#and this isnt even mentioning the times where the US government commited this against their citizens | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

spitefulqueenofdemons · 3 years

Text

https://spitefulqueenofdemons.tumblr.com/post/643713435650113536/sleep-deprived part 2

Pushing Up Daisies chapter 3

Tw: language, murder, guns, cops, mentions of drugs

Word count: 1373

Summary: After having woken up tied to a chunk of concrete under water and doing an unspeakable act (for your survival??) You find yourself out of options and people to help. Well almost, the only one you think might be able to help is the one who got you in this situation in the first place

After a long shower and several hours on the internet searching for anything that could tell you what was going on. Apart from a few hundred movies and books with undead content the most concrete actual zombie anything you could find was mostly about the voodoo dust that people used to put others under control. And back in the 18, and 1900s people accidentally being buried alive.

There was virtually nothing about zombies in Seattle. All you knew for sure was what had happened to you. You confronted Blaine, he grabbed you, shot you, dumped you in a lake and you woke up you dont know how long after underwater with no need to breath.

As you thought and absently read yet another article about 'Haitian Zombies' you rubbed your hand against your wrist that Blaine had grabbed you with. The scratch marks on your arm were as faint as old scars but you could feel them still.

And just like that realization hit. The red eyes made sense. Blaine was a zombie, and that lady who was working the front counter probably was too. It had to be some sort of virus or something that could be transferred through scratch. The teenager in you was thrilled that zombies were real and not mindless corpses that just wandered around destroying everything it came across. Sure when you first emerged from the lake you couldnt control yourself and killed that poor innocent man but you were literally starving.

Perhaps that was the down side. The hunger is enough to blind you from any moral standing. Even more unfortunate, you didnt know how long what brains you did eat earlier would keep you satiated and you didnt have a way to get more without committing more murder. You didnt know anything about the zombieism other than the scratch causes it.

You really only had an one option. Go back to Blaine. He had options. Once you got there he could kill you, or turn you away, or kill you. You had gone in only, according to your microwave, 8 hours ago guns blazing accusing him of being a utopium dealer. How could you expect him to help.

Now you also knew you couldnt go to the police. As an officer you knew they would either freak out or hide it. And by hiding it you knew that would mean hiding you, IE killing you and sweeping it under the rug. They might turn you over to some higher part of the government. The type that does a bunch of invasive and usually very painful experiments and research.

You could just drop it. Leave town and change your name. But then again that brings up the issue of how will you eat? Murder is just too horrible an option for you. Grave robbing coukd be viable but half decomposed chemically drowned brain is almost as bad as the moral stand still of murder.

Deciding on your course of action you breezed to your closet, choosing a simple black hoodie, dark jeans and boots, and a ball cap to hide your snowy hair to wear. You grabbed a glock 19. Not the gun you had when you went to visit Blaine in the first place. That one was gone, probably in Debeers' personal stash now. This time though if he pulled so would you.

Without a vehicle, you assumed it would no longer be parked where you left it in front of MEATchute, you were instead forced to catch a bus to the opposite side of town. The open sign was off but you could see people behind the counter. It looked like they were counting the drawer.

You beat on the glass with an open palm, hard enough for it to make a lot of noise but not hard enough to shatter the glass. The older woman from when you first came was the one to open the door. She looked like she had seen a ghost, but still somehow like she didnt care.

"Cant you read the sign? We are closed. That means you dont have to go home but you sure as shit cant stay here." She half growled.

You rolled your eyes, half willing to punch her in the face if she wanted to get cocky. "Move. Wheres Debeers?" You demanded, eyes flashing past the stumpy woman and to the counter where a large man with dark hair stood sizing you up. "You," you said. You recognized him as one of the names that gave a name that then gave you Debeers. "You work for him. I shouldnt be surprised."

He cocked an eyebrow. "Cissie, let her through." The man said. He looked like a knock off version of Patrick Warburton. "You are supposed to be dead little lady. You got lungs of steal or are you one of us?"

You scoffed, wanting to hit them all. You knew it wasnt a part of the zombieism either. These fuckers were all instrumental in your death. That enough was reason for a slight beating. "I got nothing to say to you Julian. I'm here for Blaine and I'm not leaving till I get to talk to him." You demanded, stomping up to the counter.

The man sighed as if this was one of the last things he wanted to deal with. "Well he isnt here but I'll call him. See if he wants to talk to you. Follow me." He said, gesturing to you.

Not exactly happy, but pleased you were getting what you want, you followed the man behind the counter. He took you further into the building and finally into a room off the kitchen that actually looked like a real office. The large mahogany desk was a mess with files and papers, on top of them all was the stolen file from your apartment. There was a few random art pieces.

"Wait here. Someone will be by soon." He instructed, leaving you in the room alone. Trusting that you wouldnt snoop. Normally you would but this situation was not the time. You needed help, and had already pissed off two of the three people you knew had a hand in that. Snooping through Blaine's real office would be like flipping the bird after you already spit on and slapped someone. Definitely not a good idea on your part.

It took less than 20 minutes before the door opened again and a familiar blond haired blue eyed gangster opened the door. "Ah Detective. What an unpleasant surprise. I didnt know you walked amongst the undead." He said with an air of genuine shock. "When Julian told me I really didnt believe him. You took those bullets like a mortal. What happened?"

You laid out your wrist on the desk, the marks almost completely gone. He crossed to the other side and sat down, moving the little lamp that was sitting at the corner of the table. He shone the lamp over my arm and the little pink marks showed up.

Blaine 'tsk'ed. "Was it me?" He had a fake look of disgust on his face. "It was me wasnt it. Damn it, I knew I shouldnt have blown off my manicure appointment this morning." He shook his head. "Thats why you arent dead. You gotta be starving though. Would you like a snack? Pudding? Crackers and cheese? Brains?" He questioned.

You looked at the mark on your wrist in the light, your jaw clenched a little. "No thanks I already ate, but that is part of what I would like to discus."

At that his eyes widened with actual shock. "Um, you already ate? Did you kill someone or dig up a body?" When I didnt answer he nodded knowingly. "You killed someone. Oh I bet that was a sight. Sorry about the cinderblock by the way. I didnt think you would be waking up. Im sure it wasnt the best alarm."

You scoffed, a little thankful he stopped asking about your food source. "Waking up underwater was definitely a new experience, but then again so far my whole evening has been new experiences." You told him.

"Well, allow me to formally welcome you to the land of Zombies. I'll explain everything."

#fanfic #zombies #zombie #romance #blaine #blaine debeers #blaine x reader #liv moore #olivia moore #peyton charles #ravi chakrabarti #dirty cops #cops #acab

30 notes · View notes

awed-frog · 4 years

Note

Why has the trial taken this long to get to court? I did try googling this but couldn't find much info in English that wasnt very simplistic and my French just isnt that good :(

I was wondering the same thing, but there doesn’t seem to be any specific info on this subject. It’s like French media consider this to be an unremarkable, 100% normal delay - which it probably is. The French justice system is notoriously slow, and it takes anywhere from 11 to 20 months to see a judge (sometimes much longer: if the accused isn’t in prison, for instance, the time between you going to the police and the both of you appearing in court may stretch to three years or more). The reasons are mostly the same as everywhere else, and mostly boil down to lack of money and a byzantine legal system.

When it comes to Charlie, I think the issue is complicated further by a couple of other things.

1) The main accusers are dead. The actual murderers had been killed on the day of, which means those accused today are ‘minor’ accomplices - and three of them, arguably the ones who were most implicated, will be judged in absentia because no one knows where they are, or if they’re even alive.

2) Since the 1980s, trials about terrorism can’t have a popular jury to guarantee everyone’s safety (several jurors were threatened back then, so the French government decided it was too risky to have regular people implicated in this kind of trials). This means the number of ‘real’ judges goes up, for fairness’ sake, and thus the wheel of justice is even slower, because the number of qualified judges is not that high and they’re all overworked as it is.

3) This trial is more about historical memory and general catharsis than anything else. The strongest indication of this is that the entire thing will be filmed (which is exceptional in France) and that the court will hear hundreds of witnesses, but to be honest I also think the government actively wants to turn this into a feel-good Mass to try and hide its own responsibilities. It beggars belief, for instance, that 5 years’ worth of investigations could not establish the presence of a ‘mastermind’, and the source of the money and weapons the murderers used. And: as in other similar cases, some of the terrorists were actually known to the authorities, and apparently lots of mistakes were made there too.

(The guy from yesterday was also ‘known to the authorities’, as he had acquired illegal weapons as a minor, but apparently that wasn’t enough to warrant closer surveillance or anything.)

4) This trial is also, in the most cynical terms, a publicity stunt for the rule of law. One other reason the justice system is so slow is that it affords legal protection and representation to all the accused, even terrorists. This means in many cases, people who’ve committed heinous crimes have used taxpayers’ money to slow down justice and generally be a pain in the ass. But: while you can probably tell I have no sympathy for this behaviour, the alternative is far worse, as the State could (randomly) decide that, as this specific person is a terrorist, he or she doesn’t deserve a lawyer or anything else - and then what? The rule of law is officially suspended and democracies turn into dictatorships. So I think that, in a way, one of the goals of this trial is to hide and silence those voices who’re asking for a reform of the justice system in that direction; to show you can have a ‘proper’ trial with ‘proper’ punishment by respecting the current laws.

5) And, again, I’m cynical and fed up, but I also think this trial is a bit of a smokescreen to make us forget the many problems the French government has no answer for.

5.1) Problem one is that the situation of immigrants and minority communities in France is dismal and getting worse. Back in 2015, for instance, I remember reading one article - which was quickly buried and/or never mentioned by the big media - about the murderers’ childhood. It was a sobering, horrifying read. And while miserable childhood =/= becoming a terrorist, you have to wonder why the State allows for this kind of situations, and why we’re not looking after children and families a bit better.

(Also why despite its égalité claims, France is still a two-tiered system, with big city elites doing whatever they want and everyone else, especially rural communities and minorities, slowly drowning.)

5.2) Problem two is that when it comes to radical Islam and free speech, things are also bad and getting worse very fast. In fact, experts think the Charlie Hebdo massacre did nothing to turn the tide, and that since then things have deteriorated even more (a stupid example, but a few months ago a 16-yo girl was forced out of school for insulting Mohammed). And here again, the French government either fails to realize the problem, or doesn’t give a fuck, or doesn’t know what to do. We have reports of Maghreb-majority neighbourhoods turning into stateless entities, and we know many people living there are not at all happy with this but are powerless to stop it. We know a lot of money is coming in from Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood. We know being a moderate Muslim is getting more and more difficult (people are harassed for selling alcohol or non halal food, women are attacked or spat at for dressing ‘immodestly’). We know more and more people are relying on foreign imams to answer the questions they have about their daily lives, and turning to religious courts for their disputes. We know well-funded and smartly managed ‘concerned parents’ groups’ are interfering in the public school system, objecting to lessons and activities that defy their worldview and often getting their way (think a complete stonewalling of science, evolution, American writers and poets, history, LGBT issues but also cultural visits to monasteries or churches). And we know radical groups are infiltrating cultural and political life, often using public money to advance their agenda and turn entire neighbourhoods inside out. And yet very little is done.

So the situation is complicated, and likely to get worse. This trial is going to weigh heavily on everyone’s minds, and it will be followed next year by the trial of another 2015 crime, the Bataclan attack. That is bound to be just as emotional, if not worse, and if you factor in the pandemic, the beginnings of the presidential campaign (elections are in 2022) and the general fuckery that’s going on everywhere...personally, I’m worried, scared and fed up. I think attacks against the freedom of the press and freedom of thought are a very serious issue, and it beggars belief we’re all stuck between the far right’s insanity and racism and the left’s stubborn determination not to act and not to see. Bar some miracle, I think things will get much worse before they get better.

#ask #charlie hebdo #france #news #politics #radical islam #rant of the day

23 notes · View notes

bombardthehq · 5 years

Text

Patriarcha

by Robert Filmer

published 1680 (written by 1640), read 15/09/19 - ???

Filmer was, by all accounts, the most popular and influential political theorist in England in the 17th century. The seminal works of many major contributors to the political theory of that century - particularly Locke - were responses to Patriarcha. But he is not read today, really by anyone. He was the principle theorist of a tendency which would, by the next century, no longer exist anywhere: of absolutism, and in particular, that Kings ruled by divine right. Most courses of political science or political philosophy in universities do not even mention Filmer: the only reading list that I found him on was an infographic originating from /pol/ which was structured from most socially acceptable (things like Hayek and Burke) to least (things like Hitler and Kaczynski): under the section ‘Reactionary Right’, Patriarcha appears at the very bottom.

I began reading out of curiosity but it became clear that it was both a relatively complex text and one that is both downstream and upstream of things important to us: thinkers like Tacitus and Machiavelli, and the theory of Sovereignity respectively. So, notes. I always say I’ll try to keep my notes brief and never do, how about this time I promise to be thorough?

Chapter I: That the First Kings were the Fathers of their Families

Filmer opens by talking about an idea which contemporary political theorists believed in, which is that humans are “naturally endowed and born” with “freedom from subjection”, and that forms of rule only have power over them because they give them that power.

Often Hobbes and Rousseau are contrasted on a certain point about human nature: Hobbes believed that civilization was a necessary imposition because of the disastrous anarchy of man’s natural condition, while Rousseau believed (something like) man’s natural condition being good and peaceful and civilization creating problems, although he still affirmed the necessity of civilization in some sense. Anyway, both of these thinkers were later than Filmer, and both take as their beginning the very point that Filmer notes here, which Rousseau makes when he writes that “man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.”

Filmer says that this is a new idea, and not something originating from the bible or the early church fathers, and hints that it was devised by the Jesuits!

He gives a logical conclusion to the idea: that if the people gave the Prince his power, they can take it away. He considers this a dangerous idea.

In fact, Filmer rejects the very idea that Kings are subject to the laws of their country, and when other theorists (he names ‘Buchanan’ and ‘Parsons’ - two names I’ve never heard) criticize the sovereign for breaking the law he considers it an error.

Equality is mentioned (just like that!) in connection to natural liberty, when he mentions their position as “the natural liberty and equality of mankind.”

Anyway, he comes around to saying, its time someone takes this seditious idea of natural liberty to task! (An early appearance of the ‘say what you’re going to say in the introduction’, by the way!)

Filmer enumerates a number of ‘cautions’ he’s giving himself for the discourse.

First he spends a paragraph going over how it isnt for him, nor anyone else, to pry or meddle into the affairs of the state, “the profound secrets of government”, which he refers to as arcana imperii. “An implicite Faith is given to the meanest Artificer in his own Craft,” he writes - true enough! - and so even more faith ought be given to the sovereign, who is “hourly versed in managing Publique Affairs.”

Arcana imperii (literally ‘mysterious power’, more semantically ‘state secrets’) is an expression from Tacitus which has gone on to have a certain currency in political theory (see here), apparently appearing as recently as Agamben, and having been appropriated earlier than Filmer, by “Botero and Clapmar” (who?). In Tacitus, arcana denotes secrets which ought to be kept secret.

The end of this paragraph is confusing to me, so I’ll note its location (here). The gist is that people ought to obey the sovereign, and he relates this to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s...”

In a sentence which goes “...knowledge of those points wherein a Sovereign may Command...”, he has a footnote - attatched to the word may ! - which leads to a paragraph weighing rule and tyranny. For Filmer, a King who rules by his own laws becomes a tyrant, "yet where he sees the Laws Rigorous or Doubtful, he may mitigate and interpret.” I’m going to note the location of this footnote too (here), because it is actualy a very clear and very early exposition of the Non-Derivative Power of sovereignity, and states precisely what Carl Schmitt means by “the leader keeps the law”.

His second caution is that he isn’t going to dispute the “laws or liberties”, only inquire wether they came from Natural Liberty or from “the Grace and bounty of Princes.” Obviously, Filmer will come down on the latter position: that any liberty one has is the benevolant gift of the Sovereign.

He says that the greatest liberty in the world is to live under a monarchy, and that anything else is Slavery, “a liberty only to destroy liberty” - although this whole paragraph is actually plainly an apology for writing a political text, which was surely somewhat dangerous back then, and while this is the official ideology that everyone had to believe (even Rousseau makes the same gestures, framing his dialogues by saying ‘this is all what I would say if I didnt live under a benevolant rulership...’), its actually clearly a bit more extreme than even Filmer is willing to commit to.

His third caution is that he isn’t disparaging the people he criticizes, simply adding on where there are gaps in their thought, and so on. “A Dwarf,” he writes, “sometimes sees what a Giant looks over.” He briefly summarises his idea about the cause of their error: that in order to ensure the authority of the Pope, they placed the People above the King. I’m not sure if thats how Buchanan saw it! Anyway, this is how he explains that the two major factions at the time were the “Royalists” and the “Patriots” - the error, for Filmer, is that people had come to believe that one could be loyal to ones country while traitorous to the King. (True enough - isn’t patriotism always a kind of category error?)

Cautions set aside, he begins the critique proper. He starts by quoting Cardinal Bellarmine (now a saint!), which we’ll reproduce:

Secular or Civil Power is instituted by Men; It is in the People, unless they bestow it on a Prince. This Power is immediately in the whole Multitude, as in the Subject of it; for this Power is in the Divine Law, but the Divine Law hath given this Power to no particular Man— If the Positive Law be taken away, there is left no Reason, why amongst a Multitude (who are Equal) one rather than another should bear Rule over the rest?— Power is given by the Multitude to one man, or to more by the same Law of Nature; for the Commonwealth cannot exercise this Power, therefore it is bound to bestow it upon some One Man, or some Few— It depends upon the Consent of the Multitude to ordain over themselves a King, or Consul, or other Magistrates; and if there be a lawful Cause, the Multitude may change the Kingdom into an Aristocracy or Democracy.

Filmer comments that this is the strongest defence for Natural Liberty that he’s ever seen, and thats why he selects it for critiism: after all, as he said earlier, its usually never a position argued for but simply taken for granted. Filmer now begins a fairly fascinating sequence of deducing things ‘backwards’ from this quote and examining what it presupposes, in a way that very closely reflects the way I approach argument (this is the reason I decided to take notes on this text)

“First,” Filmer writes, “He saith, that by the law of God, Power is immediately in the People”, and therefore the political system that God gave the world is Democracy! because Democracy has no meaning but power belonging to the people. Therefore, not just Aristocracies, but also Monarchies are against God’s will, who rightly gave the people Democracy. (This is a sort of reductio ad absurdum, I think - today it seems quite a natural thing to say!)

We want to object to Filmer here by saying that the Bellarmine does not necessarily refer to Democracy (of course, he explicitly refers to Democracy as something other than the ‘Power and Law of the Multitude’), but its not quite as easy to dismiss as one would think initially. Bellarmine does not argue for a kind of Hobbesian state of nature here, because in Hobbes’ anarchy there are surely no Powers, nor a Law. For Bellarmine, God gave men powers and laws. I would like to look more into what Bellarmine meant by this, that he perhaps thought of a prepolitical power, prelegal law... but there is surely some basis for Filmer equating it with Democracy. That said, it does not necessarily follow that investing those powers and laws in a form of government should be against God’s will.

Second, Filmer says, the only Power that men have in Democracy is to give their power to someone else, and therefore they really do not have any power. (Ho hum!)

“Thirdly,” Filmer writes, Bellarmine says “that if there be a lawful Cause, the Multitude may change the Kingdom.” Filmer asks: who will be the judge of wether something is lawful or not? It would be the Multitude. Filmer considers this “pestilent and dangerous.” (Again, surely quite natural today.)

Now Filmer quotes Bellarmine making what he feels is his only argument for the existence of Natural Liberty. Bellarmine writes: “That God hath given or ordained Power, is evident by Scripture; But God hath given it to no particular Person, because by nature all Men are Equal; therefore he hath given Power to the People or Multitude.”

Filmer now pulls out another quote from Bellarmine to refute the position just quoted, which he is proud as punch about, calling it out right before he does it and also including it in the chapter summary at the beginning (”Bellarmine’s Argument answered out of Bellarmine himself”).

The promised passage goes like this: “If many men had been together created out of the Earth, they all ought to have been Princes over their Posterity.”

Take that, shitlibs! Absolutists: 1 Republicans: 0! See you in hell Milton!

Anyway, Filmer takes this to be true: that Adam, and the succeeding patriarchs, had authority over their children: “by right of father-hood”, they had “royalty over the children”, in fact.

So children are subject to their parents, and parenthood is the “fountain of regal authority”, and this authority was bestowed by God himself. The argument promised in the chapter title begins to take shape: the first Kings were Fathers of their Families.

God also specifically assigned it to the eldest parents, which I think becomes important later.

He ‘saith’: Adam had dominion over the whole world, a Right granted him by God, and that Right was passed down to the Patriarchs. He gives what this Right is specifically, using biblical examples of authority: Dominion over Life and Death, the ability to make War, and to Conclude peace. (All of this is quite fundamental to later theories of sovereignity, especially critical ones: biopower! necropolitics! Indeed, Filmer refers to them as the “chiefest marks of Sovereignity”)

Although his history is Biblical and not the kind of historic epistemology we tend to use, as far as we’re concerned, Filmer’s argument is correct. At least for some parts of the world. I need to read more about stone & bronze age sovereignities globally but my reading on ancient Greece absolutely confirms this: the first forms of authority in that part of the world that we have record of was that exercised by a familial Patriarch who governed over a small kinship villages, setting the law (which is spoken of in terms of having ‘power over life and death’), and declared wars. There would eventually become a ruler who was largely symbolic but who, for this or that reason (not even political reasons, but often reasons related to the development of the productive forces or of national security) would appropriate more and more power from the Patriarchs while the social groups based on kinship ties would lose coherence.

Filmer’s argument here is not quite a naturalistic fallacy because he does not argue directly that it is right because it was so. Rather he uses history here to say that liberty is not natural to men, which he feels most Republican theories of government presuppose. Monarchy is argued to be good only indirectly, so the fallacy only happens ‘between the lines’ of the page.

1 note · View note

ravenaveira · 5 years

Text

People that say Taka was the best team/friends for him is like saying a drug addicts friends who are also drug addicts are whats best for them simply because they went along with and encouraged their habit rather than trying to get them help and off a toxic lifestyle

Just because you have friends that support your bad habits doesnt mean their good friends and whats best for you

Friends who try to get you out of that toxic lifestyle to a better place where your clear-headed and healthy THOSE are real friends who want the best for you

I know this is a weird topic to touch on after the previous episode which I'm not downplaying because I thought it was wholesome, but the fact that people blatantly ignore how toxic and unhealthy Taka was for Sasuke AT THE TIME really just rubs me the wrong way

Do I think his relationship with Team 7 perfect? course not, but you can definitely see the difference between how TRUE friends behave and how enablers behave

Whenever Sasuke talked or thought about Team 7 he viewed them like family and precious bonds he had to cut in order to focus on and pursue revenge

Whenever Sasuke talked or thought about Taka he treated them as strictly subordinates, we never see him bothering to interact with them other than pursuing his goals and once they were no longer needed? he discarded and abandoned them without a second thought, he didnt even know Karin was an Uzumaki or that he even met her in the past which shows how little he cared about any of them on a personal level, the only one I can say Sasuke even remotely cared about to that degree is Jugo

None of them tried to empathize with Sasuke, none of them tried to talk to him about his struggles or problems and let him suffer alone, none of them cared for Sasuke to that point and if they did then they had one hell of a way of showing it

So my point? yes I think Sasuke cared somewhat about Taka in his own way and yes I think Taka cared for Sasuke as well I'm not saying they didnt, I'm just saying they didnt care enough

And it seems crazy to me that the same people who complain about the injustices done to Sasuke and his clan are the same one who support Taka and them supporting Sasuke and his crimes against pretty much everyone

Yes killing Danzo was a good thing but it was still a crime, Sasuke and Taka joined Akatsuki and tried to kidnap the 8 tails which was a crime against the Cloud village, Sasuke attacked the 5 kage summit and every single kage there making him an international criminal regardless if his goal was just Danzo it was still a risk of them getting involved, Sasuke just being a rogue ninja joining another rogue ninja is a crime, Sasuke attempting to kill all the 5 kage after the war would have been a crime

Yes some injustices can be resolved through violence but that is not the one and ONLY solution, Sasuke going rogue unfortunately even from a narrative standpoint yea it needed to happen for him to train with a Sanin etc but the only way to resolve Konoha’s injustice was to go through the right channels and expose to corruption that was in it, once Sasuke left and started committing crimes he lost the moral high ground and anything he said or did would easily be ignored and just thought of as another crazed Uchiha who deserved to die

You can argue yes but then Naruto and Kakashi could have said something once they found out but by that point it was like Temari said, it was FAR too late for Sasuke and even with the truth revealed how does that excuse his actions at the summit? against Bee? joining Akatsuki? killing Itachi and Danzo MIGHT have been able to be excused but the rest? there's no way that was getting overlooked even with the corruption exposed Sasuke was still just as much in the wrong now

I'm a huge Sasuke fan but even I can acknowledge that not every single one of his actions was 100% right and just, his actions towards the people who actually wronged him WERE in the right, but his actions in everything that didnt? yes he was in the wrong no ifs ands or buts about it

So for those who think Taka is so much better for Sasuke because they supported his criminal actions [except Jugo I believe he’d be fine either way] but not Team 7 who wanted Sasuke to stop his criminal actions and return to his senses and be in a healthy condition again, truly make me wonder if they actually care about Sasuke’s well being or just think everyone who isnt a yes man to everything Sasuke did somehow dont care about his feelings or the injustices done to him and just wanna change him

Yeah, change him for the BETTER not worse, if anything Taka tried to do the opposite of that but hey I guess being a bad influence is better than being a good one

And listen we can go back and forth all day about Sasuke's situation after the war because I agree wholeheartedly that thats bullshit, but realistically speaking the fact that some things about the Uchiha massacre are unresolved like those two elders even being allowed to breathe, realistically speaking what CAN you really do? the Uchihas are dead and the main man responsible is dead and Hiruzen who failed to stop it is also dead so what would exposing everything do at that point? everyone directly involved is DEAD so exposing it really is pointless even if only to clear Itachi’s name which I'm gonna say something alot of you wont like

But the Uchiha’s were not all innocent victims, atleast not the ones involved and planning the coup, yes they were treated unfairly but does that mean the best approach to fixing this is to overthrow the government? how does that make you look? your proving their suspicions of you right by attempting to be the threat they all think you are, that is NOT how you get your point across and demand justice for your clan by planning a coup that would result in many lives lost including your own

Does that mean do nothing? course not, but if you want their trust then you have to EARN it and if you want justice and equality then go on strike and refuse to serve them until their willing to talk and compromise, seriously the Uchiha was a HUGE asset to Konoha so them refusing to obey and offer their services definitely would have gotten their attention and force them to listen and find a compromise, if that didnt work they could have tried spreading the word to fellow citizens and gain their support as I'm pretty sure not EVERYONE in Konoha felt the same way towards them and would have joined their cause for equality

But no, they chose the path of violence and it resulted in their entire clan's downfall and they end up with NOTHING but a bad name, so what did they gain? absolutely nothing, so was it worth it? NO

So lets stop acting like Konoha’s the big bad villain that did nothing but wrong and the Uchiha’s were pure innocent souls that did nothing wrong to deserve what happened to them because Ima say it THEY DID and their downfall was entirely their own fault for their approach, was it right? of course not genocides never ok and just as the Uchihas could have found another method Konoha could have as well so they were both in the wrong not just one or the other

Itachi also isnt a saint for the same reason the Uchiha’s and Konoha isnt and thats choosing the wrong approach to resolving the problems, there were many other paths he could have chosen but he chose the worst ones every time so just clearing Itachi’s name because of his good intentions wouldnt be right because his methods were beyond fucked up on so many levels

So my point is Sasuke was a victim of both sides wrongdoings, Taka didnt help with that at all, Team 7 tried to empathize and tried to understand and console him and save him from himself, its just that Sasuke didnt let them and pushed them away and thats of no fault of theirs since they did try but mainly Sasuke and them being mostly in the dark about everything

Yet Taka knowing almost everything didnt even try to reach out to him or help him cope in any way, Karin you’d think would understand and get through to Sasuke the most, cared more about her lust for him and seeing his ‘smile’ than actually empathizing with him and helping him through the turmoil he was in, Suigetsu made it clear he was out for himself from the start and Jugo is just wholeheartedly loyal to Sasuke no matter what

The fact that in the end, Sasuke makes no attempt to visit them until he needs them for something speaks volumes of his attachment to them, I think Taka thinks more of Sasuke than Sasuke does of them

He didnt even say goodbye to them before he left for his redemption journey nor did he bring them along on his years-long mission which again speaks volumes

So all Im saying is, Taka being the best team for Sasuke and his true friends is complete bull because I have yet to see any argument or reasoning for this be anything other than he chose them and that they went along with everything he did without question

If you have a better reason for why you think this then please share with me I welcome it maybe you can change my mind, but as of right now all the arguments I see is bullshit or occasionally shipping based which isnt a legitimate reason btw, so if you can be civil then I'm all ears

Note: I didnt mention the other Kages because it should be obvious their ways were screwed up as well and ruined a lot of lives, however what does Sasuke’s idea of basically ruling as a dictator resolve? how does that fix and reform the system? Sasuke wont live forever so what happens when he dies? he cant be the enemy that unites everyone once he’s dead and gone it’ll return back to how things were and thus mission failed another Uchiha dies for nothing, Sasuke’s approach to the situation was just a temporary solution not a permanent one and one that wouldnt last long anyway so lets not pretend Sasuke had the best solution to the problem when in all honesty both his and Naruto’s solutions were flawed and it makes sense that they’d work together using both methods rather than one and compromise, again we can argue about Sasuke’s situation after the war all day but fact of the matter is just gotta accept this is what it is and move on, at least Sasuke achieved partially what he wanted which was a bright future for the next generation and the villages to be at peace with one another without the need of a common enemy anymore, are things completely resolved? no, but its progress, and 15 years is nowhere near enough time to fix decades worth of damage so its still a work in progress and will be for a long time

#naruto fandom #anti-taka #pro team 7 #this isnt really anti taka cuz i love suigetsu and jugo #i just dont think their the best team for him #or even the best friends #but their good comrades and im glad their all cool now and not under house arrest like orochimaru lol #i debated whether or not to put this on my main blog or rant one and i decided fuck it im goin for it #this isnt really a rant to begin with but more of me venting about how stupid this is #but hey im open to changing my mind if the arguments made are actually good I'll have no problem admitting i was wrong #but as of now well im confident that wont be happening

11 notes · View notes

antoine-roquentin · 6 years

Link

In 2015, Ukraine’s president signed a law whose critics say stifles debate on the historical record of World War II and whitewashes local perpetrators of the Holocaust.

Law 2538-1 criminalized any rhetoric insulting to the memory of anti-communist partisans. And it celebrates the legacy of such combatants – ostensibly including the ones who murdered countless Jewish and Polish citizens while collaborating with Nazi Germany.

The law generated some backlash, including an open letter by more than 70 historians who said it “contradicts the right to freedom of speech,” ignores complicity in the Holocaust and would “damage Ukraine’s national security.”

But as with similar measures in Europe’s ex-communist nations, the Ukraine law generated little opposition or even attention internationally — especially when compared to the loud objections to a similar measure in Poland that was signed into law on Tuesday by the president. The law had passed both houses of parliament in recent days. The United States and Israel joined historians and Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust authority in decrying the bill.

“The Ukrainian and Polish laws are similar, but in Ukraine’s case we didn’t see anything even close” to the avalanche of condemnations that Poland received, said Eduard Dolinsky, director of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee and a longtime campaigner against Holocaust revision in Ukraine. “I wish we had; maybe this law could have been stopped in Ukraine.”

To activists like Dolinsky, the singling out of Poland reflects the ongoing politicization of the debate on Eastern Europe’s bloody World War II history. They say the conversation is distorted by geopolitical tensions involving Russia, populism, ignorance and unresolved national traumas.

There are clear similarities between the Ukrainian and Polish laws, according to Alex Ryvchin, a Kiev-born Australian-Jewish journalist and author who has written about the politics of memory in Eastern Europe.

“Both seek to use the legitimacy and force of law to enshrine an official narrative of victimhood, heroism and righteousness while criminalizing public discussion of historical truths that contradict or undermine these narratives,” he said. Yet, he noted, “The reaction to the Polish law has indeed dwarfed the response to persistent state revisionism elsewhere in Europe in spite of the fact that the rate of collaboration was generally lower in Poland than in Ukraine and Latvia.”

The Baltic nations of Lithuania and Latvia were pioneers in nationalist legislation that limits discourse about the Holocaust in their territories. Critics say these laws also shift the blame for the murder of Jews, which was done with local helpers, to Nazi Germany alone. They also seem to equate the Nazi genocide with political repression by the Soviet Union – which many in the former Soviet Union blame on Jewish communists.

In 2010 Lithuania — a country where Nazi collaborators virtually wiped out a Jewish community of 250,000 — amended its criminal code, prescribing up to two years in jail to anyone who “denies or grossly underestimates” the crime of genocide or “other crimes against humanity or war crimes committed by the USSR or Nazi Germany against Lithuanian residents.”

Similar legislation in Latvia from 2014 imposes up to five years in jail for those who deny the role of “the foreign powers that have perpetrated crimes against Latvia and the Latvian nation,” without mentioning the involvement of Latvian SS volunteers in murdering nearly all of the country’s 70,000 Jews.

The denial of local culpability during the Holocaust is at the root of opposition to Poland’s law, which sets a maximum of six years in jail for “whoever accuses, publicly and against the facts, the Polish nation or the Polish state of being responsible or complicit in the Nazi crimes committed by the Third Reich” or ”grossly diminishes the responsibility of the actual perpetrators.” On Tuesday, President Andrzej Duda said he would sign the laws (which he did later in the day), finalizing them, but also refer them for review by Poland’s highest court.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who in the past has been criticized for not calling out his country’s Eastern European allies on these issues, called the Polish legislation “baseless” and said Israel opposed it. The U.S. State Department in a statement suggested it could have “repercussions” for bilateral relations with Poland.

Israeli Education Minister Naftali Bennett’s scheduled visit to Poland this week was canceled after he criticized the law, which Israel’s embassy in Poland said was generating anti-Semitic hate speech in the media.

Back in Israel, the Polish Embassy condemned what it called ignorant remarks by Yair Lapid, a prominent opposition leader. Citing his credentials as the son of a Holocaust survivor, Lapid said the Polish law is designed to hide how Poland was “a partner in the Holocaust.”

Jewish organizations, including the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said for their part that they understand the Polish frustration with terms like “Polish death camps,” which seem to shift the blame for Nazi war crimes to Poland – one of the few Nazi-occupied countries where the Nazis did not allow any measure of self-rule or integrate locals into the genocide.

And the term is especially offensive in Poland, where the Nazis killed at least 1.9 million non-Jews in addition to at least 3 million Jews.

But, many Jewish groups added, the legislation in Poland ignores how many Poles betrayed or killed Jews and is therefore detrimental to the preservation of historical record and free speech.

Dolinsky in Ukraine isn’t a fan of the Polish legislation, either.

“But I don’t quite understand why it and only it provoked such a strong reaction,” he added. “We needed that strong reaction two years ago in Ukraine. This fight needs to apply to all these cases. For the pressure to be effective, it shouldn’t be selective.”

Dolinsky believes that Ukraine — which, unlike Poland, shares a border with Russia — is getting a free pass from the West because it is subjected to hostility from Russia under President Vladimir Putin.

In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine amid ongoing psychological warfare against the Baltic nations, often involving the deployment of Russia’s mighty army around those countries in blunt loudspeaker diplomacy.

“There is a lot of Russophobic sentiment worldwide and it means international silence on countries with a conflict with Russia,” said Joseph Koren, chairman of the Latvia Without Nazism group.

“Poland and Hungary are in a different category,” agreed Dovid Katz, a scholar of Yiddish in Lithuania and longtime campaigner against Holocaust distortion there. The singling out of Poland and Hungary, he said, is “not least because the issues of the Holocaust, anti-Semitism and restrictions on democratic expression in these countries have never been perceived primarily through the same binary lens of pro-and anti-Putin.”

Under that alleged cover of silence, in Ukraine and the Baltic countries there is a rapid lifting on taboos that had been in place for decades on the honoring of war criminals, even including SS volunteers who enthusiastically participated in the mass killings of Jews and Poles.

Largely ignored by the international media, Latvian President Raimonds Vejonis last week gave the final approval for a law that offers financial benefits to all World War II veterans – including SS volunteers who murdered Jews. Latvia is the only country in the world known to have an annual march by SS veterans, which takes place with the approval of authorities’ on the country’s national day in the center of its capital, sometimes with mainstream politicians in attendance.

Last year, the municipality of Kalush near Lviv in Ukraine decided to name a street for Dmytro Paliiv, a commander of the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS, also known as the 1st Galician.

Ukraine’s state television observed a moment of silence for the first time last year for Symon Petliura, a nationalist killed by a Jewish communist for Petliura’s role in the murder of 35,000 to 50,000 Jews in a series of pogroms between 1918 and 1921, when Petliura was head of the Ukrainian People’s Republic.

“There is less willingness to speak out on Ukraine in media, in the scientific community and in Western governments, so it seems,” Dolinsky said.

But this alleged turning of a blind eye, he added, is a disservice. “Ukraine needs to join Europe as a civilized member of that family of nations. And for that to happen, it needs to speak honestly and openly about its history,” he said.

To Ryvchin, the Australian author, the “particularly forceful reaction to the Polish law is likely because Poland is seen as the epicenter of the Holocaust,” he said. The Germans built extermination camps only in Poland, according to Holocaust historian Efraim Zuroff.

“Any attempt to distort or disguise what happened in Poland is seen as a particularly egregious attack on the history of the Holocaust and the memories of the dead,” Ryvchin said.

Ironically, Poland is perhaps singled out for criticism because of the country’s vocal civil society and the lively debate it is generating over the politics of memory, Katz suggested.

Even today, he said, Poland and Hungary “have robust liberal movements that themselves counter official government policy on many issues — unlike the Baltics, where dissent is often quashed using the full force of the law.”

1K notes · View notes

kerahlekung · 4 years

Text

UMNO juga dikatakan terlibat, tapi LGE seorg yg didakwa...

UMNO juga dikatakan terlibat, tapi LGE seorg yg didakwa....

youtube

Pertuduhan yang dimaksudkan, untuk hiburan bersama. Duit pun tak bayaq lagi, untung celah bedah mana depa nak cari paper trail pun tak tau lah. This is gonna be quite amusing. LGE isnt that stupid to ask for bribe from an UMNO contractor. Zarul claimed Guan Eng asked for 10% kickback but not abt him receiving bribes. Zarul claimed he bribed so many other people -- his credibility might be shot if the rest deny. He also gave RM500k to Nazri Aziz, RM200k to Ismail Sabri, RM100k to Halimah Sadique, RM100k to Nur Jazlan, RM50k to Zahid Hamidi, RM50k to Zainal Abidin Rahim and RM500k to Rahman Dahlan. FMT said the said document below is real but leaked..

Najib's donor was supposedly the deceased King Abdulalh of Saudi.

Lim Guan Eng's donor is confirmed to be King Hades of Hell.

Lim Guan Eng Charged Based On Hearsay – A Distraction To Satisfy Angry Pro-UMNO And Pro-PAS Supporters...

Get real. If backdoor Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin wanted to, he could save the pathetic life of Najib Razak, the former prime minister who was the same man who had sacked him in 2015. But why should he? Allowing the judge to “do his job” – delivering a guilty verdict – would mean Najib cannot participate in the next snap general election. Now, Najib is out of the race. With Najib out of the race, Muhyiddin has eliminated his biggest rival, at least until the crook could convince the Court of Appeal to reverse the High Court’s verdict. If Najib fails, he can go to the Federal Court, the highest court and the final appellate court in the country, to tell the judges about his sobbing story. It would take up to a year for the appeals, if Najib is lucky. But the idea of sending Najib to prison comes with a price. UMNO and PAS supporters were not very happy that the prime minister “did not rescue” their beloved Najib. To prove that he was neutral, Muhyiddin has to balance his act. And the only way to satisfy supporters of his “Malay-only” Perikatan Nasional government is to dramatically send a Chinese opposition leader to prison. Sending Lim Guan Eng, secretary-general of DAP (Democratic Action Party – the biggest party with 42 MPs), to prison will boost Muhyiddin’s popularity among the UMNO-Malay and PAS-Muslim voters. They would feel happy and satisfy with the perception that the chief of Chinese-DAP party who played a role in defeating UMNO in the 2018 General Election is going to jail. If Najib Razak is to go to prison, Lim Guan Eng must also go to jail. Only then it would be fair and the DAP haters can accept Muhyiddin as their leader. As expected, when Mr. Lim was finally charged today (August 7) for corruption in connection with the RM6.3 billion Penang undersea tunnel project, pro-UMNO and pro-PAS supporters celebrate as if the country had won the FIFA World Cup. There were two scandals that DAP haters have always linked to Lim Guan Eng – the so-called bungalow scandal and the Penang tunnel scandal. When the former Penang Chief Minister was arrested in June 2016 over the bungalow scandal, the previous Najib regime had tried very hard to frame the popular DAP leader, but to no avail.

For 2 years until the May 2018 General Election, the corrupt regime of Barisan Nasional failed to prove anything against Lim. Eventually, after the regime’s defeat, the corruption case against Lim Guan Eng was dropped on Sept 8, 2018 after the Penang High Court acquitted Mr. Lim. Businesswoman Phang Li Koon, who sold the bungalow to Mr Lim, was also acquitted. Of course, who can forget when the anti-graft agency MACC (Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission) said it was shocked by the decision of the Attorney-General’s Chambers to withdraw the case, claiming that the decision was made by the Attorney General Tommy Thomas office and not the MACC. Then-PM Mahathir joined the bandwagon and mocked the MACC. Expressing his shock, probably made with tongue-in-cheek, Mahathir said – “They (MACC) have a right to be shocked. If they want to be shocked, they can be shocked. I am also shocked. If the court makes a decision which to me is wrong, I also never comment on it.” Amazingly, the MACC was not shocked at all when the infamous Cowgate scandal was dropped in the same manner in 2015. Why was MACC so upset that the prosecutor did not wish to pursue Lim’s bungalow case but was not upset at all that the prosecutor did not wish to pursue former UMNO Woman Chief Shahrizat’s corruption case, where Shahrizat Jalil and her family members had siphoned RM250 million of taxpayers money meant for National Feedlot Corporation (NFC)? If you wish to argue, we had already published an article 4 years ago about the difference between Khir Toyo and Lim Guan Eng’s bungalow scandal, which you can read it here. What is interesting is the RM6.3 billion Penang tunnel project being used by the Muhyiddin regime to charge the DAP leader. On the surface, the scandal appears to be as huge as Najib’s 1MDB scandal. But there seem to be too many loopholes and ambiguities with the MACC’s latest attempt to charge Lim. For a start, it doesn’t make sense that there is only “one charge” against Lim despite the value of the project (RM6.3 billion), when Najib was slapped with 7 charges on July 3, 2018, over allegations of plundering only RM42 million of SRC International money.

Today, Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court Judge Azura Alwi read out the charges – “That you, on March 2011, at a location near The Gardens Hotel, Syed Putra Circle, Mid Valley City, in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, during your tenure as chief minister of Penang, have solicited a bribe, namely a reward in the form of 10 percent of the profits that will be obtained later from Zarul Ahmad Bin Mohd Zulkifli, as a fee to help the company owned by Zarul Ahmad to be appointed to carry out construction of the main roads and tunnels in the Penang undersea tunnel project.” “Therefore you have committed an offence under Section 16 (a) (A) of the MACC Act 2009 which is punishable under Section 24 (1) of the same Act. Any person who commits an offence under Section 16 of the MACC Act 2009 may upon conviction be subject to – a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 20 years and b) fined not less than five times the amount or value of the bribe which is the subject of the offence if the bribe can be assessed in the form of money or RM10,000 as the case may be.” – said the judge. Yes, Lim was charged for soliciting a bribe, whatever that means. Amusingly, no money has changed hands. As the judge mentioned, the bribe is to be obtained later from a company owned by Zarul Ahmad. So, it’s a “future tense” – not yet happen. This is perhaps the first corruption case in the country involving something that needs a “time travel machine” to prove. More amazingly, the bribe amount is 10% of the profits. But there was no mention of the amount of profits, not even a rough estimation. Why didn’t Lim make his life easier by asking for 10% of the Penang tunnel project (valued at RM6.3 billion) which will translate to RM630 million? Exactly how does the prosecutor plan to argue their case in the court without knowing the facts and figures? If the company makes a loss, the bribe amount is negative and theoretically, Lim has to pay Zarul instead. Lim must be the dumbest crook in the world for asking 10% of potential profits, instead of 10% of project value or just a fix amount of bribes, say RM100 million. Perhaps the 10% is to be based on the profits of toll collections after the Penang tunnel kicks into operation. However, a mega project like the 7.2-km Penang tunnel will take years to complete, and it could take many more years to turn profitable, if it ever happens. Lim Guan Eng may not be around to enjoy his reward. The corruption case is so ambiguous that it becomes comical. It would be more profitable and promising for Lim to solicit sexual favour instead.

Penang Undersea Tunnel Project

The best part is the tunnel project, initiated 9 years ago in 2011, hasn’t started yet as the state government is still reviewing the feasibility study. Najib Razak, then prime minister, had even attended the project’s memorandum of understanding (MoU) signing ceremony back in April 2011. Therefore, the previous regime, with whom PM Muhyiddin is working now, was very well aware of the project from the beginning. Unlike Najib’s 1MDB corruption case, where his luxury apartments were raided by the police, leading to the confiscation of RM117 million cash and RM1 billion worth of 12,000 pieces of jewellery, an eye-popping 567 handbags consisted of luxury handbags from 37 different designers – including Chanel, Prada, Hermes and ultra-luxury Bijan, the authorities did not even bother to raid Lim’s residence. And unlike the MACC’s raid of UMNO Supreme Council member Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim’s house in 2018, leading to seizure of RM500,000 in Malaysian currency and another RM400,000 in other currencies as well as 20 watches and several pieces of jewellery, the MACC probably thought it was not worthwhile to raid Lim’s house as it would not yield any treasure. Rosmah Mansor 12000 Jewelleries VS Imelda Marcos 1220 Shoes So, the MACC basically has zero money trails, unlike Najib’s intricate web of financial fraud that crossed continents. More importantly, Lim did not receive a penny, let alone any sexual favour from company owner Zarul Ahmad. Besides, the project was conducted based on open tender, not by direct award as practised by previous Barisan Nasional government. Unless there’s an authenticated voice recording of Lim Guan Eng demanding for the bribe, the charge is purely based on hearsay, hence only “one charge”. It would be more productive for the MACC to investigate missing RM20 million originally allocated for “flying car” project. Obviously, PM Muhyiddin, under pressure to call for a snap election, is using the tunnel to divert attention. Muhyiddin is also under siege as his powerful ally – UMNO – was only interested to work with his PPBM (Bersatu) party until the 15th General Election, after which UMNO plans to ditch the prime minister and grabs all its traditional Malay-majority seats. Therefore, to entertain unhappy Malay voters, he needs a bogeyman – Lim Guan Eng – as his WMD (Weapon of Mass Distraction). The backdoor government wanted to cook up the Penang tunnel to make it looks like 1MDB scandal. Muhyiddin’s divide-and-rule strategy is to split the Chinese voters by creating a perception that Lim Guan Eng is a big corrupt crook like Najib Razak. But it could backfire and all the Chinese voters may rally behind DAP once again because the half-baked charge is simply too ridiculous. - FT

cheers.

Sumber asal: UMNO juga dikatakan terlibat, tapi LGE seorg yg didakwa... Baca selebihnya di UMNO juga dikatakan terlibat, tapi LGE seorg yg didakwa...

#Blogger

0 notes

iguiqkbiyviv-blog · 5 years

Text

Do You Know How To How To See Someones Private Instagram? Let Us Teach You!

If youve been maddening to figure out a artifice to see a private profile, you might have found a couple of apps that allow you to complete consequently along the way. You probably have your own reasons to do thus that will justify your interests in this feat which goes against Instagrams privacy policy. Some apps guarantee youll be dexterous to look the content on private or on the other hand locked profiles, however we have found the right app after psychoanalysis beyond 20 interchange such Instagram hacks.But lets look at the concept of these apps. Most of them either require you to download their app or to use their online service. You need to how to see private instagram have enough money the targeted Instagram account obviously. with you get that, they will supposedly begin committed on removing the restrictions, whether youve been blocked or denied access to that account.After theyre done once government the data, they will allow you permission to that profiles content and save in mind that they are not liable in imitation of what you will be put-on similar to the data you obtain; in most countries, reading the private messages of additional people is risky. I pronounce that this online app actually works, after laboratory analysis with reference to 20 of them I realized that many outsource the initial code of 1 or 2, and the associate above is one of the main sources (usually updated often).Sooner or cutting edge the copy cats would be discovered and reported. see private instagram appropriately if you pull off happen to find one that works, have in mind that it wont be available online forever. Either this or its kept as a unnamed for fittingly long that no one knows it exists. But if no one knows just about it, whats the use of it.

Instagram Profile Viewer

youtube

The privacy settings become crucial bearing in mind a person creates an account. It could be for security issues or for a pleasant level of the person. However, Instagram has enormously simple privacy settings as compared to new social websites, either you can how to view private instagram conceal your content from all your connections and buddies except some members to whom you desire to allow, or you can performance it to every your followers. The user has conclusive control higher than the assistance he/she wants to share as soon as public. There is no in-between settings as Facebook has, where you can become accustomed upon every state which you want to decree to extra people. Thus, once the support of private settings, unaided the buddies upon the website can view your profile. For those who desire to view private Instagram have further choices to pick from.You can hack the account of the person and viewing all his/her opinion would be within your power. You can check all his/her videos, photos, and additional personal information. Various tools, technologies, and solutions are to hand upon the web to use for hacking Instagrams account. You are required URL of that persons Instagrams account and you would get right of entry to the account. Well, it is not the easiest exaggeration of viewing private profile portray of any person. You habit an Android application in which you will put the username or URL of the describe or video from that persons account. Just copy the profiles URL and paste it into the application. Press the concur out of the ordinary to take steps supplementary and you will be dexterous to view the private profile of the person.This website is unconditionally free, and the instagram private profile viewer good situation just about using it that you get not have to download it. You can use it totally easily to view private Instagram and see content shared upon that account. The other gain of using it is that bearing in mind you want to view private Instagram profile, this website will let you view undetectably, which means no footprints are left behind. The owner will never know that his/her profile was visited. No one will ever know that you have used this in order to view private Instagram profiles.Instagram has a mighty set of privacy protections to keep its users instruction secure from their exes, superior employers, or any additional prying eyes they hope to conceal from. In fact, more and more people are realizing the importance of keeping your social media profiles at least somewhat private rather than leaving them gain access to to the world at large. Your Instagram page is no exception to that. A private Instagram profile means your photos and stories wont be viewable by the public, and youll have to accept buddies one at a time. That lets you directly rule who can and cant view your content. Its authenticated that the platrform is set occurring to back up public sharing, but they with keep the decision to maintain a degree of personal privacy. Unless youre a celebrityor perhaps an up-and-coming YouTuber theres no defense not to lock down your Instagram account if youre anxious virtually safety or privacy.There may be times, though, that you want to view someone elses private Instagram account. Is it possible? Well, it is and it isnt, and well acquire to that. First lets evaluation how to make YOUR Instagram profile private, subsequently well get into how to view private accounts secretly.Weve all been told over and over: create clear your social accounts are locked alongside and private, or at the enormously least, tidy and secure of any compromising suggestion and images. Whether youre applying for a job or just dont desire your prospective spouse seeing those embarrassing photos from senior year, its important to ensure that your account is either private or safe. But if youre supplementary to Instagramor its been awhile since you created your accountyou might be unsure upon how to bend the privacy settings on your account to protect your information. Lets allow a look. Well be using the iOS description of the app in our screenshots below, but the Android savings account is approximately identical to the Apple balance of the app.Start by foundation the app, either from your home screen (iOS) or your app drawer (Android). The app will get into stirring on the home page for Instagram, showing a deposit of posts and shares from your followed friends. Along the bottom of the app, youll find five icons for adding up photos, viewing posts, and more. Tap upon the profile icon upon the bottom of the tab. on iOS, this shows your profile describe taken from Instagram. upon Android, this shows a basic profile icon, a silhouette of a person. Tapping this will display your own profile, along afterward a few new options.Once youre inside of Instagrams settings menu, youll look a long list of options. You can amass your Facebook associates and your contacts, invite Facebook links not yet upon Instagram, and view your account settings. Its here where youll find options for two-factor authentication, the ability to conceal your Instagram Story, and block users. But above all, the most important marginal here is Private Account, which youll locate at the bottom of the account settings options upon this page, previously the received settings menu begins. Instagram warns under this switch that solitary people you agree to can see your photos and videos, while mentioning that your existing cronies wont be affected by the switch. If youre irritating to get rid of a specific user that already follows you, youll have to block them.When youre ready to make your account private, all you have to realize is flip the switch on this option. Instagram will inform you roughly appreciative buddies and your existing followers innate unaffected by the change. assert your selection, and thats ityour account is now private. If at any epoch you want to create your account public again, helpfully follow the steps above and flip the switch for private accounts to the off position. Youll receive unconventional official declaration message, and thatll be that. You can complete this as many mature as youd like, without any sort of repercussionsjust remember that any posts you shared while your account was private will become public as soon as you flip that switch off.If you hope to view a private Instagram account, the legitimate quirk is then the easy pretentiousness send that person a follow request.

Get This Starting Points

Typically, even a person in imitation of a protected profile will agree to people they know, appropriately if this is someone youre au fait or acquainted with, you shouldnt have any problems getting that person to espouse your request. taking into account your request has been approved, youll be clever to look that persons profile and view any photos theyve uploaded to Instagram.Obviously, this is the most clear habit to access and view a persons private Instagram account, no issue who they are. Unfortunately, though, this does depend heavily upon you as an Instagram addict having a preexisting relationship afterward the person youre bothersome to amass on Instagram.Therefore, if youre irritating to amass someone you dont know, once a celebrity or a friend of a friend, the easiest way to attain out to them is through a private instaviewy publication upon Instagram. Sending the user a private publication (PM) will let them know a bit just about whos requesting to follow the user. The best pretension to pull off this is to allow the requested user know who you are, a bit practically yourself, and why you want to follow them on Instagram. saw as much as Im a high studious friend of your boyfriend or We met at your cousins birthday party can be tolerable to make a door amid you and the party youre aggravating to achieve out to, especially if they recall you.Again, a lot of this relies on having an already-existing association bearing in mind the person. If you dont have that pre-existing relationship, next youll have to rely on your own social skills to chat to the user youre looking to follow. Many Instagram users will usual additional friends, especially since they can block or cut off you if things see private instagram get rough. Just recall to keep an eye upon what you declare and what that person posts. If you dont know them and you interact later them too often after theyve recognized your request, you might be risking a removal or blocking.Sometimes you dont actually dependence entrance to the persons account you just desire to see some particular photo(s) they posted. Log into Instagram and locate the person wish to research online. gone you locate their account, no doubt locked astern a privacy wall, youll be skilled to look the username of your target. emphasize that proclaim and copy it to your devices clipboard, because were going to be using that name in a moment. Now, read occurring Google Images or the image-based search engine of your substitute and paste the read out of your targeted person into the search box.

Things To Remember

What well be deed here is simple: somewhere on the web, theres a fine unplanned that the person youre looking for has left an trail of photographs before activating their privacy protection on Instagram. Often, the photos posted on Instagram have actually been shared elsewhere, making it simple to find your targets photos by using their Instagram ID as a search keyword. If theyve previously had alternative photo accounts upon Flickr or new same photo sharing sites, you may open some of that assistance in your search. The similar is genuine if the persons Facebook is largely unprotected.The unaccompanied genuine way to view a private Instagram account profile is by requesting to follow that person from your actual account. bearing in mind the private Instagram addict grants your request to follow them, youll have the triumph to view, like, and comment upon their Instagram posts. You could in addition to private broadcast the account holder to explain why youd subsequently to follow them. Or you can realize both, making definite the addict knows exactly who you are and why you desire to view their profile.If youre looking for unethicaland possibly illegalways to view a private Instagram account, That said, heres the easiest quirk to get access to a private Instagram if youre distinct the requested addict wont want to take on you in genuine life: make a new account for a fictional person and use that account to demand to follow the account you are eager in. ham it up accounts upon Instagram are, technically speaking, adjacent to the terms of advance for the account, in view of that youll want to limit your usage and access. We do not recognizeprivate instagramplay-act this; at best, its unethical, and at worse, could constitute stalking users online. you can always go the route of creating a con profile and maddening to fool the addict into later you. We dont recommend this, as its a major breach of trust considering the additional user, and play-act accounts can often easily be spotted like browsing content. Overall, reaching out to the user you want to follow is the best course of conduct. Theyll likely increase you if you feign a association or a sense of friendlinessInstagram is, after all, a fairly-positive community of photographers and users sharing their social experiences online.

0 notes

topsolarpanels · 6 years

Text

Al Gore: ‘The riches have subverted all reason’

With the sequel to his blockbuster documentary An Inconvenient Truth about to be released, Al Gore tells Carole Cadwalladr how his role at the forefront of the fight against climate change eats his life

In the ballroom of a conference centre in Denver, Colorado, 972 people from 42 countries have come together to talk about climate change. It is March 2017, six weeks since Trumps inauguration; eight weeks before Trump will announce to the world that he is withdrawing America from the Paris Climate Agreement.

These are the early dark days of the new America and yet, in the conference centre, the crowd is upbeat. Theyve all paid out of their own pockets to travel to Denver. They have taken time off work. And they are here, in the presence of their master, Al Gore. Because Al Gore is to climate change well, what Donald Trump is to climate change denial.

Disaster zone: extermination in the wake of Superstorm Sandy in New Jersey. Photograph: Mike Groll/ AP

Its 10 years since the reason for this, the documentary An Inconvenient Truth , was released into cinema. It was an improbable project on almost every level: a film about what was then practically a non-subject, starring “the mens” best known for not winning the 2000 US election, its beating heart and the engine of its narrative drive a PowerPoint presentation.

When the filmmakers approached him, he explains to the room, I thought they were nuts. A movie of a slideshow, delivered by Al Gore, what doesnt scream blockbuster about it? Except it was a blockbuster. In documentary words, anyway. The careful accretion of facts and figures genuinely shocked people. And its a measure of the impact it had, and still continues to have, that Gore delivers this vignette to a rapt crowd who, over the course of three days, are learning how to be Climate Reality Leaders.

Its the reason why we are all here his foundation, the Climate Reality Project, an initiative that grew out of the film, provides intensive training in talking about climate change, combating climate change denial and the tone might be described as activist upbeat. This is a crisis that is solvable, were told. Trump is just another hitch, another impediment to overcome. And it will be overcome. Only occasionally does a sliver of desperation leak around the edges. You have to stay positive, a man called David Ellenberger tells the audience. Though sometimes, he acknowledges: Theres not sufficient Prozac to get through the day.

Its almost a relief to hear person acknowledge this. Because before there was FAKE NEWS !!! and the FAILING New York Times ! Trump was tweeting about GLOBAL WARMING hoaxsters! and GLOBAL WARMING bullshit! The war on the mainstream media may capture the headlines currently, but the war against climate change science has been in play for years. And its this that is one of the most fascinating aspects of Gores new cinema, An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power . Because if the US had a subtitle at the moment, it might be that, too, and the struggle to overcome fake facts and false narrations shall be financed by corporate interests and politically motivated billionaires is one that Gore has been at the frontline of for more than a decade.

Breaking phase: a huge fissure in the Larsen C ice shelf in the Antarctica. Photograph: Nasa/ John Sonntag/ EPA

The film runs through a host of facts that 14 of the 15 hottest years on record have passed since 2001 is just one. And the accompanying footage is biblical, frightening: tornadoes, deluges, rainfall bombs, exploding glaciers. We find roads falling into rivers and fish swimming through the street of Miami.

The nightly news, Gore says, has become a nature hike through the Book of Revelations. But what his run has shown and continues to show is that evidence is sufficient to. The film opens with clips from Fox News ridiculing global warming. In recent weeks, the New York Times has started describing the Trump administration as waging a war on science, a full-on assault against evidence-based science that runs in parallel with his attacks on evidence-based reporting. And Gore is in something of a unique position to understand this. What becomes clear over the course of several conversations is how entwined he believes it all is climate change refusal, the interests of big capital, dark money, billionaire political funders, the dominance of Trump and what he calls( hes written a volume on it) the assault against reason. They are all pieces of the same puzzle; a puzzle that Gore has been tracking for years, because it turns out that climate change denial was the canary in the coal mine.

In order to fix the climate crisis, we need to first fix the government crisis, he says. Big money has so much influence now. And he says a phrase that is as dramatic as it is multilayered: Our democracy has been hacked. Its something I hear him recur to the audience in the ballroom, in a room backstage, a few a few weeks later in London, and finally on the phone earlier this month.

Popular backlash: protesters demonstrate against the Koch brothers, funders of climate change denial. Photo: Nicholas Kamm/ AFP/ Getty Images

What do you entail by it exactly? I mean that those with access to large amounts of fund and raw power, says Gore, have been able to subvert all reason and fact in collective decision making. The Koch friends are the largest funders of climate change refusal. And ExxonMobil claims it has stopped, but it genuinely hasnt. It has given a one-quarter of a billion dollars in donations to climate denial groups. Its clear they attempt to cripple our ability to respond to this existential threat.

One of Trumps first acts after his inauguration was to remove all mentions of climate change from federal websites. More overlooked is that one of Theresa Mays first actions on becoming prime minister within 24 hours of taking office was to close the Department for Energy and Climate Change; subsequently gifts from oil and gas companies to the Conservative party continued to roll in. And what is increasingly apparent is that the same think tank that operate in the Nations are also at work in Britain, and climate change denial operating the a bridgehead: unifying the right and providing an entry road for other tenets of Alt-Right notion. And, its this network of power that Gore has had to try to understand, in order to find a way to combat it.

In Tennessee we have an expression: If you consider a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be pretty sure it didnt get there by itself. And if you watch these levels of climate denial, you can be pretty sure it didnt merely spread itself. The big carbon polluters have expended between$ 1bn and$ 2bn spreading false doubt. Do you know the book, Merchants of Doubt ? It documents how the tobacco industry discredited the consensus on cigarette smoking and cancer by creating doubt, and shows how its linked to the climate denial movement. They hired many of the same PR firms and some of the same think tanks. And, in fact, some of those who work on climate change refusal actually still dispute the connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.

End of the road: the Gave de Pau river overflows after unseasonal storms in France. Photo: Laurent Dard/ AFP/ Getty Images

The big change between our first dialogue in Denver and our last, on the phone this month, is the news that Gore had been desperately hoping wouldnt happen: Trumps announcement on 1 June that he was pulling America out of the Paris Agreement. The negotiations in Paris are right at the heart of the new movie, its emotional centre, and when I watch it in March, the ending still find Gore carrying guarded optimism.

So , what happened? I was wrong, he says on the phone from Australia, where hes been promoting the film. Based on what he told me, I definitely supposed there was a better than even chance he might choose to stay in. But I was wrong. I was fearful that other countries for whom it was a close call would follow his result, but Im thrilled the reaction has been exactly the opposite. The other 19 members of the G20 have reiterated that Paris is irreversible. And governors and mayors all over the country have been saying we are all still in and, in fact, its just going to stimulate us redouble our commitments.

The film “mustve been” recut, the ending changed, the gloves are now off. What changed Trumps mind? I suppose Steve Bannon and his crowd set a big push on Trump and persuaded him that he needed to give this to his base advocates. He had blood in his eyes. Its instructive because Bannon, Trumps chief strategist, is also the ideologue behind Trumps assault on the media. And Bannons understanding of the news and information space, and make further efforts to manipulate it via Breitbart News and Cambridge Analytica, both funded by another key climate change denier, Robert Mercer, are at the heart of the Trump agenda.

And what becomes clear if you Google climate change is how effective the right has been in owning the subject. YouTubes results are dominated by nothing but climate change denial videos. This isnt news for Gore. He has multiple high-level links to Silicon Valley. Hes on the board of Apple and used to be an adviser for Google. We are fully aware of their own problems, he says with what sounds like resigned understatement. Gore has had more than a decade fighting climate change refusal, and in some respects, the problem has simply worsened and deepened.

On the other hand, two-thirds of the American people are convinced that its an extremely serious crisis and we have to take it on, he says. And there is a law of physics that every action makes an equal and opposite reaction. And I do think there is a reaction to the Trump/ Brexit/ Alt-Right populist authoritarianism around the world. People who took liberal democracy more or less for granted are now awakening to a sense that it can only be defended by the people themselves.

Man on a mission: Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth. Photo: Paramount Pictures

And its in this, his belief in social progress against all odds, that he takes his result from the civil rights motion. The cut of the cinema I see compares the climate change movement to the other great social movements that eventually won out: the abolition of slavery, womens suffrage, civil right. Something profound and disturbing is happening right now, though, he admits. The information system is in such a chaotic transition and people are deluged with so much noise that it devotes an opening for Trump and his forces to wage war against facts and reason.

Is it, as some people describe, an info war? Absolutely, he says. Theres no question about it.

What there isnt much of, in the film, is Al Gore, “the mens”. In 2010, he split from Tipper, his wife of 40 years and the mother of his two grown-up daughters, and what becomes clear is just how much of his life the fight takes up. When I catch up with him next, hes in London for a board meeting of his green-focused investment firm, Generation Investment Management, and I ask him to tell me about his recent travels.

Two weeks ago, I had three red-eyes in five days. Ive been in Sweden, the Netherlands, Sharjah, then lets insure, San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles. Where else? he asks his assistant.

Vegas, she says. We did CinemaCon.

Vegas, we did that. And then, lets ensure, Nashville, on my farm.

Focus on facts: Al Gore in An Inconvenient Sequel. Photo: Courtesy of the Sundance Institute

I assume this sum of travelling is connected to the release of the film, but no. Ive been at this level for the past 10 years and longer. He hesitates to use the word mission, he says, and then use it. When you feel a sense of purpose that seems to justify pouring everything you can into it, it induces it easier to get up in the morning.

He does tell me a bit about his parents though. He describes his father, Al Gore Sr, who grew up poor then became a lawyer and a legislator, as a hero to me. And it was at the family farm in Carthage, Tennessee, that he held the first Climate Reality training, an informal get-together of 50 people that has morphed into the event I witnessed in Denver. Theres no type or demographic, I shared a table with a disparate group including a consultant for the aerospace industry, a French lawyer and an American cook. And they seemed to have almost nothing in common aside from their passion to do something about climate change. Im a gardener so Im assuring whats happening with my own eyes, the cook, Susan Kutner, told me. You cant ignore it.

In light of Trumps fixation with fake news, its fascinating to find. Gore has been fighting disinformation for more than a decade. And, hes developed his educate program counter to the predominating ideology. The answer is not online. Social media will not save us. We will not click climate change away. The answer hes come up with is low-tech, old-fashioned, human. He takes the time to talk to people immediately, one to one, in the hope they will speak to other people who will speak to other people.

The course is run by Gore. He is on stage virtually the entire time over three intensive days. And the heart of it is still the slideshow. One of his aides tells me how he was up until 2am the night before. Hes preoccupied with his slides, he has 30,000 of them and he switches them around all the time.

Tinder dry: changing climate has find an upturn in woodland flames around the world. Photo: Jae C Hong/ AP

In the movie, you consider him perpetually hustling, calling world leaders, rounding up solar energy entrepreneurs, developing activists. Hearing information from people you know is at the heart of his strategy. You need people who will look you in the eye and say: Look, this is what Ive learned, this is what you need to know. It works. Ive watched it run. It is working. And its just getting started. Weve get 12,000 trained leaders now.

How many people do you think its impacted?

Millions. Honestly, millions. And a non- trivial percentage of them have gone on to become pastors in their countries governments or take leadership roles in international organisations. Theyve had an outsized impact. Christiana Figueres[ the UN climate chief ], who operated the Paris meeting, she was in the second training session I did in Tennessee. And, right now, people are get really fired up.

Al Gore shared the Nobel Prize in 2007 for his efforts in combating climate change, but in some way it feels like hes just getting started. The rest of the world is only now cottoning on to the enlightenment battle thats at the heart of it a battle royal to defend facts and reason against people and forces-out for whom its a truth too inconvenient to permit. For Gore, the US oil companies are the ultimate culprits, but its only just becoming apparent that Russia has also played a role, amplifying messages around climate change as it did around the other issues at the heart of Trumps agenda, and we segue into his visits to Russia in the early 90 s, during one of which he fulfilled Putin for the first time.

What did you induce of him? I would not have thought of him as the future chairperson of Russia. I once did a televised town hall event to the whole of Russia and Putin was the one who was in charge of inducing sure all the cables were connected and whatnot.

Revenge is tweet: an image of Trump is projected by Greenpeace on to the US Embassy in Berlin after he declared that America was pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement. Photo: Michael Sohn/ AP

What does he construct of the investigations into Russian interference? I guess the investigation of the Trump campaigns collusions with the Russians and the existence of fiscal levers of Putin over Trump is proceeding with its own rhythm beneath the news cycle, and may well ten-strike pay dirt. Its also worth pointing out that when someone passed his campaign stolen information about George W Bushs debate research, he handed it to the FBI.

And then he astounds me by pulling out a reference to an interview I conducted with Arron Bank, the Bristol businessman who funded Nigel Farages Leave campaign. Hes been reading up about the links between Brexit and Trump, and Bankss and Farages support of Putin and Russia. He told you: Russia needs a strong man, didnt he? And you hear that in the US, and I dont think its fair to the Russians. I am a true disciple in the superiority of representative republic where there is a healthy ecosystem characterised by free speech and an informed citizenry. I genuinely defy the slur against any nation that theyre incapable of governing themselves.

Brexit, Trump, climate change, oil producers, dark fund, Russian influence, a full- frontal assault on facts, evidence, journalism, science, its all connected. Ask Al Gore. You may want to watch Wonder Woman the summer months, but to understand the new reality were living in, you really should watch An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power . Because, scaring because this is, in some ways the times of typhoons and exploding glaciers are just the start of it.

Al Gore Live in Conversation followed by a screening of An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power , for one night merely Friday 11 August in cinemas everywhere. Book your tickets at po.st/ aninconvenientsequel An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power is in cinema everywhere from 18 August. The cinema also opens the Film4 Summer Screen at Somerset House, 10 -2 3 August, somersethouse.org.uk

The Observer Ethical Awardings: how to enter

To vote, going to see theguardian.com/ environment/ 2017/ jul/ 25/ vote-in-the-observer-ethical-awards-2 017 or email ethical.awards @observer. co.uk with the category title in the subject header. Then tell us in no more than 200 words why you, or your nominee, deserves to be recognised. Feel free to attach paintings, a short movie or relevant connections. The closing date is 15 September. For more information, going to see observer.co.uk/ ethical-awards