flee the urban sprawl into the dilapidated countryside and make a little life in a run-down house with tacky wallpaper peeling away … ah, forgive me, my point is that ‘our condition’; i.e. those of us literate in English, is quite analogous to the condition of the central characters in those two stories; a culture dulled intellectually to the point that they can barely speak or think, being appraised and assayed by ourselves; those of us simply literate, as to render our commentary stuck as to seem as mutually alien as like Caesar in Gaul. However, it is in the context of the frame given to us in ‘The Shape Of Things To Come’ that we might gain a degree of sanity about this self-same situation; to study and lean into that dispassionate quality as to discern the nature of things as they are and recognize how important this quality is in relation to Well’s ultimate outcome for the best possible position of Humankind far far future, that is: that of Humankind’s vital intellectual capacity, and that the most striking message of STC, beyond all we have mentioned in this little overview, is that intellectual capacity in and of itself. For example, when we consider the ‘actuality’ of the power of Turner or perhaps Zuckerberg in his heyday, for instance, we consider a power fallen into a Mans lap by an accidental stacking of disparate technologies created not by himself but of which possess a power utterly dependent in that same equation upon on a population being ‘witless’ in the first place and so led slavishly by the “babble machines”. However you cut it, reader, the great uplifting of Humankind to a standard of autonomy and intellectual prowess – not held by an elite but possessed by All People – is a thing both intrinsically self-sufficient within our grasp for our own selves and is certainly the prerequisite for political matters in that intellectual capacity of the voting public determines entirely whether a public is tricked or foolish and gets themselves into trouble by undertaking some obvious error or whether they are immune to such trickery and foolishness in the first place and that their energies and time are spent on more valuable pursuits. It seems to me that our contemporary society has done away with the notion of good character through intellect and that we live with the outcome of this; being shepherded by emotional manipulation and brute force because our society at large is treated as if we lacked the verbal and intellectual toolsets to understand anything else – moreover possessing no means to discern whether or not what is forced onto us is right or wrong; truth or lies, and so on. Such a society as this, again it seems plain to me, is ‘any’ dystopia because it is the baseline composition for ‘all’ dystopia; as like the foolish dogma of an out-dated ideology for example rests itself upon a large enough contingent of the public being either treated as if they were or in fact are “too foolish” to discuss or think a thing through, so a dogma is poured over them like concrete creating, in turn, intolerable circumstances as the dogma, tomorrow, becomes out-dated and suddenly instructs them to do foolish things, as like in the “Banality Of Evil” (read: Hannah Arendt) as the character in all serious perpetrators of inhumanity who insist, with a confused expression on their faces, that they were just doing their job – and this ‘quality’, of extreme ignorance, is the composition of the culture where such ‘evil actions’ occur. I mean here that in STC we have on one hand a very in-depth account, very serious reading, to graduate the reader out of the depressive, atomizing, disempowering, conspiratorial milieu and mire of ‘life’ presented to us in 1984 and Brave New World, but that we have at the same time the very resonant harmonics that one does not need to “wait around for a distant future utopia” to “solve all the problems” but that the tools to do so are well within our grasp at any time we so choose and of which such an undertaking constitutes the foundation stones and tapestries of that future utopia which, I think, could be said to “meet us half-way” in many of these matters, as like we reach forward and they reach back and then those in the past reach forward and we in the present reach back; that is anyway what it is to learn from the past and anyway the answer to “why the Grandfather sews the seeds for trees from whose fruits he will never eat.” Valete. ID, IX. MAIORES. V, CAL. IUNI. FORTUNA PRIMIGENIA.FULL TEXT ON GUTENBERG OF H.G. WELLS ‘THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME’ (1933)https://preview.redd.it/9l7yl9hx8y3d1.jpg?width=490&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4d5a4109fb8e2193b94a6e244d92d4ec5b7b84a7 https://preview.redd.it/37vvsroy8y3d1.jpg?width=740&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e62ef5e11c1c4222d6f99ffebe82b3dd706cbc2f |
2024.06.01 13:10 MrOptimisticNihilist This election was essentially an ANC and EFF own goal
The ANC has not only evidently hemorrhaged votes to MK but the EFF has also lost some votes and its 3rd spot to MK, political karma if I ever saw
But of course this came about because the ANC not only rejected reason in 2008 by ousting Mbeki and electing Zuma in Polokwane, but also protected the man throughout his reign of destruction up until the last hour...and then accountability be damned when he was found guilty of contempt of court and jailed, Ramaspineless went along and cut his imprisonment short..then the spinlessness didn't end there and the party let the man form an opposition party while still being a member of the ANC (and technically still is lol)
Let's not forget Julius' game of 4D chess when he went from the Mr Payback the Money to sipping tea with Zuma on the eve of his arrest and then making more visits to his homestead after his release from prison in some odd play to get Zuma to declare support for the EFF or even join the party but the mastermind was caught off guard when Zuma didn't reciprocate and started his own thing which has led to the EFF getting demolished in KZN and humbled nationally
Look I'm glad our democracy is maturing and I'm excited and worried for what will happen in the 5 years but this was definitely a case of ANC self-mutilation which may or may not bode well for the country going forward
submitted by MrOptimisticNihilist to southafrica [link] [comments]
But of course this came about because the ANC not only rejected reason in 2008 by ousting Mbeki and electing Zuma in Polokwane, but also protected the man throughout his reign of destruction up until the last hour...and then accountability be damned when he was found guilty of contempt of court and jailed, Ramaspineless went along and cut his imprisonment short..then the spinlessness didn't end there and the party let the man form an opposition party while still being a member of the ANC (and technically still is lol)
Let's not forget Julius' game of 4D chess when he went from the Mr Payback the Money to sipping tea with Zuma on the eve of his arrest and then making more visits to his homestead after his release from prison in some odd play to get Zuma to declare support for the EFF or even join the party but the mastermind was caught off guard when Zuma didn't reciprocate and started his own thing which has led to the EFF getting demolished in KZN and humbled nationally
Look I'm glad our democracy is maturing and I'm excited and worried for what will happen in the 5 years but this was definitely a case of ANC self-mutilation which may or may not bode well for the country going forward
2024.06.01 13:03 ManuLlanoMier How do I get a historical result with a Dictator Constitution
I want to do a malenyevist dictator run and completely destroy the oligarchs, this means that I need the SSP to arrest all three and nationalize the central bank, which needs expanded presidents decrees, so without oligarch support and lacking the ACP the only way to get the remaining judge I need is by achieving a historical result in the vote, so how do I do that?
submitted by ManuLlanoMier to suzerain [link] [comments]
2024.06.01 12:58 plutanasio Arrested for trying to open the door of an airplane in the middle of a flight to Alicante and hitting two crew members, guess the nationality.
 | submitted by plutanasio to 2westerneurope4u [link] [comments] |
2024.06.01 12:24 cystic_cynaxism Report on Honk Kong ‘Pro Democracy’ Activists by DemocracyNow
 | Can someone explain to me what’s going on here? Is Chinese speech laws really that restrictive or is there sumthin else not being mentioned here? submitted by cystic_cynaxism to TheDeprogram [link] [comments] |
2024.06.01 12:09 Normodox Despite string of pro-Palestinian statements, CUNY faculty union rejects Israel boycott
The City University of New York's faculty union rejected a resolution calling for an Israel boycott. The decision may relate more to salary negotiations than to views on the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Three years after voting to “consider” boycotting Israel, and weeks after defending a pro-Palestinian student encampment, the faculty union of the City University of New York overwhelmingly rejected a resolution calling for an Israel boycott.The union’s president actively opposed the resolution, saying that it inappropriately singled out Israel. But insiders say the Professional Staff Congress’ rejection may have had more to do with the union’s salary negotiations than any principled view about the Israel-Hamas war, which has roiled the CUNY system.
The resolution called for the university system to carry out a number of steps that anti-Israel protesters have called for at CUNY and dozens of other colleges and universities across the country this spring.
“Ban all academic trips to the Zionist state, encompassing birthright, Fulbright, and perspectives trips,” the proposal said. “Cancel all forms of cooperation with Israeli academic institutions, including events, activities, agreements, and research collaborations.”
The measure, called Resolution in Support of CUNY Gaza Solidarity Encampment, also demanded that CUNY divest from all “companies complicit in the imperialist-zionist genocide” as well as for full transparency regarding CUNY’s investments.
The resolution also called for the NYPD, which arrested dozens of people when dismantling City College’s encampment weeks ago, to be banned from campus. It called on CUNY to reinstate professors fired for anti-Israel activism — though it did not specify who it was referring to.
The resolution endorsed a Palestinian right of return to Israel, which many Israelis view as tantamount to the end of Jewish sovereignty in Israel. And it called for a “fully-funded, free CUNY that is not beholden to zionist and imperialist private donors.”
The union’s 300-member delegate assembly, its central policy-making body, rejected the resolution by a vote of 117 to 40, according to a spokesperson.
Manfred Philipp, a former member of the delegate assembly who has maintained ties to the union, said he believes the resolution was voted down because it would have been detrimental to the PSC’s interests, not because of union members’ views on the conflict. The union has an obligation to negotiate salary contracts for its members, and the anti-Israel resolution could have hurt the union’s chances of securing a salary increase from city and state lawmakers who are sympathetic to Israel, Philipp said.
“The basis of the opposition to the resolution has nothing to do with the situation in the Middle East. It has everything to do with the interests of the union and the university,” said Philipp, who taught at CUNY’s Lehman College for decades before retiring around a decade ago.
“The union’s self-interest says they should not take a position on this at all,” he said, adding that he supported the result of the vote.
The PSC says it represents 30,000 faculty and staff across CUNY’s 25 colleges. Its delegate assembly includes representatives from each college’s chapter and the 27 general officers in the union’s executive council.
Ahead of the vote, union president James Davis sent an email to the delegate assembly opposing the resolution, saying the measure had been rushed through without proper input from union members, and that it only targeted Israeli universities, not “universities in countries engaged in serial human rights abuses or committing genocide, a singularity that many of our colleagues would find objectionable.”
Earlier this month, the union condemned a pro-Palestinian strike by its own members. But previously, it has taken pro-Palestinian positions and has drawn accusations of discrimination from Jewish faculty. In recent weeks, the PSC demanded charges be dropped against protesters at the pro-Palestinian encampment, condemned police action against protesters and backed protesters at Columbia University.
A group of Jewish professors sued the PSC in 2022 after the union adopted a resolution criticizing Israel the previous year, calling it discriminatory. A judge dismissed the case. Dozens of Jewish professors resigned from the union due to the resolution.
That 2021 resolution also called to consider union support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement targeting Israel.
A 2016 state executive order bars state agencies from anti-Israel boycotts, meaning that a boycott could come with financial consequences for the CUNY system. But the faculty union does not set policy for the system.
CUNY has long faced allegations of antisemitism on its campuses. The university system, the nation’s largest urban college network with more than 225,000 students, has come under fire in recent years from city and state lawmakers for reported discrimination against Jewish students.
Last year, weeks after Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul ordered a third-party investigation into antisemitism at CUNY.
The system has been a hotspot for anti-Israel protests since then. In March, Hunter College opened an investigation after protesters chanted that Jews at the school needed to “pick a side.” Earlier this month, two CUNY campuses nixed Jewish events due to protests.
CUNY has taken steps to address antisemitism on its campuses, including by setting up an advisory council on Jewish life and partnering with Manhattan’s Museum of Jewish Heritage to educate students about the Holocaust.
CUNY union rejects Israel boycott amid salary talks - The Jerusalem Post (jpost.com)
2024.06.01 12:02 Gloomy-Beginning-218 Wizard tries to murder another party member in their sleep, fails, apologizes, then creates a new character and then attempts the same thing again.
Context: This was one of my first online games as a DM. I ran a campaign with the typical "necromancy magic is seen as bad" trope due to massive events in the campaign world (that led to the first Lich being created and using the war between 3 nations to fuel his undead army, until all 3 nations realized the threat and banded together to defeat the army of the dead and supposedly destroyed the Lich). With that knowledge in mind, one player asked to create a school of necromancy wizard (tiefling). I said sure, but let them know that if they were to use necromancy within a village, town or captial city that it would draw attention to them and most likely result in their character being arrested, or even attacked. The player said they were fine with that, but asked if they could be Lawful Evil. Now, this should have been the first red flag for this player, but I said that I would allow it but only if their actions didn't directly target or effect the other player characters. They agreed.
Now to give some more context, the other players character's consisted of:
Onto the story: The party were in the Elven captial city when the wizard asks me as one of their "errands" that they want to visit the slums of the city. So they travel there and the wizard sees a bunch of dirty kids playing together. The wizard then walks over to a halfling girl, and begins to mesmerize her with prestidigitation effects. He asked about her quality of life (I thought he was going to give her some money or something like that), so she shares with him that she is an orphan and lives on the street. The wizard offers her food and says that if she comes with him, he will give her a better life and teach her how to use magic. Now at the time, I wasn't sure what his intentions were, so I was being very cautious in this moment, so I asked him to roll an insight check as she was looking at him with doubt in her mind. He succeeds and I share that she has doubts about his sincerity. I ask him to roll a persuasion check with a 20 DC and he makes it with a high roll. So, she agrees to go with him on the promise that he teaches her magic. When the wizard returned to the party, they were surprised and not very keen on having a young girl accompany them for their next adventure, but they allowed it after they made the wizard promise to keep her well out of harms way when danger arises.
The party arrive at the entrance to a long, and fairly dangerous dungeon crawl. In the first battle encounter, the wizard tells his "apprentice" to attack the nearest enemy instead of running away, like the party had agreed on. Now the "apprentice" isn't able to do much (as a lvl 1 wizard), and is subsequently attacked and falls unconcious and the party began to panic. The party were able to swiftly defeat the remaining enemies and heal the halfling girl. Now, when she came to, she was terrified and had a full on panic attack and wanted to leave after almost dying. The party agreed that she should not be with the party and should return to her home. This angered the wizard (and the player), who was not pleased when the party all voted to send her home. They were able to do so as another NPC was accompanying the party, and they escorted the girl back.
Now comes the kicker. The wizard player dm's me and says that he is not happy with what happened. I tell him that I had already spoken to him about the other player characters possibly not agreeing with his decision, and that the wizard was "okay with that". The wizard player doesn't reply. So I thought that the matter has been resolved. NOPE!!! Out of nowhere, the wizard states that during the night whilst on his "watch", he casts mold earth multiple times during the night and burries the oath of ancients paladin alive (as he was the voice of reason that was consistantly raising the fact that the halfling girl would not be safe). Now by this point in the session, the majority of the players as well as myself were quite frustrated with this player, as he had tried to meta before and say things like, "it would work in real life" when he attempted to turn events in his favor over and over again.
I told the group that we're going to take a 10 minute break before anything else happened. I spoke with the oath of ancients paladin player and asked him what his opinion is on the matter was and if what he thought I should do/should I even allow the wizard to attempt it? The oath of ancients player says that he was happy for me to let the wizard try as if they failed and the paladin would quickly "solve" the issue.
So I messaged the wizard player and confirmed that they're certain that they want to still try it. They agreed confidently and stated that mold earth was "a somatic only cantrip" and that the paladin "won't even know that I'm casting it until their suffocating under the ground".
I messaged the group and asked them to come back to the discord chat and we jumped back in. I asked the paladin to roll a perception check, setting the DC at 10, as I reasoned that the paladin would still feel the earth being molded over and around them. The paladin rolls a natural 20. So the paladin awakens, and sees that the wizard is trying to smother them. The paladin player attempts to intimidate with the wizard and convince them not to "test his patience", but the wizard player was furious and was trying to make up more excuses on how the perception roll should have been at disadvantage.
I stated that my ruling stood, and asked them what they want to do, to which the wizard left and never returned.
I had a long conversation with the wizard player after the session and explained that I did warn them in advance that the other player characters might not agree with their actions. The player seemed strangely calm and collected and asked if they could create another character to replace the tiefling wizard (this should have been the 3rd red flag). I agreed but specified this time that necromancer and evil alignment was off the table this time. The player agreed and then createed a high elf blade-singer wizard (and min maxed it as much as they could). They gave this new character a compelling backstory and I was pleased with it. So the next session, I introduced their character to the party (the party had left the dungeon to find safety and heal the halfling girl before sending her home), and the first thing the player does was declared that they moved to attack the oath of ancients paladin, as soon as they saw him.
Dumbfounded, I ask him why? He respond with, "the paladin threatened (name of the tiefling character) and I take threats deadly seriously".
IMPORTANT NOTE: This was not in the backstory that they provided me with! And I mean, not even the slightest hint, nor was it eluded to!
I pause the game and ask the wizard player to join me in a seperate chat, and asked them how could their new character possibly know who the paladin was and how they would know the tiefling, as the two characters had never met. He said that they would have passed each other and he would have shared it with this stranger. To which I said, yeah no that's not what you sent me and you're not just gonna change your backstory on the fly just so you can attempt to kill the paladin. He got incredibly angry and started yelling about me not letting him play his character how he wants to play them.
The conclusion: So to wrap up this long post. The player apologised to the group, asked for one more chance as he like the group. I asked the others individually what their thoughts on it were, they agreed to give him one more chance, so I did. And then 3 sessions later, that same player attempted to attack the ranger because he made a funny comment about the tielfing wizard (all in character). After that final straw, the player was subsquently removed from the campaign.
On a happier note: This campaign has been running for almost 5 years now and is beginning to come to a close as the players are level 19 (soon to be 20) and have accomplished incredible feats in the world.
submitted by Gloomy-Beginning-218 to dndhorrorstories [link] [comments]
Now to give some more context, the other players character's consisted of:
- Protector Aasimar, Oath of Ancients Paladin, Lawful Good.
- High Elf, Wild Magic SorcereOath of Devotion Paladin, Neutral Good.
- Human, Gloomstalker Ranger, Neutral Good.
- Halfling, Circle of the Moon Druid, Chaotic Good.
- Wood Elf, Assassin Rogue, Chaotic Neutral.
Onto the story: The party were in the Elven captial city when the wizard asks me as one of their "errands" that they want to visit the slums of the city. So they travel there and the wizard sees a bunch of dirty kids playing together. The wizard then walks over to a halfling girl, and begins to mesmerize her with prestidigitation effects. He asked about her quality of life (I thought he was going to give her some money or something like that), so she shares with him that she is an orphan and lives on the street. The wizard offers her food and says that if she comes with him, he will give her a better life and teach her how to use magic. Now at the time, I wasn't sure what his intentions were, so I was being very cautious in this moment, so I asked him to roll an insight check as she was looking at him with doubt in her mind. He succeeds and I share that she has doubts about his sincerity. I ask him to roll a persuasion check with a 20 DC and he makes it with a high roll. So, she agrees to go with him on the promise that he teaches her magic. When the wizard returned to the party, they were surprised and not very keen on having a young girl accompany them for their next adventure, but they allowed it after they made the wizard promise to keep her well out of harms way when danger arises.
The party arrive at the entrance to a long, and fairly dangerous dungeon crawl. In the first battle encounter, the wizard tells his "apprentice" to attack the nearest enemy instead of running away, like the party had agreed on. Now the "apprentice" isn't able to do much (as a lvl 1 wizard), and is subsequently attacked and falls unconcious and the party began to panic. The party were able to swiftly defeat the remaining enemies and heal the halfling girl. Now, when she came to, she was terrified and had a full on panic attack and wanted to leave after almost dying. The party agreed that she should not be with the party and should return to her home. This angered the wizard (and the player), who was not pleased when the party all voted to send her home. They were able to do so as another NPC was accompanying the party, and they escorted the girl back.
Now comes the kicker. The wizard player dm's me and says that he is not happy with what happened. I tell him that I had already spoken to him about the other player characters possibly not agreeing with his decision, and that the wizard was "okay with that". The wizard player doesn't reply. So I thought that the matter has been resolved. NOPE!!! Out of nowhere, the wizard states that during the night whilst on his "watch", he casts mold earth multiple times during the night and burries the oath of ancients paladin alive (as he was the voice of reason that was consistantly raising the fact that the halfling girl would not be safe). Now by this point in the session, the majority of the players as well as myself were quite frustrated with this player, as he had tried to meta before and say things like, "it would work in real life" when he attempted to turn events in his favor over and over again.
I told the group that we're going to take a 10 minute break before anything else happened. I spoke with the oath of ancients paladin player and asked him what his opinion is on the matter was and if what he thought I should do/should I even allow the wizard to attempt it? The oath of ancients player says that he was happy for me to let the wizard try as if they failed and the paladin would quickly "solve" the issue.
So I messaged the wizard player and confirmed that they're certain that they want to still try it. They agreed confidently and stated that mold earth was "a somatic only cantrip" and that the paladin "won't even know that I'm casting it until their suffocating under the ground".
I messaged the group and asked them to come back to the discord chat and we jumped back in. I asked the paladin to roll a perception check, setting the DC at 10, as I reasoned that the paladin would still feel the earth being molded over and around them. The paladin rolls a natural 20. So the paladin awakens, and sees that the wizard is trying to smother them. The paladin player attempts to intimidate with the wizard and convince them not to "test his patience", but the wizard player was furious and was trying to make up more excuses on how the perception roll should have been at disadvantage.
I stated that my ruling stood, and asked them what they want to do, to which the wizard left and never returned.
I had a long conversation with the wizard player after the session and explained that I did warn them in advance that the other player characters might not agree with their actions. The player seemed strangely calm and collected and asked if they could create another character to replace the tiefling wizard (this should have been the 3rd red flag). I agreed but specified this time that necromancer and evil alignment was off the table this time. The player agreed and then createed a high elf blade-singer wizard (and min maxed it as much as they could). They gave this new character a compelling backstory and I was pleased with it. So the next session, I introduced their character to the party (the party had left the dungeon to find safety and heal the halfling girl before sending her home), and the first thing the player does was declared that they moved to attack the oath of ancients paladin, as soon as they saw him.
Dumbfounded, I ask him why? He respond with, "the paladin threatened (name of the tiefling character) and I take threats deadly seriously".
IMPORTANT NOTE: This was not in the backstory that they provided me with! And I mean, not even the slightest hint, nor was it eluded to!
I pause the game and ask the wizard player to join me in a seperate chat, and asked them how could their new character possibly know who the paladin was and how they would know the tiefling, as the two characters had never met. He said that they would have passed each other and he would have shared it with this stranger. To which I said, yeah no that's not what you sent me and you're not just gonna change your backstory on the fly just so you can attempt to kill the paladin. He got incredibly angry and started yelling about me not letting him play his character how he wants to play them.
The conclusion: So to wrap up this long post. The player apologised to the group, asked for one more chance as he like the group. I asked the others individually what their thoughts on it were, they agreed to give him one more chance, so I did. And then 3 sessions later, that same player attempted to attack the ranger because he made a funny comment about the tielfing wizard (all in character). After that final straw, the player was subsquently removed from the campaign.
On a happier note: This campaign has been running for almost 5 years now and is beginning to come to a close as the players are level 19 (soon to be 20) and have accomplished incredible feats in the world.
2024.06.01 11:05 7ig4 A polite Request
 | submitted by 7ig4 to OceansAreFuckingLit [link] [comments] |
2024.06.01 11:02 7ig4 A polite Request
submitted by 7ig4 to oceans [link] [comments]
2024.06.01 10:43 Carrentalsafaris 8 days Amboseli, Meru and Masai Mara Safaris
 | Wondering how you can spend your week with the a refreshed and rejuvenated mind!, Car Rental and Safaris Africa has got you covered with the 8 days Amboseli, Meru and Masai Mara Safari that can turn your Safari into a great memory as you will visit Ambosoeli, Meru and Masai Mara National parks. These national park offer exciting Safari packages like game driving, birdwatching and others submitted by Carrentalsafaris to carrentalsafaris [link] [comments] On this 8 days Kenya Safaris of the iconic National park, it comes with a free Car from 4x4 Kenya Car Rental from Us that is convenient and comfortable. Therefore for more information about our services visit our website at https://carrentalsafaris.com/ and 8 days Amboseli, Meru and Masai Mara Safaris Other safaris include
|
2024.06.01 10:19 zanpancan Draft 1
Suprabhat, Vannakam, Adab and Welcome to the 2024 LOK SABHA GENERAL ELECTION THUNDERDOME.
NO RULES, NO LIMITS, ONLY CHAOS.
THE CAGE -
India is a parliamentary democracy that follows the first-past-the-post voting system, similar to the standard Westminster System. The Lower House of the Indian Parliament (Lok Sabha) consists of 543 seats representing 543 constituencies that send 1 Member of Parliament (MP) each. These 543 MP's then choose a prime minister via simple majority.
For each constituency, a political party gives a ticket to a single Candidate. The Candidate with at least a plurality of votes in a constituency represents that Constituency in parliament as a member of the party.
There are no party level primaries in India, the candidate for a constituency is decided by the party high command and only one person from a party can be on the ticket for a particular seat. You can contest multiple constituencies though from the same party as both Narendra Modi (2014 BJP Candidate for both Varanasi and Vadodara) and Rahul Gandhi (2024 Congress Candidate for both Rae Bareili and Wayanad) have done. If no existing political party gives you a ticket, you can contest as an Independent Candidate or form your own party and contest as a member of your own party.
The government can be formed by the party or the alliance that has a simple majority of MP's. When no single political party has a majority of MP's, an alliance of various parties can be formed that contains the majority of MP's. This is called a post-poll alliance, where the parties contest elections separately but might come together after the elections in order to form the government or be part of the government. However there is also the pre-poll alliance where political parties join or form an alliance before the elections.
THE DATES -
THE RESULTS -
EXIT POLLS -
THE FIGHTS -
Economy & Employment:
The incumbent BJP-led NDA government makes the positive case of economic growth and development under its decade long tenure. It points to strong rejuvenated GDP growth with relatively low inflation, rising wages, a growing middle class, stable macroeconomic positioning, strong spending, slashing of multidimensional poverty, a strong and well administered welfare state, expanded free trade, sharp reduction in regulation, increase in select manufacturing and industry, a revitalized finance sector, and a thriving service market.
The government points to the large-scale infrastructure development undertaken, expanding roadways, delivering expansive electrification, and provisions of basic utility services. They point to the stagnation and policy paralysis observed under the tenure of the last Congress government (UPA 2), and further make point to the opposition's alleged proposed populist economic programs as untenable and unfeasible. They make the case that the opposition has leftist economic policies that are not grounded in economic reality.
The INC-led I.N.D.I.A opposition on the other hand, makes the negative case against the incumbents, pointing to large scale youth unemployment, even among educated youth. They point to an alleged inability of the government to tie growth to employment. They allege a failure of manufacturing capacity and sufficient industrialization of the economy, highlighting the lack of sufficient private capital inflows. They criticize the growth figures of the economy by casting doubt on the government's statistics, and focusing extensively on growing wealth inequality, alleging that growth only occurs for the rich billionaire class, with minimal relief for the poor, targeting specific attacks against domestic industrial magnates, Adani and Ambani. They allege favoritism on the part of the incumbent government towards their select base, highlighting the state of Gujarat as being prioritized over other states.
In making their positive case, they propose a more inclusive and redistributive model of growth, proposing heightened subsidization programmes, more welfare and support programmes, higher taxation on the wealthy and corporations, leveraging private capital inflows for infrastructure development, and prioritizing equitable growth through a caste census, developing corrective policies for inequalities between castes.
They aim to solve the employment crisis through expanding roles in state enterprises and filling government vacancies, alongside expanding labour intensive industries like manufacturing and mining, whilst pointing to high growth rates of the economy as well as committing to expand manufacturing through reforms and subsidy platforms like the PLI, FAME etc., further claiming that increased infrastructure spending will lead to crowding in effect thus enabling faster industrialization.
Social Justice:
The issues of social equity and justice have become major cornerstones of both the incumbent and opposition electoral platforms. This is most prevalent through the forthcoming section on sectarianism, but also focuses on key issues regarding class equality and - most importantly - caste-based discrimination.
The incumbent BJP-led NDA government point to their solid track record of universal poverty alleviation, targeted successful welfare and affirmative action programmes. The INC-led I.N.D.I.A opposition on the other hand, point to growing wealth inequality and apparent institutional and systemic discrimination against underprivileged caste communities in academia, employment, governmental programmes, courts, the military, etc. They allege that the government has not committed to taking resolute and definitive action against casteism through corrective policy.
This all boils down to the Reservation system, a large scale, affirmative action initiative, conducted through a systematic quota-based policy of allotment of institutional positions in education, governmental employment, schemes and programmes, direct political representation, etc.
With reservations estimated to have hit 59.5% of Central Government Institutional positions, there are now broader calls to expand the scale and scope of this drive. The opposition wanting to break the cap limits and even introduce this system into the private sector to potentially induce parity, while the government commits to more modest hikes of upto 62.5% while playing into incumbent Prime Minister Narendra Modi's identity as a member of an underprivileged caste community.
While the opposition campaigns on removing limits to the quota system to deliver equity, the government alleges these commitments to be populist and detrimental, while alleging that the opposition seeks to potentially appease its Muslim voter base by introducing expanded reservations for Muslims, thereby allegedly sabotaging the disadvantaged Hindu lower castes, and redistributing their wealth to Muslims, in a bid to gain their votes.
Communalism:
Both the incumbent BJP-led NDA government and the INC-led I.N.D.I.A opposition have framed communalism as a lynchpin issue of the Election. The incumbent government points to alleged casteist and bigoted rhetoric against select caste groups and Hindus. They allege the opposition panders to minorities for their votes, whilst not delivering on the real issues. They allege the opposition seeks to drive up divisiveness and shared social harmony in India. They further allege that the opposition engages in divisive rhetoric on key issues of Hindu-Indian culture like that of the Ram Temple, in ways that contradict the spirit of the Indian State.
The opposition on the other hand, accused the incumbent government of being bigoted against minority communities, from the large Muslim community, to the lower caste communities of Indian society. They allege use of hateful and divisive rhetoric against these communities, and point to select controversial government positions and policies on issues like the Ram Mandir, the controversial CAA-NRC laws, the proposed Uniform Civil Code, among others. They further allege institutional degradation of key offices including policing, academia, and the military in discriminating against minority groups.
Institutional Independence:
The INC-led I.N.D.I.A opposition alleges institutional degradation and capture of various independent governmental entities by the incumbents. They point to the use of Executive, Investigative, Anti-Corruption, Enforcement, & Tax authorities against opposition figures and media as evidence, highlighting specific cases of the detaining and arrest of two sitting opposition Chief Ministers, and the resignation of one. They highlight alleged selective targeting of opposition figures for raids, charges, and arrests, creating an alleged environment of impunity for the government. The opposition alleges heightened and blatant partisanship of members of the Judiciary in support of the incumbent government. They also allege illegitimate freezing of campaigning funds, crackdowns on press freedoms via capture of media institutions, and also critically alleges institutional capture of the Election Commission, casting doubts on election results primarily critiquing India's Electronic Voting Machines (EVM).
The Government rebukes these claims as part of a strong anti-corruption drive, highlighting a drop in governmental corruption cases since the previous Congress government (UPA 2, infamously riddled with such allegations). The government frames the opposition parties as corrupt and power-hungry, while further disparaging the opposition's alleged unfounded attacks on Indian institutions, apparent partisan attacks on the judiciary and critiquing apparent unfounded claims of election denialism.
THE FIGHTERS –
The election is primarily clash between two large coalitions, and their leading parties. On one side, you have the incumbent government of the BJP-led NDA, or National Democratic Alliance, and on the other, you have the opposition INC-led I.N.D.I.A, or Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance, a new mega coalition of more than 35 parties, with a few unofficial supporters too.
The following is a list of some key players in each of the alliances and is by no means a comprehensive or exhaustive list of all involved factions.
The incumbent NDA includes:
Also because one family has been controlling the Congress for decades, it has caused various state-level leaders to either form their own party or join another one. They see no future in the Congress anymore because the door to leadership is always closed for them. This has destroyed the ground level cadre of Congress party in many key states.
Rahul Gandhi’s privilege combined with the lack of any real political acumen so far has led to the INC taking damage due to is infamy.
Nepotism and dynastic politics has been a key issue throughout the last 10 years as BJP positions itself as the ‘common man’s party’
Following a century of sporadic conflict, from 1853 to 1949, a revivalist movement in the 1980's would lead to rising communal tensions, culminating in the 1992 destruction of the Ram Temple by Hindu Nationalists and devotees.
The legal conflict over the land would continue until 2019, when the Supreme Court of India issued the controversial ruling that the land be handed over to government trust for the construction of a Ram Temple, with seperate land being allotted to the local Muslim community for construction of a Mosque.
Almost all elements of the dispute remain mired in controversy. From the historical and religious associations of Ayodhya with Ram, the existence of a definitively Hindu structure, the alleged deliberate destruction of the said temple, the times and events of construction and use, the participants, planning, and events of the 1992 destruction, the ASI Archeological Surveys that served as key evidence for the Supreme Court being tampered and politicised by both sides of the politcal aisle, the legality of the ruling itself, and other surrounding issues regarding justice against those alleged to have partaken in the destruction of the Babri Masjid.
SUPPLEMENTARY SOURCES:
submitted by zanpancan to u/zanpancan [link] [comments]
NO RULES, NO LIMITS, ONLY CHAOS.
THE CAGE -
India is a parliamentary democracy that follows the first-past-the-post voting system, similar to the standard Westminster System. The Lower House of the Indian Parliament (Lok Sabha) consists of 543 seats representing 543 constituencies that send 1 Member of Parliament (MP) each. These 543 MP's then choose a prime minister via simple majority.
For each constituency, a political party gives a ticket to a single Candidate. The Candidate with at least a plurality of votes in a constituency represents that Constituency in parliament as a member of the party.
There are no party level primaries in India, the candidate for a constituency is decided by the party high command and only one person from a party can be on the ticket for a particular seat. You can contest multiple constituencies though from the same party as both Narendra Modi (2014 BJP Candidate for both Varanasi and Vadodara) and Rahul Gandhi (2024 Congress Candidate for both Rae Bareili and Wayanad) have done. If no existing political party gives you a ticket, you can contest as an Independent Candidate or form your own party and contest as a member of your own party.
The government can be formed by the party or the alliance that has a simple majority of MP's. When no single political party has a majority of MP's, an alliance of various parties can be formed that contains the majority of MP's. This is called a post-poll alliance, where the parties contest elections separately but might come together after the elections in order to form the government or be part of the government. However there is also the pre-poll alliance where political parties join or form an alliance before the elections.
THE DATES -
THE RESULTS -
EXIT POLLS -
THE FIGHTS -
Economy & Employment:
The incumbent BJP-led NDA government makes the positive case of economic growth and development under its decade long tenure. It points to strong rejuvenated GDP growth with relatively low inflation, rising wages, a growing middle class, stable macroeconomic positioning, strong spending, slashing of multidimensional poverty, a strong and well administered welfare state, expanded free trade, sharp reduction in regulation, increase in select manufacturing and industry, a revitalized finance sector, and a thriving service market.
The government points to the large-scale infrastructure development undertaken, expanding roadways, delivering expansive electrification, and provisions of basic utility services. They point to the stagnation and policy paralysis observed under the tenure of the last Congress government (UPA 2), and further make point to the opposition's alleged proposed populist economic programs as untenable and unfeasible. They make the case that the opposition has leftist economic policies that are not grounded in economic reality.
The INC-led I.N.D.I.A opposition on the other hand, makes the negative case against the incumbents, pointing to large scale youth unemployment, even among educated youth. They point to an alleged inability of the government to tie growth to employment. They allege a failure of manufacturing capacity and sufficient industrialization of the economy, highlighting the lack of sufficient private capital inflows. They criticize the growth figures of the economy by casting doubt on the government's statistics, and focusing extensively on growing wealth inequality, alleging that growth only occurs for the rich billionaire class, with minimal relief for the poor, targeting specific attacks against domestic industrial magnates, Adani and Ambani. They allege favoritism on the part of the incumbent government towards their select base, highlighting the state of Gujarat as being prioritized over other states.
In making their positive case, they propose a more inclusive and redistributive model of growth, proposing heightened subsidization programmes, more welfare and support programmes, higher taxation on the wealthy and corporations, leveraging private capital inflows for infrastructure development, and prioritizing equitable growth through a caste census, developing corrective policies for inequalities between castes.
They aim to solve the employment crisis through expanding roles in state enterprises and filling government vacancies, alongside expanding labour intensive industries like manufacturing and mining, whilst pointing to high growth rates of the economy as well as committing to expand manufacturing through reforms and subsidy platforms like the PLI, FAME etc., further claiming that increased infrastructure spending will lead to crowding in effect thus enabling faster industrialization.
Social Justice:
The issues of social equity and justice have become major cornerstones of both the incumbent and opposition electoral platforms. This is most prevalent through the forthcoming section on sectarianism, but also focuses on key issues regarding class equality and - most importantly - caste-based discrimination.
The incumbent BJP-led NDA government point to their solid track record of universal poverty alleviation, targeted successful welfare and affirmative action programmes. The INC-led I.N.D.I.A opposition on the other hand, point to growing wealth inequality and apparent institutional and systemic discrimination against underprivileged caste communities in academia, employment, governmental programmes, courts, the military, etc. They allege that the government has not committed to taking resolute and definitive action against casteism through corrective policy.
This all boils down to the Reservation system, a large scale, affirmative action initiative, conducted through a systematic quota-based policy of allotment of institutional positions in education, governmental employment, schemes and programmes, direct political representation, etc.
With reservations estimated to have hit 59.5% of Central Government Institutional positions, there are now broader calls to expand the scale and scope of this drive. The opposition wanting to break the cap limits and even introduce this system into the private sector to potentially induce parity, while the government commits to more modest hikes of upto 62.5% while playing into incumbent Prime Minister Narendra Modi's identity as a member of an underprivileged caste community.
While the opposition campaigns on removing limits to the quota system to deliver equity, the government alleges these commitments to be populist and detrimental, while alleging that the opposition seeks to potentially appease its Muslim voter base by introducing expanded reservations for Muslims, thereby allegedly sabotaging the disadvantaged Hindu lower castes, and redistributing their wealth to Muslims, in a bid to gain their votes.
Communalism:
Both the incumbent BJP-led NDA government and the INC-led I.N.D.I.A opposition have framed communalism as a lynchpin issue of the Election. The incumbent government points to alleged casteist and bigoted rhetoric against select caste groups and Hindus. They allege the opposition panders to minorities for their votes, whilst not delivering on the real issues. They allege the opposition seeks to drive up divisiveness and shared social harmony in India. They further allege that the opposition engages in divisive rhetoric on key issues of Hindu-Indian culture like that of the Ram Temple, in ways that contradict the spirit of the Indian State.
The opposition on the other hand, accused the incumbent government of being bigoted against minority communities, from the large Muslim community, to the lower caste communities of Indian society. They allege use of hateful and divisive rhetoric against these communities, and point to select controversial government positions and policies on issues like the Ram Mandir, the controversial CAA-NRC laws, the proposed Uniform Civil Code, among others. They further allege institutional degradation of key offices including policing, academia, and the military in discriminating against minority groups.
Institutional Independence:
The INC-led I.N.D.I.A opposition alleges institutional degradation and capture of various independent governmental entities by the incumbents. They point to the use of Executive, Investigative, Anti-Corruption, Enforcement, & Tax authorities against opposition figures and media as evidence, highlighting specific cases of the detaining and arrest of two sitting opposition Chief Ministers, and the resignation of one. They highlight alleged selective targeting of opposition figures for raids, charges, and arrests, creating an alleged environment of impunity for the government. The opposition alleges heightened and blatant partisanship of members of the Judiciary in support of the incumbent government. They also allege illegitimate freezing of campaigning funds, crackdowns on press freedoms via capture of media institutions, and also critically alleges institutional capture of the Election Commission, casting doubts on election results primarily critiquing India's Electronic Voting Machines (EVM).
The Government rebukes these claims as part of a strong anti-corruption drive, highlighting a drop in governmental corruption cases since the previous Congress government (UPA 2, infamously riddled with such allegations). The government frames the opposition parties as corrupt and power-hungry, while further disparaging the opposition's alleged unfounded attacks on Indian institutions, apparent partisan attacks on the judiciary and critiquing apparent unfounded claims of election denialism.
THE FIGHTERS –
The election is primarily clash between two large coalitions, and their leading parties. On one side, you have the incumbent government of the BJP-led NDA, or National Democratic Alliance, and on the other, you have the opposition INC-led I.N.D.I.A, or Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance, a new mega coalition of more than 35 parties, with a few unofficial supporters too.
The following is a list of some key players in each of the alliances and is by no means a comprehensive or exhaustive list of all involved factions.
The incumbent NDA includes:
- BJP – The BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party - "Indian People's Party") is a Hindu nationalist party committed to Hindutva ideology, promoting Hindu culture, opposing Muslim immigration, and creating a nativist country wherein India embraces a fundamentally Hindu social fabric. The BJP government under Modi undertook strong reformist policies in promoting liberalization of the economy through aggressive regulatory reforms, furthering free trade through FTAs and privatization of underperforming state assets. They took aggressive stances on defense and counterterrorism against Pakistan and China, while pragmatically engaging other nations despite criticism on some foreign policy moves for being 'wolf warrior-esque'. They uphold a strong nationalist domestic and foreign policy, that simultaneously does not retreat from globalization. On National Security, they aim to make India a regional power with a strong emphasis on modernization & indigenization of military administration and technology, while also reducing bureaucratic and manpower burdens through varied recruitment windows.
- JD(U) - The JD(U) (Janata Dal (United) – “People’s Party (United)”) is led by Bihar CM Nitish Kumar and has been in power in the eastern state of Bihar since 2005. It was formed after a series of splits and mergers in the Janata Dal in the 90s. It is credited with doing good work in the state on roads, electricity, and water, however it has failed to provide jobs & spur manufacturing. This, combined with its leader frequently switching between rival alliances, is causing anti-incumbency.
- TDP - The TDP (Telugu Desam Party – “Party of the Telugu Land") follows a pro-Telugu ideology. It was founded as an alternative to the Congress hegemony, by emphasizing Telugu regional pride and serving as the party for farmers, backward castes and middle-class people. Since the 1990s, it has followed an economically liberal policy that has been seen as pro-business and pro-development as well as populist welfare measures.
- INC - The INC (Indian National Congress) is a big tent social-democratic/democratic-socialist party with its foundational pillars being equity, equality, and egalitarianism. They take broad commitments to secularism and class equality to be principal positions. The INC under Rahul Gandhi has taken strong positions on caste issues, shining light on inequities from past and current discrimination, and proposing active policy interventions. While the INC also holds a free-market/pro-liberalization consensus, they emphasize growing social and wealth inequality and seek inclusive and redistributive growth with strong state intervention. They also see some proposed liberalizing reforms to further inequality and take an 'anti-corporatist' position. They take a slightly less strong position to Indian foreign policy, stressing a more diplomatic approach (with minimal variance on actual positions to the incumbents). They embrace globalization in part, while emphasizing India's need for domestic development. They aim to industrialize India rapidly through stimulating private investment and aim to subsidize both supply and demand. They seek to maintain the Indian military with a focus on highly trained soldiers. They pioneered multi-alignment as the foreign policy for India.
- AAP - The AAP (Aam Aadmi Party – “Common Man's Party"), part of INDIA coalition, currently holds power in two key states - Delhi and Punjab. Its chief figurehead and leader, Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate under an alleged liquor scam in the run up to elections. Barely a 10 year old party it has expanded very quickly to many states, running two of them, and now has national party status by the Election Commission of India (ECI). It leans centre-left to centre-right, with some play of soft Hindutva, while its economic platform comprises heavy spending in education, health, and free schemes of water and electricity. They rose to power on an anti-corruption program in 2013 and continues to have it as its central plank.
- CPI(M) – The CPI(M) (Communist Party of India (Marxist)). They commies lol. The CPI(M) is one of the larger and more mainstrean communist parties in India. Since they operate within the Indian republic's constitution they have adopted more Indian characterisrics. They are primarily against privatisation in the public sector and in favour of universal education and healthcare. Their base has traditionally been in Kerala, one of the more developed states in India in terms of income levels and HCI. they're in favour of private sector reservations and in recent years have also been pro-FDI They promise non-aligned foreign policy, but largely are very anti-US and pro-China. They promise to restore Article 370 and oppose forceful seizure of land by government. They're one of the most influential parties in India due to a strong cadre and student union ecosystem. They've had an effect on the farmers protests as well as economic positions of the INDI Alliance.
- DMK - The DMK (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam - “Dravidian Progressive Federation") is a big tent broad left-wing party that is foundationally Dravidian (primarily Tamil) Nationalist, with strong emphasis on social equity and caste issues, while being staunchly secular and atheistic, and interventionist, statist, heavily welfarist, and industrialist in economic policy. They are primarily a regional party operating in the state of Tamil Nadu, led by M.K. Stalin, the state's current Chief Minister.
- RJD - The RJD (Rashtriya Janata Dal – “National People’s Party”) is a caste-based (Muslims & Yadavs) political party in the Indian state of Bihar, which it ruled from 1990 to 2005. Its rule was one of extreme lawlessness & anarchy. It was called the “Jungle Raj”. Between 1990 & 2000, Bihar's per capita income and power consumption fell off a cliff due to mismanagement. Its CM, Lalu Prasad, was convicted of corruption in 2013.
- SP - The SP (Samajwadi Party – “Socialist Party”) believes in creating a socialist society that operates on the principle of equality. Although the party previously ran on an anti-computer, anti-English, and anti-machinery platform, under its new national president Akhilesh Yadav, the party has made a 180° turn. Now, the Samajwadi Party declares itself to be the party of infrastructure while maintaining its commitment to social justice, with a special focus on teaching computer skills. The party's main base is in the state of Uttar Pradesh, which is the most populated state in India, with a population of 230 million. The only negatives associated with the party are the rampant dynasticism within its ranks and its perceived soft stance on law and order issues.
- JMM - The JMM (Jharkhand Mukti Morcha – “Jharkhand Liberation Front") currently runs the govt of eastern state of Jharkhand. The party has historically centred tribal rights as its central plank and agitated for a new tribal state separate from Bihar until 2000, when their demands were met. It leans centre-left to left with their key issues being tribal control of land, mineral and mining rights, addressing issues of rehabilitation of tribals. The party is primarily run by the Soren family, with Champai Soren being its chief minister candidate in the current government after the last chief minister Hemant Soren was arrested by enforcement directorate. JMM is in alliance with the Indian national congress in the state, and part of the INDIA coalition for the Lok Sabha elections. They face charges of corruption and the image of dynastic politics.
- TMC - The TMC or AITC (All India Trinamool Congress) is a Bengali political party ruling over the state of West Bengal since 2011. It is led by Mamata Banerjee and her nephew Abhishek Banerjee. It is a center-left, welfarist, Bengali Nationalist party. It has been criticized for using heavy-handed authoritarian tactics against opposition leaders in the state, corruption, and political violence. It is credited with ending 34 years of communist rule in the state. West Bengal under the AITC has registered subpar economic performance and is largely stagnant. Pertinent to note Mamata used to be Congress leader till 1998, and AITC, in spite of being sympathetic towards the I.N.D.I.A. alliance at the national level, is fighting the Congress-Left alliance in West Bengal on all 42 seats.
- AIADMK - The AIADMK (All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam – “All India Anna Dravidian Progressive Federation") is a broad centre-left/left-wing party adhering to foundational Dravidian philosophy, while emphasizing Tamil identity. Traditionally being less ethno-nationalist than their sister opposition party the DMK, they adhere to broad welfarist left-wing populism, focusing on social justice and communal equity, while being less economically statist than the DMK. They also focus primarily on Tamil Nadu as a regional party, currently led by Edappadi Palaniswami.
- Shiv Sena - The Shiv Sena (“Army of Shivaji”) was founded by Bal Thackeray in 1966 as a populist, xenophobic party, although the party gradually added Hindutva ideology to its anti non-Maharashtrian plank. It was the long time senior partner to the BJP in Maharashtra till Narendra Modi's popularity caused a change in the dynamics. After power sharing talks with the BJP failed in 2019, the Shiv Sena switched alliances to join hands with their long time rivals in Congress and NCP in an arrangement that made Bal Thackeray’s son Uddhav Thackeray the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. In 2022 again, The Majority of Shiv Sena politicians led by Eknath Shinde rebelled against the top leadership to ally again with the BJP, taking control of the party and toppling the Uddhav Thackeray government. The splinter group led by Uddhav Thackeray is called SS (UBT) and it is allied with the Congress in the INDIA Alliance.
- NCP – The NCP (Nationalist Congress Party) were founded in 1998 by Sharad Pawar and a few others who left the Congress in 1998 after Sonia Gandhi was made Congress president. Despite it's formation, the NCP was a long term ally of the Congress sharing virtually the same ideology. In 2023 however, like the Shiv Sena, In a rebellion led by Sharad Pawar's nephew Ajit, a Majority of NCP politicians switched alliances to support the BJP and took control of the party. Like the Shiv Sena, the Splinter group led by Sharad Pawar and his daughter is called NCP (SP) and it's allied with the Congress in the INDIA Alliance
- YSRCP - The YSRCP (Yuvjana Sramika Rythu Congress Party – “Youth, Labour, & Farmer Congress Party”) was founded by the son of an old congress Chief Minister after he was denied the role of Chief Minister after his father. It's a populist centre-of-left party with strong focus on welfare schemes and cash benefits. It's mired in controversy due to its dynastic nature, its ties to Christian Fundamentalism and American Missionaries targeting the marginalized.
- BRS - The BRS (Bharatiya Rashtra Samithi – “Indian National Council”) was formed originally with a single-point agenda of creating a separate Telangana state with Hyderabad as its capital. They are largely neoliberal and are credited with rapid economic growth in Telangana.
- BJD – The BJD (Biju Janata Dal – “Biju’s People’ Platform”) was formed by Naveen Pattnaik the son of the former CM of Oddisha, Biju Pattnaik. It’s a Odia regional party with a strong focus on poverty upliftment through welfare policies and equitable economic growth.
- BSP - The BSP (Bahujan Samaj Party - "Majority Community Party") is a center-left party in the state of Uttar Pradesh, which was started to uplift Dalits and other marginalized communities in India by Kanshi Ram. Its current party president is Mayawati. BSP is considered as one of the biggest parties in India as per vote share, although it's currently in decline. At its height, this party had a strong base in many states across north India, but now it's only limited to the state of Uttar Pradesh, which is one of the largest states in India with a population of 230 million. There are strong suspicions of BSP working in secret with BJP, and maybe that's why the party is not fighting this election enthusiastically. Although they can still make the competition interesting on a few seats in UP.
- Political Dynasticism:
Also because one family has been controlling the Congress for decades, it has caused various state-level leaders to either form their own party or join another one. They see no future in the Congress anymore because the door to leadership is always closed for them. This has destroyed the ground level cadre of Congress party in many key states.
Rahul Gandhi’s privilege combined with the lack of any real political acumen so far has led to the INC taking damage due to is infamy.
Nepotism and dynastic politics has been a key issue throughout the last 10 years as BJP positions itself as the ‘common man’s party’
- The Ram Mandir:
Following a century of sporadic conflict, from 1853 to 1949, a revivalist movement in the 1980's would lead to rising communal tensions, culminating in the 1992 destruction of the Ram Temple by Hindu Nationalists and devotees.
The legal conflict over the land would continue until 2019, when the Supreme Court of India issued the controversial ruling that the land be handed over to government trust for the construction of a Ram Temple, with seperate land being allotted to the local Muslim community for construction of a Mosque.
Almost all elements of the dispute remain mired in controversy. From the historical and religious associations of Ayodhya with Ram, the existence of a definitively Hindu structure, the alleged deliberate destruction of the said temple, the times and events of construction and use, the participants, planning, and events of the 1992 destruction, the ASI Archeological Surveys that served as key evidence for the Supreme Court being tampered and politicised by both sides of the politcal aisle, the legality of the ruling itself, and other surrounding issues regarding justice against those alleged to have partaken in the destruction of the Babri Masjid.
- Foreign Policy:
SUPPLEMENTARY SOURCES:
2024.06.01 09:57 Informal_Patience821 Refuting the "Addressing the false claims of Dr. Exion" posts - Response to first post
In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Peace be to you all.
I won't resort to personal attacks and baseless claims (much like he does), and I will jump straight ahead to answering his objections.
Firstly, in Biblical Hebrew, verb forms such as Qal and Piel (often referred to as Polel in some grammatical traditions) are distinguished by their specific diacritic markings (i.e., vowel points and consonantal diacritics). Since I believe that the Masoretes distorted the Old Testament by adding these diacritics to reach a deviant interpretation, I do not consider them at all. I read the Old Testament without any diacritics. This is something he has yet to understand, perhaps because he believes that the Old Testament was revealed with diacritic markings—I don't know.
He later argues that the ancient Christian manuscripts (such as the Codex Sinaiticus, Septuagint, etc.) must agree with my claims and not with the Masoretic renderings of the Hebrew text, a conclusion he bases on thin air. I ask: Why is that so? Can you give us one good reason for this conclusion? You can't! He says this only because he considers these Christian manuscripts as divinely revealed criteria and translations. In contrast, I (and many others) see them as ancient interpretations of the original Hebrew text, which are very erroneous. This is especially true considering that rabbis themselves claim these scholars and translators failed to understand every Hebrew idiom in the book. They took everything literally and thus deviated from the intended meaning throughout their translations. These are the translations he claims must agree with my understanding.
The Masoretes could even have been influenced by Christians and their manuscripts, leading them to render some verses erroneously, whether knowingly or unknowingly—we can't be certain. However, I believe it wasn't unknowingly, and I have very good reasons for holding this opinion.
His arguments in his objections are all flawed and fallacious.
In other words, both Qal and Polel essentially mean the same thing.
This following excerpt is from my original post about this, the post he is "refuting":
Excerpt from the post in question:
_______________________
Isaiah 53:8, traditional translation:
"From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them."
The original verse (without diacritics):
מעצר וממשפט לקח ואת־דורו מי ישוחח כי נגזר מארץ חיים מפשע עמי נגע למו:
My translation:
"He was taken from arrest and trial, and as for his generation, who will argue that he was cut off from the land of the living [i.e. killed] for the sin of my people, a plague befell them."
_______________________
In this verse, God is explicitly denying the doctrine of the Original Sin, stating that those who argue, speak, put forth, or ponder that Jesus was killed for the sins of His (God's) people are cursed (or afflicted by a plague).
It is crystal clear! He is just in denial because it contradicts his Pauline doctrine. Thus, he has fixated on this specific word, insisting it is (without a shadow of a doubt) in the Polel form (because his Pauline forefathers said so), and claims that Exion has made a grave error. Incredible, indeed. What a rebuttal!
Let's see if the Polel form does anything to save him:
1. Meditate:
2. Consider:
3. Put forth thoughts:
This is what I have to deal with. He is correcting my interpretation by yet again confirming it and he doesn't even realize it. He refuses to accept that the Old Testament completely refutes this absurd Pauline doctrine that God sent His "son" to the earth to kill him and forgive mankind. He can't understand that the Old Testament aligns with the Quran, calling them cursed. I have explained this to him several times, but to no avail. According to him, the early Christians "meditated" about Jesus' "abode." He raises the same objection in every comment he makes on every future post I do, as if I haven't just refuted him using the Bible, dictionaries, and other sources. In one ear and out the other. The only reason I'm even writing this response is to make you guys realize how unknowledgeable this man really is about the Bible and the Hebrew language. But he is good at making it look like he knows a thing or two by using fancy words and elaborations that make no sense at all.
I believe (if I remember correctly) that he translates it as:
Who would describe Jesus abode? What?! With all due respect, but that makes no sense at all! It makes no sense contextually nor logically.
This is how another Jewish translation has it:
The original phrase is: "ואת־דורו מי ישוחח"
Let me break it down for you:
New Living Translation Unjustly condemned, he was led away. No one cared that he died without descendants...
New International Version By oppression and judgment he was taken away. Yet who of his generation protested?...
King James Bible He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation?...
Some others got the first part accurate but still misinterpreted the last part of the verse, as it claims that they are cursed. God forbid, they are the ones who are cursed, for they consider Jesus to be the cursed one:
English Standard Version By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?
They applied the "curse/plague" to Jesus (which they translate as "stricken," even though Biblically it is generally understood to be a plague/curse) instead of applying it to those "who considered" (i.e., the Pauline Christians). The Hebrew verse uses a plural word, indicating that it was intended for those people who would put forth this claim. They all refuse to accept the fact that God is explicitly and literally stating that they are affected by a plague for their erroneous claim about Jesus.
Let's quickly refute them too:
A plague to whom? TO THEM! To the people who put forth this Pauline doctrine, the ones who argued, said, or considered this absurdity. Absolutely not to the one they believed to be cut off for the sin of God's people, namely Jesus, God's prophet, Messiah, His Word, and a spirit from Him.
But this is not surprising to anyone; it is expected, because their savior Paul also considered the blessed Messiah Jesus to be a curse:
He goes on to say that I quoted from a fictitious source, which is not true at all. I simply didn’t bother looking through my entire library to find a quote I mistakenly mis-referenced, mainly because the quote turned out to be quite irrelevant, and I don’t waste my time like that. Much of what he initiated his "rebuttal" with is equally misunderstood by him, and I have responded to each and every objection in my older posts (in the comment sections where he was "eXpOsInG" me). I picked the first thing and refuted it here for you just to show how ignorant he really is and how he is either living a lie or lying to others.
So, I will not bother to refute every single point of the old stuff that I’ve already conclusively answered. It's a waste of time. Let’s move on to his objections to my latest posts, because that is what this is all about in reality.
"Stone to a stone" is not a Hebrew idiom, and neither is the word "upon" there in Hebrew. He doesn't know Hebrew, had he known Hebrew, he would never have "eXpOsEd" this because it just went to show that he doesn't know the language at all.
The Hebrew word "שום" (shum) in this context is derived from the root ש-ו-ם, which means "to place" or "to put." It appears here as an infinitive construct, which is often used to convey the act of doing something, similar to the English "-ing" form. In this sentence, "שום" is functioning as a gerund, which is a verbal noun. It translates to "placing" or "putting" in English. Therefore, "שום־אבן" means "placing a stone" or "putting a stone."
As for the next word, i.e. "stone" (אבן), in Hebrew, nouns have gender (masculine or feminine) and number (singular or plural). "אבן" is a feminine singular noun. When used in the phrase "שום־אבן" (placing a stone), "אבן" functions as the direct object of the action described by the infinitive construct "שום" (placing).
The next word is אל: This is taken as a preposition according to them, and it generally means "to" or "toward," and never "upon." It is used to indicate direction or movement towards something. While the following word is, again, a stone "אבן."
So if we're going with their interpretation, while being literal, as we should because it is not an idiom, it accurately translates to:
"Before placing a stone to a stone" or "before placing stone to stone"
Which makes very little sense, if any. Why wouldn't God say "Before placing stone upon stone" or "Stones upon stones" or "before placing a stone upon a stone"? Why did He use a singular word for "stone"? Because it is speaking about a one stone, the stone that God placed in Zion:
Classical Hebrew dictionary:
And:
Let's see if any of these help him:
To get a more coherent translation, one that makes sense both contextually and linguistically, we need to consider "El" as "God":
He is just in denial here as well. It is quite obvious that God is talking about placing a stone in the Temple of God, not about placing a stone towards a stone (whatever that means). Biblically, it is known that Jacob placed a stone in the House of God in Harran, which I have also proven to be located in the vicinity of Mecca, using 1st-century CE atlases by giants in geography such as Pomponius Mela, Pliny, and others.
He writes:
In the phrase "שום־אבן אל־אבן" (placing a stone as God's stone), the context and the nouns' arrangement provide the possessive meaning without requiring additional grammatical changes. "אל־אבן" can be understood as "God's stone" even though it is not in the formal construct state. This is something he doesn't know because, well, who knows why. I have my speculations, but I will refrain from personal attacks.
He says:
This is why Jacob, upon waking from his prophetic dream, never built the House of God. (Yes, Jacob was a prophet, but Christian scholars throughout history didn't recognize this and thought he was merely a patriarch.) Instead, he only placed a stone as its cornerstone and named it "The House of God":
7th verse states:
Haggai 2:7
Let me break it down for you:
But if we consider "Chemdat" as a cognate of "Ahmad," as a proper noun referring to Ahmad the prophet (the only heathen prophet known today), it suddenly becomes a very coherent verse that makes much sense. The heathens will be shaken, and they will come. Then, He specifies by saying: Chemdat of all the heathens, and continues with the rest of the verse.
The phrase "הגוים" (ha-goyim) translates as "the heathens," which supports the interpretation that "Chemdat" is a proper noun referring to a significant heathen person anticipated to come. God is going to shake all the heathens, and they will come. Then He specifies who would come: "Chemdat of all the heathens (will come)." He then says He will fill this house, which they saw as nothing, with glory. The house already exists; Chemdat of all nations was just about to come, and God would fill this house with glory again. And, of course, the stone Jacob laid in Genesis 28—the same stone that Jesus referred to in Matthew 21:
Going back to Haggai 2, the 18th verse also confirms that the Temple already was there:
Nevertheless, he is right about one thing regarding this chapter: it does not mention the new moon to new moon and the end of the Sabbath—that was in Isaiah 66. My mistake. But the prophecy is still valid. The new moon to new moon would come, and yes, the second phrase can be interpreted as an end (if we interpret "Shabbat" as "End"), but it is Biblically and generally interpreted as "Sabbath." A literal translation of the phrase in the 23rd verse would be:
The Quran states in 2:40-42:
I don't see easter, halloween or Christmas being mentioned here. It's Ramadan and the Sabbath, the two Covenants God has given to his worshipers, the Covenant of the Children of Israel and the Covenant of Peace, unlike the Pauline Christians who literally took all of their holidays from pagan idolaters, which I won't go into because it's not very relevant to our discussion anyways.
This marks the end of my rebuttal to his "part 1."
Thank you for reading,
/Your bro Exion.
submitted by Informal_Patience821 to Quraniyoon [link] [comments]
Peace be to you all.
Introduction:
In this post, I will be answering and refuting the individual who keeps writing posts about me and comments every second he gets trying to "refute" me and "expose" me. I am only doing this because some brothers and sisters have allowed themselves to be fooled by this dude.I won't resort to personal attacks and baseless claims (much like he does), and I will jump straight ahead to answering his objections.
Response to the introduction:
He begins by discussing my translation of the word "ישוחח," which I interpret as "argue" or "put forth."Firstly, in Biblical Hebrew, verb forms such as Qal and Piel (often referred to as Polel in some grammatical traditions) are distinguished by their specific diacritic markings (i.e., vowel points and consonantal diacritics). Since I believe that the Masoretes distorted the Old Testament by adding these diacritics to reach a deviant interpretation, I do not consider them at all. I read the Old Testament without any diacritics. This is something he has yet to understand, perhaps because he believes that the Old Testament was revealed with diacritic markings—I don't know.
He later argues that the ancient Christian manuscripts (such as the Codex Sinaiticus, Septuagint, etc.) must agree with my claims and not with the Masoretic renderings of the Hebrew text, a conclusion he bases on thin air. I ask: Why is that so? Can you give us one good reason for this conclusion? You can't! He says this only because he considers these Christian manuscripts as divinely revealed criteria and translations. In contrast, I (and many others) see them as ancient interpretations of the original Hebrew text, which are very erroneous. This is especially true considering that rabbis themselves claim these scholars and translators failed to understand every Hebrew idiom in the book. They took everything literally and thus deviated from the intended meaning throughout their translations. These are the translations he claims must agree with my understanding.
The Masoretes could even have been influenced by Christians and their manuscripts, leading them to render some verses erroneously, whether knowingly or unknowingly—we can't be certain. However, I believe it wasn't unknowingly, and I have very good reasons for holding this opinion.
His arguments in his objections are all flawed and fallacious.
The Original sin being denied in the OT:
Now, the word he is fixated on is "ישוחח." As he mentioned, I used a classical Hebrew dictionary to translate the word. I don't remember the exact dictionary I used, but here is a random one I will use today:Root: שִׂיחַ (v)Source: מקור: Open Scriptures on GitHub, Creator: יוצר: Based on the work of Larry Pierce at the Online Bible
1 - to put forth, mediate, muse, commune, speak, complain, ponder, sing
1 -(Qal)
1 - to complain
2 - to muse, meditate upon, study, ponder
3 - to talk, sing, speak
2 - (Polel) to meditate, consider, put forth thoughts
In other words, both Qal and Polel essentially mean the same thing.
This following excerpt is from my original post about this, the post he is "refuting":
Excerpt from the post in question:
_______________________
Isaiah 53:8, traditional translation:
"From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them."
The original verse (without diacritics):
מעצר וממשפט לקח ואת־דורו מי ישוחח כי נגזר מארץ חיים מפשע עמי נגע למו:
My translation:
"He was taken from arrest and trial, and as for his generation, who will argue that he was cut off from the land of the living [i.e. killed] for the sin of my people, a plague befell them."
_______________________
In this verse, God is explicitly denying the doctrine of the Original Sin, stating that those who argue, speak, put forth, or ponder that Jesus was killed for the sins of His (God's) people are cursed (or afflicted by a plague).
It is crystal clear! He is just in denial because it contradicts his Pauline doctrine. Thus, he has fixated on this specific word, insisting it is (without a shadow of a doubt) in the Polel form (because his Pauline forefathers said so), and claims that Exion has made a grave error. Incredible, indeed. What a rebuttal!
Let's see if the Polel form does anything to save him:
1. Meditate:
"He was taken from arrest and trial, and as for his generation, who will meditate that he was cut off from the land of the living [i.e. killed] for the sin of my people, a plague befell them."The definition of "Meditate" is:
I know it isn't the latter, because that is just ludicrous and silly. But guess what? They even tried to claim it is the latter, which is beyond amusing to me and any other sane person reading this.
- To plan mentally; consider,
- To focus one's mind for a period of time, in silence or with the aid of chanting, for religious or spiritual purposes or as a method of relaxation.
2. Consider:
"He was taken from arrest and trial, and as for his generation, who will consider that he was cut off from the land of the living [i.e. killed] for the sin of my people, a plague befell them."It still obliterates the doctrine of the Original sin completely.
3. Put forth thoughts:
"He was taken from arrest and trial, and as for his generation, who will put forth thoughts that he was cut off from the land of the living [i.e. killed] for the sin of my people, a plague befell them."It still obliterates the doctrine of the Original sin completely.
This is what I have to deal with. He is correcting my interpretation by yet again confirming it and he doesn't even realize it. He refuses to accept that the Old Testament completely refutes this absurd Pauline doctrine that God sent His "son" to the earth to kill him and forgive mankind. He can't understand that the Old Testament aligns with the Quran, calling them cursed. I have explained this to him several times, but to no avail. According to him, the early Christians "meditated" about Jesus' "abode." He raises the same objection in every comment he makes on every future post I do, as if I haven't just refuted him using the Bible, dictionaries, and other sources. In one ear and out the other. The only reason I'm even writing this response is to make you guys realize how unknowledgeable this man really is about the Bible and the Hebrew language. But he is good at making it look like he knows a thing or two by using fancy words and elaborations that make no sense at all.
I believe (if I remember correctly) that he translates it as:
"By oppressive judgment he was taken away, Who could describe his abode?..."This unusual rendering is achieved by mistranslating a word, done specifically to alter the actual meaning. Some Jewish translators render it the same way, but they at least have the decency to add a footnote saying:
"\Who could describe his abode?* Meaning of Heb. uncertain." (source: Sefaria.org)As they usually do when they mistranslate stuff.
Who would describe Jesus abode? What?! With all due respect, but that makes no sense at all! It makes no sense contextually nor logically.
This is how another Jewish translation has it:
"From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them."Does this look like a coherent sentence to you? Jesus is taken from imprisonment and judgement, and his generation who shall tell? Tell what? This is an incomplete sentence - just to change the actual intended message.
The original phrase is: "ואת־דורו מי ישוחח"
Let me break it down for you:
Word: ואת = "And his"Crystal clear phrase. Even Google translates it accurately (which is very rare by the way):
Word: ־דורו = "Generation"
Word: מי = "Who will"
Word: ישוחח = "Argue/Put forth/Talk/consideetc"
"And his generation who will talk"Take a look at some of the English translations of his Christian forefathers:
New Living Translation Unjustly condemned, he was led away. No one cared that he died without descendants...
New International Version By oppression and judgment he was taken away. Yet who of his generation protested?...
King James Bible He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation?...
Some others got the first part accurate but still misinterpreted the last part of the verse, as it claims that they are cursed. God forbid, they are the ones who are cursed, for they consider Jesus to be the cursed one:
English Standard Version By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?
They applied the "curse/plague" to Jesus (which they translate as "stricken," even though Biblically it is generally understood to be a plague/curse) instead of applying it to those "who considered" (i.e., the Pauline Christians). The Hebrew verse uses a plural word, indicating that it was intended for those people who would put forth this claim. They all refuse to accept the fact that God is explicitly and literally stating that they are affected by a plague for their erroneous claim about Jesus.
Let's quickly refute them too:
- The word for "plague" is "נגע" (nega).
- The word for "to them" is "למו" (lamo).
"Plague" (נגע):
Hebrew classical dictionary:Heb: נֶגַע (n-m)Source: מקור: Open Scriptures on GitHub, Creator: יוצר: Based on the work of Larry Pierce at the Online Bible
1 - stroke, plague, disease, mark, plague spot
stroke, wound
stroke (metaphorical of disease)
mark (of leprosy)
"To them" (לָֽמוֹ):
Hebrew classical dictionary:1 - inflected pers. pron. meaning ‘to them’ (poetically).Source: מקור: Klein Dictionary, Creator: יוצר: Ezra Klein
2 - [Formed from לְ◌ with ◌מוֹ, a suff. used only in poetry.]
A plague to whom? TO THEM! To the people who put forth this Pauline doctrine, the ones who argued, said, or considered this absurdity. Absolutely not to the one they believed to be cut off for the sin of God's people, namely Jesus, God's prophet, Messiah, His Word, and a spirit from Him.
But this is not surprising to anyone; it is expected, because their savior Paul also considered the blessed Messiah Jesus to be a curse:
"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.'" (Galatians 3:13)It bothers them that God Himself is confirming that they are the cursed ones, and He does it in the book they believe in. I am the one who exposed it, and all praise is due to God alone. It bothers this guy who is "eXpOsInG" me, and I won't mention his name because that is most likely what he wants.
He goes on to say that I quoted from a fictitious source, which is not true at all. I simply didn’t bother looking through my entire library to find a quote I mistakenly mis-referenced, mainly because the quote turned out to be quite irrelevant, and I don’t waste my time like that. Much of what he initiated his "rebuttal" with is equally misunderstood by him, and I have responded to each and every objection in my older posts (in the comment sections where he was "eXpOsInG" me). I picked the first thing and refuted it here for you just to show how ignorant he really is and how he is either living a lie or lying to others.
So, I will not bother to refute every single point of the old stuff that I’ve already conclusively answered. It's a waste of time. Let’s move on to his objections to my latest posts, because that is what this is all about in reality.
My answers to his objections to my latest posts:
Regarding the stone God mentions that was to be placed in the Temple of God, he says that it is saying"Stone to a stone," or "upon a stone"My answer:
"Stone to a stone" is not a Hebrew idiom, and neither is the word "upon" there in Hebrew. He doesn't know Hebrew, had he known Hebrew, he would never have "eXpOsEd" this because it just went to show that he doesn't know the language at all.
The Hebrew word "שום" (shum) in this context is derived from the root ש-ו-ם, which means "to place" or "to put." It appears here as an infinitive construct, which is often used to convey the act of doing something, similar to the English "-ing" form. In this sentence, "שום" is functioning as a gerund, which is a verbal noun. It translates to "placing" or "putting" in English. Therefore, "שום־אבן" means "placing a stone" or "putting a stone."
As for the next word, i.e. "stone" (אבן), in Hebrew, nouns have gender (masculine or feminine) and number (singular or plural). "אבן" is a feminine singular noun. When used in the phrase "שום־אבן" (placing a stone), "אבן" functions as the direct object of the action described by the infinitive construct "שום" (placing).
The next word is אל: This is taken as a preposition according to them, and it generally means "to" or "toward," and never "upon." It is used to indicate direction or movement towards something. While the following word is, again, a stone "אבן."
So if we're going with their interpretation, while being literal, as we should because it is not an idiom, it accurately translates to:
"Before placing a stone to a stone" or "before placing stone to stone"
Which makes very little sense, if any. Why wouldn't God say "Before placing stone upon stone" or "Stones upon stones" or "before placing a stone upon a stone"? Why did He use a singular word for "stone"? Because it is speaking about a one stone, the stone that God placed in Zion:
"So this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who relies on it will never be stricken with panic." (Isaiah 28:16)I have proven in countless posts that Zion is the ancient name for Mecca. Just look up Psalm 84, and you will see how it mentions doing the pilgrimage in Zion and also mentions "Bacca," another name for Mecca. I have proven how Harran is located in Mecca and that the oak of Bacca is located there as well, and we know according to Psalm 84 that Zion is located where Bacca is located. With this in mind, it’s easy to see what has been done to cover up this prophecy. They have misinterpreted the word "El" as "Upon" instead of "God." The definition of that word is not "Upon"; it means "To/toward" or "God."
Classical Hebrew dictionary:
Heb: אֵל (n-m)Source: מקור: Open Scriptures on GitHub, creator: יוצר: Based on the work of Larry Pierce at the Online Bible
god, god-like one, mighty one
mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
angels
god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
God, the one true God, Jehovah
mighty things in nature
strength, power
And:
Heb: אֶל (prep.)Source: מקור: Klein Dictionary, Creator: יוצר: Ezra Klein
denoting motion toward or to, or direction toward, and meaning ‘to, unto, toward, into, at, by’.
[Shortened from אֱלֵי (which is preserved in poetry). cp. עֲלֵי, poetical form of עַל (= on), and עֲדֵי, poetical form of עַד (= as far as, until). Related to Arab. ’ilā (= to, toward, up to).]
Let's see if any of these help him:
Before placing a stone to a stone?Does any of this make any sense to you? I believe it certainly does not. Yet they have all chosen to ignore these valid definitions and instead opt for a definition that isn't there, namely: "a stone UPON a stone," just to claim that God was idiomatically saying "Before you build the temple." The temple was already built, as I will prove later below.
Before placing a stone towards a stone?
Before placing a stone into a stone?
Before placing a stone unto a stone? (archaic term for "to")
Before placing a stone at a stone?
Before placing a stone by a stone?
To get a more coherent translation, one that makes sense both contextually and linguistically, we need to consider "El" as "God":
ועתה - "And now"Here, "אל־אבן" would translate to "God's stone" or "stone of God." Thus, the phrase "מטרם שום־אבן אל־אבן בהיכל יהוה" would be understood as "before placing a stone as God's stone in the temple of YHWH" or "before placing a stone, God's stone, in the temple of YHWH"
שימו־נא - "consider, please"
לבבכם - "your heart"
מן־היום - "from this day"
הזה - "this"
ומעלה - "and onward"
מטרם - "before"
שום־אבן - "placing a stone"
אל־אבן - "God's stone/stone of God"
בהיכל - "in the Temple"
יהוה - "of YHWH" (YHWH)
He is just in denial here as well. It is quite obvious that God is talking about placing a stone in the Temple of God, not about placing a stone towards a stone (whatever that means). Biblically, it is known that Jacob placed a stone in the House of God in Harran, which I have also proven to be located in the vicinity of Mecca, using 1st-century CE atlases by giants in geography such as Pomponius Mela, Pliny, and others.
He writes:
"More importantly, Exion ignored that “stone” in the Hebrew occurs twice. If we take אל to be God and take it as the construct state (the ‘s) then it would be “before setting stone’s God’s stone”. That doesn’t make sense hence why Exion dropped the first occurrence of אֶ֛בֶן in their translation."Or you could simply not take "El" as a construct state. In Hebrew, a noun followed by another noun can indicate possession without needing a construct state (i.e. the equivalent of adding 's in English). This is often called "smikhut" or construct form, but it is not always necessary to explicitly form it.
In the phrase "שום־אבן אל־אבן" (placing a stone as God's stone), the context and the nouns' arrangement provide the possessive meaning without requiring additional grammatical changes. "אל־אבן" can be understood as "God's stone" even though it is not in the formal construct state. This is something he doesn't know because, well, who knows why. I have my speculations, but I will refrain from personal attacks.
He says:
"It makes perfect sense with the rest of the verse “in the temple of Yahweh.” It’s talking about before the building of the temple which involved setting stone upon stone."Oh really? Is that why the 3rd verse literally talks about the Temple that already was in existence but was viewed as nothing in their eyes (i.e. insignificant):
"Who among you is left, who saw this house in its former glory? And as you see it now, is it not as nothing in your eyes?" (Haggai 2:3)Explicitly contradicting your claim that it doesn't exist, but you didn't know that because you have probably never even read the entirety of the chapter to begin with. The Temple was already there. A stone was to be placed in it, God's stone, the black stone of the House of God, and not that it was to be built or built anew. This is why I even wrote the article, because the temple of God was already in existence. How you could have missed this, if you've read the chapter in it entirety, is very baffling to me.
This is why Jacob, upon waking from his prophetic dream, never built the House of God. (Yes, Jacob was a prophet, but Christian scholars throughout history didn't recognize this and thought he was merely a patriarch.) Instead, he only placed a stone as its cornerstone and named it "The House of God":
16. When Jacob woke up, he thought, “Surely the LORD is in this place, and I was unaware of it.” 17. And he was afraid and said, “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God; this is the gate of heaven!” 18. Early the next morning, Jacob took the stone that he had placed under his head, and he set it up as a pillar. He poured oil on top of it."Going back to Haggai 2, the 6th verse states:
"כי כה אמר יהוה צבאות עוד אחת מעט היא ואני מרעיש את־השמים ואת־הארץ ואת־הים ואת־החרבה:"Which literally translates to:
"For thus says the Lord of Hosts: Once more, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth, the sea and the dry land."Which they have erroneously translated as:
"For so said the Lord of Hosts: [There will rise] another one, and I will shake up the heaven and the earth and the sea and the dry land [for] a little while." (source)Lying and adding words to the Word of God to make it look like another House would be raised.
7th verse states:
Haggai 2:7
"והרעשתי את־כל־הגוים ובאו חמדת כל־הגוים ומלאתי את־הבית הזה כבוד אמר יהוה צבאות:"Transliteration:
"Ve-hir'ashti et kol ha-goyim u-va'u chemdat kol ha-goyim u-milati et ha-bayit ha-zeh kavod amar Adonai Tzva'ot."Not only does it confirm that the House is already in existence, but it mentioned our prophet Ahmad coming to it by using the cognate of his name, "Chemdat," which they erroneously have translated as:
"and the treasures of all the nations will be brought to this Temple."The preposition "the" is not there before "Chemdat," while it is before "Goyim" (heathens), which makes sense because "Chemdat of all the heathens (will come)" and doesn't translate to "The treasure of all the heathens (will come)," as they have it.
Let me break it down for you:
והרעשתִי (ve-hir'ashti) - "and I will shake"
את (et) - [direct object marker, not translated]
כל (kol) - "all"
הגוים (ha-goyim) - "the heathens"
ובאו (u-va'u) - "and they will come"
חמדת (Chemdat) - "Chemdat" (proper noun)
כל (kol) - "of all"
הגוים (ha-goyim) - "the heathens"
ומלאתי (u-milati) - "and I will fill"
את (et) - [direct object marker, not translated]
הבית (ha-bayit) - "the house"
הזה (ha-zeh) - "this"
כבוד (kavod) - "glory"
אמר (amar) - "says"
יהוה (Adonai) - "Lord"
צבאות (Tzva'ot) - "of Hosts"
Result:
"And I will shake all the heathens, and they will come, Chemdat of all the heathens, and I will fill this house with glory, says the Lord of Hosts."
Explanation:
They have translated it as "the treasures of..." while the phrase "Chemdat" lacks a "The" (Ha), so it would more accurately be rendered as:"And they will come, treasure of all the heathens, and..."A very awkward sentence grammatically. And the dictionaries do not define חמדת (Chemdat) as "Treasure," but rather as "Desire" or "Precious." But translating this phrase in this way (if we consider it to mean "desire" or "precious"), we would make the verse even more awkward:
"And they will come, desire of all the heathens" or "And they will come, precious of all the heathens."Because it is a singular phrase, and not plural, and as I mentioned earlier, lacks a definite preposition.
But if we consider "Chemdat" as a cognate of "Ahmad," as a proper noun referring to Ahmad the prophet (the only heathen prophet known today), it suddenly becomes a very coherent verse that makes much sense. The heathens will be shaken, and they will come. Then, He specifies by saying: Chemdat of all the heathens, and continues with the rest of the verse.
The phrase "הגוים" (ha-goyim) translates as "the heathens," which supports the interpretation that "Chemdat" is a proper noun referring to a significant heathen person anticipated to come. God is going to shake all the heathens, and they will come. Then He specifies who would come: "Chemdat of all the heathens (will come)." He then says He will fill this house, which they saw as nothing, with glory. The house already exists; Chemdat of all nations was just about to come, and God would fill this house with glory again. And, of course, the stone Jacob laid in Genesis 28—the same stone that Jesus referred to in Matthew 21:
The Kingdom of God was intended to be taken away from the Christians and given to a people who would produce its fruits, and this is what happened when Islam came.43. Therefore, I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit."
- Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: 'The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. This is from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes?'
Going back to Haggai 2, the 18th verse also confirms that the Temple already was there:
"Consider, please, your heart from this day and onward, from the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, from the day that the temple of the Lord was founded, consider your heart."Just because God considers the two Houses (the current one they saw as insignificant and the later one) as "different" does not mean that it does not already exist physically but will be a different House.
Nevertheless, he is right about one thing regarding this chapter: it does not mention the new moon to new moon and the end of the Sabbath—that was in Isaiah 66. My mistake. But the prophecy is still valid. The new moon to new moon would come, and yes, the second phrase can be interpreted as an end (if we interpret "Shabbat" as "End"), but it is Biblically and generally interpreted as "Sabbath." A literal translation of the phrase in the 23rd verse would be:
שבת (shabbat) - "Sabbath"Let's agree that it means what the traditional translations say it means, and I don't mean hypothetically, but let's actually agree on that. However, the prophecy about the new moons (Ramadan) is still there and valid because God has not canceled the Sabbath in the Quran; it is still ongoing:
בשבתו (be-shabbato) - "His Sabbath"
יבוא (yavo) - "it will come"
The Quran states in 2:40-42:
Verse 40: "O Children of Israel, remember My favor which I have bestowed upon you and fulfill My covenant [upon you] that I will fulfill your covenant [from Me], and fear Me."The new moon to a new moon is combined with the Sabbath to Sabbath. This is a fulfilled prophecy!
Verse 41: "And believe in what I have sent down confirming that which is [already] with you, and be not the first to disbelieve in it. And do not exchange My signs/verses for a small price, and fear Me."
Verse 42: "And do not mix the truth with falsehood or conceal the truth while you know [it]."
I don't see easter, halloween or Christmas being mentioned here. It's Ramadan and the Sabbath, the two Covenants God has given to his worshipers, the Covenant of the Children of Israel and the Covenant of Peace, unlike the Pauline Christians who literally took all of their holidays from pagan idolaters, which I won't go into because it's not very relevant to our discussion anyways.
This marks the end of my rebuttal to his "part 1."
Thank you for reading,
/Your bro Exion.
2024.06.01 09:36 7ig4 A polite Request
 | submitted by 7ig4 to whales [link] [comments] |
2024.06.01 08:32 Publius1687 "Neither individuals nor nations can perform their part well, until they understand and feel its importance, and comprehend and justly appreciate all the duties belonging to it."
This is an unaccustomed spectacle. For the first time, fellow-citizens, badges of mourning shroud the columns and overhang the arches of this hall. These walls, which were consecrated, so long ago, to the cause of American liberty, which witnessed her infant struggles and rung with the shouts of her earliest victories, proclaim, now, that distinguished friends and champions of that great cause have fallen. It is right that it should be thus. The tears which flow, and the honors that are paid, when the founders of the republic die, give hope that the republic itself may be immortal. It is fit that, by public assembly and solemn observance, by anthem and by eulogy, we commemorate the services of national benefactors, extol their virtues, and render thanks to God for eminent blessings, early given and long continued, through their agency, to our favored country.
ADAMS and JEFFERSON are no more; and we are assembled, fellow-citizens, the aged, the middle-aged, and the young, by the spontaneous impulse of all, under the authority of the municipal government, with the presence of the chief magistrate of the Commonwealth, and others its official representatives, the University, and the learned societies, to bear our part in these manifestations of respect and gratitude which pervade the whole land. ADAMS and JEFFERSON are no more. On our fiftieth anniversary, the great day of national jubilee, in the very hour of public rejoicing, in the midst of echoing and reechoing voices of thanksgiving, while their own names were on all tongues, they took their flight together to the world of spirits.
If it be true that no one can safely be pronounced happy while he lives, if that event which terminates life can alone crown its honors and its glory, what felicity is here! The great epic of their lives, how happily concluded! Poetry itself has hardly terminated illustrious lives, and finished the career of earthly renown, by such a consummation. If we had the power, we could not wish to reverse this dispensation of the Divine Providence. The great objects of life were accomplished, the drama was ready to be closed. It has closed; our patriots have fallen; but so fallen, at such age, with such coincidence, on such a day, that we cannot rationally lament that the end has come, which we knew could not be long deferred.
Neither of these great men, fellow-citizens, could have died, at any time, without leaving an immense void in our American society. They have been so intimately, and ofr so long a time, blended with the history of the country, and especially so united, in our thoughts and recollections, with the events of the Revolution, that the death of either of them would have touched the chords of public sympathy. We should have felt that one great link, connecting us with former times, was broken; that we had lost something more, as it were, of the presence of the Revolution itself, and of the act of independence, and were driven on, by another great remove from the days of our country’s early distinction, to meet posterity and to mix with the future. Like the mariner, whom the currents of the ocean and the winds carry along until he sees the stars which have directed his course and lighted his pathless way descend one by one, beneath the rising horizon, we should have felt that the stream of time had borne us onward till another great luminary, whose light had cheered us and whose guidance we had followed, had sunk away from our sight.
But the concurrence of their death on the anniversary of Independence has naturally awakened stronger emotions. Both had been President, both had lived to great age, both were early patriots, and both were distinguished and ever honored by their immediate agency in the act of independence. It cannot but seem striking and extraordinary, that these two should live to see the fiftieth year from the date of that act/ that they should complete that yea and that then, on the day which had fast linked for ever their own fame with their country’s glory, the heavens should open to receive them both at once. As their lives themselves were the gifts of Providence, who is not willing to recognize in their happy termination, as well as in their long continuance, proofs that our country and its benefactors are objects of His care?
ADAMS and JEFFERSON, I have said, are no more. As human beings, indeed, they are no more. They are no more, as in 1776, bold and fearless advocates of independence; no more, as at subsequent periods, the head of the government; nor more, as we have recently seen them, aged and venerable objects of admiration and regard. They are no more. They are dead. But how little is there of the great and gooe which can die! To their country they yet live, and live for ever. They live in all that perpetuatesw the remembrance of men on earth; in the recorded proofs of their own great actions, in the offspring of their intellect, in the deep-engraved lines of public gratitude, and in the respect and homage of mankind. They live in their example; and they live, emphatically, and will live, in the influence which their lives and efforts, their principles and opinions, now exerciese, and will continue to exercise, on the affairs of men, not only in their own country but throughout the civilized world. A superior and commanding human intellect, a truly great man, when Heaven vouchsafes so rare a gift, is not a temporary flame, burning brightly for a while, and then giving place to returning darkness. It is rather a spark of fervent heat, as well as radiant light, with power to enkindle the common mass of human kind; so that when it glimmers in its own decay, and finally goes out in death, no night follows, but it leaves the world all light, all on fire from the potent contact of its own spirit. Bacon died; but the human understanding, roused by the touch of his miraculous wand to a perception of the true philosophy and the just mode of inquiring after truth, has kept on its course successfully and gloriously. Newton died; yet the courses of the spheres are still known, and they yet move on by the laws which he discovered, and in the orbits which he saw, and described for them, in the infinity of space.
No two men now live, fellow-citizen, perhaps it may be doubted whether any two men have ever lived in one age, who, more than those we now commemorate, have impressed on mankind their own opinions more deeply into the opinions of others, or given a more lasting direction to the current of human thought. Their work doth not perish with them. The tree which they assisted to plant will flourish, although they water it and protect it no longer; for it has struck its roots deep, it has sent them to the very centre; no storm, not of foce to burth the orb, can overturn it; its branches spread wide; they stretch their protecting arms braoder and broader, and its top is destined to reach the heavens. We are not deceived. There is no delusion here. No age will come in which the American Revolution will appear less than it is, one of the greatest events in human history. No age will come in which it shall cease to be seen and felt, on either continent, that a mighty step, a great advance, not only in American affairs, but in human affairs, was made on the 4th of July, 1776. And no age will come, we trust, so ignorant or so unjust as not to see and acknowledge the efficient agency of those we now honor in producing that momentous event.
We are not assembled, therefore, fellow-citizens, as men overwhelmed with calamity by the sudden disruption of the ties of friendship or affection, or as in despair for the republic by the untimely blighting of its hopes. Death has not surprised us by an unseasonable blow. We have, indeed, seen the tomb close, but it has closed only over mature years, over long-protracted public service, over the weakness of age, and over life itself only when the ends of living had been fulfilled. These suns, as they rose slowly and steadily, amidst clouds and storms, in their ascendant, so they have not rushed from the meridian to sink suddenly in the west. Like the mildness, the serenity, the continuing benignity of a summer’s day, they have gone down with slow-descending, grateful long-lingering light; and now that they are beyond the visible margin of the world, good omens cheer us from “the bright track of thier fiery car”!
There were many points of similarity in the lives and fortunes of these great men. They belonged to the same profession, and had pursued its studies and its practice for unequal lengths of time indeed, but with dilligence and effect. Both were learned and able lawyers. They were natives and inhabitants, respectively of those two of the Colonies which at the Revolution were the largest and most powerful and which naturally had a lead in the political affairs of the times. When the Colonies became in some degree united by the assembling of a general Congress, they were brought to act together in its deliberations, not indeed at the same time but both at early periods. Each had laready manifested his attachment to the cause of the country, as well as his ability to maintain it, by printed addresses, public speeches, extensive correspondence, and whatever other mode could be adopted for the purpose of exposing the encroachments of the British Parliament, and animating the people to a manly resistance. Both were not only decided, but early, friends of Independence. While others yet doubted, they were resolved; where others hesitated they pressed forward. They were both members of the committee for preparing the Declaration of Independence, and they constituted the sub-committee appointed by the other members to make the draft. They left their seats in Congress, being called to other public employments at periods not remote from each other, although one of them returned to it afterwards for a short time. Neither of them was of the assembly of great men which formed the present Constitution, and neither was at any time a member of Congress under its provisions. Both have been public ministers abroad, both Vice-Presidents and both Presidents of the United States. These coincidences are now singularly crowned and completed. They have died together; and they did on the anniversary of liberty…
And now, fellow-citizens, without pursuing the biography of these illustrious men further, for the present let us turn our attention to the most prominent act of their lives, their participation in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE…
It has sometimes been said, as if it were a derogation from the merits of this paper, that it contains nothing new; that it only states grounds of proceeding and presses topics of argument, which had often been stated and pressed before. But it was not the object of the Declaration to produce any thing new. It was not to invent reasons for independence, but to state those which governed the Congress. For great and sufficient causes, it was proposed to declare independence; and the proper business of the paper to be drawn was to set for th those causes, and justify the authors of the measure, in any event of fortune, to mthe country and to posterity. The cause of American independence, moreover, was now to be presented to the world in such manner; of it might so be, as to engage its sympathy, to command its respect, to attract its admiration; and in an assembly of most able and distinguished men, THOMAS JEFFERSON had the high honor of being the selected advocate of this cause. To say that he performed his great work well, would be doing him an injustice. To say that he did excellently well, admirably well, would be inadequate and halting praise. Let us rather say, that he so discharged the duty assigned him, that all Americans may well rejoice that the work of drawing the title-deed of their liberties devolved upon him…
The Congress of the Revolution, fellow-citizens, sat with closed doors, and no report of its debates was ever made. The discussion, therefore, which accompanied this great measure, has never been preserved, except in memory and by tradition. But it is, I believe, doing to injustice to others to say, that the general opinion was, and uniformly has been, that in debate, on the side of independence, JOHN ADAMS had no equal. The great author of the Declaration himself has espressed that opinion uniformly and strongly. JOHN ADAMS, said he, in the hearing of him who has now the honor to address you, JOHN ADAMS was our colossus on the floor. Not graceful, not elegant, not always fluent, in his public addresses, he yet came out with a power both of thought and of expression, which moved us from our seats…
The eloquence of Mr. Adams resembled his general character, and formed, indeed, a part of it. It was bold, manly, and energetic; and such the crisis required. When public bodies are to be addressed on passions excited, nothing is valuable in speech farther than as it is connected with high intellectual and moral endowments. Clearness, force, and earnestness are the qualities which produce conviction. True eloquence, indeed, does not consist in speech. It cannot be brought from far. Labor and learning may toil for it, but they will toil in vain. It must exist in the man, in the subject, and in the occassion. Affected passion, intense expression, the pomp of declamation, all may aspire to it; they cannot reach it. It comes, if it comes at all, like the outbreaking of a fountain from the earth, or the bursting forth of volcanic fires, with spontaneous, original, native force. The graces taught in the schools, the costly ornaments and studied contrivances of speech, shock and disgust men, when their own lives and the fate of their wives, their children, and their country hang on the decision of the hour. Then words have lost their power, rhetoric is vain, and all elaborate oratory contemptible. Even genius itself then feels rebuked and subdued, as in the presence of higher qualities. Then patriotism is eloquent; then self-devotion is eloquent. The clear conception, outrunning the deductions of logic, the high purpose, the firm resolve, the dauntless spirit, speaking on the tongue, beaming from the eye, informing every feature, and urging the whole man onward, right onward to his object this, this is eloquence; or rather it is something greater and higher than all eloquence, it is action, noble, sublime godlike action…
Let us, then, bring before us the assembly, which was about to decide a question thus big with the fate of empire. Let us open their doors and look upon their deliberations. Let us survey the anxious and care-worn countenances, let us hear the firm-toned voices, of this band of patriots.
HANCOCK presides over the solemn sitting; and one of those not yet prepared to pronounce for absolute independence is on the floor, and is urging his reasons for dissenting from the declaration.
“Let us pause! This step, once taken, cannot be retracted. This resolution, once passed, will cut off all hope of reconciliation. If success attend the arms of England, we shall then be no longer Colonies, with charters and with privileges; these will all be forfeited by this act; and we shall be in the condition of other conquered people, at the mercy of the conquerors. For ourselves, we may be ready to run the hazard; but are we ready to carry the country to that length? Is success so probably as to justify it? Where is the military, where the naval power, by which we are to resist the whole strength of the arm of England, for she will exert that strength to the utmost? Can we rely on constancy and perseverance of the people? or will they not act as the people of other countries have acted and, wearied with a long war, submit, in the end, to a worse oppression? While we stand on our old ground, and insist on redress of grievances, we know we are right, and are not answerable for consequences. Nothing, then, can be imputed to us. But if we now change our object, carry our pretensions farther, and set up for absolute indpendence, we shall lose the sympathy of mankind. We shall no longer be defending what we possess, but struggling for something which we never did possess, and which we have solemnly and uniformly disclaimed all intention of pursuing, from the very outset of the troubles. Abandoning thus our old ground, of resistance only to arbitrary acts of oppression, thee nations will believe the whole to have been mere pretence, and they will look on us, not as injured, buut as ambitious subjects. I shudder before this responsibility. It will be on us, if, relinquishing the ground on which we have stood so long, and stood so safely, we now proclaim independence, and carry on the war for that object, while these cities burn, these pleasant fields whiten and bleach with the bones of their owners, and these streams run blood. It will be upon us, it will be upon us, if, failing to maintain this unseasonable and ill-judged declaration, a sterner despotism, maintained by military power, shall be exhausted, a harassed, misled people, shall have expiated our rashness and atoned for our presumption on the scaffold.”
It was for Mr. Adams to reply to arguments like these. We know his opinions, and we know his character. He would commence with his accustomed directness and earnestness.
“Sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish, I give my hand and my heart to this vote. It is true, indeed, that in the beginning we aimed not at independence. But there’s a Divinity which shapes our ends. The injustice of England has driven us to arms; and blinded to her own interest for our good, she has obstinately persisted, till independence is now within our grasp. We have but to reach forth to it, and it is ours. Why, then, should we defer the Declaration? Is any man so weak as now to hope for a reconciliation with England, which shall leave either safety to the country and its liberties, or safety to his own life and his own honor? Are not you, Sir, who sit in that chair, is not he, our venerable colleague near you, are you not both already the proscribed and predestined objects of punishment and of vengeance? Cut off from all hope of royal clemency, what are you, what can you be, while the power of England remains, but outlaws? If we postpone independence, do we mean to carry on, or to give up, the war? Do we mean to submit to the measures of Parliament, Boston Port Bill and all? Do we mean to submit, and consent that we ourselves shall be ground to poweder, and our country and its rights trodden down in the dust? I know we do not mean to submit. We shall never submit. Do we intend to violate that most solemn obligation ever entered into men, that plighting, before God, of our sacred honor to Washington, when, putting forth to incure the dangers of war, as well as the political hazards of our times, we promised to adhere to him, in ever extremity, with our fortunes and our lives? I know there is not a man here, who would not rather see a general conflagration sweep over the land, or an earthquake sink it, than one jot or tittle of that plighted fiath fall to the ground. For myself, having, twelve months ago, in this place, moved you, that George Washington be appointed commander of the forces raised, or to be raised, for defence of American liberty, may my right hand forget her cunning, and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I hesitate or waver in the support I give him… ”
And now, fellow-citizens, let us not retire from this occasion without a deep and solemn conviction of the duties which have developed upon us. This lovely land, this glorious liberty, these benign institutions, the dear purchase of our fathers, are ours; ours to enjoy, ours to preserve, ours to transmit. Generations past and generations to come hold us responsible for this sacred trust. Our fathers, from behind, admonish us, with their anxious paternal voices; posterity calls out to us, from the bosom of the future; the world turns hither its solicitous eyes; all, conjure us to act wisely, and faithfully, in the relation which we sustain.
We can never, indeed, pay the debt which is upon us; but by virtue, by morality, by religion, by the cultivation of every good principle and every good habit, we may hope to enjoy the blessing, through our day, and to leave it unimpaired to our children. Let us feel deeply how much of what we are and of what we possess we owe to this liberty, and to these institutions of government. Nature has, indeed, given us a soil which yields bounteously to the hand of industry, the mighty and fruitful ocean is before us, and the skies over our heads shed health and vigor. But what are lands, and seas, and skies, to civilized man, without society, without knowledge, without morals, without religious culture; and how can these be enjoyed, in all their extent and all their excellence, but under the protection of wise institutions and a free government? Fellow-citizens, there is not one of us, there is not one of us here present, who does not, at this moment, and at every moment, experience, in his own condition, and in the condition of those most near and dear to him, the influence and the benefits, of this liberty and these institutions. Let us then acknowledge the blessing, let us feel it deeply and powerfully, let us cherish a strong affection for it, and resolve to maintain and perpetuate it. The blood of our fathers, let it not have been shed in vain; the great hope of posterity, let it not be blasted.
The striking attitude, too, in which we stand to the world around us, a topic to which, I fear, I advert too often, and dwell on too long, cannot be altogether ommited here. Neither individuals nor nations can perform their part well, until they understand and feel its importance, and comprehend and justly appreciate all the duties belonging to it. It is not to inflate national vanity, nor to swell a light and empty feeling of self-importance, but it is that we may judge justly of our situation, and of our own duties, that I earnestly urge you upon this consideration of our position and our character among the nations of the earth. It cannot be denied, but by those who would dispute against the sun, that with America, and in America, a new era commences in human affairs. This era is distinguised by free representative governments, by entire religious liberty, by improved systems of national intercourse, by a newly awakened and unconquerable spirit of free inquiry, and by a diffusion of knowledge through the community, such as has been before altogether unknown and unheard of America, America, our country, fellow-citizens, our own dear and native land, is inseparably connected, fast bound up, in fortune and by fate, with these great interests. If they fall, we fall with them; if they stand, it will be because we have maintained them. Let us contemplate, then, this connection, which binds the prosperity of others to our own; and let us manfully discharge all the duties which it imposes. If we cherish the virtues and the principles of our fathers, Heaven will assist us to carry on the work of human liberty and human happiness. Auspicious omens cheer us. Great examples are before us. Our own firmament now shines brightly upon our path. WASHINGTON is in the clear, upper sky. These other stars hae now joined the American Constellation; they circle round their centre, and the heavens beam with new light. Beneath this illumination let us walk the course of life, and at its close devoutly commend our beloved country, the common parent of us all, to the Divine Benignity.
submitted by Publius1687 to JordanPeterson [link] [comments]
ADAMS and JEFFERSON are no more; and we are assembled, fellow-citizens, the aged, the middle-aged, and the young, by the spontaneous impulse of all, under the authority of the municipal government, with the presence of the chief magistrate of the Commonwealth, and others its official representatives, the University, and the learned societies, to bear our part in these manifestations of respect and gratitude which pervade the whole land. ADAMS and JEFFERSON are no more. On our fiftieth anniversary, the great day of national jubilee, in the very hour of public rejoicing, in the midst of echoing and reechoing voices of thanksgiving, while their own names were on all tongues, they took their flight together to the world of spirits.
If it be true that no one can safely be pronounced happy while he lives, if that event which terminates life can alone crown its honors and its glory, what felicity is here! The great epic of their lives, how happily concluded! Poetry itself has hardly terminated illustrious lives, and finished the career of earthly renown, by such a consummation. If we had the power, we could not wish to reverse this dispensation of the Divine Providence. The great objects of life were accomplished, the drama was ready to be closed. It has closed; our patriots have fallen; but so fallen, at such age, with such coincidence, on such a day, that we cannot rationally lament that the end has come, which we knew could not be long deferred.
Neither of these great men, fellow-citizens, could have died, at any time, without leaving an immense void in our American society. They have been so intimately, and ofr so long a time, blended with the history of the country, and especially so united, in our thoughts and recollections, with the events of the Revolution, that the death of either of them would have touched the chords of public sympathy. We should have felt that one great link, connecting us with former times, was broken; that we had lost something more, as it were, of the presence of the Revolution itself, and of the act of independence, and were driven on, by another great remove from the days of our country’s early distinction, to meet posterity and to mix with the future. Like the mariner, whom the currents of the ocean and the winds carry along until he sees the stars which have directed his course and lighted his pathless way descend one by one, beneath the rising horizon, we should have felt that the stream of time had borne us onward till another great luminary, whose light had cheered us and whose guidance we had followed, had sunk away from our sight.
But the concurrence of their death on the anniversary of Independence has naturally awakened stronger emotions. Both had been President, both had lived to great age, both were early patriots, and both were distinguished and ever honored by their immediate agency in the act of independence. It cannot but seem striking and extraordinary, that these two should live to see the fiftieth year from the date of that act/ that they should complete that yea and that then, on the day which had fast linked for ever their own fame with their country’s glory, the heavens should open to receive them both at once. As their lives themselves were the gifts of Providence, who is not willing to recognize in their happy termination, as well as in their long continuance, proofs that our country and its benefactors are objects of His care?
ADAMS and JEFFERSON, I have said, are no more. As human beings, indeed, they are no more. They are no more, as in 1776, bold and fearless advocates of independence; no more, as at subsequent periods, the head of the government; nor more, as we have recently seen them, aged and venerable objects of admiration and regard. They are no more. They are dead. But how little is there of the great and gooe which can die! To their country they yet live, and live for ever. They live in all that perpetuatesw the remembrance of men on earth; in the recorded proofs of their own great actions, in the offspring of their intellect, in the deep-engraved lines of public gratitude, and in the respect and homage of mankind. They live in their example; and they live, emphatically, and will live, in the influence which their lives and efforts, their principles and opinions, now exerciese, and will continue to exercise, on the affairs of men, not only in their own country but throughout the civilized world. A superior and commanding human intellect, a truly great man, when Heaven vouchsafes so rare a gift, is not a temporary flame, burning brightly for a while, and then giving place to returning darkness. It is rather a spark of fervent heat, as well as radiant light, with power to enkindle the common mass of human kind; so that when it glimmers in its own decay, and finally goes out in death, no night follows, but it leaves the world all light, all on fire from the potent contact of its own spirit. Bacon died; but the human understanding, roused by the touch of his miraculous wand to a perception of the true philosophy and the just mode of inquiring after truth, has kept on its course successfully and gloriously. Newton died; yet the courses of the spheres are still known, and they yet move on by the laws which he discovered, and in the orbits which he saw, and described for them, in the infinity of space.
No two men now live, fellow-citizen, perhaps it may be doubted whether any two men have ever lived in one age, who, more than those we now commemorate, have impressed on mankind their own opinions more deeply into the opinions of others, or given a more lasting direction to the current of human thought. Their work doth not perish with them. The tree which they assisted to plant will flourish, although they water it and protect it no longer; for it has struck its roots deep, it has sent them to the very centre; no storm, not of foce to burth the orb, can overturn it; its branches spread wide; they stretch their protecting arms braoder and broader, and its top is destined to reach the heavens. We are not deceived. There is no delusion here. No age will come in which the American Revolution will appear less than it is, one of the greatest events in human history. No age will come in which it shall cease to be seen and felt, on either continent, that a mighty step, a great advance, not only in American affairs, but in human affairs, was made on the 4th of July, 1776. And no age will come, we trust, so ignorant or so unjust as not to see and acknowledge the efficient agency of those we now honor in producing that momentous event.
We are not assembled, therefore, fellow-citizens, as men overwhelmed with calamity by the sudden disruption of the ties of friendship or affection, or as in despair for the republic by the untimely blighting of its hopes. Death has not surprised us by an unseasonable blow. We have, indeed, seen the tomb close, but it has closed only over mature years, over long-protracted public service, over the weakness of age, and over life itself only when the ends of living had been fulfilled. These suns, as they rose slowly and steadily, amidst clouds and storms, in their ascendant, so they have not rushed from the meridian to sink suddenly in the west. Like the mildness, the serenity, the continuing benignity of a summer’s day, they have gone down with slow-descending, grateful long-lingering light; and now that they are beyond the visible margin of the world, good omens cheer us from “the bright track of thier fiery car”!
There were many points of similarity in the lives and fortunes of these great men. They belonged to the same profession, and had pursued its studies and its practice for unequal lengths of time indeed, but with dilligence and effect. Both were learned and able lawyers. They were natives and inhabitants, respectively of those two of the Colonies which at the Revolution were the largest and most powerful and which naturally had a lead in the political affairs of the times. When the Colonies became in some degree united by the assembling of a general Congress, they were brought to act together in its deliberations, not indeed at the same time but both at early periods. Each had laready manifested his attachment to the cause of the country, as well as his ability to maintain it, by printed addresses, public speeches, extensive correspondence, and whatever other mode could be adopted for the purpose of exposing the encroachments of the British Parliament, and animating the people to a manly resistance. Both were not only decided, but early, friends of Independence. While others yet doubted, they were resolved; where others hesitated they pressed forward. They were both members of the committee for preparing the Declaration of Independence, and they constituted the sub-committee appointed by the other members to make the draft. They left their seats in Congress, being called to other public employments at periods not remote from each other, although one of them returned to it afterwards for a short time. Neither of them was of the assembly of great men which formed the present Constitution, and neither was at any time a member of Congress under its provisions. Both have been public ministers abroad, both Vice-Presidents and both Presidents of the United States. These coincidences are now singularly crowned and completed. They have died together; and they did on the anniversary of liberty…
And now, fellow-citizens, without pursuing the biography of these illustrious men further, for the present let us turn our attention to the most prominent act of their lives, their participation in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE…
It has sometimes been said, as if it were a derogation from the merits of this paper, that it contains nothing new; that it only states grounds of proceeding and presses topics of argument, which had often been stated and pressed before. But it was not the object of the Declaration to produce any thing new. It was not to invent reasons for independence, but to state those which governed the Congress. For great and sufficient causes, it was proposed to declare independence; and the proper business of the paper to be drawn was to set for th those causes, and justify the authors of the measure, in any event of fortune, to mthe country and to posterity. The cause of American independence, moreover, was now to be presented to the world in such manner; of it might so be, as to engage its sympathy, to command its respect, to attract its admiration; and in an assembly of most able and distinguished men, THOMAS JEFFERSON had the high honor of being the selected advocate of this cause. To say that he performed his great work well, would be doing him an injustice. To say that he did excellently well, admirably well, would be inadequate and halting praise. Let us rather say, that he so discharged the duty assigned him, that all Americans may well rejoice that the work of drawing the title-deed of their liberties devolved upon him…
The Congress of the Revolution, fellow-citizens, sat with closed doors, and no report of its debates was ever made. The discussion, therefore, which accompanied this great measure, has never been preserved, except in memory and by tradition. But it is, I believe, doing to injustice to others to say, that the general opinion was, and uniformly has been, that in debate, on the side of independence, JOHN ADAMS had no equal. The great author of the Declaration himself has espressed that opinion uniformly and strongly. JOHN ADAMS, said he, in the hearing of him who has now the honor to address you, JOHN ADAMS was our colossus on the floor. Not graceful, not elegant, not always fluent, in his public addresses, he yet came out with a power both of thought and of expression, which moved us from our seats…
The eloquence of Mr. Adams resembled his general character, and formed, indeed, a part of it. It was bold, manly, and energetic; and such the crisis required. When public bodies are to be addressed on passions excited, nothing is valuable in speech farther than as it is connected with high intellectual and moral endowments. Clearness, force, and earnestness are the qualities which produce conviction. True eloquence, indeed, does not consist in speech. It cannot be brought from far. Labor and learning may toil for it, but they will toil in vain. It must exist in the man, in the subject, and in the occassion. Affected passion, intense expression, the pomp of declamation, all may aspire to it; they cannot reach it. It comes, if it comes at all, like the outbreaking of a fountain from the earth, or the bursting forth of volcanic fires, with spontaneous, original, native force. The graces taught in the schools, the costly ornaments and studied contrivances of speech, shock and disgust men, when their own lives and the fate of their wives, their children, and their country hang on the decision of the hour. Then words have lost their power, rhetoric is vain, and all elaborate oratory contemptible. Even genius itself then feels rebuked and subdued, as in the presence of higher qualities. Then patriotism is eloquent; then self-devotion is eloquent. The clear conception, outrunning the deductions of logic, the high purpose, the firm resolve, the dauntless spirit, speaking on the tongue, beaming from the eye, informing every feature, and urging the whole man onward, right onward to his object this, this is eloquence; or rather it is something greater and higher than all eloquence, it is action, noble, sublime godlike action…
Let us, then, bring before us the assembly, which was about to decide a question thus big with the fate of empire. Let us open their doors and look upon their deliberations. Let us survey the anxious and care-worn countenances, let us hear the firm-toned voices, of this band of patriots.
HANCOCK presides over the solemn sitting; and one of those not yet prepared to pronounce for absolute independence is on the floor, and is urging his reasons for dissenting from the declaration.
“Let us pause! This step, once taken, cannot be retracted. This resolution, once passed, will cut off all hope of reconciliation. If success attend the arms of England, we shall then be no longer Colonies, with charters and with privileges; these will all be forfeited by this act; and we shall be in the condition of other conquered people, at the mercy of the conquerors. For ourselves, we may be ready to run the hazard; but are we ready to carry the country to that length? Is success so probably as to justify it? Where is the military, where the naval power, by which we are to resist the whole strength of the arm of England, for she will exert that strength to the utmost? Can we rely on constancy and perseverance of the people? or will they not act as the people of other countries have acted and, wearied with a long war, submit, in the end, to a worse oppression? While we stand on our old ground, and insist on redress of grievances, we know we are right, and are not answerable for consequences. Nothing, then, can be imputed to us. But if we now change our object, carry our pretensions farther, and set up for absolute indpendence, we shall lose the sympathy of mankind. We shall no longer be defending what we possess, but struggling for something which we never did possess, and which we have solemnly and uniformly disclaimed all intention of pursuing, from the very outset of the troubles. Abandoning thus our old ground, of resistance only to arbitrary acts of oppression, thee nations will believe the whole to have been mere pretence, and they will look on us, not as injured, buut as ambitious subjects. I shudder before this responsibility. It will be on us, if, relinquishing the ground on which we have stood so long, and stood so safely, we now proclaim independence, and carry on the war for that object, while these cities burn, these pleasant fields whiten and bleach with the bones of their owners, and these streams run blood. It will be upon us, it will be upon us, if, failing to maintain this unseasonable and ill-judged declaration, a sterner despotism, maintained by military power, shall be exhausted, a harassed, misled people, shall have expiated our rashness and atoned for our presumption on the scaffold.”
It was for Mr. Adams to reply to arguments like these. We know his opinions, and we know his character. He would commence with his accustomed directness and earnestness.
“Sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish, I give my hand and my heart to this vote. It is true, indeed, that in the beginning we aimed not at independence. But there’s a Divinity which shapes our ends. The injustice of England has driven us to arms; and blinded to her own interest for our good, she has obstinately persisted, till independence is now within our grasp. We have but to reach forth to it, and it is ours. Why, then, should we defer the Declaration? Is any man so weak as now to hope for a reconciliation with England, which shall leave either safety to the country and its liberties, or safety to his own life and his own honor? Are not you, Sir, who sit in that chair, is not he, our venerable colleague near you, are you not both already the proscribed and predestined objects of punishment and of vengeance? Cut off from all hope of royal clemency, what are you, what can you be, while the power of England remains, but outlaws? If we postpone independence, do we mean to carry on, or to give up, the war? Do we mean to submit to the measures of Parliament, Boston Port Bill and all? Do we mean to submit, and consent that we ourselves shall be ground to poweder, and our country and its rights trodden down in the dust? I know we do not mean to submit. We shall never submit. Do we intend to violate that most solemn obligation ever entered into men, that plighting, before God, of our sacred honor to Washington, when, putting forth to incure the dangers of war, as well as the political hazards of our times, we promised to adhere to him, in ever extremity, with our fortunes and our lives? I know there is not a man here, who would not rather see a general conflagration sweep over the land, or an earthquake sink it, than one jot or tittle of that plighted fiath fall to the ground. For myself, having, twelve months ago, in this place, moved you, that George Washington be appointed commander of the forces raised, or to be raised, for defence of American liberty, may my right hand forget her cunning, and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I hesitate or waver in the support I give him… ”
And now, fellow-citizens, let us not retire from this occasion without a deep and solemn conviction of the duties which have developed upon us. This lovely land, this glorious liberty, these benign institutions, the dear purchase of our fathers, are ours; ours to enjoy, ours to preserve, ours to transmit. Generations past and generations to come hold us responsible for this sacred trust. Our fathers, from behind, admonish us, with their anxious paternal voices; posterity calls out to us, from the bosom of the future; the world turns hither its solicitous eyes; all, conjure us to act wisely, and faithfully, in the relation which we sustain.
We can never, indeed, pay the debt which is upon us; but by virtue, by morality, by religion, by the cultivation of every good principle and every good habit, we may hope to enjoy the blessing, through our day, and to leave it unimpaired to our children. Let us feel deeply how much of what we are and of what we possess we owe to this liberty, and to these institutions of government. Nature has, indeed, given us a soil which yields bounteously to the hand of industry, the mighty and fruitful ocean is before us, and the skies over our heads shed health and vigor. But what are lands, and seas, and skies, to civilized man, without society, without knowledge, without morals, without religious culture; and how can these be enjoyed, in all their extent and all their excellence, but under the protection of wise institutions and a free government? Fellow-citizens, there is not one of us, there is not one of us here present, who does not, at this moment, and at every moment, experience, in his own condition, and in the condition of those most near and dear to him, the influence and the benefits, of this liberty and these institutions. Let us then acknowledge the blessing, let us feel it deeply and powerfully, let us cherish a strong affection for it, and resolve to maintain and perpetuate it. The blood of our fathers, let it not have been shed in vain; the great hope of posterity, let it not be blasted.
The striking attitude, too, in which we stand to the world around us, a topic to which, I fear, I advert too often, and dwell on too long, cannot be altogether ommited here. Neither individuals nor nations can perform their part well, until they understand and feel its importance, and comprehend and justly appreciate all the duties belonging to it. It is not to inflate national vanity, nor to swell a light and empty feeling of self-importance, but it is that we may judge justly of our situation, and of our own duties, that I earnestly urge you upon this consideration of our position and our character among the nations of the earth. It cannot be denied, but by those who would dispute against the sun, that with America, and in America, a new era commences in human affairs. This era is distinguised by free representative governments, by entire religious liberty, by improved systems of national intercourse, by a newly awakened and unconquerable spirit of free inquiry, and by a diffusion of knowledge through the community, such as has been before altogether unknown and unheard of America, America, our country, fellow-citizens, our own dear and native land, is inseparably connected, fast bound up, in fortune and by fate, with these great interests. If they fall, we fall with them; if they stand, it will be because we have maintained them. Let us contemplate, then, this connection, which binds the prosperity of others to our own; and let us manfully discharge all the duties which it imposes. If we cherish the virtues and the principles of our fathers, Heaven will assist us to carry on the work of human liberty and human happiness. Auspicious omens cheer us. Great examples are before us. Our own firmament now shines brightly upon our path. WASHINGTON is in the clear, upper sky. These other stars hae now joined the American Constellation; they circle round their centre, and the heavens beam with new light. Beneath this illumination let us walk the course of life, and at its close devoutly commend our beloved country, the common parent of us all, to the Divine Benignity.
- Daniel Webster, 1826
2024.06.01 07:52 MAC_357 I’m sick of being stereotyped
I’m never allowed to complain about this, and I understand why. I’m white, I’m privileged for that reason, my parents made me very aware of that at a young age. I will never doubt or deny my privilege. The reality of the situation is that my grandfather, a southern Italian, was discriminated against due to his skin color most of his life. He was not white passing even though he is technically considered white. He had a very deep olive tone and as very swarthy like most people from Naples.
He changed his first name to an American one, named all of his children biblical names that fit in with the American standard at the time, and changed the pronunciation of our last name to fit in more with American culture. He was a huge proponent of the teachers union in the state we immigrated to, and he’s actually a huge part of the reason teachers have pensions in that state. However, since he was Italian and part of a union, he was wrongfully arrested many times. My father, also very swarthy and olive skinned, got pulled aside for random checks at TSA many times in my childhood. I was taught from a young age to fear any police or law enforcement. My father called them wannabe soldiers who were racist and useless. I still carry that view and I’ve spent my whole life wary and distrusting towards law enforcement. I was taught to question the police and their intentions at all times because my family was unfairly targeted by them many times. And I feel like I’m not allowed to feel the impacts of this trauma. That it’s illegitimate because I’m very much white and white passing. That I’m not allowed to experience the generational trauma of being part of a nationality that is immediately presumed to have connections to organized crime. I’ve been called ethnic slurs. I’ve been called a wop and a Guinea, even in jest it still hurts. I just feel like I’m not allowed to feel angry or that my family was discriminated against. Just please at least stop immediately assuming very Italian American you know has mob ties. It’s not 1975. Please just stop.
submitted by MAC_357 to rant [link] [comments]
He changed his first name to an American one, named all of his children biblical names that fit in with the American standard at the time, and changed the pronunciation of our last name to fit in more with American culture. He was a huge proponent of the teachers union in the state we immigrated to, and he’s actually a huge part of the reason teachers have pensions in that state. However, since he was Italian and part of a union, he was wrongfully arrested many times. My father, also very swarthy and olive skinned, got pulled aside for random checks at TSA many times in my childhood. I was taught from a young age to fear any police or law enforcement. My father called them wannabe soldiers who were racist and useless. I still carry that view and I’ve spent my whole life wary and distrusting towards law enforcement. I was taught to question the police and their intentions at all times because my family was unfairly targeted by them many times. And I feel like I’m not allowed to feel the impacts of this trauma. That it’s illegitimate because I’m very much white and white passing. That I’m not allowed to experience the generational trauma of being part of a nationality that is immediately presumed to have connections to organized crime. I’ve been called ethnic slurs. I’ve been called a wop and a Guinea, even in jest it still hurts. I just feel like I’m not allowed to feel angry or that my family was discriminated against. Just please at least stop immediately assuming very Italian American you know has mob ties. It’s not 1975. Please just stop.
2024.06.01 07:48 Gold_Smart Early post-independence African leaders are often underappreciated.
Some of them were greedy no doubt ,but these people had to create countries from thin air ,which may sound simple but it's not as easy....like how do you convince that person from eg.Kisii that they can now be arrested by a policeman from Ukambani and the court order given to them by a judge from Luhyaland is legally binding. How do you convince people who up until now just thought of themselves in terms of clans and tribes that they are now part of this common identity called Kenya for example, they share nothing in common with each other except that they happen to be within the lines on a map drawn up by people they don't even know.
Looking at Africa today you may not see the point I'm making ,but let's examine Europe,which is a close example in terms of diversity in culture and languages. Majority of people don't understand that racism is quite a very recent invention (from around 1500),up until very recently Europeans never saw themselves as part of a common identity because they are white that's why you see Romans calling other white people barbarians and so on, people tended to classify themselves linguistically,culturally and religiously. Nationalism is even a newer phenomenon ,it started developing in the 18th century but really went into high gear after the French revolution, in the Napoleonic wars the French weren't fighting for the King like other Europeans were, they were fighting for France ,they were a French people fighting for France. If you've ever wondered how people in the past used to sell entire parts of a country ,this is the reason ,pre-nationalism ,the land didn't belong to state ..it belonged to the king/queen or whoever ruled it. Now if you think the wars in Africa are a mess and there's too much war just look at how many wars were fought in Europe due to nationalism (both world wars would be a great place to start) ,between 1800 - 1945 ,its as if Europe was in a constant state of war ,revolutions and just chaos. And Europe isn't even as diverse as Africa.
The leaders who took over Africa post independence may have been corrupt and dictatorial but compared relative to other leaders at a similar time in history ,with a few exceptions were much better. To give you an idea remember Idi Amin and his expansionist policies would have been a typical leader in early European nationalism,probably even the less radical ones. Siad Barre (Somalia ) is another good example.
submitted by Gold_Smart to Kenya [link] [comments]
Looking at Africa today you may not see the point I'm making ,but let's examine Europe,which is a close example in terms of diversity in culture and languages. Majority of people don't understand that racism is quite a very recent invention (from around 1500),up until very recently Europeans never saw themselves as part of a common identity because they are white that's why you see Romans calling other white people barbarians and so on, people tended to classify themselves linguistically,culturally and religiously. Nationalism is even a newer phenomenon ,it started developing in the 18th century but really went into high gear after the French revolution, in the Napoleonic wars the French weren't fighting for the King like other Europeans were, they were fighting for France ,they were a French people fighting for France. If you've ever wondered how people in the past used to sell entire parts of a country ,this is the reason ,pre-nationalism ,the land didn't belong to state ..it belonged to the king/queen or whoever ruled it. Now if you think the wars in Africa are a mess and there's too much war just look at how many wars were fought in Europe due to nationalism (both world wars would be a great place to start) ,between 1800 - 1945 ,its as if Europe was in a constant state of war ,revolutions and just chaos. And Europe isn't even as diverse as Africa.
The leaders who took over Africa post independence may have been corrupt and dictatorial but compared relative to other leaders at a similar time in history ,with a few exceptions were much better. To give you an idea remember Idi Amin and his expansionist policies would have been a typical leader in early European nationalism,probably even the less radical ones. Siad Barre (Somalia ) is another good example.
2024.06.01 07:42 1234lemmehearuscream french security services W
 | submitted by 1234lemmehearuscream to PoliticalCompassMemes [link] [comments] |
2024.06.01 04:55 ComradeFrunze [NEWS] La revolución avanza
The sun stretched its rays over the soil. Dawn had arrived. The Blueshirts made their way through the prison, going cell by cell. Ten unfortunate men were grabbed by the arms and led out to the prison courtyard.
A firing squad had already been formed, with ten Spanish soldiers facing a brick wall. The Blueshirts ordered the prisoners to line up and put their backs against the wall. A Blueshirted officer pulled out a piece of paper to read out their charges.
“All of you here on the wall have been found guilty of treason, corruption, fraud, and murder. You are all sentenced to death by firing squad.”
“Uno, dos, tres, fuego!”
—
All across the former Caribbean Federation, and on the island of Costa Rica, oligarchs have been killed. Madrid, eager to bring the “National-Syndicalist Revolution” to the Hispanic West Indies, have done so with a vengeance.
Various workers and peasants of the Caribbean, eager for the revolutionary fervor that has swept across the Caribbean, have signed up for the Falange Militia and membership in the 26th of July Movement/FE de las JONS to actively participate in the actions. This includes former members of the Caribbean Socialist Party who have not decided to join the underground opposition of the Caribbean Communist Party or Democratic Action, but instead embrace the virtues of the FE de las JONS.
Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar, formerly a general in the Caribbean military and President of Cuba in the 1940s, volunteered his services to the Falange Militia after the Victorious July. On September 19, Batista was arrested by the Social Investigation Brigade on charges of corruption and anti-Spanish comments. Batista was expelled from the FE de las JONS and the Falange Militia on September 21 on orders of Adolfo Ballivián Fernández, the Caribbean Regional Secretary of the FE de las JONS. With men like Batista being the epitome of the “vieja corrupción caribeña” that the Spanish government has targetted, it comes to no surprise that Batista has quickly run afoul of the regime. Another of the targetted oligarchs is Albert Sahagún, former President of the Caribbean Federal Railway Corporation. Although Sahagún did not flee from the Spanish reconquest, his attempts to lay low came up short. Sahagún was arrested on July 4, charged with various accounts of treason, fraud, and corruption, before being executed by public hanging on August 24 in Santa Clara.
Fidel Castro, former President of Cuba during the Federation and a former firebrand in the Caribbean Socialist Party, has seen his fortune rise since his collaboration with the new Falangist state in the Caribbean. Since being appointed Regional Minister for Welfare by Regional Administrative Office Director Jaime Robles Arámburu last year, Castro has worked to implement Madrid’s orders of increased welfare for the general population. His success and sincerity in implementing the National-Syndicalist Program has brought attention upon him from Madrid, who trust his background as a Jesuit student, son of a Spaniard, and his past sympathies with Falangism. Due to this, he was promoted on September 3 by Governor-General Carlos Pío de Habsburgo-Lorena y Borbón to the position of Vice-Governor of the Province of Cuba, where he will serve beneath Governor Conrado Domínguez Núñez.
submitted by ComradeFrunze to PostWorldPowers [link] [comments]
A firing squad had already been formed, with ten Spanish soldiers facing a brick wall. The Blueshirts ordered the prisoners to line up and put their backs against the wall. A Blueshirted officer pulled out a piece of paper to read out their charges.
“All of you here on the wall have been found guilty of treason, corruption, fraud, and murder. You are all sentenced to death by firing squad.”
“Uno, dos, tres, fuego!”
—
All across the former Caribbean Federation, and on the island of Costa Rica, oligarchs have been killed. Madrid, eager to bring the “National-Syndicalist Revolution” to the Hispanic West Indies, have done so with a vengeance.
Various workers and peasants of the Caribbean, eager for the revolutionary fervor that has swept across the Caribbean, have signed up for the Falange Militia and membership in the 26th of July Movement/FE de las JONS to actively participate in the actions. This includes former members of the Caribbean Socialist Party who have not decided to join the underground opposition of the Caribbean Communist Party or Democratic Action, but instead embrace the virtues of the FE de las JONS.
Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar, formerly a general in the Caribbean military and President of Cuba in the 1940s, volunteered his services to the Falange Militia after the Victorious July. On September 19, Batista was arrested by the Social Investigation Brigade on charges of corruption and anti-Spanish comments. Batista was expelled from the FE de las JONS and the Falange Militia on September 21 on orders of Adolfo Ballivián Fernández, the Caribbean Regional Secretary of the FE de las JONS. With men like Batista being the epitome of the “vieja corrupción caribeña” that the Spanish government has targetted, it comes to no surprise that Batista has quickly run afoul of the regime. Another of the targetted oligarchs is Albert Sahagún, former President of the Caribbean Federal Railway Corporation. Although Sahagún did not flee from the Spanish reconquest, his attempts to lay low came up short. Sahagún was arrested on July 4, charged with various accounts of treason, fraud, and corruption, before being executed by public hanging on August 24 in Santa Clara.
Fidel Castro, former President of Cuba during the Federation and a former firebrand in the Caribbean Socialist Party, has seen his fortune rise since his collaboration with the new Falangist state in the Caribbean. Since being appointed Regional Minister for Welfare by Regional Administrative Office Director Jaime Robles Arámburu last year, Castro has worked to implement Madrid’s orders of increased welfare for the general population. His success and sincerity in implementing the National-Syndicalist Program has brought attention upon him from Madrid, who trust his background as a Jesuit student, son of a Spaniard, and his past sympathies with Falangism. Due to this, he was promoted on September 3 by Governor-General Carlos Pío de Habsburgo-Lorena y Borbón to the position of Vice-Governor of the Province of Cuba, where he will serve beneath Governor Conrado Domínguez Núñez.
2024.06.01 04:11 Jayy_lome I (27m) might be in a abusive relationship with my gf (26f)
Hi all, i’ve been seeing post like this pop up everywhere and im not sure what to do so i thought maybe strangers could give me some unbiased opinions.
For context, I (27m) am dating and was planning to marry my now gf (26f) in the near future but i have doubts. When we first started dating, I just got out of a really emotionally abusive relationship and was treated like trash till the point my ex gf went to the point of calling me at 3am to ask me to book a hotel room so she could cry about her ex while she was still dating me.
So after a year of this horse sht, I then met my now gf, Lets call her J (Not her real name), and she was like a breath of fresh air. She constantly cared about me and made the effort to see me. When i hit rock bottom, I was broke and even when into debt, Jin was constantly there to reassure me and she even took me out of dates. The sx was great and i really felt a strong connection with her. There was never a day at the start where i ever felt she didnt put me first. Unfortunately at that time she worked at a club, Not as a stripper or sex worker but something more like a pretend girlfriend to accompany customers.
It was all going great until the second week in where i hit the first and most striking red flag of all. She is an angry drunk. It doesnt help that she isnt very good at drinking either. At first it was probably because she wanted me to express my care and concern more to her but when i do i constantly get rejected. But when i distance myself abit she starts to reach out and bombard me with calls and messages.
About a month in her work permit ended and she had to fly back to her country, which at that time wasnt an issue because i work part time remotely and could fly over to be with her. After my visa ended she would come visit me for a month at a time. Whenever i come back home from work she’d cook for me my favourite dishes, clean the house and make sure all my needs are taken care of. Of course im not an a** and i would reciprocate. Then came the red flags shinning as bright as the sun.
Firstly i realise whenever she gets drunk she’d start fights with me over absolutely nothing and more often then none it leads to a physical altercation in which she’d break stuff, throw stuff at me and more often she’d lay hands on me. No i do not hit back as i was raised in a household that doesnt agree with hitting women. At first it wasnt much of an issue as i was a national fighter and i could hold my own against someone twice my size.
Secondly, She lies through her very teeth about the smallest things that dont make sense eg. she tells me she’s not drinking when i can clearly see the beer in front of her through the video call. When i call her out on it she refuses accountability and always threaten a breakup or for me to find a new girl instead.
Thirdly, The disappearing act. whenever we have conflict i use to take my space to cool down and gather my thoughts before coming to her but she would constantly spam my phone until i answer her. We did talk and she said she doesnt like it and wants me to communicate properly with her in which i did. But the moment i do, She uno reversed me and started disappearing. The worst cases of it was when i told her not to go drink as i dont want another fight but she just disappeared only for me to find her at a club with our mutual friends which yes they then proceed to hide stuff from me or lie to me.
Lastly, The double standard. Whenever she does is completely acceptable and i am expected to suck it up. But when i do the same thing she loses her sh*t and goes ballistic on me. Eg. She constantly goes drinking with her friends but i am not allowed to go?? Or she can talk to other guys and say its normal but when i talk to female friends of mine she guilt trips me and say why not i go date them instead.
A year in tolerating her nonsense, We had a huge arguement and she went back to the club to work. After that she did a 180 flip. Now even when she’s sober she isnt nice to me. She constantly nitpicks and gets super angry over the smallest of stuff like me getting her food order slightly wrong or me not booking an uber on time.
The last few months is just been me trying to give her the best but she cant even talk nicely to me and when i bring up certain issues she refuses to hear me out and immediately suggest a breakup then the next day she’d be all sweet to me again but never apologises or acknowledge what she did was wrong.
These quarrels led to a couple of things like me losing alot of money due to her incompetence (i mean stupid decisions she has never cheated on me) and losing my driver’s license and facing possible jail time due to a DUI because she drunkenly decided socking me in the face while driving was a good idea leading to a crash and my arrest.
During these last few months i’ve reached my limit of constantly not being heard and berated. Saying i cant provide for her so she needs to think about herself. Im not good enough she can find a rich guy. Even tho i’ve been working my ass off and giving her half of my income which is a substantial amount converted into her country’s currency.
The latest one is that i am now just discharged from the hospital with a broken wrist and vomitting of the meds but she just ignored me because she’s angry even though i asked really nicely why did she do something i repeatedly say im not comfortable with.
I dont feel respected at all in this and i want to know am i in an abusive relationship? is it better to let this go? Cause she can be the most wonderful woman if she chooses to be but right now or anytime in the near future. I dont see it
Should i continue this charade?
submitted by Jayy_lome to abusiverelationships [link] [comments]
For context, I (27m) am dating and was planning to marry my now gf (26f) in the near future but i have doubts. When we first started dating, I just got out of a really emotionally abusive relationship and was treated like trash till the point my ex gf went to the point of calling me at 3am to ask me to book a hotel room so she could cry about her ex while she was still dating me.
So after a year of this horse sht, I then met my now gf, Lets call her J (Not her real name), and she was like a breath of fresh air. She constantly cared about me and made the effort to see me. When i hit rock bottom, I was broke and even when into debt, Jin was constantly there to reassure me and she even took me out of dates. The sx was great and i really felt a strong connection with her. There was never a day at the start where i ever felt she didnt put me first. Unfortunately at that time she worked at a club, Not as a stripper or sex worker but something more like a pretend girlfriend to accompany customers.
It was all going great until the second week in where i hit the first and most striking red flag of all. She is an angry drunk. It doesnt help that she isnt very good at drinking either. At first it was probably because she wanted me to express my care and concern more to her but when i do i constantly get rejected. But when i distance myself abit she starts to reach out and bombard me with calls and messages.
About a month in her work permit ended and she had to fly back to her country, which at that time wasnt an issue because i work part time remotely and could fly over to be with her. After my visa ended she would come visit me for a month at a time. Whenever i come back home from work she’d cook for me my favourite dishes, clean the house and make sure all my needs are taken care of. Of course im not an a** and i would reciprocate. Then came the red flags shinning as bright as the sun.
Firstly i realise whenever she gets drunk she’d start fights with me over absolutely nothing and more often then none it leads to a physical altercation in which she’d break stuff, throw stuff at me and more often she’d lay hands on me. No i do not hit back as i was raised in a household that doesnt agree with hitting women. At first it wasnt much of an issue as i was a national fighter and i could hold my own against someone twice my size.
Secondly, She lies through her very teeth about the smallest things that dont make sense eg. she tells me she’s not drinking when i can clearly see the beer in front of her through the video call. When i call her out on it she refuses accountability and always threaten a breakup or for me to find a new girl instead.
Thirdly, The disappearing act. whenever we have conflict i use to take my space to cool down and gather my thoughts before coming to her but she would constantly spam my phone until i answer her. We did talk and she said she doesnt like it and wants me to communicate properly with her in which i did. But the moment i do, She uno reversed me and started disappearing. The worst cases of it was when i told her not to go drink as i dont want another fight but she just disappeared only for me to find her at a club with our mutual friends which yes they then proceed to hide stuff from me or lie to me.
Lastly, The double standard. Whenever she does is completely acceptable and i am expected to suck it up. But when i do the same thing she loses her sh*t and goes ballistic on me. Eg. She constantly goes drinking with her friends but i am not allowed to go?? Or she can talk to other guys and say its normal but when i talk to female friends of mine she guilt trips me and say why not i go date them instead.
A year in tolerating her nonsense, We had a huge arguement and she went back to the club to work. After that she did a 180 flip. Now even when she’s sober she isnt nice to me. She constantly nitpicks and gets super angry over the smallest of stuff like me getting her food order slightly wrong or me not booking an uber on time.
The last few months is just been me trying to give her the best but she cant even talk nicely to me and when i bring up certain issues she refuses to hear me out and immediately suggest a breakup then the next day she’d be all sweet to me again but never apologises or acknowledge what she did was wrong.
These quarrels led to a couple of things like me losing alot of money due to her incompetence (i mean stupid decisions she has never cheated on me) and losing my driver’s license and facing possible jail time due to a DUI because she drunkenly decided socking me in the face while driving was a good idea leading to a crash and my arrest.
During these last few months i’ve reached my limit of constantly not being heard and berated. Saying i cant provide for her so she needs to think about herself. Im not good enough she can find a rich guy. Even tho i’ve been working my ass off and giving her half of my income which is a substantial amount converted into her country’s currency.
The latest one is that i am now just discharged from the hospital with a broken wrist and vomitting of the meds but she just ignored me because she’s angry even though i asked really nicely why did she do something i repeatedly say im not comfortable with.
I dont feel respected at all in this and i want to know am i in an abusive relationship? is it better to let this go? Cause she can be the most wonderful woman if she chooses to be but right now or anytime in the near future. I dont see it
Should i continue this charade?
2024.06.01 03:35 Any-Upstairs4400 Apartment for sale
Hello Fellow students! My name is Dan and I was supposed to be attending Creighton so I was ready to get into an apartment. Unfortunately, I’m unable to make it to Creighton and I need someone to take my apartment. Move in date is as soon as you possibly can. The apartment itself is a studio apartment in muse Omaha and rent is very cheap compared to both Omaha’s average and the national average. I’ll send further details. Please serious inquiries only and let me know as soon as possible!
submitted by Any-Upstairs4400 to Creighton [link] [comments]
2024.06.01 02:22 BwanaRob [On Patrol: Live] Live Thread May 31, 2024 S02 E79 Continuation
![[On Patrol: Live] Live Thread May 31, 2024 S02 E79 Continuation](https://external-preview.redd.it/JUmMz0F2x_CWuXMzRxQlJWkcmF2lS-fcMoP01YqbqK4.png?width=216&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=53bb1fc583ec731caf6078283e21e9d4cf473efb "[On Patrol: Live] Live Thread May 31, 2024 S02 E79 Continuation") | Welcome to the live thread for Friday, May 31st, 2024Episode Description: Law enforcement officers on patrol across the country are followed in real time while our in-studio hosts provide insights and analysis. Show airs from 9pm - 12am EDT.In the studio tonight:
Fun StuffWe have a Discord server to chat about the show and bingo!On Patrol: Live Bingo! Play bingo as you watch! Made by our own: BwanaRob Important StuffSuicide is no joke. Your life is worth living. If you or someone you know is having suicidal thoughts please get help. The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is available. Call or text 988Experiencing abuse is harmful and overwhelming. If you have concerns about your relationship, you are not alone. The National Domestic Violence Hotline is free, confidential, and available 24/7. Call 1.800.799.7233 (SAFE) - Text “START” to 88788 - Chat thehotline.org Everyone deserves a healthy relationship. Your local hospital requires donor blood to give people in need the best chance at life. The need is constant, as there is always a shortage. Find a blood drive at The American National Red Cross website or call 1-800-733-2767 Do not post personal information of people featured on the show. This includes arrest reports, Facebook or LinkedIn profiles, Google street views, etc. |
2024.06.01 02:01 Superhero-Universo The First Superhero Team (Official)
 | Warning, the autocorrect changes the incident all the time, but in short a villain killed the heroes submitted by Superhero-Universo to Superhero_Ideas [link] [comments] Well, many years ago (1xxx that is, too long ago xd) a lot of superheroes started coming out, which was a bit of a problem for the government since a human with super powers using their powers even to defend someone was very dangerous (humans with powers can sometimes use their power even unconsciously, like for example someone tickled and with superpowers of electricity could unintentionally give the current to someone when feeling tickled, I think that's a bad example) Some years later the government came up with something, humans with super powers are considered a big problem for "normal" humans/no powers, so they would trade with money, power, freedom, luxuries, excesses, etc. to prison people That tactic worked for them and they had their first team, made up of mentally ill people and prisoners (as such there are two heroes, work heroes and superheroes who would be real and as an example Superman) ??? (Image 1) The leader of the group and the most feared, his power was super strength, his reason for being in prison was for murder, he was pure brute force and a madman in combat, in his life as a hero he finished and arrested many humans with super powers, killed in the hero killer incident ??? (Image 2) An archer, a useless guy with a bow, he's only for the pay, he's literally only good with the bow and doesn't have something like a special arrow, he died in the hero killer incident, but he left offspring ??? (Image 3) A peacemaker for the public but he was not really interested in peace at all, because of his fame many companies sponsored him, although he was always the most cowardly and in fights he usually hid. Died in Hero Killer Incident ??? (Image 4) Mutation power in his own body (or something like that), he was arrested for unspecified reasons, he was friends with him type ??? (image 1), died in the killer hero incident ??? (Image 5) A fly woman who has the power to throw explosive bombs that come out of her shoulder. He is not the most beloved member of the group by either the public or the government (since his sister is in the group of "Los seis flipantes" and that is a problem since she helped the founding of the group and is another problem for the government), he died in the incident of the killer of heroes ??? (Image 6) He inherited his parents' powers, "being a horse" and his sword-hand, he was arrested for armed robbery, he usually made art with criminals by mutilating them by making a kind of macabre art (as I told you, not many are mentally well, plus the superhero base doesn't have something like a psychologist or anything like that). He died in the hero-slayer incident, though as such his offspring still exist thanks to his brother ??? (Image 7) Well, it's just a pink ball which can be regenerated, there aren't many highlights of it other than that they usually took turns taking it when they needed to go on a mission (no one wanted to carry it because it was sticky), it disappeared in the middle of the hero killer incident ??? (Image 8) Arrested for being a hitman, he was a normal human but they created a special suit for that, the suit can fly and in his hands there are some weapons, usually he never took off the suit and as he wanted to get out of prison he joined the team, he died in the incident of the hero killer ??? (Image 9) The Headless Horseman or so he was called, was born with a pumpkin head as a power making his head sentient, he was arrested because he read the story of the Headless Horseman and tried to find a head which he could use, he got into the group of heroes when he heard that he could do whatever he wanted, If he found someone ugly, he used his special bombs, and if he found them attractive, he used his hands and a pulse-sharp object. He died in the hero-killer incident, but his offspring continued through a relative Fairy (Image 10) A French woman, her power was to have wings. Apart from the fact that it is a more or less useless power, her magic wand was created, although it had nothing magical about it, her magic wand only throws a lightning bolt, she was present in the incident of the hero killer but she was the only one who was officially left alive, although she has not been able to be interrogated, when she was found she repeated a name, She was missing her arm and two legs and was pregnant. Currently alive but in a mental hospital, her son was abandoned in another country as he was born without powers and was thrown away ??? (Image 11) An ex-cop, he was offered to be the replacement of an old hero who is now dead, I accept it, he was a corrupt cop and hero, he died for the killer of heroes and no one went to his funeral ??? (Image 12) He is just a sidekick of the ex-policeman, his dream was to be a policeman, in his city he was superior to many adults and people of his age, he was invited by the ex-policeman to be a superhero, although having everything so fast he was not interested in being a superhero and only did things for money and that, in the end he died for the killer of heroes next to him ex-cop ??? (Image 13) An old cennile, master of ??? (Image 14), in his background there is exhibitionism, he was only invited because he knew how to fight in punches, wrestling, ground and submission so he was useful to a certain extent, another one killed by the incident of the killer of heroes ??? (Image 14) He is the student of the previous mentioned, he also knows how to fight, the only remarkable thing is that he could have been the leader if the one in image 1 was not there and he took the place of another old hero called Justice, he died from the same incident as everyone else ??? (Image 15) He's just a billionaire who out of He's just a billionaire who out of boredom messed with superheroes, he's from Argentina, there's not much to say about him either, he also died from the incident. The only remarkable thing was that in his country the facts were changed and made him look like a superhero which inspired series, movies, comics and a hero who would take up his mantle ??? (image 16) Oh surprise, he died xd, but hey, apart from that he was an important hero, he was like Captain America but from Canada. He was a national hero by putting up some fight for the hero killer, even in the Canadian hero base he has his own statue (that is currently) What was the hero slayer incident? Well, remember that the heroes were sold that they could do whatever they wanted? Out of boredom they went to houses in the countryside taking advantage of the fact that they are usually very far apart, so they had uncontrolled parties and even the weirdos of the group killed people At one of their parties they went to the house of a crazy sailor, they killed the sailor's family and destroyed his house, the sailor was left in a bad head and tried to denounce the superheroes but as they had more money the sailor lost the lawsuit and on top of that he had to pay for false accusations Out of sheer revenge, that crazy sailor murdered the group of heroes and who got in the way. He killed 15/16 of the heroes of the group plus 5/6 of the "Los seis flipantes", the hero killer was found dead. It was never known how he died, he was simply found dead but without any injuries after a fight against another group of heroes, but recognition was given to that other group of heroes That didn't work as the public was sold as a psychopath killed the heroes and many people tried to be a superhero and others joined a "world" group that doesn't have much of a world since there is a large part of the United States and the rest in small parts of the rest of the continents |