The NWO
Paris
global capitalism controled via media proxy and gagging law is supreme..
Who are the proponants?
The Right (free international market whatever the cost to our own nation, on
your bikes, nations don't compete)
The Left (Multiculturalism, Religious Freedom, Destruction of Haeas Corpus
(importand to 'deniers'), global
socialism (communism) etc.
Libertarians
What is their medium?
Our 'presidential style' (dictatorship style) corrupt 2 party dictatorship,
the media and
your docile compliance..
--
Paris. Not the City
http://www.theprotocols.co.uk
Bob Sims
Paris <odes...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1005333187.9634.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
------------
A pretty fair summing up I would say, Paris.
abelard
typed:
go on...write it again paris....i want to be able to
follow it!
regards.
Paris
news:b7lout8pqivr2ggep...@4ax.com...
> go on...write it again paris....i want to be able to
> follow it!
It's kind of pracied (sp?)
Do you have any specific questions?
ciderman
> "abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
> news:b7lout8pqivr2ggep...@4ax.com...
>
> > go on...write it again paris....i want to be able to
> > follow it!
>
> It's kind of pracied (sp?)
> Do you have any specific questions?
PMJI but I certainly have some questions:
What is the connection between Zionism and capatilism?
Why do you fear gagging law becoming supreme?
What's wrong with free trade?
Since when have nations not competed with one another?
Why do you want to see cultural and religious freedom suppressed?
Why do you dislike libertarianism?
By what plausible definition is our electoral system a dictatorship?
Are you claiming our media is a NWO propoganda machine?
If the NWO is as you describe, why should we not comply?
That should do for starters.
Paris
news:ae9cd66c.01111...@posting.google.com...
> PMJI but I certainly have some questions:
>
> What is the connection between Zionism and capatilism?
Jews are famously capitalists, that was the stereotype 2000 years ago..
And 50 years ago.. Plus la change..
> Why do you fear gagging law becoming supreme?
Because I don't believe that a our government is operating
in our best interests... I find plenty of evidence that it isn't.
If it were, I would be less concerned about them
> What's wrong with free trade?
Nothing, as long as we have the freedom not to trade also.
> Since when have nations not competed with one another?
I don't know... Ask a capitalist.
> Why do you want to see cultural and religious freedom suppressed?
Because british society is atomised and secular..
Religious groups existing in such a climate have a tendancy to be
anti-social.
> Why do you dislike libertarianism?
Because it isn't liberalism, it's exactly the opposite.
To insist that the freedom of the individual take place over the function of
society is to destroy society, it is therefore anti-social.
> By what plausible definition is our electoral system a dictatorship?
Did the government consult Parliment over it's current military action?
> Are you claiming our media is a NWO propoganda machine?
Yes.. The media IS the NWO.
> If the NWO is as you describe, why should we not comply?
Because the NWO is the foetus of a global empire in which you are are
bond servant, not a freeman.
> That should do for starters.
Hope I've helped.
abelard
typed:
>"ciderman" <ciderm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> Why do you dislike libertarianism?
>
>Because it isn't liberalism, it's exactly the opposite.
>To insist that the freedom of the individual take place over the function of
>society is to destroy society, it is therefore anti-social.
that is to prefer an illusion to reality...
but then....
regards.
Paris
> >Because it isn't liberalism, it's exactly the opposite.
> >To insist that the freedom of the individual take place over the function
of
> >society is to destroy society, it is therefore anti-social.
>
> that is to prefer an illusion to reality...
> but then....
Your belief in the individual is 'anti-social'.. By definition..
Tell me how it isn't... please do?
abelard
typed:
>"abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:a5v0vtkjpg2qbblj6...@4ax.com...
>
>> >Because it isn't liberalism, it's exactly the opposite.
>> >To insist that the freedom of the individual take place over the function
>of
>> >society is to destroy society, it is therefore anti-social.
>>
>> that is to prefer an illusion to reality...
>> but then....
>
>Your belief in the individual is 'anti-social'.. By definition..
>Tell me how it isn't... please do?
it isn't a 'belief' it is a 'fact'....
individuals dodge bullets...not armies....
i am writing this stuff up currently.....
it is complicated...
you could start with homework reading
'the selfish gene' dawkins...
regards.
Paris
> >Your belief in the individual is 'anti-social'.. By definition..
> >Tell me how it isn't... please do?
>
> it isn't a 'belief' it is a 'fact'....
> individuals dodge bullets...not armies....
>
> i am writing this stuff up currently.....
> it is complicated...
>
> you could start with homework reading
> 'the selfish gene' dawkins...
I've read it twice..
Humans overcame the nasty, brutish and short life that nature bequithed all
of the animal
kingdom by forming societies, in which each member performed tasks and
reaped benefits
of tasks performed by others...
Individuals can only lift 30 Kilos.. A whole society can move mountains.
Individuals are dust in the wind, they leave no mark on history..
Societies and civilisations carve the earth so that people like you can
marvel at their skill
thousands of years on...
Society is King.. Libertarianism is a device for destroying societies for
the purpose of
conquest and pillage. Libertarians, Internationalist captalists and idiot
bourgeois lefties are killing my country..
I think little of them...
A strong society consisting of enough members will drive everything before
it... Everything.
abelard
typed:
>"abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:pk83vt86v1ukcmaca...@4ax.com...
>
>> >Your belief in the individual is 'anti-social'.. By definition..
>> >Tell me how it isn't... please do?
>>
>> it isn't a 'belief' it is a 'fact'....
>> individuals dodge bullets...not armies....
>>
>> i am writing this stuff up currently.....
>> it is complicated...
>>
>> you could start with homework reading
>> 'the selfish gene' dawkins...
>
>I've read it twice..
good..that'll save some time....
>Humans overcame the nasty, brutish and short life that nature bequithed all
>of the animal
no...we can mitigate...not overcome....
ants and bees and much other have 'societies' and co-operation....
>kingdom by forming societies, in which each member performed tasks and
>reaped benefits
>of tasks performed by others...
>Individuals can only lift 30 Kilos.. A whole society can move mountains.
>Individuals are dust in the wind, they leave no mark on history..
>Societies and civilisations carve the earth so that people like you can
>marvel at their skill
>thousands of years on...
>
>Society is King.. Libertarianism is a device for destroying societies for
>the purpose of
>conquest and pillage. Libertarians, Internationalist captalists and idiot
>bourgeois lefties are killing my country..
>I think little of them...
it is the most individualistic societies that have the most
effective military forces...
co-operation pays...adam smith describes the mechanism....
next homework....
Lorenz, Konrad King Soloman's Ring
Reissue 1997; Plume; 0452011752; pbk
$11.95 [amazon.com] / £7.89 [amazon.co.uk] (is on back order from US)
Important and fundamental classics on the study of animal behaviour.
other basic stuff here....
http://www.abelard.org/reading/rec-hi.htm#human
regards.
--
web site at www.abelard.org - new, docs on godel also inflation,
logic, ethics and much more...~1/3 million doc. requests yearly
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for I walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that I a big stick.
good people do nothing I trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ciderman
> "ciderman" <ciderm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ae9cd66c.01111...@posting.google.com...
>
> > PMJI but I certainly have some questions:
> >
> > What is the connection between Zionism and capatilism?
>
> Jews are famously capitalists, that was the stereotype 2000 years ago..
> And 50 years ago..
And it is just that. A stereotype. There are many examples of Jews who
aren't/were'nt capatilists *and* capatilists who aren't/weren't jews.
Plus la change..
>
> > Why do you fear gagging law becoming supreme?
>
> Because I don't believe that a our government is operating
> in our best interests... I find plenty of evidence that it isn't.
> If it were, I would be less concerned about them
I don't want gagging law to become supreme either. The reason I don't
fear it is because I don't think it will happen. Why do you?
> > What's wrong with free trade?
>
> Nothing, as long as we have the freedom not to trade also.
And we do have this freedom.
> > Since when have nations not competed with one another?
>
> I don't know... Ask a capitalist.
>
> > Why do you want to see cultural and religious freedom suppressed?
>
> Because british society is atomised and secular..
> Religious groups existing in such a climate have a tendancy to be
> anti-social.
Suppression of religious freedom will merely create more resentment
and disharmony.
> > Why do you dislike libertarianism?
>
> Because it isn't liberalism, it's exactly the opposite.
> To insist that the freedom of the individual take place over the function of
> society is to destroy society, it is therefore anti-social.
How does giving an individual the freedom to partake in activities, which
don't undermine the freedoms of other individuals, destroy society?
>
> > By what plausible definition is our electoral system a dictatorship?
>
> Did the government consult Parliment over it's current military action?
>
If you don't like the system and can persuade enough people, who
feel sufficiently strongly about it, you can create change through
democratic means.
> > Are you claiming our media is a NWO propoganda machine?
>
> Yes.. The media IS the NWO.
>
How so?
Paris
> > Jews are famously capitalists, that was the stereotype 2000 years ago..
> > And 50 years ago..
>
> And it is just that. A stereotype. There are many examples of Jews who
> aren't/were'nt capatilists *and* capatilists who aren't/weren't jews.
This is very true...
There are essentially two types of zionist : Left and Right..
Both aspire to globalism and economic and political structures which
encompass the whole world.
These are communists, and american style global capitalists.
Examples of the first type are Marx and Trotsky.
Examples of the latter are less visible but far more numerous: from people
like Greenspan and Sandy Weill down
to people like Alan Sugar..
Those jews that aren't involved in media are primarilly capitalists, money
lenders and bankers.
> > Because I don't believe that a our government is operating
> > in our best interests... I find plenty of evidence that it isn't.
> > If it were, I would be less concerned about them
>
> I don't want gagging law to become supreme either. The reason I don't
> fear it is because I don't think it will happen. Why do you?
Because we live under libertarian conditions in which the rights of the
individual
take precidence over the rights of society.
In these conditions freedom of speech, or the right to criticise individuals
is eroded.
Take for instance the new religious freedom legislation.
Under conditions of libertarianism any interested party may sneak through
legislation
and claim it to be motivated by the desire to uphold personal freedom.
I believe this to be the first of a long series of pieces of gagging
legislation designed to
empower individuals and stem criticism.
The age of the Libertarian, Global dictatorship only really started in the
90's, but it
is the shape that the NWO will increasingly take.. Even after the problems
in
Bradford and New York. Anyone who stands in the way of multi-culturalism or
libertarianism is branded a bigot, or a race-hate-monger and legally gagged.
With all opposition gone the NWO can go ahead unopposed until it is
unassailable.
> > > What's wrong with free trade?
> >
> > Nothing, as long as we have the freedom not to trade also.
>
> And we do have this freedom.
Not really.
We are party of a growing global cartel known as the WTO.
The WTO decide who you must trade with and how.
If you don't want to be a member.. You can always leave the WTO for sure.
> > Because british society is atomised and secular..
> > Religious groups existing in such a climate have a tendancy to be
> > anti-social.
>
> Suppression of religious freedom will merely create more resentment
> and disharmony.
I don't want to suppress it.. I just don't want it given immunity from
criticism or
have it's protection enshrined in legislation.
> > > Why do you dislike libertarianism?
> >
> > Because it isn't liberalism, it's exactly the opposite.
> > To insist that the freedom of the individual take place over the
function of
> > society is to destroy society, it is therefore anti-social.
>
> How does giving an individual the freedom to partake in activities, which
> don't undermine the freedoms of other individuals, destroy society?
If an individual chooses not to participate in social activity because they
believe it not to be in their direct interest (and most humans are very
short
sighted) then they will opt not to take part.
Their option is not directly effecting society, but the knock on effect is
the erosion of a very subtle system which relies on cooperation.
Take taxation for instance... That drastically reducing taxation is
beneficial for
all is by no means a proven fact.
America is rich for sure, but it isn't the top of the standard of living
tables, and the
GDP per head is DISMAL in comparision to many other nations with higher
taxation rates.
If one person decides not to queue, it doesn't directly affect anyone in
particular, but it
does affect the whole queue. If enough people decide not to queue, then the
whole system
fails and you have the total failure of the system.
> > Did the government consult Parliment over it's current military action?
> >
> If you don't like the system and can persuade enough people, who
> feel sufficiently strongly about it, you can create change through
> democratic means.
I'm afraid this isn't true.
The essential problem with our system is that it is a PARTY political system
and that
it runs on a FPTP system.
To assume government (that which is required to beat the problem of
'presidential style' dictatorship outlined above) I
wouldn't just have form a large party, I'd have to beat off all of the well
established parties who would gerimander and
use all the tricks that FPTP allows. I'd have to overcome centuries old
allegience to one party of another..
What is my message? That we shouldn't allow religion a special place in
secular society? That this is leading
to disharmony and the erosion of society? That Globalism and Zionism is
essentially not in our interest?
Isn't that going to be construed as racist inflamatory language?
Many rational people subscribe to these opinions from all over the political
spectrum, but more importantly.. The
vast majority of the masses also agree.. And many of them are not so
rational..
The first person to spray the name of my new party on the wall of an asian
terrace in bradford would be the end of
my campain.. Why?
You assume in this that the encumbant don't have a vested interest, and that
they will not fight against anything which they
see as a threat to their livelyhoods using all of the power which wealth and
government brings.
Lets assume I win.. What happened when the Freedom Party took power in
Austria?
Politics is very subtle.. The glass walls which stand in your path aren't
there by chance.. They are there because
glass walls is how it works! And who erected them? How do you tear them
down?
> > > Are you claiming our media is a NWO propoganda machine?
> >
> > Yes.. The media IS the NWO.
> >
> How so?
The system of democracy isn't rigged at the ballot box, but in the court
room and in Parliment.
If the press influence enough minds then the result will be electoral defeat
or victory.
Do you think that the vast majority of people in the country will bother to
read up on issues for themselves, or
take part in massive debate.. Or do you think they will soak up the words of
Hitchen over their bacon sarnie?
If you wish to control power in any system which involves voting, then you
do it through the media.
And under dictatorship? The press could whip up enough anti-government
sentiment to incite revolution.
Steve Glynn
> "ciderman" <ciderm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ae9cd66c.01111...@posting.google.com...
>
> > PMJI but I certainly have some questions:
> >
> > What is the connection between Zionism and capatilism?
>
> Jews are famously capitalists, that was the stereotype 2000 years ago..
> And 50 years ago.. Plus la change..
>
That so, Paris? I thought the famous capitalists 2,000 years ago
(depending on where we're talking about, of course) were the Roman Senate
(1,000,000 sesterces property qualification), while the Jews were a small
nuisance kingdom somewhere or other near important places like Egypt, where
the grain comes from. Fast forward 100 and odd years, and, their having
finally become so much of a nuiscance that Titus finally took them out,
they're a sort of Roman version of asylum seekers, about whom people
complained when they weren't complaining about the then fat-cats, freedmen
(usally Greek). God knows what people thought about them (or anything
else) during the Dark Ages.
Early international banking system? Try the religious orders (particularly
the Knights Templar) or the Lombards.
C19th Russia and Poland? Dirt poor peasants, by and large.
C'mon Paris. You can do better than that.
<snip>
> > Why do you want to see cultural and religious freedom suppressed?
>
> Because british society is atomised and secular..
> Religious groups existing in such a climate have a tendancy to be
> anti-social.
>
Either you're confusing "atypical of society" with "anti-social". I'm
"atypical of society" and thus creating a circular argument, or you're
coming out with two unrelated statements.
A member of a religious group like the Benedictines is certainly neither
part of an atomised nor secular group (though he would, quite rightly, argue
that he and his brothers are also very much part of the wider society).
He is thus atypical. It's when he starts lobbing bricks through peoples'
windows and joy-riding he becomes anti-social, even though that may be usual
behaviour in some sink estates.
Either you mean that, or you've just made a comment about society and an
unrelated comment (which may or may not be true, though it doesn't square
with my experience of life) about the likely behaviour of religious groups.
Do the Sally Ann cause many problems in your part of the world? Are they
not a religious group? The Jehovah's Witnesses are a bit of a nuisance
when they come round selling their papers, but they're hardly a menace to
society, are they?
<snip>
>> By what plausible definition is our electoral system a dictatorship?
>
> Did the government consult Parliment over it's current military action?
No. What's that got to do with the question?
Sorry, Paris, but you're doing violence to both common sense and the English
language here. You would, I take it, agree that Joseph Stalin was a
dictator. So was Franco. So was Pinochet. Now I might well agree with
you that our present political system concentrates too much power in the
hands of the executive in general and the PM in particular, especially when
he's got a stonking great majority. Do you not, however, see some
important differences between the three dictatorships to which I refer and
Tony Blair's Britain, whatever its faults?
>
> > Are you claiming our media is a NWO propoganda machine?
>
> Yes.. The media IS the NWO.
>
> > If the NWO is as you describe, why should we not comply?
>
> Because the NWO is the foetus of a global empire in which you are are
> bond servant, not a freeman.
>
> > That should do for starters.
>
> Hope I've helped.
>
> --
You've lost me completely on these two, Paris. I always get confused when
people start talking about the "New World Order", since it seems to mean
completely different things depending on who's using the term. According
to you it's "the media", and according to Cliff it's -- well, whatever Cliff
means (one of life's many mysteries, half the time), but it's something I
don't think he likes very much and I don't think it's just his daily paper
and the telly.
Do you want to expand on this?
Steve
ciderman
> "ciderman" <ciderm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ae9cd66c.0111...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > Jews are famously capitalists, that was the stereotype 2000 years ago..
> > > And 50 years ago..
> >
> > And it is just that. A stereotype. There are many examples of Jews who
> > aren't/were'nt capatilists *and* capatilists who aren't/weren't jews.
>
> This is very true...
> There are essentially two types of zionist : Left and Right..
> Both aspire to globalism and economic and political structures which
> encompass the whole world.
> These are communists, and american style global capitalists.
> Examples of the first type are Marx and Trotsky.
> Examples of the latter are less visible but far more numerous: from people
> like Greenspan and Sandy Weill down
> to people like Alan Sugar..
> Those jews that aren't involved in media are primarilly capitalists, money
> lenders and bankers.
I am a globalist but not a zionist. I can not see any reason why zionists
need be globalists. I don't accept the link you are trying to make between
the two.
>
> > > Because I don't believe that a our government is operating
> > > in our best interests... I find plenty of evidence that it isn't.
> > > If it were, I would be less concerned about them
> >
> > I don't want gagging law to become supreme either. The reason I don't
> > fear it is because I don't think it will happen. Why do you?
>
> Because we live under libertarian conditions in which the rights of the
> individual
> take precidence over the rights of society.
Society is a collection of individuals.
> In these conditions freedom of speech, or the right to criticise individuals
> is eroded.
If this is true, it is definately not libertarian.
> Take for instance the new religious freedom legislation.
Which does not remove the right to criticise individuals, only groups but
that's all right because the right of societies should take precedence
over the rights of individuals. Paris said so:-)
On a more serious note, the legislation to which you refer does not place
religion completely beyond criticism, though it does place limits on
freedom of speech (a libertarian concept) in an attempt to protect
people from hate crimes. Whether or not it's a good idea is open to
debate but I don't see it as a worrying step towards total censorship.
> Under conditions of libertarianism any interested party may sneak through
> legislation
> and claim it to be motivated by the desire to uphold personal freedom.
> I believe this to be the first of a long series of pieces of gagging
> legislation designed to
> empower individuals and stem criticism.
So what further pieces of "gagging legislation" do you foresee?
> The age of the Libertarian, Global dictatorship
Oxymoron.
only really started in the
> 90's, but it
> is the shape that the NWO will increasingly take.. Even after the problems
> in
> Bradford and New York. Anyone who stands in the way of multi-culturalism or
> libertarianism is branded a bigot, or a race-hate-monger and legally gagged.
How many people have criticised aspects of multi-culturalsm or libertarianism?
How many of those have been legally gagged? Sorry. I don't buy it.
> With all opposition gone the NWO can go ahead unopposed until it is
> unassailable.
>
> > > > What's wrong with free trade?
> > >
> > > Nothing, as long as we have the freedom not to trade also.
> >
> > And we do have this freedom.
>
> Not really.
> We are party of a growing global cartel known as the WTO.
> The WTO decide who you must trade with and how.
You omit to note who makes the WTO rules, namely the governments of the
countries who belong to the WTO. You also omit to note how many of said
governments must agree, namely all of them!
> If you don't want to be a member.. You can always leave the WTO for sure.
Exactly! If the WTO is so evil why is almost every country in the world a
member? Are they all acting against their countries best interests?
What is their motive? Why is the media supporting them?
> > > Because british society is atomised and secular..
> > > Religious groups existing in such a climate have a tendancy to be
> > > anti-social.
> >
> > Suppression of religious freedom will merely create more resentment
> > and disharmony.
>
> I don't want to suppress it..
Good.
> I just don't want it given immunity from
> criticism
I don't believe it is immune.
or
> have it's protection enshrined in legislation.
>
Why not?
> > > > Why do you dislike libertarianism?
> > >
> > > Because it isn't liberalism, it's exactly the opposite.
> > > To insist that the freedom of the individual take place over the
> function of
> > > society is to destroy society, it is therefore anti-social.
> >
> > How does giving an individual the freedom to partake in activities, which
> > don't undermine the freedoms of other individuals, destroy society?
>
> If an individual chooses not to participate in social activity because they
> believe it not to be in their direct interest (and most humans are very
> short
> sighted) then they will opt not to take part.
> Their option is not directly effecting society, but the knock on effect is
> the erosion of a very subtle system which relies on cooperation.
> Take taxation for instance...
Yes. Taxation is a good example. Real life politics is a complex series of
compromizes. The principles behind Libertarianism are good in theory but like
most ideologies, it should not be adopted to the exclusion of all else.
On a relative level I consider our government not libertarian enough on most
issues but I wouldn't want absolute libertarianism. I favour moderate, rather
than low taxation and hence define myself more as a liberal than a libertarian.
That drastically reducing taxation is
> beneficial for
> all is by no means a proven fact.
Agreed. It is a value judgement whether the pros outweigh the cons
and in either system there will be winners and losers.
> America is rich for sure, but it isn't the top of the standard of living
> tables, and the
> GDP per head is DISMAL in comparision to many other nations with higher
> taxation rates.
>
> If one person decides not to queue, it doesn't directly affect anyone in
> particular, but it
> does affect the whole queue. If enough people decide not to queue, then the
> whole system
> fails and you have the total failure of the system.
Ah but not queing does affect the system but by an insignificant amount.
It all adds up though.
>
> > > Did the government consult Parliment over it's current military action?
> > >
> > If you don't like the system and can persuade enough people, who
> > feel sufficiently strongly about it, you can create change through
> > democratic means.
>
> I'm afraid this isn't true.
> The essential problem with our system is that it is a PARTY political system
> and that
> it runs on a FPTP system.
> To assume government (that which is required to beat the problem of
> 'presidential style' dictatorship outlined above) I
> wouldn't just have form a large party, I'd have to beat off all of the well
> established parties who would gerimander and
> use all the tricks that FPTP allows. I'd have to overcome centuries old
> allegience to one party of another..
Agreed. Our democracy system is a long way from perfect but it still isn't a
dictatorship and theoretically it could be changed by democratic means.
The reason it couldn't in practice is that not enough people care sufficiently
strongly.
>
> What is my message? That we shouldn't allow religion a special place in
> secular society?
What exactly do you mean by "not allowing religion a special place"?
That this is leading
> to disharmony and the erosion of society?
I contest this one
That Globalism and Zionism is
> essentially not in our interest?
And this one (though not the Zionism part)
> Isn't that going to be construed as racist inflamatory language?
Not really.
>
> Many rational people subscribe to these opinions from all over the political
> spectrum, but more importantly.. The
> vast majority of the masses also agree..
Evidence?
And many of them are not so
> rational..
> The first person to spray the name of my new party on the wall of an asian
> terrace in bradford would be the end of
> my campain.. Why?
>
> You assume in this that the encumbant don't have a vested interest, and that
> they will not fight against anything which they
> see as a threat to their livelyhoods using all of the power which wealth and
> government brings.
Of course democracy is undermined by vested interests. The problem
is dictatorships suffer from the same problem and to an even greater extent.
[snip]
> > > > Are you claiming our media is a NWO propoganda machine?
> > >
> > > Yes.. The media IS the NWO.
> > >
> > How so?
>
> The system of democracy isn't rigged at the ballot box, but in the court
> room and in Parliment.
> If the press influence enough minds then the result will be electoral defeat
> or victory.
> Do you think that the vast majority of people in the country will bother to
> read up on issues for themselves, or
> take part in massive debate.. Or do you think they will soak up the words of
> Hitchen over their bacon sarnie?
> If you wish to control power in any system which involves voting, then you
> do it through the media.
True but the media present a wide range of contrasting opinions.
Paris
news:D7EI7.6957$cj.908788@news2-
Loose the tone and I'll consider it..
I don't want to spill my seed on stoney ground..
> Do you want to expand on this?
--
Paris
> > > > Jews are famously capitalists, that was the stereotype 2000 years
ago..
> > > > And 50 years ago..
> > >
> > > And it is just that. A stereotype. There are many examples of Jews who
> > > aren't/were'nt capatilists *and* capatilists who aren't/weren't jews.
> >
> > This is very true...
> > There are essentially two types of zionist : Left and Right..
> > Both aspire to globalism and economic and political structures which
> > encompass the whole world.
> > These are communists, and american style global capitalists.
> > Examples of the first type are Marx and Trotsky.
> > Examples of the latter are less visible but far more numerous: from
people
> > like Greenspan and Sandy Weill down
> > to people like Alan Sugar..
> > Those jews that aren't involved in media are primarilly capitalists,
money
> > lenders and bankers.
>
> I am a globalist but not a zionist. I can not see any reason why zionists
> need be globalists. I don't accept the link you are trying to make between
> the two.
Not all Jews are zionists.. In fact some are fervently anti-zionist.
Zionism initially was that political ideal which bound the diaspora in the
common goal
of the creation of the state of israel.
That didn't end in the creation of Israel, after that it must be protected,
and it's interests abroad
promoted. Will all the diaspora return to live in Isreal? No. There isn't
enough room.. And many Jews
prefer to live in the US, or the country of their birth..
By nature Jews are internationalists then.. Has their commitment to Zionism
wained with the birth of
Israel the state, or have new goals for thier devotion been found?
As for their capitalist credentials, how many poor jews do you know? Of the
top 100 richest people in America
80% are Jews. Famously Hitler branded the Jews grasping capitalists, and
they were ejected from many places in
Britain in the middle ages for practicing usary. All the way back to the
bible, in which they were famously money lenders.
When you think of Jews, think not of Marx, but of Goldman Sachs.
Not all globalists are zionists..
Take for instance most of the capitalists on this site.. Some of them are
vaguely nationalistic also, but their
economic leanings Jar strongly with their feelings of nation.
Then there is the left... Committe strongly to society, but fatuously
committed to libertarianism.
These positions have been engineered, they benefit the cause of globalism,
and of zionism.
If you want to actually look into it, you'll find that most global
capitalism is born in America, by Jews, most of
whom are fervent zionists.
> > Because we live under libertarian conditions in which the rights of the
> > individual
> > take precidence over the rights of society.
>
> Society is a collection of individuals.
No, it is a colleciton of cooperating individuals.
> > In these conditions freedom of speech, or the right to criticise
individuals
> > is eroded.
>
> If this is true, it is definately not libertarian.
Yes it is.. The individual is protected by libertarian laws, not society.
> > Take for instance the new religious freedom legislation.
>
> Which does not remove the right to criticise individuals, only groups but
> that's all right because the right of societies should take precedence
> over the rights of individuals. Paris said so:-)
>
> On a more serious note, the legislation to which you refer does not place
> religion completely beyond criticism, though it does place limits on
> freedom of speech (a libertarian concept) in an attempt to protect
> people from hate crimes. Whether or not it's a good idea is open to
> debate but I don't see it as a worrying step towards total censorship.
When you say 'hate crimes' do you mean, criticising Jews?
> > Under conditions of libertarianism any interested party may sneak
through
> > legislation
> > and claim it to be motivated by the desire to uphold personal freedom.
> > I believe this to be the first of a long series of pieces of gagging
> > legislation designed to
> > empower individuals and stem criticism.
>
> So what further pieces of "gagging legislation" do you foresee?
First to suffer will be free speech on the internet.
Then there will be a general broadening of the 'incitement to riot'
legislation and the
religious freedom act.
Libel law will become far stronger (like it is in the US) and a general 'sue
me' culture will
arise in which it will become very difficult to say anything without being
dragged through a court
for the purpose of financially damaging critics.
After that, who knows?
> > The age of the Libertarian, Global dictatorship
>
> Oxymoron.
>
> only really started in the
> > 90's, but it
> > is the shape that the NWO will increasingly take.. Even after the
problems
> > in
> > Bradford and New York. Anyone who stands in the way of multi-culturalism
or
> > libertarianism is branded a bigot, or a race-hate-monger and legally
gagged.
>
> How many people have criticised aspects of multi-culturalsm or
libertarianism?
Lots and lots and lots.. But none of them have done it in any position of
power.
> How many of those have been legally gagged? Sorry. I don't buy it.
Fine.
> > With all opposition gone the NWO can go ahead unopposed until it is
> > unassailable.
> >
> > > > > What's wrong with free trade?
> > > >
> > > > Nothing, as long as we have the freedom not to trade also.
> > >
> > > And we do have this freedom.
> >
> > Not really.
> > We are party of a growing global cartel known as the WTO.
> > The WTO decide who you must trade with and how.
>
> You omit to note who makes the WTO rules, namely the governments of the
> countries who belong to the WTO. You also omit to note how many of said
> governments must agree, namely all of them!
I didn't say that politicians weren't involved! They're in it up to their
necks!
> > If you don't want to be a member.. You can always leave the WTO for
sure.
>
> Exactly! If the WTO is so evil why is almost every country in the world a
> member?
Because they are taking kick backs.
> Are they all acting against their countries best interests?
Yup.
> What is their motive?
Greed on the part of the fools, and the aspiration of a global empire for
the others.
>Why is the media supporting them?
Because they are paid off members of the NWO.
> > > > Because british society is atomised and secular..
> > > > Religious groups existing in such a climate have a tendancy to be
> > > > anti-social.
> > >
> > > Suppression of religious freedom will merely create more resentment
> > > and disharmony.
> >
> > I don't want to suppress it..
>
> Good.
>
> > I just don't want it given immunity from
> > criticism
>
> I don't believe it is immune.
Why don't you try and get on the TV and ureservedly criticise Islamic
Britons then?
> or
> > have it's protection enshrined in legislation.
> >
> Why not?
Why should anyone be immune from criticism?
> Yes. Taxation is a good example. Real life politics is a complex series of
> compromizes. The principles behind Libertarianism are good in theory but
like
> most ideologies, it should not be adopted to the exclusion of all else.
> On a relative level I consider our government not libertarian enough on
most
> issues but I wouldn't want absolute libertarianism. I favour moderate,
rather
> than low taxation and hence define myself more as a liberal than a
libertarian.
You hold the consensus view, which I share with you..
Sadly the consensus view isn't that which is held by our governments,
despite their claims.
> > If one person decides not to queue, it doesn't directly affect anyone in
> > particular, but it
> > does affect the whole queue. If enough people decide not to queue, then
the
> > whole system
> > fails and you have the total failure of the system.
>
> Ah but not queing does affect the system but by an insignificant amount.
> It all adds up though.
And that is my point...
Society cannot defend itself against the actions of the individual.. Thus
Libertarianism is
deliberately anti-social.
A few days ago I arrived home to find a man on the floor outside my home,
laying in a pool of his
own blood, being repeatedly kicked in the head by a younger, larger man.
As we drove up I say several groups of people pass by on the other side of
the road without intervening...
Would this have happened 50 years ago?
What is imperceptably different about our society that this is now
commonplace in many areas of the UK?
Why is almost all crime rising?
Is it cheap to maintain society? Hell no.
Is it acceptable in the age of globalism to have a contiguous and united
society? Hell no.
> > I'm afraid this isn't true.
> > The essential problem with our system is that it is a PARTY political
system
> > and that
> > it runs on a FPTP system.
> > To assume government (that which is required to beat the problem of
> > 'presidential style' dictatorship outlined above) I
> > wouldn't just have form a large party, I'd have to beat off all of the
well
> > established parties who would gerimander and
> > use all the tricks that FPTP allows. I'd have to overcome centuries old
> > allegience to one party of another..
>
> Agreed. Our democracy system is a long way from perfect but it still isn't
a
> dictatorship and theoretically it could be changed by democratic means.
> The reason it couldn't in practice is that not enough people care
sufficiently
> strongly.
That is only part of the story.
Effectively we live in a 2 party dictatorship.. However, since both parties
effectively share the
same 'centerist' (right wing globalist, libertarian) position, it is
effectively dictatorship.
> > What is my message? That we shouldn't allow religion a special place in
> > secular society?
>
> What exactly do you mean by "not allowing religion a special place"?
I mean, religious schools, and legislation protecting religions from
criticism.
I mean, the total removal of any law which differntiates between UK citizens
on the basis
of their colour or religion.
> That this is leading
> > to disharmony and the erosion of society?
>
> I contest this one
I live within 15 miles of Bradford.
> That Globalism and Zionism is
> > essentially not in our interest?
>
> And this one (though not the Zionism part)
> > Isn't that going to be construed as racist inflamatory language?
>
> Not really.
I assure you it is.
> > Many rational people subscribe to these opinions from all over the
political
> > spectrum, but more importantly.. The
> > vast majority of the masses also agree..
>
> Evidence?
Ask a working class white man what he thinks about the Bradford Riots, and
what should be
done about it.. Take a sample of ten of them chosen randomly from different
regions..
Or just read between the lines of any SUN newspaper.
> And many of them are not so
> > rational..
> > The first person to spray the name of my new party on the wall of an
asian
> > terrace in bradford would be the end of
> > my campain.. Why?
> >
> > You assume in this that the encumbant don't have a vested interest, and
that
> > they will not fight against anything which they
> > see as a threat to their livelyhoods using all of the power which wealth
and
> > government brings.
>
> Of course democracy is undermined by vested interests. The problem
> is dictatorships suffer from the same problem and to an even greater
extent.
This is true...
But dictatorship doesn't suffer two of the problems of Democracy.
1) It can stay on task for longer, because it isn't being swayed by the
fickle interests of the idiot masses.
2) The Press cannot exert any power over it because the public cannot be
exorted to vote out a dictatorship.
A benevolent dictatorship, which consists of enough people with intelligence
is not such a bad way to go.
How do you get the best people in power, and keep out the money grubbing,
corrupt or power hungry?
Answer? Society.
> > The system of democracy isn't rigged at the ballot box, but in the court
> > room and in Parliment.
> > If the press influence enough minds then the result will be electoral
defeat
> > or victory.
> > Do you think that the vast majority of people in the country will bother
to
> > read up on issues for themselves, or
> > take part in massive debate.. Or do you think they will soak up the
words of
> > Hitchen over their bacon sarnie?
> > If you wish to control power in any system which involves voting, then
you
> > do it through the media.
>
> True but the media present a wide range of contrasting opinions.
Not the mainstream media.
And everyone else just, isn't mainstream.
The whole point of discordia is to make enough noise to overwhelm the
people, and then
when they turn for guidance, to be the only voice which can be discerned
above the din.
Steve Glynn
Indeed you don't want to spill your seed on stoney ground, Paris. I'm told
it'll make you go blind if you do!
C'mon, it's not like you to be sensitive. But, to precis:
1) Your statement "Jews are famously capitalists, that was the stereotype
2000 years ago.. And 50 years ago.. Plus la change" is an historical
nonsense, at least for about the first three-quarters of that period. And
argument by stereotype is a bit silly, isn't it? "Allo! Allo!" was meant to
be a comedy rather than social realism, as were the Cornetto adverts.
2) "Atypical of society" vs "antisocial". Sorry, but I can't make head nor
tail of that argument. Either you're confusing the meaning of the two
terms, and, in effect, saying that people who are atypical of society are
atypical, or making the patently nonsensical statement that because, for
example, Carmelite nuns are members of a religious group existing in an
atomised and secular society, they have a tendency to be anti-social. If
I've missed the point, please explain.
3) To move from the statement of fact that Parliament was not consulted
about the current military action to the statement that we live in a
dictatorship does not, to my mind, leave an adequate term to describe
Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia. What term would you reserve for
those two regimes?
4) New World Order. I honestly could not follow what you mean by "New
World Order" (the Media, apparently) and of what global empire it is
supposed to be the foetus, nor into what this foetus is going to develop.
That tone any better?
Steve
Paris
> 1) Your statement "Jews are famously capitalists, that was the stereotype
> 2000 years ago.. And 50 years ago.. Plus la change" is an historical
> nonsense, at least for about the first three-quarters of that period.
And
> argument by stereotype is a bit silly, isn't it? "Allo! Allo!" was meant
to
> be a comedy rather than social realism, as were the Cornetto adverts.
Not at all..
Jews have been thrown over city walls for their usary.
They are portrayed as money lenders in the bible, and the Nazi propoganda
was of the thieving, grasping Jew. As was Stalinist propoganda.
In fact, so strong is the stereotype that they are the basis of jokes such
as
"What is the Jewish problem? Free Pork".
When I was a lad, it was common to use the phrase, "jewed" as in:
"Come on, you just Jewed me out of those spogs"
In America it's generally accepted by the populace that Jews are rich.
Have a good look around you and decide for yourself whether it's an idle
stereotype.
> 2) "Atypical of society" vs "antisocial". Sorry, but I can't make head
nor
> tail of that argument.
Society: Social Structure.
Anti-Society: Anti-Social Structure.
Anyone who conversely affects society and it's order is anti-social.
> Either you're confusing the meaning of the two
> terms, and, in effect, saying that people who are atypical of society are
> atypical, or making the patently nonsensical statement that because, for
> example, Carmelite nuns are members of a religious group existing in an
> atomised and secular society, they have a tendency to be anti-social.
If
> I've missed the point, please explain.
Do you think that Muslim Cliques which increasingly do not interact with
british mainstream society are anti-social?
If you accepted my point that Jews are a contiguous interest group that uses
it's
immunity from criticism and the libertarian protection of the individual to
nepotistically gain power and
money for other Jews, would you consider them anti-social (considering that
their
money has to come from somewhere)? Of course not all groups of people that
differ
from the norm are anti-social.
The general public have no union, or method of pooling wealth.. They are the
unrelated cattle
on which the other interest groups graze.
They have no defence from these interest groups other than the government.
> 3) To move from the statement of fact that Parliament was not consulted
> about the current military action to the statement that we live in a
> dictatorship does not, to my mind, leave an adequate term to describe
> Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia. What term would you reserve for
> those two regimes?
That isn't the point is it?
Do we live in a dictatorship or not?
> 4) New World Order. I honestly could not follow what you mean by "New
> World Order" (the Media, apparently) and of what global empire it is
> supposed to be the foetus, nor into what this foetus is going to develop.
The new world order is the order of nations and power arising from the
defeat of Nazi Germany and
the collapse under sanction and war of the Soviet Union.
The intention is to form a global capitalist regime of 'democracies' with a
free press (ie. to hand over control
of all nations to the press [since they decide who wins elections] or anyone
who can buy power and offer enough assurances to the NWO that they will
comply)
Once the majority of the world is converted, the other nations will (are
being) be bombed and sanctioned until they capitulate.
At which point we will have a truly global empire for the first time...
Is that a good thing? Do you think that the new rulers of the world will be
benign, Altruistic?
How will they handle dissent since they will be for all intents and purposes
a dictatorship, free trade will allow press cartels..
Sure they might not be all owned by the same company, but under
libertarianism, any religious interest group can buy up all of the press and
share an unspoken common objective, free from criticism or any possible form
of redress...
Once they have no competition, what will they do with their position?
Who will 'They' Be? Go on, have a guess?
> That tone any better?
Yes ta.
abelard
typed:
>Agreed. Our democracy system is a long way from perfect but it still isn't a
>dictatorship and theoretically it could be changed by democratic means.
>The reason it couldn't in practice is that not enough people care sufficiently
>strongly.
society is in constant change...the parties adapt....
they may have the same names they had 50 or 100
years ago...the certainly don't have the same policies....
parties follow cultural change..not lead it...
abelard
typed:
>GDP per head is DISMAL in comparision to many other nations with higher
>taxation rates.
gdp is a very poor measure...esp if you count government
paper pushers as contributing to gdp....
abelard
typed:
>Agreed. Our democracy system is a long way from perfect but it still isn't a
>dictatorship and theoretically it could be changed by democratic means.
>The reason it couldn't in practice is that not enough people care sufficiently
>strongly.
society is in constant change...the parties adapt....
they may have the same names they had 50 or 100
years ago...the certainly don't have the same policies....
parties follow cultural change..not lead it...
regards.
Steve Glynn
> "Steve Glynn" <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:LCWI7.12313$6v1.1630964@news6-
>
> > 1) Your statement "Jews are famously capitalists, that was the
stereotype
> > 2000 years ago.. And 50 years ago.. Plus la change" is an historical
> > nonsense, at least for about the first three-quarters of that period.
> And
> > argument by stereotype is a bit silly, isn't it? "Allo! Allo!" was
meant
> to
> > be a comedy rather than social realism, as were the Cornetto adverts.
>
> Not at all..
> Jews have been thrown over city walls for their usary.
> They are portrayed as money lenders in the bible, and the Nazi propoganda
> was of the thieving, grasping Jew. As was Stalinist propoganda.
> In fact, so strong is the stereotype that they are the basis of jokes such
> as
> "What is the Jewish problem? Free Pork".
> When I was a lad, it was common to use the phrase, "jewed" as in:
> "Come on, you just Jewed me out of those spogs"
> In America it's generally accepted by the populace that Jews are rich.
> Have a good look around you and decide for yourself whether it's an idle
> stereotype.
>
university lecturer, tv repair man, taxi driver, or any other member of
whatever their trade, calling, or profession happens to be. I guess I
don't move in the right circles.
I know that there have been pogroms against Jews in various places for the
last several hundred years. These were frequently, at least in the middle
ages, to do with "usury" -- a.k.a "a protection racket". As you'll know,
lending (or borrowing) money at interest is forbidden in the Bible. This
made life a bit difficult at times for European monarchs and nobles, since,
like all of us, they found themselves a bit financially over-stretched at
times.
A bit of theological footwork quickly proved to everyone's satisfaction that
what the Bible actually meant was that you couldn't borrow from/lend to
other Christians, so raising a loan from any Jewish community that could
come up with the cash was OK.
This had the great advantage over the alternative -- going to the Church or
the Lombards for a loan, since they could (and would) foreclose.
Wouldn't it be nice to be able to threaten your credit card company with a
pogrom the next time they sent you a nasty letter?
Arguing by reference to stereotypes and jokes is plain bizarre, to my mind.
Is it also your opinion that Poles and the Irish are mostly thick, that
Orientals are inscrutable, and that if you visit North Africa someone's
going to sell you some dirty postcards and offer you several camels in
return for your wife?
Is it your opinion, really, that the Jews who lived in Catherine the Great's
Pale enjoyed a notably different standard of living from any other dirt-poor
villagers there?
> > 2) "Atypical of society" vs "antisocial". Sorry, but I can't make head
> nor
> > tail of that argument.
>
> Society: Social Structure.
> Anti-Society: Anti-Social Structure.
> Anyone who conversely affects society and it's order is anti-social.
>
Linguistic problem here: unless you mean "adversely", (in which case it's a
truism), I'm not sure what that means. If you mean anyone who is a member
of an organisation that's atypical of society is by definition anti-social,
to my mind you're wrong. The Mafia and the Salvation Army are both
atypical of society as a whole. Members of the former are anti-social
(because they go around committing crimes). Members of the latter aren't
(because there's nothing particularly anti-social about running hostels for
the homeless, selling the War Cry and playing in brass bands, even though
these are activities that the rest of us don't usually engage in).
> > Either you're confusing the meaning of the two
> > terms, and, in effect, saying that people who are atypical of society
are
> > atypical, or making the patently nonsensical statement that because, for
> > example, Carmelite nuns are members of a religious group existing in an
> > atomised and secular society, they have a tendency to be anti-social.
> If
> > I've missed the point, please explain.
>
> Do you think that Muslim Cliques which increasingly do not interact with
> british mainstream society are anti-social?
> If you accepted my point that Jews are a contiguous interest group that
uses
> it's
> immunity from criticism and the libertarian protection of the individual
to
> nepotistically gain power and
> money for other Jews, would you consider them anti-social (considering
that
> their
> money has to come from somewhere)? Of course not all groups of people that
> differ
> from the norm are anti-social.
>
I don't accept the point for one moment, any more than I accept that all
Catholics or all Jehovah's Witnesses are a "contiguous interest group" bent
on gaining power and advancement for their members. Let's try to think
about this rationally. Think of any group that does actually have a clear
common economic interest -- council employees, or professional footballers
or something. They actually get together to press for their collective
common interests. Do you consider them ipso facto anti-social? The
Latvian Welfare Association certainly exists to look after the interests of
members of the Latvian community (originally Latvian "displaced persons"
like my wife's dad and granddad, but now mostly elderly Lativans in the UK),
but I wouldn't call them anti-social. Would you?
> The general public have no union, or method of pooling wealth.. They are
the
> unrelated cattle
> on which the other interest groups graze.
> They have no defence from these interest groups other than the government.
>
Well, actually we have loads of ways of pooling wealth. If my house
burned down tomorrow, I certainly wouldn't be able to replace it or its
contents. A lot of people are in the same position. So we pool our
wealth using insurance companies. Very few people are in a position to
buy a house for cash. A lot of people have some spare money (lucky sods).
The money gets pooled in banks and building societies, and we have
mortgages. A lot of companies need to finance projects but can't do so
out of cash reserves. So they issue shares, in the hope that enough people
will find the project attractive enough to pool their money and invest in
it.
> > 3) To move from the statement of fact that Parliament was not consulted
> > about the current military action to the statement that we live in a
> > dictatorship does not, to my mind, leave an adequate term to describe
> > Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia. What term would you reserve for
> > those two regimes?
>
> That isn't the point is it?
> Do we live in a dictatorship or not?
I know several people who have lived in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia
or Franco's Spain, and who now live here. If you asked them that question
they'd assume it was a trick one.
Your analysis is a bet, errm, sweeping, and I don't have time to go into it
now. If you want, I'll happily return to it later. I don't know if you
caught Radio 4's Analysis programme last night on Globalisation. If you
didn't, there's a transcript at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/audio_video/programmes/analysis/tran
scripts/globalising.txt
You might find it interesting.
Steve
Paris
> gdp is a very poor measure...esp if you count government
> paper pushers as contributing to gdp....
What is a good measure?
ciderman
[snip stuff about zionists and capatilists]
Steve Glynn is doing an excellent job here and I have nothing to add.
>
> > > Because we live under libertarian conditions in which the rights of the
> > > individual
> > > take precidence over the rights of society.
> >
> > Society is a collection of individuals.
>
> No, it is a colleciton of cooperating individuals.
>
> > > In these conditions freedom of speech, or the right to criticise
> individuals
> > > is eroded.
> >
> > If this is true, it is definately not libertarian.
>
> Yes it is.. The individual is protected by libertarian laws, not society.
Ask any libertarian whether or not they believe in free speech.
The idea that gagging laws are designed to protect individual freedom
rather than the function of society is bizzare, since their whole
point
is to remove the freedom of the individual to speak their mind, based
on the
belief that their views undermine society as a whole.
> > > Take for instance the new religious freedom legislation.
> >
> > Which does not remove the right to criticise individuals, only groups but
> > that's all right because the right of societies should take precedence
> > over the rights of individuals. Paris said so:-)
> >
> > On a more serious note, the legislation to which you refer does not place
> > religion completely beyond criticism, though it does place limits on
> > freedom of speech (a libertarian concept) in an attempt to protect
> > people from hate crimes. Whether or not it's a good idea is open to
> > debate but I don't see it as a worrying step towards total censorship.
>
> When you say 'hate crimes' do you mean, criticising Jews?
I mean inciting hatred towards Jews, or any other religious group.
There is a distinction between incitement and criticism.
> > > Under conditions of libertarianism any interested party may sneak
> through
> > > legislation
> > > and claim it to be motivated by the desire to uphold personal freedom.
> > > I believe this to be the first of a long series of pieces of gagging
> > > legislation designed to
> > > empower individuals and stem criticism.
> >
> > So what further pieces of "gagging legislation" do you foresee?
>
> First to suffer will be free speech on the internet.
I thought one of the main points about free speech was that the
internet is
hard to censor so "lunatics" (note quotation marks) have a forum to
express their views anyway and can gain sympathy by screaming
"censorship"
> Then there will be a general broadening of the 'incitement to riot'
> legislation and the
> religious freedom act.
How will they be broadened?
> Libel law will become far stronger (like it is in the US) and a general 'sue
> me' culture will
> arise in which it will become very difficult to say anything without being
> dragged through a court
> for the purpose of financially damaging critics.
I've not had sufficient experience of libel law to comment whether or
not this
is a good thing but I do think it's right for people to damage the
reputation
of others for publishing factually incorrect statements and that their
should
be some redress through the courts, both to make people do their
research
properly and to provide a means for those suffering malicious
accusations
to get their reputation back. Do you disagree with this?
[snip]
> > How many people have criticised aspects of multi-culturalsm or
> libertarianism?
>
> Lots and lots and lots.. But none of them have done it in any position of
> power.
>
Examples?
To complete this conspiracy theory, you need to explian how our
politicians
profit.....
> >Why is the media supporting them?
>
> Because they are paid off members of the NWO.
>
And how you know this
And how a conspiracy involving so many people has managed to keep
itself
secret.
> > > > > Because british society is atomised and secular..
> > > > > Religious groups existing in such a climate have a tendancy to be
> > > > > anti-social.
> > > >
> > > > Suppression of religious freedom will merely create more resentment
> > > > and disharmony.
> > >
> > > I don't want to suppress it..
> >
> > Good.
> >
> > > I just don't want it given immunity from
> > > criticism
> >
> > I don't believe it is immune.
>
> Why don't you try and get on the TV and ureservedly criticise Islamic
> Britons then?
>
What would you want me to say exactly?
> > or
> > > have it's protection enshrined in legislation.
> > >
> > Why not?
>
> Why should anyone be immune from criticism?
Depends what you mean. Constructive criticism or abuse?
>
> > Yes. Taxation is a good example. Real life politics is a complex series of
> > compromizes. The principles behind Libertarianism are good in theory but
> like
> > most ideologies, it should not be adopted to the exclusion of all else.
> > On a relative level I consider our government not libertarian enough on
> most
> > issues but I wouldn't want absolute libertarianism. I favour moderate,
> rather
> > than low taxation and hence define myself more as a liberal than a
> libertarian.
>
> You hold the consensus view, which I share with you..
Depending of course on whether we have the same definition of
"moderate" From the posts i've read from you, I'd guess you would
like more tax than me.
> Sadly the consensus view isn't that which is held by our governments,
> despite their claims.
>
> > > If one person decides not to queue, it doesn't directly affect anyone in
> > > particular, but it
> > > does affect the whole queue. If enough people decide not to queue, then
> the
> > > whole system
> > > fails and you have the total failure of the system.
> >
> > Ah but not queing does affect the system but by an insignificant amount.
> > It all adds up though.
>
> And that is my point...
> Society cannot defend itself against the actions of the individual.. Thus
> Libertarianism is
> deliberately anti-social.
>
> A few days ago I arrived home to find a man on the floor outside my home,
> laying in a pool of his
> own blood, being repeatedly kicked in the head by a younger, larger man.
> As we drove up I say several groups of people pass by on the other side of
> the road without intervening...
> Would this have happened 50 years ago?
I don't know. I wasn't around then.
> What is imperceptably different about our society that this is now
> commonplace in many areas of the UK?
Dunno. attitudes, e.g. "none of my business"? Are people more
afraid to intervene now? If so, why?
> Why is almost all crime rising?
Increasing divorce rates?, More women working full time?, loss of
discipline?
Rise of atheism?, failure of the education system? or of the CJS?
immigration and asylum? I don't rightly know. What do you think? What
would you do about it?
> Is it cheap to maintain society? Hell no.
> Is it acceptable in the age of globalism to have a contiguous and united
> society? Hell no.
How would you go about creating a contigous and united society?
> >
> > Agreed. Our democracy system is a long way from perfect but it still isn't
> a
> > dictatorship and theoretically it could be changed by democratic means.
> > The reason it couldn't in practice is that not enough people care
> sufficiently
> > strongly.
>
> That is only part of the story.
> Effectively we live in a 2 party dictatorship.. However, since both parties
> effectively share the
> same 'centerist' (right wing globalist, libertarian) position, it is
> effectively dictatorship.
And what would happen if the country suddenly decided that their
"right wing
globalist, libertarian" position was unacceptable?
>
> > > What is my message? That we shouldn't allow religion a special place in
> > > secular society?
> >
> > What exactly do you mean by "not allowing religion a special place"?
>
> I mean, religious schools, and legislation protecting religions from
> criticism.
> I mean, the total removal of any law which differntiates between UK citizens
> on the basis
> of their colour or religion.
Is there such a law?
>
> > That this is leading
> > > to disharmony and the erosion of society?
> >
> > I contest this one
>
> I live within 15 miles of Bradford.
>
I am not contesting the occurance of the riots. I am contesting their
cause.
> > That Globalism and Zionism is
> > > essentially not in our interest?
> >
> > And this one (though not the Zionism part)
> > > Isn't that going to be construed as racist inflamatory language?
> >
> > Not really.
>
> I assure you it is.
OK. It will be by some. There are idiots who brand people who oppose
Zionism as "anti-semitic" but I believe they are in the minority.
[snip]
> >
> > Of course democracy is undermined by vested interests. The problem
> > is dictatorships suffer from the same problem and to an even greater
> extent.
>
> This is true...
> But dictatorship doesn't suffer two of the problems of Democracy.
> 1) It can stay on task for longer, because it isn't being swayed by the
> fickle interests of the idiot masses.
> 2) The Press cannot exert any power over it because the public cannot be
> exorted to vote out a dictatorship.
> A benevolent dictatorship, which consists of enough people with intelligence
> is not such a bad way to go.
I like the idea of a dictatorship, provided I am the dictator. Failing
that
I wouldn't mind one led by someone who I usually agree with but I
resent
NuLab far less than I would if they were an unelected dictatorship.
Do you see what I'm getting at?
> How do you get the best people in power, and keep out the money grubbing,
> corrupt or power hungry?
> Answer? Society.
That is a very vague answer. What causes a collection of individuals
into a
"society" apart from the assumption that they will not succumb to the
basic
negative human attributes such as self-interest?
[snip]
> >
> > True but the media present a wide range of contrasting opinions.
>
So which opinions in particular deserve more coverage? Why don't the
sections of the media which attempt to do this become mainstream?
Because they aren't mainstream views?
abelard
typed:
>"abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:13k8vtcmektkiec8d...@4ax.com...
>
>
>> gdp is a very poor measure...esp if you count government
>> paper pushers as contributing to gdp....
>
>What is a good measure?
i know of none i would trust....
further, i do not trust any government figures.....
on just has to do the best one can with what is available.....
subject everything to a very critical eye.....
a car crash increases gdp because the garage gets work....
the figures are crazy.....
green group are attempting to establish quality of life indices....
it might be helpful to you to search on that....
the more wide-ranging and the more general and detailed
information you gather, the better you can grasp what is
happening....
always ask who put out figures...and what is their interest...
eg, the police will claim rising crime to get more staff....
the government will make it look small so they can claim
to be reducing 'crime'....
they keep changing the definitions of the figures...thatcher
redefined 'unemployment' about 20 times...almost every
time the figures fell....surprise.....
the papers will exaggerate and distort everything to sell papers....
and so it goes.....
if you look at france...it is hard to see how they are not
bankrupt.....until you pick things apart....
italy looks seriously rich in the north...yet it is reported
much poorer in the figures....much of this is because
a great deal goes on, off the books.....
trust nothing.....
Paris
<snip>
That's what I thought...
I've been around a bit, and the average Briton works longer and
suffers more for their ever so slightly deficient standard of living..
Of course, there are some REALLY rich people living here too!
> trust nothing.....
Travel by night!
--
Paris. Not the City
ma...@public-record.co.uk
wrote:
>>kingdom by forming societies, in which each member performed tasks and
>>reaped benefits
>>of tasks performed by others...
>>Individuals can only lift 30 Kilos.. A whole society can move mountains.
>>Individuals are dust in the wind, they leave no mark on history..
>>Societies and civilisations carve the earth so that people like you can
>>marvel at their skill
>>thousands of years on...
>>
>>Society is King.. Libertarianism is a device for destroying societies for
>>the purpose of
>>conquest and pillage. Libertarians, Internationalist captalists and idiot
>>bourgeois lefties are killing my country..
>>I think little of them...
>
>it is the most individualistic societies that have the most
> effective military forces...
>co-operation pays...adam smith describes the mechanism....
Or Axelrod
>next homework....
>Lorenz, Konrad King Soloman's Ring
>Reissue 1997; Plume; 0452011752; pbk
>$11.95 [amazon.com] / £7.89 [amazon.co.uk] (is on back order from US)
>Important and fundamental classics on the study of animal behaviour.
>
>other basic stuff here....
>http://www.abelard.org/reading/rec-hi.htm#human
cheers
matt
Paris
> [snip stuff about zionists and capatilists]
>
> Steve Glynn is doing an excellent job here and I have nothing to add.
I don't think so.
Jews are stereotypically capitalists..
Throughout history this has been constantly re-enforced by the
actions of various individuals.
He is being disingenuous when he refuses to accept that the stereotype
is without merit.. I believe that this is because he happens to know
some people who do not fit the stereotype. But to refuse to allow
generalisation
in an argument is the oldest way in which a sophisticate wangles the
argument into their favour.
> > > If this is true, it is definately not libertarian.
> >
> > Yes it is.. The individual is protected by libertarian laws, not society.
>
> Ask any libertarian whether or not they believe in free speech.
They don't.. They believe in free speech as long as that free speech
isn't
used to say anything contentious, then they believe in protecting the
rights
of individuals through gagging laws.
> The idea that gagging laws are designed to protect individual freedom
> rather than the function of society is bizzare, since their whole
> point
> is to remove the freedom of the individual to speak their mind, based
> on the
> belief that their views undermine society as a whole.
That is because the very core of libertarianism is hypocrisy.
Libertarianism is a tool for advancing the rights of some individuals
over others.. When the 'others' ask why the response is hypocrisy.
> > When you say 'hate crimes' do you mean, criticising Jews?
>
> I mean inciting hatred towards Jews, or any other religious group.
> There is a distinction between incitement and criticism.
But what counts as 'inciting hatred'.
Tell any Jew that you personally believe that Jews are primarilly
capitalists
and that Zionism is evil, and they'll call you an 'anti-semite'..
Once that label is made to stick, you are then subject to 'hate crime'
(just listen to the way it sounds.. *shudder*) laws.
> > First to suffer will be free speech on the internet.
>
> I thought one of the main points about free speech was that the
> internet is
> hard to censor so "lunatics" (note quotation marks) have a forum to
> express their views anyway and can gain sympathy by screaming
> "censorship"
You believe that everyone who does not express consensus viewpionts is
a
lunatic?
The internet is serving as a conduit through which ideas long
suppressed
by ancient laws and social change are being once more passed.
Yes, they can brand people who discuss politics on the Internet
'lunie' but
for every 10 there that laugh, there'll be one that hears..
The internet WILL be censored by hook or by crook. Why?
*because the internet is the future telly, and it cannot share the
medium with us, in case the 'legit' news gets tarnished by
association.
*because the internet IS genuinely free, and people ARE saying what
they want to say.
How?
Microsoft monopoly.
When the 'passport' becomes widely accepted, governments will enforce
laws
insisting that all OS's must support it.
Probably?
> > Then there will be a general broadening of the 'incitement to riot'
> > legislation and the
> > religious freedom act.
>
> How will they be broadened?
By act of parliment I expect?
They will be broadened to more precicely target anti-zionists by
fleshing out what is 'hateful language' and so forth.
First will be an outright ban on 'holocaust denial' in line with many
other
nations further along this road than ourselves.
> I've not had sufficient experience of libel law to comment whether or
> not this
> is a good thing.
Gagging someone by bankrupting them is a good thing?
> but I do think it's right for people to damage the
> reputation
> of others for publishing factually incorrect statements and that their
> should
> be some redress through the courts, both to make people do their
> research
> properly and to provide a means for those suffering malicious
> accusations
> to get their reputation back. Do you disagree with this?
No. But the law serves the dollar, as do all things which the corrupt
touch.
Those with the most money, have the best reputations.
And many of those silenced by libel law, weren't necessarilly lying.
> > Lots and lots and lots.. But none of them have done it in any position of
> > power.
> >
> Examples?
The last person to famously discuss multi-culturalism in a position of
authority was the hapless Mr Powell.
If you want to find out the depth of emotion surrounding this subject,
try
posting a troll to this group with a title like :
'Protect the rights of Asians in Bradford, harassed by police!'..
<snip>
> > Greed on the part of the fools, and the aspiration of a global empire for
> > the others.
> >
> To complete this conspiracy theory, you need to explian how our
> politicians
> profit.....
Quango's, Bungs, Lucrative Share deals, Information, Loans, the gift
of power...
> > Because they are paid off members of the NWO.
> >
> And how you know this
> And how a conspiracy involving so many people has managed to keep
> itself
> secret.
It isn't a secret.
That America is trying to build the NWO is common knowledge.
That it intends this organisation to be based on free press, and
libertarian democracy is also common knowledge.
All that is required to complete the circle of this 'conspiracy
theory' is to
realise how important the press are in democracy, and to look at who
controls
the press with your eyes wide open.
> > Why don't you try and get on the TV and ureservedly criticise Islamic
> > Britons then?
> >
> What would you want me to say exactly?
Something like:
'The muslim riots in Bradford are clearly an example of the failure
of multiculturalism, and Islam in the UK is now cancerous and the
culture
needs to be addressed. And while we are at it, are there any other
groups
in the UK which might also be operating in a sub-culture of their own
devising?'
> > Why should anyone be immune from criticism?
>
> Depends what you mean. Constructive criticism or abuse?
Criticism is criticism... It often (almost always) hurts those who
recieve it. Often the critics are right.
> > You hold the consensus view, which I share with you..
>
> Depending of course on whether we have the same definition of
> "moderate" From the posts i've read from you, I'd guess you would
> like more tax than me.
Slightly more yes.. But not much more..
And I'd collect it differently and use it differently.
> > What is imperceptably different about our society that this is now
> > commonplace in many areas of the UK?
>
> Dunno. attitudes, e.g. "none of my business"? Are people more
> afraid to intervene now? If so, why?
Because British society has been deliberately eroded.
> > Why is almost all crime rising?
>
> Increasing divorce rates?, More women working full time?, loss of
> discipline?
> Rise of atheism?
What is bad about that?
> failure of the education system? or of the CJS?
> immigration and asylum? I don't rightly know. What do you think? What
> would you do about it?
Here are some ideas:
http://www.theprotocols.co.uk/articles/article.asp?articleid=3
Comments?
> > Is it cheap to maintain society? Hell no.
> > Is it acceptable in the age of globalism to have a contiguous and united
> > society? Hell no.
>
> How would you go about creating a contigous and united society?
Changes to education, transport, criminal justice, healthcare, media
laws,
policing....
> And what would happen if the country suddenly decided that their
> "right wing
> globalist, libertarian" position was unacceptable?
It would try to vote in a new party, who would upon being elected,
change
their policies to adopt a right wing, libertarian, globalist
position..
Or, the NWO would (Jorg Haider) impose sanctions until 'democracy' got
it right!
> > criticism.
> > I mean, the total removal of any law which differntiates between UK citizens
> > on the basis
> > of their colour or religion.
>
> Is there such a law?
Ever heard of the CRE?
> I am not contesting the occurance of the riots. I am contesting their
> cause.
What do you think was the cause of the riots..
And what do you think is the reason that Asian Youths are increasingly
antagonistic?
> > I assure you it is.
>
> OK. It will be by some. There are idiots who brand people who oppose
> Zionism as "anti-semitic" but I believe they are in the minority.
Not so..
The 'Paris' Law as I've dubbed it is proven correct time and again..
> > This is true...
> > But dictatorship doesn't suffer two of the problems of Democracy.
> > 1) It can stay on task for longer, because it isn't being swayed by the
> > fickle interests of the idiot masses.
> > 2) The Press cannot exert any power over it because the public cannot be
> > exorted to vote out a dictatorship.
> > A benevolent dictatorship, which consists of enough people with intelligence
> > is not such a bad way to go.
>
> I like the idea of a dictatorship, provided I am the dictator. Failing
> that
> I wouldn't mind one led by someone who I usually agree with but I
> resent
> NuLab far less than I would if they were an unelected dictatorship.
> Do you see what I'm getting at?
Yes but democracy is dictatorship by the weakest link anyway.
> > How do you get the best people in power, and keep out the money grubbing,
> > corrupt or power hungry?
> > Answer? Society.
>
> That is a very vague answer. What causes a collection of individuals
> into a
> "society" apart from the assumption that they will not succumb to the
> basic
> negative human attributes such as self-interest?
Read Plato's discussion on how you attract the best people into
positions
of power. It forms the kernal of his 'republic' in which he arrives
at the conclusion that a 'class system' enforcing a certain social
order is the
only way to stop the greedy and corrupt from ascending to power for
the wrong
reasons.
When you break society by imposing libertarianism and fiscal
meritocracy you
effectively leave the way open for the dross of humanity to find it's
way into
power. How do you reverse this?
> > > True but the media present a wide range of contrasting opinions.
> >
> So which opinions in particular deserve more coverage? Why don't the
> sections of the media which attempt to do this become mainstream?
> Because they aren't mainstream views?
No particular thing deserves more coverage..
As for an answer to your latter question, it has to do with the nature
of the public, and the nature of business.
The NWO IS global capitalism.. It IS dumbed down populations and
red top newspapers.
Just as surely as removing all civil defence would lead to anarchy, so
speading democracy and libertarianism will lead to the NWO.
Because the two things are related. Both pander to the base instincts
of humanity, both are downward spirals.
We rise above the beasts because we are capable of social order.
Do you think that no-one has thought about who'll be in charge?
--
Paris. Not the City
Dr Chris R. Tame
record.co.uk writes
>On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 02:59:17 +0100, abelard <abe...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>>kingdom by forming societies, in which each member performed tasks and
>>>reaped benefits
>>>of tasks performed by others...
>>>Individuals can only lift 30 Kilos.. A whole society can move mountains.
>>>Individuals are dust in the wind, they leave no mark on history..
>>>Societies and civilisations carve the earth so that people like you can
>>>marvel at their skill
>>>thousands of years on...
>>>
>>>Society is King.. Libertarianism is a device for destroying societies for
>>>the purpose of
>>>conquest and pillage.
Curses ... he 's unmasked my secret plan for world conquest and pillage.
Back to the drawing board.
> Libertarians, Internationalist captalists and idiot
>>>bourgeois lefties are killing my country..
>>>I think little of them...
>>
>>it is the most individualistic societies that have the most
>> effective military forces...
>>co-operation pays...adam smith describes the mechanism....
>
>Or Axelrod
>
>>next homework....
>>Lorenz, Konrad King Soloman's Ring
>>Reissue 1997; Plume; 0452011752; pbk
>>$11.95 [amazon.com] / £7.89 [amazon.co.uk] (is on back order from US)
>>Important and fundamental classics on the study of animal behaviour.
>>
>>other basic stuff here....
>>http://www.abelard.org/reading/rec-hi.htm#human
>
>
>cheers
>
>matt
--
Dr. Chris R. Tame, Director
Libertarian Alliance | "The secret of Happiness is Freedom, |
25 Chapter Chambers | and the secret of Freedom is Courage" |
Esterbrooke Street | Thucydides, Pericles' Funeral Oration |
London SW1P 4NN
England
Tel: 020 7821 5502
Fax: 020 7834 2031
Personal Email: ch...@rand.demon.co.uk
LA Email: ad...@libertarian.co.uk
LA Web Site: http://www.libertarian.co.uk
Free Life Web Site: http://www.btinternet.com/~old.whig/freelife/fl.htm
The Hampden Press Website: http://www.hampdenpress.co.uk
LA Forum: groups.yahoo.com/group/libertarian-alliance-forum
Dr Chris R. Tame
<odes...@my-deja.com> writes
>ciderm...@yahoo.com (ciderman) wrote in message news:<ae9cd66c.0111170545.67a
>36...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
>> [snip stuff about zionists and capatilists]
>>
>> Steve Glynn is doing an excellent job here and I have nothing to add.
>
>I don't think so.
>Jews are stereotypically capitalists..
Like Marx, no doubt.
>Throughout history this has been constantly re-enforced by the
>actions of various individuals.
>He is being disingenuous when he refuses to accept that the stereotype
>is without merit.. I believe that this is because he happens to know
>some people who do not fit the stereotype. But to refuse to allow
>generalisation
>in an argument is the oldest way in which a sophisticate wangles the
>argument into their favour.
>
>
>> > > If this is true, it is definately not libertarian.
>> >
>> > Yes it is.. The individual is protected by libertarian laws, not society.
>>
>> Ask any libertarian whether or not they believe in free speech.
>
>They don't.. They believe in free speech as long as that free speech
>isn't
>used to say anything contentious, then they believe in protecting the
>rights
>of individuals through gagging laws.
Lies.
>> The idea that gagging laws are designed to protect individual freedom
>> rather than the function of society is bizzare, since their whole
>> point
>> is to remove the freedom of the individual to speak their mind, based
>> on the
>> belief that their views undermine society as a whole.
>
>That is because the very core of libertarianism is hypocrisy.
>Libertarianism is a tool for advancing the rights of some individuals
>over others.. When the 'others' ask why the response is hypocrisy.
>
More lies.
--
Paris
Profound!
Paris
> Curses ... he 's unmasked my secret plan for world conquest and pillage.
> Back to the drawing board.
Libertarianism exists because people don't want to abandon the plans
for
the NWO when people complain.
The NWO is a self perpetuating entity but it is aided by US guns and
international Zionism for sure..
People willingly subscribe to the NWO in the belief that it is
benign..
Trusting that Libertarianism IS freedom, and that democracy ISN'T
rigged.
But none of these people have wondered 'has anyone decided to try and
be in charge of this global empire?'..
Has everyone assumed it'll be the US, and not thought to question it?
Of course! I am questioning it, and so are many others..
We realise who'll be in charge.. But we aren't allowed to suggest it,
because
libertarianism protects certain groups from criticism.
If you let a fanatical religious group control a global empire (and
they WILL get control) what do you expect them to do?
--
Paris. Not the City
ciderman
>
> They don't.. They believe in free speech as long as that free speech
> isn't used to say anything contentious, then they believe in protecting
> the rights of individuals through gagging laws.
Perhaps the confusion here is resulting from different definitions of
Libertarianism. As I understand it a liberal is someone who believes
the state should work towards maximising people's freedom but will argue
that taxation, gagging laws and suchlike are valid tools for achieving this
objetcive. A libertarian on the other hand would contend that society
functions best when state interference is kept to a minimum. Chris, is this
a fair interpretation?
>
> > The idea that gagging laws are designed to protect individual freedom
> > rather than the function of society is bizzare, since their whole
> > point
> > is to remove the freedom of the individual to speak their mind, based
> > on the
> > belief that their views undermine society as a whole.
>
> That is because the very core of libertarianism is hypocrisy.
> Libertarianism is a tool for advancing the rights of some individuals
> over others.. When the 'others' ask why the response is hypocrisy.
Surely a libertarian would argue that the same set of rules should apply
to everybody. No discrimination of any kind.
[snip]
> Gagging someone by bankrupting them is a good thing?
No but using the threat of justice to discourage people from producing
false and defaming material is.
>
> > but I do think it's right for people to damage the
> > reputation
> > of others for publishing factually incorrect statements and that their
> > should
> > be some redress through the courts, both to make people do their
> > research
> > properly and to provide a means for those suffering malicious
> > accusations
> > to get their reputation back. Do you disagree with this?
>
> No. But the law serves the dollar, as do all things which the corrupt
> touch.
> Those with the most money, have the best reputations.
> And many of those silenced by libel law, weren't necessarilly lying.
I agree that there are flaws with the present system but some sort of
libel law is necessary
> > > Lots and lots and lots.. But none of them have done it in any position of
> > > power.
> > >
> > Examples?
>
> The last person to famously discuss multi-culturalism in a position of
> authority was the hapless Mr Powell.
Who was not legally gagged.
[snip]
> It isn't a secret.
> That America is trying to build the NWO is common knowledge.
> That it intends this organisation to be based on free press, and
> libertarian democracy is also common knowledge.
True. The idea that all the world leaders are knowingly acting against
their countries best interests however is not "common knowledge" and
I don't believe it is a fair accusation either.
> > > Why don't you try and get on the TV and ureservedly criticise Islamic
> > > Britons then?
> > >
> > What would you want me to say exactly?
>
> Something like:
> 'The muslim riots in Bradford are clearly an example of the failure
> of multiculturalism, and Islam in the UK is now cancerous and the
> culture
> needs to be addressed. And while we are at it, are there any other
> groups
> in the UK which might also be operating in a sub-culture of their own
> devising?'
OK. Point taken. It would be difficult to imagine Auntie Beeb broadcasting
anything like that. However add a few choice phrases like, e.g "this is not
what the real Islam is about" and get someone of Asian origin to dress up as
a Moslem and you never know your luck :-)
>
> > > Why should anyone be immune from criticism?
> >
> > Depends what you mean. Constructive criticism or abuse?
>
> Criticism is criticism... It often (almost always) hurts those who
> recieve it. Often the critics are right.
But there is a difference between constructive criticism and abuse.
[snip]
> > > Why is almost all crime rising?
> >
> > Increasing divorce rates?, More women working full time?, loss of
> > discipline?
> > Rise of atheism?
>
> What is bad about that?
It could be seen as the "erosion of the fabric of society" and may be a factor
in rising crime. I wasn't actually claiming there was anything wrong with it.
FWIW I am an Atheist myself!
> > failure of the education system? or of the CJS?
> > immigration and asylum? I don't rightly know. What do you think? What
> > would you do about it?
>
> Here are some ideas:
> http://www.theprotocols.co.uk/articles/article.asp?articleid=3
> Comments?
I'll have a look now and get back to you.
>
> > And what would happen if the country suddenly decided that their
> > "right wing
> > globalist, libertarian" position was unacceptable?
>
> It would try to vote in a new party, who would upon being elected,
> change
> their policies to adopt a right wing, libertarian, globalist
> position..
> Or, the NWO would (Jorg Haider) impose sanctions until 'democracy' got
> it right!
A shameful episode. I believe they backed down in the end though.
>
> > > criticism.
> > > I mean, the total removal of any law which differntiates between UK citizens
> > > on the basis
> > > of their colour or religion.
> >
> > Is there such a law?
>
> Ever heard of the CRE?
How does the CRE differentiate between UK citizens on the basis of colour or
religion?
>
> > I am not contesting the occurance of the riots. I am contesting their
> > cause.
>
> What do you think was the cause of the riots..
> And what do you think is the reason that Asian Youths are increasingly
> antagonistic?
A complex range of factors involving (e.g. culture clash and identity politics)
I believe the segregation to be a symptom - not the disease.
[snip]
> >
> > I like the idea of a dictatorship, provided I am the dictator. Failing
> > that
> > I wouldn't mind one led by someone who I usually agree with but I
> > resent
> > NuLab far less than I would if they were an unelected dictatorship.
> > Do you see what I'm getting at?
>
> Yes but democracy is dictatorship by the weakest link anyway.
eh?
> > > How do you get the best people in power, and keep out the money grubbing,
> > > corrupt or power hungry?
> > > Answer? Society.
> >
> > That is a very vague answer. What causes a collection of individuals
> > into a
> > "society" apart from the assumption that they will not succumb to the
> > basic
> > negative human attributes such as self-interest?
>
> Read Plato's discussion on how you attract the best people into
> positions
> of power. It forms the kernal of his 'republic' in which he arrives
> at the conclusion that a 'class system' enforcing a certain social
> order is the
> only way to stop the greedy and corrupt from ascending to power for
> the wrong
> reasons.
You mean like the Hindu caste system?
> When you break society by imposing libertarianism and fiscal
> meritocracy you
> effectively leave the way open for the dross of humanity to find it's
> way into
> power. How do you reverse this?
I don't see why our present system should be more conductive to promoting
the "dross of society" into power than a rigid "class" system based on the
lottery of birth?
[snip]
Steve Glynn
<snip>
Did I misread Dr Tame's post, or did he really reproduce the whole of his
discussion with Paris just to stick in the word "lies" a couple of times and
to reproduce his 14-line sig?
Bit of a waste of everyone's time, to my mind.
Steve