A few years ago, I went on a trip abroad. The day I flew abroad, a terrorist squad fired rockets at Israel. In response, Israel bombed the terrorists and killed them. When I arrived at the hotel, a Dutch tourist confronted me and asked me if I am aware of the fact that my country killed 3 Palestinians today. I asked him if he is aware of the fact that these 3 Palestinians fired rockets at Israel before they were bombed. It looks like the foreign media doesn't report the entire trith about the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. That is the reason for the biias against Israel.
Excellent. Thank you JBS Lawfare Project. She really is in a position to see the ins and outs and articulate what has happened. Rings true to me. And it is strange, unbelievable, yet makes sense. It sounds like, to some extent, the lawyers just develop all this to feed themselves, and everyone goes along rather mindlessly with a simple feel good, easy group think. So anyone who believes anything ideological can dominate. Feelings of guilt and blame have gained dominance, and the ordinary people and common sense are trashed.
19:00 "English Comon Law ..Everything is permitted unles there is a Law against it" Negitive Liberty (Good thing) "Problem with codifying Human rights is . . Only what is laid down, is permitted. Positive Liberty (Bad thing, leads to Tyranny, prevents what is not laid down, from being considered to be Liberty." Very interesting!
Well, who would have thought that of the Guardian? Well, well, well. Who would have thought those self-righteous useful-idiots would have been quite so self-righteously idiotic? Who would have thought it? I fucking would have. I don't even think those middle-class robots are even human.
To clarify, supersessionism is not solely a phenomena among Anglican or "progressive" churches. Many, I would say most, evangelical groups also believe it.
I agree with Melanie on the flooding of the radical left into the 'human rights' arena. However, she talks about the glorious ideas of the West and claims that neo-liberalism's focus on the individual means that 3rd world oppressions aren't addressed by say, Western feminists. Yes, in some cases she's right but not all. Then she talks about gender and says women can do no wrong because they're classed as victims under this new way of seeing minorities. So what are we to make of this? Which way is the 'dutiful' way? She seems to be suggesting the two polar contradictory ideas.
If she wants to talk about the unfair criticism of Israel then she should stick with that and specifically apply where neo-liberal thinking is faulty in this regard. I do understand what she's saying when she talks about human rights and law being now seen in an individual perspective and it's about what is POSSIBLE to do, not what a person should be PROTECTED from ie. Common Law and the establishment of Human Rights after WWII.
Melanie Phillips is a wonderful person, intelligent, articulate and speaks with clarity.
Absolutely spot on Mellonie intelligent, truthful and well delivered as usual!
She is beyond brilliant here: a vibrantly thorough summary of the truth.
A few years ago, I went on a trip abroad. The day I flew abroad, a terrorist squad fired rockets at Israel. In response, Israel bombed the terrorists and killed them. When I arrived at the hotel, a Dutch tourist confronted me and asked me if I am aware of the fact that my country killed 3 Palestinians today. I asked him if he is aware of the fact that these 3 Palestinians fired rockets at Israel before they were bombed. It looks like the foreign media doesn't report the entire trith about the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. That is the reason for the biias against Israel.
Deep analysis of what happend to human rights and how these have mutated into maladaptive human rights culture. Great points!
Excellent. Thank you JBS Lawfare Project. She really is in a position to see the ins and outs and articulate what has happened. Rings true to me. And it is strange, unbelievable, yet makes sense. It sounds like, to some extent, the lawyers just develop all this to feed themselves, and everyone goes along rather mindlessly with a simple feel good, easy group think. So anyone who believes anything ideological can dominate. Feelings of guilt and blame have gained dominance, and the ordinary people and common sense are trashed.
I never heard such a well spoken logical speaker in my life
yes one of the best ever!
Excellent analysis. Thank you for posting!
very interesting thanks for uploading all food for thought
Extraordinary speaker.
19:00 "English Comon Law ..Everything is permitted unles there is a Law against it" Negitive Liberty (Good thing)
"Problem with codifying Human rights is . . Only what is laid down, is permitted. Positive Liberty (Bad thing, leads to Tyranny, prevents what is not laid down, from being considered to be Liberty."
Very interesting!
Thanks for this. I just don't understand the vitriolic hatred towards Israel. It is so deep.
You can start by Looking at the connection between: JFK assassination NUMEC Nuclear Weapons and Israel.
Well, who would have thought that of the Guardian? Well, well, well. Who would have thought those self-righteous useful-idiots would have been quite so self-righteously idiotic? Who would have thought it?
I fucking would have. I don't even think those middle-class robots are even human.
To clarify, supersessionism is not solely a phenomena among Anglican or "progressive" churches. Many, I would say most, evangelical groups also believe it.
As a suppliment for what she is saying I can recommend Samuel Moyns book; "The Last Utopia -Human rights in History"
Melanie at her best. Once you understand Cultural Marxism/Frankfurt School she makes total and complete sense.
I agree with Melanie on the flooding of the radical left into the 'human rights' arena. However, she talks about the glorious ideas of the West and claims that neo-liberalism's focus on the individual means that 3rd world oppressions aren't addressed by say, Western feminists. Yes, in some cases she's right but not all. Then she talks about gender and says women can do no wrong because they're classed as victims under this new way of seeing minorities. So what are we to make of this? Which way is the 'dutiful' way? She seems to be suggesting the two polar contradictory ideas.
Shit, that was good.
Duty is kind of old-fashioned, if you will - how about responsibilities?
If she wants to talk about the unfair criticism of Israel then she should stick with that and specifically apply where neo-liberal thinking is faulty in this regard. I do understand what she's saying when she talks about human rights and law being now seen in an individual perspective and it's about what is POSSIBLE to do, not what a person should be PROTECTED from ie. Common Law and the establishment of Human Rights after WWII.
ah yes- the fictional Pallywood narrative. figures
Tasteful outfit.