Αγορά Πολιτών

Τρόπος Συμμετοχής

Χορηγίες

Πολίτες στην Αγορά

Έχουμε 1177 επισκέπτες συνδεδεμένους

Επικοινωνία

Γερμανία 004917667046073

The Absolute Evil

 

Gang-stalking Greeks

 

Byzantine Atrocities

 

European Dissidents ALARM

 

Human Rights' Court

 

The used up men

 

Dissidents - USG RICO crimes

 

Open Letter to Theresa May

 

Open Letter to António Guterres UN's SG

 

Triangulation - Zersetzen

 

Open Letter to Andrew Parker, MI5

  

Πράξεις ποταπές - Despicable choices

 

 

My father's death

 

Cavitation damage

 

Burglary and vandalism

 

Dry mini submarine

 

Message to Bundeswehr 2

 

Message to Bundeswehr 1

 

“Tough” guys and TOUGH guys

 

Μοναδική λύση, το Χόλιγουντ

 

Charlatans

 

Zeppelin: Beyond Gravity

 

Foreign intervention in Greece?

 

Η ανελεύθερη Ελλάδα

 

Η Ελλάδα καταγώγιο;

 

Αν.Επ. Π. Παυλόπουλο

  

Intangible prisons

 

Plausible deniability

 

Images of German w & s

 

Crimes against Humanity

 

"Chimera" - "Bellerophon"

 

pr. Donald Trump

 

  

Legal Notice 87

 

Βδέλλες, αποικιοκρατικές

 

Being a German

 

Legal Notice 84

 

Dirty colonial methods

 

Georgi Markov, BG - KGB

 

Samples of Barbarity

 

Ελλάδα - αποκόλληση

 

Έλληνες, στο έλεος...

 

Harvester's log 16/3/17

 

 

Legal Notice 66

 

Execrable

 

Legal Notice 62

 

  

My story

 

  

Aggression?

 

  

Η Εστία μου

 

  

Why so untidy?

 

  

Αποικιοκρατία

 

  

Εξόντωση Ελλήνων αντιφρονούντων;

 

  

Ζήτημα εμπιστοσύνης

 

  

Μεθοδικότητα

 

  

Ανοικτή Επιστολή πρέσβη ΗΠΑ

Αφορμή, U2RIT vs Ελλάδα;

Βιοηθική

A request to U2RIT

Colonial aggression - 2

Open Letter to UN S.G.

Open Letter to p.C. & p. O.

Δήλωση πρόθεσης επαναπατρισμού

 

Ο "εφιάλτης" της Νυρεμβέργης

Συλλογή Φωτογραφιών

Αίτημα προστασίας, προς Ιταλία

Chroma key, background removal

Science and Ethics

Να συμβάλει και η U2RIT

Θα ξαναφτιάξουν πολλές φορές Άουσβιτς και Zyclon B

 

Split-Screen effect

Η Ζωή είναι Ωραία.

Βόρεια Κορέα

Λευτεριά στους Έλληνες, εξανα- γκαστικά "Εξαφανισμένους"

 

Μυστικές δίκες;

Trustworthiness

Πολιτισμό, ή, απληστία;

Ακραία Στυγνότητα

Η Τέχνη της Επιβίωσης

Political Asylum 3

Επιστροφή στις ρίζες

The Human Cost of Torture

An urgent appeal for solidarity

More obvious than the Sun

Western "culture"

Political Asylum

Έννομη Προστασία

Μια μήνυση που εγείρει ερωτηματικά

 

 

 

Honor your father...

Noise

Creative Greeks

A pair of Dictatorships

Enough is enough with the Khazarian audacity PDF Εκτύπωση E-mail
Αξιολόγηση Χρήστη: / 0
ΧείριστοΆριστο 
Συνεννόηση για Δράση - Απόψεις
Συντάχθηκε απο τον/την Χρήστος Μπούμπουλης (Christos Boumpoulis)   
Κυριακή, 28 Ιανουάριος 2018 02:49

Leon-Trotsky.JPG

  

Enough is enough with the Khazarian audacity


Ο Γιόχαν Ράικχαρτ ήταν επίσημος εκτελεστής των Ναζί και ενώ εκτέλεσε χιλιάδες ανθρώπους, έζησε και μάλιστα πέθανε σε μεγάλη ηλικία. Εκτέλεσε ανθρώπους γιατί πολύ απλά ήταν το επάγγελμα του. Ήταν Εκτελεστής!

[https://olympia.gr/2018/01/28/επάγγελμα-εκτελεστής/]


Δύο χαρακτηριστικούς τύπους ἀνθρώπων μᾶς παρουσιάζει ἡ σημερινή εὐαγγελική περικοπή: Ἕνα Φαρισαῖο καί ἕναν τελώνη πού προσεύχονται στό Ναό. Ἀποτελοῦν τούς δύο ἀντίθετους πόλους τῆς κοινωνίας τῆς ἐποχῆς ἐκείνης. Ὁ ἕνας εἶναι ὁ εὐσεβής καί δίκαιος στά μάτια τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὁ γνώστης τοῦ Νόμου, ὁ ἀνήκων στήν ὁμάδα τῶν Φαρισαίων πού ἦταν ἡ ἄρχουσα θρησκευτική τάξη. Ὁ ἄλλος εἶναι ὁ ἐκπρόσωπος τῆς τάξεως τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν, τῶν ἀνθρώπων πού τό ἐπάγγελμά τους ἦταν συνυφασμένο μέ τήν ἁρπαγή, τή βιαιότητα, τήν ἀπομύζηση τῶν ὑπαρχόντων τοῦ λαοῦ. Τελώνης στή συνείδηση ὅλης τῆς κοινωνίας τῆς ἐποχῆς εἶναι ὁ ἔσχατος τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν.

Ἀπαριθμεῖ ὁ Φαρισαῖος τά ἔργα του καί αἰσθάνεται ἀσύγκριτη ὑπεροχή ἔναντι τῶν λοιπῶν ἀνθρώπων, τούς ὁποίους γενικά χαρακτηρίζει ὡς ἁμαρτωλούς. Εὐχαριστεῖ τόν Θεό ἤ μᾶλλον συγχαίρει τόν ἑαυτό του, γιατί ὑπερέχει ἀπ’ ὅλους τοὺς ἄλλους. Δέν αἰσθάνεται νά τοῦ λείπει τίποτε! Εἶναι αὐτάρκης καί δέν φαίνεται νά ἐξαρτᾶται καθόλου ἀπό τόν Θεό, ἀφοῦ ἔχει τόσα δικά του ἔργα στά ὁποῖα μπορεῖ νά στηριχθεῖ καί γιά τά ὁποῖα μπορεῖ νά καυχηθεῖ. Σάν κέντρο τοῦ κόσμου βλέπει ὄχι τόν Θεό ἀλλά τόν ἑαυτό του μέ τίς πανθομολογούμενες ἀρετές του. Τόν Θεό τόν χρειάζεται μόνο γιά νά ἐπιβεβαιώσει καί νά ἀναγνωρίσει τίς ἀρετές του. Δέν εἶναι δυνατό νά ἔχει ὁ Θεός διαφορετική γνώμη γιά τόν φτασμένο αὐτόν ἐνάρετο ἄνθρωπο! Αἰσθάνεται τόσο κοντά στόν Θεό, σάν νά ἔχει συνάψει συμφωνία μαζί του γιά νά κρίνουν καί νά κατακρίνουν ἀπό κοινοῦ ὅλους τους ἁμαρτωλούς!

Συμφωνεῖ ἄραγε καί ὁ Θεός μέ τή βεβαιότητα αὐτή τοῦ Φαρισαίου; Τήν ἀπάντηση μᾶς τήν δίνει τό τέλος τῆς παραβολῆς. Ἄς δοῦμε ὅμως καί τήν προσευχή τοῦ τελώνη. Αὐτός συντριμμένος ἀπό τίς ἁμαρτίες του καί βλέποντας ὅτι κάθε δική του πράξη καί ἐκδήλωση συνδέεται μέ τήν ἁμαρτία, ζητεῖ ταπεινωμένος καί κτυπώντας τό στῆθος του τό ἔλεος τοῦ Θεοῦ: «Θεέ μου, σπλαχνίσου με τόν ἁμαρτωλό». Δέν κρίνει κανένα, κατακρίνει μόνο τόν ἑαυτό του, τόν ὁποῖο βλέπει τελείως χαμένο χωρίς τό ἔλεος τοῦ Θεοῦ.

«Δικαιώθηκε», βρῆκε δηλ. χάρη, καί «ἔφυγε γιά τό σπίτι του ἀθῶος καί συμφιλιωμένος μέ τό Θεό», μᾶς λέγει τό τέλος τῆς παραβολῆς, ὁ ταπεινός τελώνης καί ὄχι ὁ ὑψηλόφρων Φαρισαῖος.

ὁ Ἰησοῦς δέν κατηγορεῖ τόν Φαρισαῖο γιατί εἶναι ἐνάρετος ἄνθρωπος καί ἐκτελεϊ τά θρησκευτικά του καθήκοντα- ἀλλά τόν κατηγορεῖ γιατί σ’ αὐτά στηρίζει τή ζωή του καί ὄχι στόν Θεό, γιατί αἰσθάνεται αὐτάρκεια καί δέν ὑποπτεύεται καθόλου ὅτι βάση ὅλων τῶν ἀρετῶν εἶναι ἡ ταπείνωση. Ἐπίσης, ὁ Ἰησοῦς δέν ἐπαινεῖ τόν τελώνη γιά τήν ἁμαρτωλότητά του, ἀλλά γιατί ἔχει συνείδηση αὐτῆς καί τοποθετεῖ σωστά τόν ἑαυτό του μπροστά στήν κρίση τοῦ Θεοῦ, ζητώντας τό ἔλεός του. γιατί ἀπό τόν Θεό περιμένει τή σωτηρία του, μή ἔχοντας τίποτε δικό του στό ὁποῖο νά στηριχτεῖ.

Ἡ παραβολή ἀπευθύνεται, ὅπως λέγεται λίγο πρίν ἀπ’ αὐτήν στό Εὐαγγέλιο τοῦ Λουκᾶ, πρός αὐτούς «πού ἦταν σίγουροι γιά τήν εὐσέβειά τους καί περιφρονοῦσαν τούς ἄλλους», πρός ἀνθρώπους δηλ. τούς ὁποίους συναντᾶ κανείς σέ ὅλες τίς ἐποχές, Ἀνθρώπους, οἱ ὁποῖοι θεωρώντας τόν ἐαυτό τους θρησκευτικῶς αὐτάρκη καί φτασμένο στήν ἀρετή, κατακρίνουν τούς ἄλλους, τούς θεωροῦν ἀνεπανόρθωτα πεσμένους στήν ἁμαρτία καί ἐνασμενίζονται στό νά περιγράφουν τίς τιμωρίες πού ὅρισε ὁ Θεός γι’ αὐτούς, ξεχνώντας ὅτι καί αὐτοί βρίσκονται κάτω ἀπό τήν ἀδέκαστη κρίση τοῦ Θεοῦ. Κι ἐπειδή μιὰ τέτοια συμπεριφορά ἐμπεριέχει ὑποκρισία, στά Νέα Ἑλληνικά τό φαρισαῖος ἀπέβη συνώνυμο τοῦ ὑποκριτής.

[https://olympia.gr/2018/01/27/ἡ-αὐτάρκεια-καί-ἡ-ταπείνωση/]


Modal fallacy 

The formal fallacy of the modal fallacy is a special type of fallacy that occurs in modal logic. It is the fallacy of placing a proposition in the wrong modal scope,[1] specifically inferring that because something is true, it is necessarily true. A statement is considered necessarily true if and only if it is impossible for the statement to be untrue and that there is no situation that would cause the statement to be false. Some philosophers further argue that a necessarily true statement must be true in all possible worlds.

In modal logic, a proposition  {\displaystyle P} P can be necessarily true or false (denoted {\displaystyle \Box P} \Box P and {\displaystyle \Box \lnot P} {\displaystyle \Box \lnot P}, respectively), meaning that it is logically necessary that it is true or false; or it could be possibly true or false (denoted {\displaystyle \diamond P} \diamond P and {\displaystyle \diamond \lnot P} {\displaystyle \diamond \lnot P}), meaning that it is true or false, but it is not logically necessary that it is so: its truth or falseness is contingent. The modal fallacy occurs when there is a confusion of the distinction between the two.

Description

In modal logic, there is an important distinction between what is logically necessary to be true and what is true but not logically necessary to be so. One common form is replacing {\displaystyle p\rightarrow q} p\rightarrow q with {\displaystyle p\rightarrow \Box q} {\displaystyle p\rightarrow \Box q}. In the first statement,  {\displaystyle q} q is true given  {\displaystyle p} p but is not logically necessary to be so.

A common example in everyday life might be the following:

  1. Donald Trump is the President of the United States.
  2. The President is over 35 years old.
  3. Thus, Donald Trump is necessarily 35 years or old.

The conclusion is false, since, even though Donald Trump is over 35 years old, there is no logical necessity for him to be. Even though it is certainly true in this world, a possible world can exist in which Donald Trump is not 35 years old. If instead of adding a stipulation of necessity, the argument just concluded that Donald Trump is 35 years old, it would be valid.

Norman Swartz gave the following example of how the modal fallacy can lead one to conclude that the future is already set, regardless of one's decisions; this is based on the "sea battle" example used by Aristotle to discuss the problem of future contingents in his On Interpretation:[2]

Two admirals, A and B, are preparing their navies for a sea battle tomorrow. The battle will be fought until one side is victorious. But the 'laws' of the excluded middle (no third truth-value) and of non-contradiction (not both truth-values), mandate that one of the propositions, 'A wins' and 'B wins', is true (always has been and ever will be) and the other is false (always has been and ever will be). Suppose 'A wins' is today true. Then whatever A does (or fails to do) today will make no difference; similarly, whatever B does (or fails to do) today will make no difference: the outcome is already settled. Or again, suppose 'A wins' is today false. Then no matter what A does today (or fails to do), it will make no difference; similarly, no matter what B does (or fails to do), it will make no difference: the outcome is already settled. Thus, if propositions bear their truth-values timelessly (or unchangingly and eternally), then planning, or as Aristotle put it 'taking care', is illusory in its efficacy. The future will be what it will be, irrespective of our planning, intentions, etc.

Suppose that the statement "A wins" is given by  {\displaystyle A} A and "B wins" is given by  {\displaystyle B} B. It is true here that only one of the statements "A wins" or "B wins" must be true. In other words, only one of {\displaystyle \diamond A} {\displaystyle \diamond A} or {\displaystyle \diamond B} {\displaystyle \diamond B} is true. In logic syntax, this is equivalent to

{\displaystyle A\lor B} A\lor B (either  {\displaystyle A} A or  {\displaystyle B} B is true)

{\displaystyle \lnot \diamond (A\land B)} {\displaystyle \lnot \diamond (A\land B)} (it is not possible that  {\displaystyle A} A and  {\displaystyle B} B are both true at the same time)

The fallacy here occurs because one assumes that {\displaystyle \diamond A} {\displaystyle \diamond A} and {\displaystyle \diamond B} {\displaystyle \diamond B} implies {\displaystyle \Box A} \Box A and {\displaystyle \Box B} \Box B. Thus, one believes that, since one of both events is logically necessarily true, no action by either can change the outcome.

Swartz also argued that the argument from free will suffers from the modal fallacy.[3]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_fallacy]



 

Rationalization (psychology)

In psychology and logic, rationalization or rationalisation (also known as making excuses[1]) is a defense mechanism in which controversial behaviors or feelings are justified and explained in a seemingly rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable—or even admirable and superior—by plausible means.[2] It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning.[3]

Rationalization happens in two steps:

  1. A decision, action, judgement is made for a given reason, or no (known) reason at all.

  2. A rationalization is performed, constructing a seemingly good or logical reason, as an attempt to justify the act after the fact (for oneself or others).

Rationalization encourages irrational or unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly unconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt or shame). People rationalize for various reasons—sometimes when we think we know ourselves better than we do. Rationalization may differentiate the original deterministic explanation of the behavior or feeling in question.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(psychology)]


The Art of Being Right

The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (also Eristic Dialectic: The Art of Winning an Argument; German: Eristische Dialektik: Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten; 1831) is an acidulous and sarcastic treatise written by the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer in sardonic deadpan.[1] In it, Schopenhauer examines a total of thirty-eight methods of showing up one's opponent in a debate. He introduces his essay with the idea that philosophers have concentrated in ample measure on the rules of logic, but have not (especially since the time of Immanuel Kant) engaged with the darker art of the dialectic, of controversy. Whereas the purpose of logic is classically said to be a method of arriving at the truth, dialectic, says Schopenhauer, "...on the other hand, would treat of the intercourse between two rational beings who, because they are rational, ought to think in common, but who, as soon as they cease to agree like two clocks keeping exactly the same time, create a disputation, or intellectual contest."

Publication

In Volume 2, § 26, of his Parerga and Paralipomena, Schopenhauer wrote:

The tricks, dodges, and chicanery, to which they [men] resort in order to be right in the end, are so numerous and manifold and yet recur so regularly that some years ago I made them the subject of my own reflection and directed my attention to their purely formal element after I had perceived that, however varied the subjects of discussion and the persons taking part therein, the same identical tricks and dodges always come back and were very easy to recognize. This led me at the time to the idea of clearly separating the merely formal part of these tricks and dodges from the material and of displaying it, so to speak, as a neat anatomical specimen.

He "collected all the dishonest tricks so frequently occurring in argument and clearly presented each of them in its characteristic setting, illustrated by examples and given a name of its own." As an additional service, Schopenhauer "added a means to be used against them, as a kind of guard against these thrusts…."

However, when he later revised his book, he found "that such a detailed and minute consideration of the crooked ways and tricks that are used by common human nature to cover up its shortcomings is no longer suited to my temperament and so I lay it aside." He then recorded a few stratagems as specimens for anyone in the future who might care to write a similar essay. He also included, in Parerga and Paralipomena, Volume 2, § 26, an outline of what is essential to every disputation.

The Manuscript Remains left after Schopenhauer's death include a forty–six page section on "Eristic Dialectics". It contains thirty–eight stratagems and many footnotes. There is a preliminary discussion about the distinction between logic and dialectics. E. F. J. Payne has translated these notes into English.[2]

A. C. Grayling edited T. Bailey Saunders' English translation in 2004.[3]

Synopsis

The following lists the 38 stratagems described by Schopenhauer, in the order of their appearance in the book:

  1. The Extension (Dana's Law)

  2. The Homonymy

  3. Generalize Your Opponent's Specific Statements

  4. Conceal Your Game

  5. False Propositions

  6. Postulate What Has to Be Proved

  7. Yield Admissions Through Questions

  8. Make Your Opponent Angry

  9. Questions in Detouring Order

  10. Take Advantage of the Nay-Sayer

  11. Generalize Admissions of Specific Cases

  12. Choose Metaphors Favourable to Your Proposition

  13. Agree to Reject the Counter-Proposition

  14. Claim Victory Despite Defeat

  15. Use Seemingly Absurd Propositions

  16. Arguments Ad Hominem

  17. Defense Through Subtle Distinction

  18. Interrupt, Break, Divert the Dispute

  19. Generalize the Matter, Then Argue Against it

  20. Draw Conclusions Yourself

  21. Meet Him With a Counter-Argument as Bad as His

  22. Petitio principii

  23. Make Him Exaggerate His Statement

  24. State a False Syllogism

  25. Find One Instance to the Contrary

  26. Turn the Tables

  27. Anger Indicates a Weak Point

  28. Persuade the Audience, Not the Opponent

  29. Diversion

  30. Appeal to Authority Rather Than Reason

  31. This Is Beyond Me

  32. Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category

  33. It Applies in Theory, but Not in Practice

  34. Don't Let Him Off the Hook

  35. Will Is More Effective Than Insight

  36. Bewilder Your opponent by Mere Bombast

  37. A Faulty Proof Refutes His Whole Position

  38. Become Personal, Insulting, Rude (argumentum ad personam)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right]


bamboozle

Etymology

Derivative of 17th-century vernacular bam (“to trick, to con”), which is a derivative of bam in noun use (fraudster, cheat). Possibly from French embobiner

Verb

bamboozle (third-person singular simple present bamboozles, present participle bamboozling, simple past and past participle bamboozled)

  1. (informal) To con, defraud, trick, to make a fool of, to humbug or impose on someone. quotations

[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bamboozle]


The Battle of Stalingrad (23 August 1942 – 2 February 1943)[8][9][10][11] was a major confrontation of World War II in which Nazi Germany and its allies fought the Soviet Union for control of the city of Stalingrad (now Volgograd) in Southern Russia.

Marked by fierce close quarters combat and direct assaults on civilians in air raids, it is often regarded as one of the single largest (nearly 2.2 million personnel) and bloodiest (1.7–2 million killed, wounded or captured) battles in the history of warfare.[12] It was an extremely costly defeat for German forces, and the Army High Command had to withdraw vast military forces from the West to replace their losses.[1]

The German offensive to capture Stalingrad began in August 1942, using the 6th Army and elements of the 4th Panzer Army. The attack was supported by intensive Luftwaffe bombing that reduced much of the city to rubble. The fighting degenerated into house-to-house fighting; both sides poured reinforcements into the city. By mid-November 1942, the Germans had pushed the Soviet defenders back at great cost into narrow zones along the west bank of the Volga River.

On 19 November 1942, the Red Army launched Operation Uranus, a two-pronged attack targeting the weaker Romanian and Hungarian armies protecting the German 6th Army's flanks.[13] The Axis forces on the flanks were overrun and the 6th Army was cut off and surrounded in the Stalingrad area. Adolf Hitler ordered that the army stay in Stalingrad and make no attempt to break out; instead, attempts were made to supply the army by air and to break the encirclement from the outside. Heavy fighting continued for another two months. By the beginning of February 1943, the Axis forces in Stalingrad had exhausted their ammunition and food. The remaining units of the 6th Army surrendered.[14]:932 The battle lasted five months, one week and three days.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad]


Does, anyone, has the right, by using dishonest methods, to, massively, corrupt our societies and also, to insidiously incites the, shallow thinking, innocent, ordinary people, by propagating false rationalizations of, murder; criminality; violence; dishonesty, etc., to commit the disassociation from the reality, of those people?

According to my opinion, no one has that awful right.

Does, anyone, has the right, after having voluntarily committed some of the most atrocious crimes against innocent, children and adults, to gain immunity for those crimes just because he bamboozled some, unprepared to defend their own mentality from the dishonest rhetorics, ordinary civilians?

According to my opinion, justice should prevail, in every case; the voluntary criminals should be brought to a just trial; and from their victims should become, vindicated; their Human Rights, respected; reestablished; and compensated.

Therefore, to all those who, dishonestly, commit the disassociation from the reality, of innocent civilians and also, to all those who, dishonestly, promote false ideology for atrociously, institutionalize, within our societies, the crimes of all kinds, I address the following questions:

  1. During, approximately, June 1942 – February 1943, while, the German army was advancing towards Stalingrad, has, an exchange of written messages, between individuals within the German army and individuals within the Russian army, taken place?

  2. If such a messages exchange, actually, had taken place, then, were those messages referring the names of Russian Khazars?

  3. If they, actually, referred the names of certain Russian Khazars, then, were those Russian Khazars those who refused to become enlisted to the Red Mafia and after having declined from their own Human Rights, to become perpetrators of the Red Mafia's criminality?

  4. If they, actually, these names belonged to such kind of dissidents, then, were, those messages, orders for murdering those Khazarian dissidents?

  5. Are, those, ordering the commitment of murders, written messages stored in the basement of a specific Russian museum?

  6. Does, any potential, on behalf of the contemporary Khazars, refusal, to enlist into the contemporary Red Mafia, automatically leads to the murder of those dissidents?

  7. If, any potential Khazarian dissident is, actually, never allowed to live, then, is, the contemporary Khazarian Nation a totally militarized, non-uniformed organizational form?

  8. If, the Khazarian Nation is, actually, an army, then, the act of committing an ordered murder, while refusal inescapably leads to the execution of the dissident, could ever be considered as a profession?

  9. If, the Khazarian Nation is, actually, an army, then, the, against other peaceful Nations, mayhem, would, ever, constitute, just, personal shins which could easily compensated by mere humbleness?

Many times, in the past, I urged, everyone to terminate violence of every kind.

Frequently, I keep praying for, everyone, to come to his senses and re-associate himself with the reality.

Many times, in the past, I published articles for promoting Peace and non-violence.

The Khazarian army/Nation, if such an army/Nation, actually exists, would better refrain from waisting precious historical time by propagating nonsenses and preferably, prepare himself for a peaceful and just, transformation to an, ordinary and legitimate, Nation as all the other ones.


Christos Boumpoulis

economist








 

Τελευταία Ενημέρωση στις Δευτέρα, 29 Ιανουάριος 2018 12:45