Government? Who Needs It?
Dan Clore
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
http://tinyurl.com/ywsof2
Government? Who needs it?
People use the term 'anarchy' recklessly, Daniel Morley Johnson says.
They might be surprised at what it actually means
by DANIEL MORLEY JOHNSON
August 11, 2007
It wasn't your usual government leak. Jeffrey Monaghan, a contract
employee at Environment Canada, was arrested at his office by the RCMP
in May for allegedly leaking the Harper government's climate plan a
month earlier. What made this leak more interesting is that Monaghan
plays in a punk band that has targeted Stephen Harper in song lyrics,
and he has also been involved with Ottawa's anarchist bookshop in a
similar project. His band's website has links to the radical
environmental group Earth First. All of which led one Calgary newspaper
columnist to label Monaghan's "odious" beliefs -- what we might call
anarchism -- "political chaos."
Anarchism is typically associated with some sort of menace and,
increasingly, with terrorism. David Graeber, a self-proclaimed anarchist
and formerly associate professor of anthropology at Yale, was dismissed
by that university despite being hailed as one of the world's foremost
young anthropologists. Many believe Yale's decision not to rehire
Graeber -- who will take a position at the University of London this
year -- was based on his personal politics, his writings on anarchism
and his support of unionized teaching assistants. Yale has given no
reason for Graeber's dismissal.
Rather than being understood as a complex political philosophy,
anarchism is popularly regarded as chaos (the word actually comes from
the Greek meaning "without rulers"). Anarchy conjures up images of
bombing government offices or the total disarray that would apparently
follow social revolution. We tend not to think of anarchists as
intellectuals or teachers or bus drivers. Anarchism is dismissed as
utopian and/or violent, hence the reaction against it.
In modern times, many philosophers of anarchism have been European:
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (France), Mikhail Bakunin (Russia), Emma Goldman
(a Russian who died in Toronto) and Alexander Berkman (Russia). Perhaps
the most important theorist of anarchism was the Russian Peter
Kropotkin, whose 1892 book The Conquest of Bread (first published in
English by Chapman & Hall, in 1906; available in several subsequent
editions) explains Kropotkin's ideal anarchist-communalist society. He
asks why so few people are rich while the majority of people live in
poverty, causing the latter to sell their labour to the former. The
problem with this, for anarchists, is that the exploited masses are not
truly free -- Kropotkin says they are more like serfs -- and are not,
therefore, able to realize their creative or human potential.
Kropotkin details a plan to remedy this through social revolution, and
his solutions are simple: equal time for work and creative pursuits;
everyone contributes to food production; all people share the work that
needs to be done in exchange for housing and freedom. He calls for a
redistribution of material goods and an end to greedy extravagance --
"to every man according to his needs." This is all based on the belief
that people who do not have to worry about starvation or paying for
private property will not sell their labour to others, no longer
enabling a ruling wealthy class.
Kropotkin is most convincing because he provides examples of how
non-hierarchical, non-state-controlled relationships that are fair and
efficient already exist. Think of any voluntary association or
collective. Recall the outpouring of spontaneous human generosity that
is exhibited after a natural disaster or other tragic event. There would
be no need for force because humans only need to be forced to do things
that are against their best interests; free people who make their own
decisions do not need to be coerced. Dissenters would have the choice to
build their own societies with like-minded people, as happens in any
voluntary group today.
Emma Goldman lived part of her life writing and speaking in the United
States, from 1906-1918 publishing the radical magazine Mother Earth,
which contained work by writers and artists including Tolstoy, Man Ray
and Eugene O'Neill. Peter Glassgold's Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma
Goldman's Mother Earth (Counterpoint, 2001) collects dozens of pieces
from the magazine, and is a good introduction to several different
anarchist points of view. These texts are wide-ranging in subject,
covering anarchist perspectives on education, literature, women's rights
(including Goldman's 1916 piece on birth control), civil liberties, war,
peace and history.
In the anthology, Voltairine de Cleyre illustrates how the libertarian
founders of the United States upheld anarchist principles -- "that
government is best which governs least" -- to create a free federation
made up of free local communities. Berkman discusses the ways that
prisons isolate and debilitate inmates rather than rehabilitating them.
In his essay Without Government, Max Baginski explains how state
institutions suppress human virtue through the use or threat of force.
He also recognizes, like many anarchists, that the government only
confuses and complicates the most basic transactions. (Waited all day in
a passport or driver's license office lately?) This anthology, which
contains a contextual essay by editor Glassgold, illustrates the breadth
of issues taken up by anarchist writers.
Anarchism is a philosophy that aims to bring justice to all people
oppressed by the elites. Ethnic groups have reinterpreted anarchist
theory to support their struggles, for example, the black Anarchist
Panther movement in the United States. Canadian Mohawk scholar Taiaiake
Alfred elaborates an anarcho-indigenist theory in Wasáse: Indigenous
Pathways of Action and Freedom (Broadview, 2005).
Much of Alfred's book is concerned with proposing ways for indigenous
peoples to resist settler colonialism and regenerate themselves and
their communities. Alfred blends what he calls an indigenous warrior
ethic with the anarchist principles of justice, freedom,
self-determination and "anti-institutional, radically democratic" forms
of governance. He draws, for instance, on Rotinoshonni (Iroquois)
traditions of government, in addition to what Vaclav Havel described as
utopia: a decentralized economy, local decision-making, government based
on true direct democracy, "a sort of spiritual socialism," as Alfred
understands it.
Alfred sees parallels between indigenous and anarchist ways of living:
rejection of legalized oppressive systems, non-participation in those
systems that are seen as part of Canadian settler colonization, and a
belief in bringing about change through direct action against state power.
The state tends to view indigenous and anarchist action in the same way,
and sometimes responds with violence: Think of the 2001 Quebec City
protests and the use of force by the Ontario Provincial Police at Six
Nations in April, 2006. Alfred points out we are seeing increasing
alliances between natives and settler activists in Canada, particularly
around indigenous people's land claims.
Anarchism is not chaos or disorder; it is a complex set of philosophies
positing that we would all be better off without rulers, particularly
those who greedily disregard the well-being of the majority of people.
If anarchism sounds utopian, hence implausible, recall the words of
another writer who had anarchist tendencies, Henry David Thoreau: "In
the long run men hit only what they aim at. Therefore, though they
should fail immediately, they had better aim at something high."
Daniel Morley Johnson is a PhD student in comparative literature at the
University of Alberta.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"Don't just question authority,
Don't forget to question me."
-- Jello Biafra
Topaz
<cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>Rather than being understood as a complex political philosophy,
>anarchism is popularly regarded as chaos (the word actually comes from
>the Greek meaning "without rulers"). Anarchy conjures up images of
>bombing government offices or the total disarray that would apparently
>follow social revolution. We tend not to think of anarchists as
>intellectuals or teachers or bus drivers. Anarchism is dismissed as
>utopian and/or violent, hence the reaction against it.
You are wrong. Anarchy is chaos. The government we have now may be
very bad, but anarchy is the wrong answer. Here are some quotes from
Mein Kampf:
"Hence all inventions are the result of the creative faculty of
the individual. And all such individuals, whether they have willed it
or not, are the benefactors of mankind, both great and small. Through
their work millions and indeed billions of human beings have been
provided with means and resources which facilitate their struggle for
existance.
"Thus at the origin of the material civilization which flourishes
to-day we always see individual persons. They supplement one another
and one of them bases his work on that of another. The same is true
in regard to the practical application of those inventions and
discoveries. For all the various methods of production are in their
turn inventions also and consequently dependant on the creative
faculty of the individual. Even in purely theoretical work, which can
not be measured by a definate rule and is preliminary to all
subsequent technical discoveries, is exclusively the product of the
individual brain. The broad masses do not invent, nor does the
majority organize or think; but always and in every case the
individual man, the person."
"Therfore not only does the organization possess no right to
prevent men of brains from rising above the multitude but, on the
contrary, it must use its organizing powers to enable and promote that
ascension as far as it possibly can. It must start out from the
principle that the blessings of mankind never came from the masses but
from the creative brains of individuals, who are therefore the real
benefactors of humanity. It is in the interest of all to assure men of
creative brains a decisive influence and facilitate their work. This
common interest is surely not served by allowing the multitude to
rule, for they are not capable of thinking nor are they efficient and
in no case whatsoever can they be said to be gifted. Only those should
rule who have the natural tempermant and gifts of leadership."
"Though all human civilization has resulted exclusively from the
creative activity of the individual, the principle that it is the mass
which counts--through the decision of the majority-- makes its
appearance only in the administration of the national community
especially in the higher grades; and from their downwards the poison
gradually filters into all branches of national life, thus causing a
veritable decomposition. The destructive workings of Judaism in
different parts of the national body can be ascribed fundamentally to
the persistant Jewish efforts at undermining the importance of
personality among the nations that are their hosts and, in place of
personality, substituting the domination of the masses. The
constructive principle of Aryan humanity is thus displaced by the
destructive principle of the Jews. They become the 'ferment of
decomposition' among nations and races and, in a broad sence, the
wreckers of human civilization.
"Marxism represents the most striking phase of the Jewish
endeaver to eliminate the dominant significance of personality in
every sphere of human life and replace it by the numerical power of
the masses. In politics the parlimentary form of government is the
expression of this effort. We can observe the fatal effects of it
everywhere, from the smallest parish council upwards to the highest
governing circles of the nation. In the field of economics we see the
trades union movement, which does not serve the real interests of the
employees but the destructive aims of international Jewry."
"If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand
the fundamental importance of the essential principle, if it should
merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt
the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete
with Marxism on its own ground."
"The best constitution and the best form of government is that
which makes it quite natural for the best brains to reach a position
of dominant importance and influence in the community."
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
Rodney Kelp
uri
Canada have plenty of land which is not populated. They can let to at
least 200 million people come to their country.
uri
equal land rights so there would be no inequalities in terms of land
between countries?
uri
empire. Russia is even bigger than Canada. So why not give every
country equal land rights so there would be no vast inequalities in
terms of land between countries? Land is an important scarce resource
so it's not fair that some have so much of it and others so little of
it.
Michael A. Clem
You're glossing over way too much stuff. Land management by governments
is naturally unequal simply because governments don't know how to be
equal, and certainly not with each other. Besides, governments don't
have "rights", people do, so it's absurd to talk about "equal land
rights" between countries--what matters is whether or not real people
have access to the land.
More importantly, all land is not created equal. As I said before,
there are very good reasons why most Canadians live within 100 miles of
the American border, and it's not just because they want to pick up
American television. Some land simply isn't worth having because of
lack of access, weather, rough terrain, etc. The value of any land is
dependent upon the use it can be put to. And if some land is "holy
land", all bets are off. I'd be happy to help move the Israelites to
Northern Canada, but I doubt they'd be happy about it, Canadian
government or no Canadian government.
Jerry Okamura
than later, some country is going to take away what was given to you. And
it also assumes you can even define the term...for instance, "if" I gave you
say the land in Siberia, or the norther parts of Alaska, or Canada would you
be happy? How about "if" all your land was in the Gobi Desert or the
Sahara? What about all the islands?
"uri" <dan...@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
news:1186848533....@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
uri
would be no inequalities in land between country.
anima...@yahoo.com
> The best would be to give each country equal amounts of land so there
> would be no inequalities in land between country.
Who is going to do the giving?
Grendel
wrote:
Don't bother attempting to explain reality to uri.
Uri believes that if you just divi up land and property
equally(totally ignoring the fact that the land is not the governments
to give away), everyone will be happy, crime would magically
disappear, everyone would work their asses off for no pay, the average
moron would become an 'enlightened artesian', black would love white,
Muslim would love Christian, all soccer games would be peaceful, Mana
would rain down from the skies and we'd all meet around a campfire
every evening to sing 'It's a Small World'.
And if this doesn't work, uri will attempt to get the same result by
giving everyone a puppy.
Basically, uri is an idiot.
Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.
"Yes, you have the right to be offended. So fucking what?"-Solomon
Short.
Basically, uri is an idiot.
uri
>Uri believes that if you just divi up land and property
> equally(totally ignoring the fact that the land is not the governments
> to give away), everyone will be happy, crime would magically
> disappear, everyone would work their asses off for no pay, the average
> moron would become an 'enlightened artesian', black would love white,
> Muslim would love Christian, all soccer games would be peaceful, Mana
> would rain down from the skies and we'd all meet around a campfire
> every evening to sing 'It's a Small World'.
>
> And if this doesn't work, uri will attempt to get the same result by
> giving everyone a puppy.
>
> Basically, uri is an idiot.
>
> Yol Bolsun,
> Grendel.
>
> "Yes, you have the right to be offended. So fucking what?"-Solomon
> Short.
>
> Basically, uri is an idiot.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not saying to divide private property equally. That would be
impossible. It's not possible to give everyone the same amount of
private property but it's possible to give every country equal amounts
of land. Canada has 480 times more land than Israel. I think it's
possible to eliminate these inequalities. If i want to move to Canada
without state authorization, the state can deport and imprison me.
Alex Russell
> The best would be to give each country equal amounts of land so there
> would be no inequalities in land between country.
>
other land. The reason Canada is mainly empty is no one wants to live in
the northern parts of the country. 90% of the Canadian population lives
within 200 miles of its southern border.
Changing borders is not the answer. Slowly removing borders is the answer.
Alex
Alex Russell
One, it is not possible to just divvy up the land.\
Two, not all land is created equal. As as been stated before, good luck
getting someone from Israel to enjoy living in northern Canada.
That is just plain wishful thinking.
Alex
uri
> You are wrong.
>
> One, it is not possible to just divvy up the land.\
>
> Two, not all land is created equal. As as been stated before, good luck
> getting someone from Israel to enjoy living in northern Canada.
>
> That is just plain wishful thinking.
>
> Alex- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Then we should slowly abolish borders and have a situation called
anarchism which in my opinion would be the best. The best would be to
abolish borders and let everyone live on whatever part of earth he
wants to live.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/
Roger Johansson
> Then we should slowly abolish borders and have a situation called
> anarchism which in my opinion would be the best. The best would be to
> abolish borders and let everyone live on whatever part of earth he
> wants to live.
Look at the border between Sweden and Norway.
I can cross it anywhere, there are no fences, no border guards.
I don't need a passport or even an identity card.
I can stay for as long as I like in the other country and get a job and
somewhere to live there. We are members of the Nordic union, where Sweden,
Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland are members and we have these rules
about open borders and the right for all citizens to live in any of these
countries we like.
The borders in Eurasia are getting easier and easier to cross.
For example I saw a program about a bunch of old speedway motorcycle
drivers who wanted to drive between Sweden and Beijing and they did not
have much problems with border crossings although they drove through a lot
of countries like China, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Finland, etc..
Your dream about a borderless world will come through one day, but it could
take 30-50 years or so.
--
Roger J.
Alex Russell
The good old freedom loving American's are moving backwards in this
regard. Until recently you could travel to the USA from Canada with a
drivers license and pretty much zero hassle at the border. Now you need
a passport.
This is because the American's are willing to trade basic liberties for
a false sense of security.
Slowly abolishing borders and allowing the free movement of people is a
more practical and useful way of allowing people access to more land and
opportunity.
Alex
*Anarcissie*
The United States is generally retrograde in this and many
other areas.
The cost of empire is war, repression and corruption. The
American middle and working classes have been swindled
into buying the imperial project. Now, both mainstream
political parties compete to be the first to start the next
war, and the next round of repression and corruption.
uri
medicare. Government also represses, confines people and takes away
people's freedom of movement and prevents them for having access to
more land. If we are to have an anarchist or communalist society
(which is centered upon the community) there is no need for government
repression and authoritarianism.
http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/
Michael Price
Bullshit. If these men can rise above the multitude by their brains
why
do they need "the organisation" to practice it's "organising powers"
to help them?
> It must start out from the
> principle that the blessings of mankind never came from the masses but
> from the creative brains of individuals, who are therefore the real
> benefactors of humanity.
And how does that conflict with anarchism?
> It is in the interest of all to assure men of creative brains a
> decisive influence and facilitate their work.
Which needs government how?
> This common interest is surely not served by allowing the multitude to
> rule, for they are not capable of thinking nor are they efficient and
> in no case whatsoever can they be said to be gifted.
Anarchism is about nobody ruling, that's the point.
> Only those should rule who have the natural tempermant and gifts of leadership."
>
Why? What good has rulership ever done anyone? You claim anarchy
is chaos but what greater chaos was there ever than that caused by
your moronic fueher?
> "Though all human civilization has resulted exclusively from the
> creative activity of the individual, the principle that it is the mass
> which counts--through the decision of the majority-- makes its
> appearance only in the administration of the national community
> especially in the higher grades; and from their downwards the poison
> gradually filters into all branches of national life, thus causing a
> veritable decomposition.
This is a criticism of democracy not anarchy.
> The destructive workings of Judaism in
> different parts of the national body can be ascribed fundamentally to
> the persistant Jewish efforts at undermining the importance of
> personality among the nations that are their hosts and, in place of
> personality, substituting the domination of the masses.
That would be strange when you consider how many outstanding
individuals in ever field are jewish.
> The constructive principle of Aryan humanity is thus displaced by the
> destructive principle of the Jews. They become the 'ferment of
> decomposition' among nations and races and, in a broad sence, the
> wreckers of human civilization.
> "Marxism represents the most striking phase of the Jewish
> endeaver to eliminate the dominant significance of personality in
> every sphere of human life and replace it by the numerical power of
> the masses. In politics the parlimentary form of government is the
> expression of this effort. We can observe the fatal effects of it
> everywhere, from the smallest parish council upwards to the highest
> governing circles of the nation. In the field of economics we see the
> trades union movement, which does not serve the real interests of the
> employees but the destructive aims of international Jewry."
>
Anarchism is the exact opposite of Marxism. As for unionism
not serving employees that's not what they think. Why should a
failed painter know more than they do?
> "If the National Socialist Movement should fail to understand
> the fundamental importance of the essential principle, if it should
> merely varnish the external appearance of the present State and adopt
> the majority principle, it would really do nothing more than compete
> with Marxism on its own ground."
>
> "The best constitution and the best form of government is that
> which makes it quite natural for the best brains to reach a position
> of dominant importance and influence in the community."
Which is exactly the opposite of what totalitarianism does. The
way to the top under the Nazis was loyalty and corruption not
brains.
Michael Price
How? If there is no government why would he be obeyed? And in case
you haven't noticed we have been taken over by control freaks
already.
Tim Howard
Stuff defending anarchy.Stuff defending totalitarianism.
>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 03:01:11 -0700, Dan Clore wrote:
>>
More stuff defending anarchy.
Both of you are wrong. Totalitarianism (left wing or right wing) and
anarchy both do not work. The fact is in either case human beings are
running things. Humans, whatever their intention, are more prone to do
bad than good. I do not trust a small unaccountable government nor
unaccountable masses. A liberal social democratic system is best. One
where both the government and the masses can check each other to prevent
abuse. One where laws both protect the people's freedoms and prevent
them from taking away other people's freedoms, as well as preventing the
government from doing so. We need laws and rules to prevent both
tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority.
Dr. Zarkov
> Michael Price wrote:
> Stuff defending anarchy.
>
>> On Aug 11, 9:46 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Stuff defending totalitarianism.
>
>>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 03:01:11 -0700, Dan Clore wrote:
> More stuff defending anarchy.
>
>
> Both of you are wrong. Totalitarianism (left wing or right wing) and
> anarchy both do not work. The fact is in either case human beings are
> running things.
In an anarchy, no one is "running things"; the system works because of
its inherent characteristics, much like a market economic system works.
> Humans, whatever their intention, are more prone to do
> bad than good.
Humans in general are neither good nor bad. They evolved as social
animals with certain inherent characteristics for cooperating for mutual
benefit. It's true that there are some "bad" people, but government
does not effectively deal with this problem; what's more, the existence
of government gives many of the bad people the opportunity to do evil on
an even larger scale.
> I do not trust a small unaccountable government nor
> unaccountable masses.
I don't either. That has nothing to do with anarchy.
> A liberal social democratic system is best. One
> where both the government and the masses can check each other to prevent
> abuse. One where laws both protect the people's freedoms and prevent
> them from taking away other people's freedoms, as well as preventing the
> government from doing so. We need laws and rules to prevent both
> tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority.
Those laws are made by people, interpreted by people, and enforced by
people. Unless everyone agrees with a law or rule, it will be tyranny
of the majority or tyranny of the minority, since a large portion of the
population will disagree with the law but be forced to follow it. In
many cases, they will be forced to support laws and policies they
consider outright immoral (eg, Iraq, Vietnam, the war on drugs).
Topaz
wrote:
>
> Bullshit. If these men can rise above the multitude by their brains
>why
>do they need "the organisation" to practice it's "organising powers"
>to help them?
The multitude doesn't vote for brains. They vote for nice talkers who
tell them what they want to hear even if they aren't really going to
do any of it. An organizing power would be much better at locating
the brains.
>
>> It must start out from the
>> principle that the blessings of mankind never came from the masses but
>> from the creative brains of individuals, who are therefore the real
>> benefactors of humanity.
>
> And how does that conflict with anarchism?
If you really had anarchism, the gang with the most guns would be
the rulers. We should have civilization, not anarchy.
>
>> It is in the interest of all to assure men of creative brains a
>> decisive influence and facilitate their work.
>
> Which needs government how?
If you did have a government with brains you would see a big
improvement over what you have now.
>
> Anarchism is about nobody ruling, that's the point.
Who would pave the roads?
>
>> Only those should rule who have the natural tempermant and gifts of leadership."
>>
> Why? What good has rulership ever done anyone? You claim anarchy
>is chaos but what greater chaos was there ever than that caused by
>your moronic fueher?
By Walter Ruthard
I myself was brought up in a small village in the southwest of
Germany. In 1939, when the war broke out, we left for the less exposed
Odenwald area until the possible danger of a French invasion had
passed. Shortly after that my father was transferred to the Ruhr
region. He as requested work as a foreman for the Mauser arms factory.
The government, true to their claims to be national and socialist,
took their promises seriously and provided young people starting a
family, as well as those who already had children, with affordable
housing. The first child brought a reduction of the mortgage by 25
percent, and when the fourth child arrived the mortgage was no more.
My parents already had four children then and thus were eligible for a
free newly built house from the government.
This was but one of the many programs the government established in
order to improve the quality of life for its citizens…
Then there was the "Kinderlandverschickung" program. It was started
before the war and enabled mothers in need of recreation to spend some
time in rural settings together with their children…
Another very popular social program of the government was "Fraft
durch Freude" (strength through joy). Here deserving workers could
take all-inclusive tours on luxury liners that were built especially
for this purpose. On these ships there was only one class and
everybody was treated the same. They visited the Azores and
Spitsbergen among other places. Those ships were not allowed to dock
in and English port however. The reason was that the British
government did not want it's citizens to see what it also could have
done for them…
The most misinterpreted program in Germany was the so-called
"Lebensborn". It was the exact opposite of what people are made to
believe it was, or should I say, of what people like to believe… The
Lebensborn was the institution to help unwed mothers who did not know
where to turn for help. They were taken care of during their
pregnancies and afterward as well. This was the Lebensborn, and any
other interpretation is plain hogwash…
My father was able to buy not one but three guns plus two pistols,
together with plenty of ammunition. All it took him was proof that he
was indeed a German citizen without a criminal record. Then in 1945,
when the French "liberated" us, they disarmed him. I know that he was
not the only one to have guns at home, because I saw the many, many
arms that were handed over to the French, and this was in a very small
village…
Then, after the war was over, we had our first experience with a real
democracy. The French introduced it and gave us some shining examples;
one was that the lived off the country and stole everything which
wasn't nailed down…
It was not until many years later that I learned that Hitler held at
least five plebiscites during the first half of his rule. In
democratic Germany, from 1945 until today there has never been a
plebiscite.
There were foreign workers employed in Germany during WWII. I knew
one of them. He worked on a farm and was treated exactly like the son
who was in the army. After the war he stayed on and married the
daughter of the house. He was a prisoner of war from Poland and I
never saw him guarded by any policeman. This is how foreigners were
treated in Germany. They earned the same wages as the Germans, they
took part in the social insurance program, had paid-for holidays
including free train fares, and many came back with friends who also
wanted to work for these "horrible" Germans. Today they are called
slave laborer.
Not everyone was entitled to go on to a university. Only good marks
and above-average performance in schools qualified. But good
performers were promoted with all means available. Today we are much
more democratic; everyone is entitled to a university education and if
the parents are wealthy enough, the son or daughter can study until
they are 35…
Germany was also the country to introduce, in 1933, the first-ever
comprehensive animal protection law. Farm animals had to be kept in
strictly natural environments and no animal factories were allowed. Of
course, no testing of products on animals was permitted, and no kosher
slaughter.
If new industrial facilities were built they had to conform to the
highest standards with adequate lighting and air inside, canteens
where the workers were served nutritious meals at affordable prices,
and beautiful lawns outside: all for the benefit of the workers…In
national socialist Germany, no child labor was allowed as it still was
in other European countries.
And finally, although I could still go on for a while, I would like to
mention that on express orders from Hitler himself, it was strictly
forbidden to use corporal punishment in the army. He was of the
opinion that in was incompatible with the honor of a German to be
punished by such degrading means.
That was the Germany I grew up in, and I am glad that I did.
>
>> "Though all human civilization has resulted exclusively from the
>> creative activity of the individual, the principle that it is the mass
>> which counts--through the decision of the majority-- makes its
>> appearance only in the administration of the national community
>> especially in the higher grades; and from their downwards the poison
>> gradually filters into all branches of national life, thus causing a
>> veritable decomposition.
>
> This is a criticism of democracy not anarchy.
Why would your enemies not shoot you in the back if you were in an
anarchy?
> That would be strange when you consider how many outstanding
>individuals in ever field are jewish.
Mostly corrupt fields like banking and lawyers. No one claims that
Jews are unintelligent, but they are enemies.
> Anarchism is the exact opposite of Marxism.
Marxists are just like you. They said Communism was only a temporary
thing and only after they took over the earth would government be
dissolved and they would usher in Marxist anarchy. Maybe they were
taken for a ride with the wool pulled over their heads, but they
wanted anarchy.
> As for unionism
>not serving employees that's not what they think. Why should a
>failed painter know more than they do?
This painter knew more than everybody.
>
> Which is exactly the opposite of what totalitarianism does. The
>way to the top under the Nazis was loyalty and corruption not
>brains.
>
You are wrong and the Jews control your media.
Adolf Hitler
Volkischer Beobachter, 5th April 1934
"Do you know I have collected round me a whole staff of specialist on
the questions of economic, social, and political life whose sole duty
is criticism? Before we issue a law I show the draft to these men and
ask them, 'Please, is there anything wrong about this?' I do not wish
that they should simply say 'Yes' to everything. They have no value
for me if they do not criticize and tell me what faults might possibly
appear in the application of our measures."
Topaz
<tim.h...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>Both of you are wrong. Totalitarianism (left wing or right wing) and
>anarchy both do not work. The fact is in either case human beings are
>running things. Humans, whatever their intention, are more prone to do
> bad than good.
Nonsense.
> I do not trust a small unaccountable government nor
>unaccountable masses. A liberal social democratic system is best. One
>where both the government and the masses can check each other to prevent
>abuse. One where laws both protect the people's freedoms and prevent
>them from taking away other people's freedoms, as well as preventing the
>government from doing so. We need laws and rules to prevent both
>tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority.
National Socialism made everything good. Nothing else comes close.
Here is part of an essay by Dr. Robert Ley:
"Who concerned himself with creating good workplaces before? Today the
"Beauty in Labor Office" sees to it that productive people work in
worthy surroundings, not in dirty workplaces. The "Kraft durch Freude"
organization provides German workers with vacations and relaxation.
They travel to the mountains and the beach, and have the chance, often
for the first time, to explore their beautiful fatherland. They travel
in their own ships to the magical southern seas and countries, or to
the splendid beauty of the north. Each German citizen today enjoys the
wonderful achievements of German theater and German music, the best
German orchestras, the best German operas, theaters and films.
Citizens listen to the radio, and play any kind of sport they wish.
There new activities result not in dissipation, distraction and carnal
pleasure, rather in genuine pleasure in physical activity, nature and
culture. He who works hard should be able to enjoy life too so that he
better appreciates his people. The specter of unemployment no longer
haunts the nation. Millions have already found work again, and those
who still have not are cared for by the entire nation. Labor
representatives see to it that the rights of workers and their honor
are not violated, and the factory manager is as responsible for his
employees and they are responsible with him for the success of the
plant in which they together work...
Everyone knows that there is only one man to thank, Adolf Hitler, the
creator of National Socialism, who put the common good above the
individual good, who replaced class struggle of "above and below" and
"right and left" with a new message of the honor of labor and of
service to the people. The National Socialist Labor Service will see
to it that this teaching that makes the German worker the bearer of
the state never vanishes. It is seeing to it that every German
citizen, whatever his occupation may be, first works with his hands
for the good of the nation."
Topaz
wrote:
>
>In an anarchy, no one is "running things"; the system works because of
>its inherent characteristics, much like a market economic system works.
Neither work.
http://news.com.com/2100-1011_3-133261.html?tag=st_rn
More and more tech jobs head overseas
Last modified: December 24, 2003, 6:59 AM PST
By Reuters
U.S. corporations are picking up the pace in shifting well-paid
technology jobs to India, China and other low-cost centers, but they
are keeping quiet for fear of a backlash, industry professionals said.
Morgan Stanley estimates the number of U.S. jobs outsourced to India
will double to about 150,000 in the next three years. Analysts predict
as many as 2 million U.S. white-collar jobs such as those filled by
programmers, software engineers and applications designers will shift
to low- cost centers by 2014.
But the biggest companies looking to "offshoring" to cut costs, such
as Microsoft, IBM and AT&T Wireless, are reluctant to attract
attention for political reasons, observers said this week.
"The problem is that companies aren't sure if it's politically correct
to talk about it," said Jack Trout, a principal of Trout & Partners, a
marketing and strategy firm. "Nobody has come up with a way to spin it
in a positive way."
This causes a problem for publicly traded companies, which would
ordinarily brag about cost savings to investors. Instead, they send
vague signals that they are opening up operations in India and China,
but often decline to elaborate.
Moreover, on the threshold of a U.S. presidential election year, job
losses are a hot-button issue. A company that highlighted a major job
transfer could wind up in the campaign debate.
Multinationals find that when they trumpet expansion overseas, they
cause problems at home. When Accenture executives in India this month
announced plans to double their staff to 10,000 next year, they
triggered a flood of calls to the company's U.S. offices about U.S.
job losses.
Offshoring companies "are paying Chinese wages and selling at U.S.
prices," said Alan Tonelson, of the U.S. Business and Industrial
Council, a trade group for small business. "They're not creating
better living standards for America."...
>
>Humans in general are neither good nor bad. They evolved as social
>animals with certain inherent characteristics for cooperating for mutual
>benefit. It's true that there are some "bad" people, but government
>does not effectively deal with this problem;
Anarchy doesn't deal with this problem at all.
> what's more, the existence
>of government gives many of the bad people the opportunity to do evil on
>an even larger scale.
Nonsense. We should have a law against every bad thing.
>
>I don't either. That has nothing to do with anarchy.
>
>Those laws are made by people, interpreted by people, and enforced by
>people. Unless everyone agrees with a law or rule, it will be tyranny
>of the majority or tyranny of the minority, since a large portion of the
>population will disagree with the law but be forced to follow it. In
>many cases, they will be forced to support laws and policies they
>consider outright immoral (eg, Iraq, Vietnam, the war on drugs).
This web site explains what is going on with the "left" and the
"right" in the modern economic sense.
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm
The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call homosexual
perverts "gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.
The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
corrupt the culture of the nation.
Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize homosexual
perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.
The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only
about individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make
the nation better. There are beaches where normal families will not go
because homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
When the liberals say they are for freedom this is kind of thing they
are talking about. Of course people should be free to do what they
want most of the time. There is no argument there. Liberals are
talking about being free to do things that many people object to and
want outlawed. Their philosophy, taken to its logical conclusion,
would not allow the law that says drivers have to stop at the red
lights. Their philosophy would allow heroin to be sold on grocery
store shelves and allow ads promoting heroin on TV. Their philosophy
would result in chaos and degeneracy.
Libertarians are liberals who want freedom for the Ebenezer
Scrooges to be as greedy as they want. They have the same philosophy
as other leftist who want to legalize heroin and prostitution, namely
that the state can't tell them what they can't do. People don't like
laws stopping them from doing things, and we should sympathize with
that, but sometimes that is not the most important thing. Capitalists
want freedom for greed, other liberals want freedom for degeneracy,
but good laws would make a nation good.
The Communists were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and
the anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The
Communists were for having government but only temporarily. They said
that their government was necessary only until the whole world was
Communist. After the world was Communist they wanted to dissolve the
government and have an anarchy.
The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about the
present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future like in
Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the
freedom of individuals to be as decadent as they want. To see the kind
of society
libertarians are fighting for see the movie "8MM", they aren't for the
snuff part, but
other than that it shows liberalism in action.
Tim Howard
> Tim Howard wrote:
>> Both of you are wrong. Totalitarianism (left wing or right wing) and
>> anarchy both do not work. The fact is in either case human beings are
>> running things.
>
>
> In an anarchy, no one is "running things"; the system works because of
> its inherent characteristics, much like a market economic system works.
>
Yes, another example of why anarchy would be bad. But I digress. The
"inherent characteristics" of humans is that a few will rise to dominate
a group. Everyone has different personalities. Just laws are designed
to apply to everyone regardless of their personality. Anarchy would
only work under Utopian conditions, and we are thousands if not tens of
thousands of years from that, assuming we don't destroy ourselves first.
>> Humans, whatever their intention, are more prone to do bad than good.
>
>
> Humans in general are neither good nor bad.
I made no blanket statement on whether or not humans were bad or good, I
said we tend to do more bad than good, regardless of our intent. I
think most humans intend to do good.
They evolved as social
> animals with certain inherent characteristics for cooperating for mutual
> benefit.
There you go with that term again. Humans mainly operate out of
self-interest. When we do good things apparently for altruistic
reasons, usually it is because it makes us feel good about ourselves.
There is nothing wrong with this--the results are what counts. Early
humans realized that in order to cooperate with one another there needed
to be rules/norms/laws, and that they needed leaders to enforce all
this. It is called civilization.
It's true that there are some "bad" people, but government
> does not effectively deal with this problem;
And how would anarchy "deal with this problem"?
what's more, the existence
> of government gives many of the bad people the opportunity to do evil on
> an even larger scale.
>
Government is just a tool. It can be used for good or evil.
>
>> I do not trust a small unaccountable government nor unaccountable
>> masses.
>
> I don't either. That has nothing to do with anarchy.
>
It has everything to do with it. How will people be held accountable
under anarchy?
>
> > A liberal social democratic system is best. One
>> where both the government and the masses can check each other to
>> prevent abuse. One where laws both protect the people's freedoms and
>> prevent them from taking away other people's freedoms, as well as
>> preventing the government from doing so. We need laws and rules to
>> prevent both tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority.
>
>
> Those laws are made by people, interpreted by people, and enforced by
> people. Unless everyone agrees with a law or rule, it will be tyranny
> of the majority or tyranny of the minority, since a large portion of the
> population will disagree with the law but be forced to follow it.
I completely disagree with your premise.
In
> many cases, they will be forced to support laws and policies they
> consider outright immoral (eg, Iraq, Vietnam, the war on drugs).
If we had the opposite of those policies there would be people who would
not like it either. This line is irrelevant.
Tim Howard
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:50:45 -0700, Tim Howard
> <tim.h...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Both of you are wrong. Totalitarianism (left wing or right wing) and
>> anarchy both do not work. The fact is in either case human beings are
>> running things. Humans, whatever their intention, are more prone to do
>> bad than good.
>
> Nonsense.
>
>> I do not trust a small unaccountable government nor
>> unaccountable masses. A liberal social democratic system is best. One
>> where both the government and the masses can check each other to prevent
>> abuse. One where laws both protect the people's freedoms and prevent
>> them from taking away other people's freedoms, as well as preventing the
>> government from doing so. We need laws and rules to prevent both
>> tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority.
>
> National Socialism made everything good. Nothing else comes close.
>
> Here is part of an essay by Dr. Robert Ley:
>
What Topaz fails to mention is Ley (in English pronounced lie) was the
head of Hitler's German Labor Front, an organization designed to replace
the independent labor unions Hitler destroyed after taking over. He
also was one of Hitler's top propagandists. So consider the source.
> "Who concerned himself with creating good workplaces before? Today the
> "Beauty in Labor Office" sees to it that productive people work in
> worthy surroundings, not in dirty workplaces. The "Kraft durch Freude"
> organization provides German workers with vacations and relaxation.
Great propaganda tool, gotta give him that. But the other side of that
is all those vacations were paid by cutting German worker's wages. And
Ley skimme/d off the top. Here is what historian Robert Evans said:
"The DAF quickly began to gain a reputation as perhaps the most
corrupt of all the major institutions of the Third Reich. For this, Ley
himself had to shoulder a large part of the blame."
> They travel to the mountains and the beach, and have the chance, often
> for the first time, to explore their beautiful fatherland. They travel
> in their own ships to the magical southern seas and countries, or to
> the splendid beauty of the north.
Only allowed to go to pro-Nazi nations. The Nazi's were probably
concerned if people went to Western Europe they would defect, or tell
the world what evil was going on in Germany.
Each German citizen today enjoys the
> wonderful achievements of German theater and German music, the best
> German orchestras, the best German operas, theaters and films.
> Citizens lis//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////ten to the radio, and play any kind of sport they wish.
> There new activities result not in dissipation, distraction and carnal
> pleasure, rather in genuine pleasure in physical activity, nature and
> culture. He who works hard should be able to enjoy life too so* that he
Michael Price
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:14:07 -0700, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > Bullshit. If these men can rise above the multitude by their brains
> >why
> >do they need "the organisation" to practice it's "organising powers"
> >to help them?
>
> The multitude doesn't vote for brains.
Irrevelent, why would someone with brains need votes to rise above
the multitude? If one is truely more intelligent then absent serious
motivational problems one finds oneself with the ability to direct the
labour of many others. Unless the government interfers.
> They vote for nice talkers who
> tell them what they want to hear even if they aren't really going to
> do any of it. An organizing power would be much better at locating
> the brains.
>
Why? What would the organising power by made up of if not people
from the mass? They would get just as vulnerable to flatterers and
liars, hell more so because they have the power to cover up their
mistakes.
>
> >> It must start out from the
> >> principle that the blessings of mankind never came from the masses but
> >> from the creative brains of individuals, who are therefore the real
> >> benefactors of humanity.
>
> > And how does that conflict with anarchism?
>
> If you really had anarchism, the gang with the most guns would be
> the rulers. We should have civilization, not anarchy.
>
Well that's your claim, back it up. How could any gang make
themselves
rulers over people freely able to arm themselves?
>
> >> It is in the interest of all to assure men of creative brains a
> >> decisive influence and facilitate their work.
>
> > Which needs government how?
>
> If you did have a government with brains you would see a big
> improvement over what you have now.
>
On the contray, the more brains the government has the worse things
are. George Bush is brainless and bad for his country, Dick Cheney is
brilliant and an absolute disaster.
>
> > Anarchism is about nobody ruling, that's the point.
>
> Who would pave the roads?
>
I have explained this before you slow-witted racist, the people who
own them.
>
> >> Only those should rule who have the natural tempermant and gifts of leadership."
>
> > Why? What good has rulership ever done anyone? You claim anarchy
> >is chaos but what greater chaos was there ever than that caused by
> >your moronic fueher?
<snip same old lying propaganda that doesn't address the
point>
> >> "Though all human civilization has resulted exclusively from the
> >> creative activity of the individual, the principle that it is the mass
> >> which counts--through the decision of the majority-- makes its
> >> appearance only in the administration of the national community
> >> especially in the higher grades; and from their downwards the poison
> >> gradually filters into all branches of national life, thus causing a
> >> veritable decomposition.
>
> > This is a criticism of democracy not anarchy.
>
> Why would your enemies not shoot you in the back if you were in an
> anarchy?
>
Why would they? What would make them think that my family would
not
retaliate? Or my friends? Why would they want a reputation for
shooting
people in the back for no reason in a society where people who do that
can
be shot on sight?
> > That would be strange when you consider how many outstanding
> >individuals in ever field are jewish.
>
> Mostly corrupt fields like banking and lawyers.
No, there are outstanding Jews in every field from biology and
physics
to economics and medicine.
> No one claims that Jews are unintelligent, but they are enemies.
>
Because you want to take their stuff.
> > Anarchism is the exact opposite of Marxism.
>
> Marxists are just like you. They said Communism was only a temporary
> thing and only after they took over the earth would government be
> dissolved and they would usher in Marxist anarchy.
But there is absolutely on evidence that they meant it. I never
suggested
that a dictatorship be constructed that would one day lead to anarchy.
I suggested that anarchy be constructed, today if possible.
> Maybe they were taken for a ride with the wool pulled over their heads, but they
> wanted anarchy.
>
Then why did they do everything possible to strengthen the State?
You really
are the only person I know stupid enough to believe this.
> > As for unionism>not serving employees that's not what they think. Why should a
> >failed painter know more than they do?
>
> This painter knew more than everybody.
>
That's why he destoyed his country and suicided in a bunker is it?
>
> > Which is exactly the opposite of what totalitarianism does. The
> >way to the top under the Nazis was loyalty and corruption not
> >brains.
>
> You are wrong and the Jews control your media.
>
> Adolf Hitler
> Volkischer Beobachter, 5th April 1934
>
> "Do you know I have collected round me a whole staff of specialist on
> the questions of economic, social, and political life whose sole duty
> is criticism? Before we issue a law I show the draft to these men and
> ask them, 'Please, is there anything wrong about this?' I do not wish
> that they should simply say 'Yes' to everything. They have no value
> for me if they do not criticize and tell me what faults might possibly
> appear in the application of our measures."
A self-interested claim from a politician is not evidence moron.
Topaz
<tim.h...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>What part of that is nonsense?
The part that implies National Socialism wasn't great.
By Walter Ruthard
>What Topaz fails to mention is Ley (in English pronounced lie) was the
>head of Hitler's German Labor Front, an organization designed to replace
> the independent labor unions Hitler destroyed after taking over. He
>also was one of Hitler's top propagandists. So consider the source.
The Unions were for Communism and needed to be replaced.
>
>Great propaganda tool, gotta give him that. But the other side of that
>is all those vacations were paid by cutting German worker's wages.
Wages were great. Besides that, before Hitler made everything great,
they didn't have any wages or any jobs.
> And
>Ley skimme/d off the top. Here is what historian Robert Evans said:
> "The DAF quickly began to gain a reputation as perhaps the most
>corrupt of all the major institutions of the Third Reich. For this, Ley
>himself had to shoulder a large part of the blame."
Did Mr. Evans ever say anything good about the Third Reich? Did he
ever remove is lips from the aft ends of Jews for a minute?
>
>Only allowed to go to pro-Nazi nations. The Nazi's were probably
>concerned if people went to Western Europe they would defect, or tell
>the world what evil was going on in Germany.
That is the opposite of the truth. The Jews control your media and
your mind.
England's Guilt
by Joseph Goebbels
It is a major error to assume that England's plutocrats slipped into
the war against their will or even against their intentions. The
opposite is true. The English warmongers wanted the war and used all
the resources at their disposal over the years to bring it about. They
surely were not surprised by the war. English plutocracy had no goal
other than to unleash war against Germany at the right moment, and
this since Germany first began to seek once again to be a world power.
Poland really had little to do with the outbreak of war between the
Reich and England. It was only a means to an end. England did not
support the Polish government out of principle or for humanitarian
reasons. That is clear from the fact that England gave Poland no help
of any kind whatsoever when the war began. Nor did England take any
measures against Russia. The opposite, in fact. The London warring
clique to this day has tried to bring Russia into the campaign of
aggression against Germany.
The encirclement of Germany long before the outbreak of the war was
traditional English policy. From the beginning, England has always
directed its main military might against Germany. It never could
tolerate a strong Reich on the Continent. It justified its policy by
claiming that it wanted to maintain a balance of forces in Europe.
Today there is still another reason. The English warmongers conceal
it. It is crassly egotistic. The English prime minister announced the
day the war began that England's goal was to destroy Hitlerism.
However, he defined Hitlerism in a way other than how the English
plutocracy actually sees it. The English warmongers claim that
National Socialism wants to conquer the world. No nation is secure
against German aggression. An end must be made of the German hunger
for power. The limit came in the conflict with Poland. In reality,
however, there is another reason for England's war with Germany. The
English warmongers cannot seriously claim that Germany wants to
conquer the world, particularly in view of the fact that England
controls nearly two thirds of the world. And Germany since 1933 has
never threatened English interests.
So when Chamberlain says that England wants to destroy Hitlerism in
this war, he is in one sense incorrect. But in another sense, he is
speaking the truth. England does want to destroy Hitlerism. It sees
Hitlerism as the present internal state of the Reich, which is a thorn
in the eye of English plutocracy.
England is a capitalist democracy. Germany is a socialist people's
state. And it is not the case that we think England is the richest
land on earth. There are lords and City men in England who are in fact
the richest men on earth. The broad masses, however, see little of
this wealth. We see in England an army of millions of impoverished,
socially enslaved and oppressed people. Child labor is still a matter
of course there. They have only heard about social welfare programs.
Parliament occasionally discusses social legislation. Nowhere else is
there such terrible and horrifying inequality as in the English slums.
Those with good breeding take no notice of it. Should anyone speak of
it in public, the press, which serves plutocratic democracy, quickly
brands him the worst kind of rascal. They do not hesitate from making
major changes in the Constitution if they are necessary to preserve
capitalist democracy.
Capitalism democracy suffers from every possible modern social
ailment. The Lords and City people can remain the richest people one
earth only because they constantly maintain their wealth by exploiting
their colonies and preserving unbelievable poverty in their own
country.
Germany, on the other hand, has based its domestic policies on new and
modern social principles. That is why it is a danger to English
plutocracy. It is also why English capitalists want to destroy
Hitlerism. They see Hitlerism as all the generous social reforms that
have occurred in Germany since 1933. The English plutocrats rightly
fear that good things are contagious, that they could endanger English
capitalism.
That is why England declared war on Germany. Since it was accustomed
to letting others fight its wars, it looked to the European continent
to find those ready to fight for England's interests. France was ready
to take on this degrading duty, since the same kind of people ruled
France. They too were ready for war out of egotistic reasons. Western
European democracy is really only a Western European plutocracy that
rules the world. It declared war on German socialism because it
endangered their capitalist interests.
A similar drama began in 1914. England had more luck during those four
and a half years than it is having today. Europe's nations had no
chance to see what was happening. The nations of Europe today have no
desire to play the same role they played during the World War. England
and France stand alone. Still, England is trying once again to wage
war without making any personal sacrifice. The goal is to blockade
Germany, to gradually bring it to submit by starvation. That is
longstanding English policy. They used it successfully in the
Napoleonic wars, and also during the World War. It would work now as
well, if the German people had not been educated by National
Socialism. National Socialism is immune to English temptations.
English propaganda lies no longer work in Germany. They have gradually
lost their effectiveness in the rest of the world as well, since
German propaganda today reaches far beyond its borders. This time,
English plutocracy will not succeed in driving a wedge between the
German people and their leadership, though that is their goal.
The German nation today is defending not only its honor and
independence, but also the great social accomplishments it has made
through hard and untiring work since 1933. It is a people's state
built on the foundation of justice and economic good sense. In the
past, England always had the advantage of facing a fragmented Germany.
It is only natural that English plutocracy today seeks to split the
German people and make it ripe for new collapse.
English lying propaganda can no longer name things by their proper
names. It therefore claims that it is not fighting the German people,
only Hitlerism. But we know this old song. In South Africa, England
was not fighting the Boers, only Krugerism. In the World War, England
wanted to destroy Kaiserism, not the German people. But that did not
stop English plutocracy from brutally and relentlessly suppressing the
Boers after that war or the Germans after our defeat.
A child once burned is twice shy. The German people were once victims
of lying English war propaganda. Now it understands the situation. It
has long understood the background of this war. It knows that behind
all English plutocratic capitalism's fine words, its aim is to destroy
Germany's social achievements. We are defending the socialism we have
build in Germany since 1933 with every military, economic and
spiritual means at our disposal. The bald English lies have no impact
on the German people.
English plutocracy is finally being forced to defend itself. In the
past, it always found other nations to fight for it. This time, the
English people must themselves risk their necks for the lords and City
men. They will meet a unified German people of workers, farmers and
soldiers who are prepared to defend their nation with every means at
their disposal.
We did not want war. England inflicted it on us. English plutocracy
forced it on us. England is responsible for the war, and it will have
to pay for it.
The whole world is waking up today. It can no longer be ruled by the
capitalist methods of the 19th Century. The peoples have matured. They
will one day deal a terrible blow to the capitalist plutocrats who are
the cause of their misery.
It is no accident that National Socialism has the historical task of
carrying out this reckoning. Plutocracy is collapsing intellectually,
spiritually, and in the not too distant future, militarily. We are
acting consistently with Nietzsche's words: "Give a shove to what is
falling."
Topaz
wrote:
>
> Irrevelent, why would someone with brains need votes to rise above
>the multitude? If one is truely more intelligent then absent serious
>motivational problems one finds oneself with the ability to direct the
>labour of many others. Unless the government interfers.
That may work in business. But the best brains often don't get to be
political leaders unless their is a system that promotes it. Look at
Bush. He is the president of the United States. And the main thing he
lacks is brains.
> Why? What would the organising power by made up of if not people
>from the mass? They would get just as vulnerable to flatterers and
>liars, hell more so because they have the power to cover up their
>mistakes.
>>
>> If you really had anarchism, the gang with the most guns would be
>> the rulers. We should have civilization, not anarchy.
>>
> Well that's your claim, back it up. How could any gang make
>themselves
>rulers over people freely able to arm themselves?
You think you would be safe if you were fast with a gun and a good
shot, wrong. The mafia like gang could just shoot you in the back. Or
they could have a sniper waiting for you to come out of your house.
>
> On the contray, the more brains the government has the worse things
>are. George Bush is brainless and bad for his country, Dick Cheney is
>brilliant and an absolute disaster.
Of course, besides having brains, they would have to be good people.
>> Who would pave the roads?
>>
> I have explained this before you slow-witted racist, the people who
>own them.
So some people would own the roads and could tell other people to stay
off the roads. This is what you call freedom.
> Why would they? What would make them think that my family would
>not
>retaliate? Or my friends? Why would they want a reputation for
>shooting
>people in the back for no reason in a society where people who do that
>can
>be shot on sight?
For example, they might want your car.
>
> No, there are outstanding Jews in every field from biology and
>physics
>to economics and medicine.
But not many Black people. That's why they have affirmative action.
>>
>> Marxists are just like you. They said Communism was only a temporary
>> thing and only after they took over the earth would government be
>> dissolved and they would usher in Marxist anarchy.
>
> But there is absolutely on evidence that they meant it. I never
>suggested
>that a dictatorship be constructed that would one day lead to anarchy.
>I suggested that anarchy be constructed, today if possible.
>
> Then why did they do everything possible to strengthen the State?
>You really
>are the only person I know stupid enough to believe this.
On the contrary you are the one who doesn't know what is going on.
You think communists like big government. Actually they are a lot like
you.
This is from the Communist party USA
http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/758/
"Communists advocate socialism as the first phase of a new stage of
society, but we don't think that social and economic development will
end at socialism. We see socialist society eventually leading to a
higher phase-communism-where the capitalist class and all classes will
have disappeared, replaced by a commonwealth of all working people,
and where national and racial enmity and prejudice will be things of
the past. In communist society, the essentials of life will be
plentiful and readily available to all, and the repressive apparatus
of government will wither away leaving purely administrative
functions."
>
> That's why he destoyed his country and suicided in a bunker is it?
His country was destroyed by the evil allies obviously. And German
leaders believed in death before dishonor. They knew the allies were
subhuman monsters:
Eyewitness account by Mrs. Leonora Geier (nee Cavoa, born Oct 22,
1925, Sao Paulo,
Brazil) to Dr. Trutz Foelsche, Ph.D
Deutsche Nationalzeitung, No. 17-65, p. 7:
"On the morning of February, 16, (1945) a Russian detachment
occupied the RAD
(Reichsarbeitsdienst) camp Vilmsee near Neustettin. The Commissar told
me in good
German language that the camp was dissolved and that we, as a unit
with uniforms (RAD - German Labour Service, not military uniforms),
would be transported to a collection camp. Since I, as a Brazilian
citizen, belong to an allied nation, he asked me to take over
as a leader of the transport that went to Neustettin, into the yard of
the former iron factory. We were about 500 girls (Maidens of the
Reichsarbeitsdienst - German Labour Service).
He said I could come into the orderly room, which I accepted.
Immediately he directed
me to make no further contact with other women, because they were
members of an illegal army. On my response that this what not true, he
cut me off with the remark that I would be shot immediately, if I
would repeat in any form a similar statement.
"Suddenly I heard loud screams, and promptly five girls were brought
in by the two Red Armists. The Commissar ordered them to undress. When
they, in a sense of shame, refused to do so, he ordered me to undress
them and follow him with the girls. We walked through the yard to the
former factory kitchen, which was completely cleared out
except for some tables along the window wall. It was dreadfully cold
and the unfortunate girls trembled. In the huge tiled room several
Russians waited for us who were obviously making obscene remarks
because every word was followed by loud laughter.
The Commissar then directed me to watch how one makes sissies out of
'The Master Race'.
Now two Poles, clad in trousers only, entered the room. At their
sight the girls cried out.
Briskly, they seized the first of the two girls and bent her over with
her back over the edge of the table until her joints cracked. I almost
fainted when one of the men pulled his knife and cut off her right
breast in the presence of the other girls. I have never heard a
human being scream as desperately as this young woman. After this
'operation' both men stabbed her several times in the abdomen,
accompanied by the howling of the Russians.
The next girl cried for mercy, in vain, since she was exceptionally
pretty. I had the impression that the 'work' was carried out very
slowly. The other three girls were completely broken down, cried for
their mothers and begged for a speedy death, but also
fate them overtook.
The last of the girls was still half a child, with barely developed
breasts, one tore the
flesh literally from her ribs until the white bone appeared.
Again, five girls were brought in. This time, they had been selected
carefully. All were
developed and pretty. When they saw the bodies of their predecessors,
they began to cry and scream. Weak as they were, they tried to defend
themselves but to no avail; the Poles became more cruel every time.
One of the girls, they cut open her womb and trunk over the whole
length; poured a can of machine oil into the mutilated body and tried
to set fire
to it. Another was shot in the genitals by a Russia, before they cut
off her breasts.
A great howling began when someone brought a saw from a toolbox.
Now, using the saw, they set to work to the breasts of the girls to
pieces, which in a short period of time
led to the floor being covered with blood. A blood rage seized the
Russians. Continuously
one of them brought more and more girls.
Like a red fog, I saw the gruesome happenings again and again and I
perceived the inhuman screaming at the torture of their breasts and
the load groaning at the mutilation of their private parts. When my
legs failed me I was forced into a chair. The Commissar persistently
watched me to make sure I was looking toward the torture scenes. In
fact, when I had to vomit, they even paused with their tortures. One
girl had not undressed completely, she may have been somewhat older
than the rest of the girls who were about 17-years old. One of the
torturers soaked her bra with oil and ignited it and, while she cried
out, another drove a thin iron rod into her vagina until it emerged at
her naval.
In the yard they liquidated entire groups of girls, after they had
selected the prettiest ones for the torture room. The air was filled
with the death cries of many hundreds of girls. But in view of what
happened here, the slaughter outside could be considered more humane.
It was a dreadful fact that not one of the girls brought into the
torture room lost here consciousness.
In their horror all were equal in their expressions. It was always
the same; the begging for mercy, the high-pitched scream when their
breasts were cut and their genitals mutilated. Several times the
slaughter was interrupted to sweep out the blood and to clear away the
corpses.
That evening I sank into a severe nerve fever. From then on I lack
any recollection
until the moment I awoke in a military hospital. German troops had
recaptured Neustettin temporarily, and had liberated us. As I learned
later, approximately 2,000 girls were murdered during the first three
days of the first round of Russian occupation."
Dr. Zarkov
> Dr. Zarkov wrote:
>> Tim Howard wrote:
>
>>> Both of you are wrong. Totalitarianism (left wing or right wing) and
>>> anarchy both do not work. The fact is in either case human beings
>>> are running things.
>>
>>
>> In an anarchy, no one is "running things"; the system works because of
>> its inherent characteristics, much like a market economic system works.
>>
> Yes, another example of why anarchy would be bad. But I digress. The
> "inherent characteristics" of humans is that a few will rise to dominate
> a group.
It is more likely that a few will dominate a group under a government
than an anarchy.
> Everyone has different personalities. Just laws are designed
> to apply to everyone regardless of their personality. Anarchy would
> only work under Utopian conditions, and we are thousands if not tens of
> thousands of years from that, assuming we don't destroy ourselves first.
The same could be said about a government making "just laws." It does
not require utopian conditions for an anarchy to work any more than it
requires utopian conditions for a free market to work or for any group
of social animals to "work."
>> Humans...evolved as social
>> animals with certain inherent characteristics for cooperating for
>> mutual benefit.
>
>
> There you go with that term again. Humans mainly operate out of
> self-interest. When we do good things apparently for altruistic
> reasons, usually it is because it makes us feel good about ourselves.
Unless you take the position that everything is ultimately done from
self-interest (which amounts to a tautology), that simply is not true.
Most people generally have real concern and sympathy for at least some
other people. But the motivation is not the point in any case. It's
the behavior that counts. And the evolutionary concept of inclusive
fitness explains it quite well. Social animals thereby maximize the
survival of their genes, but other members of the group have many of the
same genes (worker bees being the classic example).
> There is nothing wrong with this--the results are what counts. Early
> humans realized that in order to cooperate with one another there needed
> to be rules/norms/laws, and that they needed leaders to enforce all
> this. It is called civilization.
>
> It's true that there are some "bad" people, but government
>
>> does not effectively deal with this problem;
>
>
> And how would anarchy "deal with this problem"?
It depends on the type of anarchy. In an individualistic anarchy or
anarcho-capitalism, private protection/justice agencies would be available.
> what's more, the existence
>
>> of government gives many of the bad people the opportunity to do evil
>> on an even larger scale.
>>
> Government is just a tool. It can be used for good or evil.
And it is frequently used for evil. What's more, it does not even
provide the justice or protection against evil that you claim is so
critical. Even in a relatively benign state like the U.S., the net
protection provided by government is barely significant. Look up the
figures. Very few crimes are ever solved (about one or two percent);
nor is there any evidence that the police have a significant effect in
preventing crime. What's more, the police and government do a great
deal of evil themselves, eg, harassing, beating, imprisoning, and even
killing innocent people. See the references at the end.
>>> I do not trust a small unaccountable government nor unaccountable
>>> masses.
>>
>>
>> I don't either. That has nothing to do with anarchy.
>>
> It has everything to do with it. How will people be held accountable
> under anarchy?
This was answered above. For a detailed analysis of how such a system
would function, see David Friedman's _The Machinery of Freedom_ (some
available on-line)
http://tinyurl.com/2zppwg
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Contents.html
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
>> > A liberal social democratic system is best. One
>>> where both the government and the masses can check each other to
>>> prevent abuse. One where laws both protect the people's freedoms and
>>> prevent them from taking away other people's freedoms, as well as
>>> preventing the government from doing so. We need laws and rules to
>>> prevent both tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority.
>>
>>
>> Those laws are made by people, interpreted by people, and enforced by
>> people. Unless everyone agrees with a law or rule, it will be tyranny
>> of the majority or tyranny of the minority, since a large portion of
>> the population will disagree with the law but be forced to follow it.
>
>
> I completely disagree with your premise.
>
>> In
>> many cases, they will be forced to support laws and policies they
>> consider outright immoral (eg, Iraq, Vietnam, the war on drugs).
>
>
> If we had the opposite of those policies there would be people who would
> not like it either. This line is irrelevant.
You seem to have missed the point: By its very nature, government forces
at least some people, in many cases a significant portion of the
population, to follow policies against their will. It often forces them
to support things they consider morally wrong. What gives the
government or the majority the right to impose its will on everyone else?
Under anarchy, no one is forced to follow such policies. People
undertake all projects by mutual agreement. If some persons want to
voluntarily form their own associations or governments (on their own
land, for example), they are free to do so--as long as they do not try
to impose them on others. Indeed, many different types of
social-political systems could be available.
References for police/government inefficiency and abuse
In only about 2% of violent crimes and 1% of crimes overall is someone
caught and convicted of the crime.
Malcolm C Young, Marc Mauer: "...ultimately, only about 2 percent of
violent crimes result in a conviction." ("Tougher Laws Will Not Prevent
Crime." In: _Crime_, P. Winters, ed. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1998)
Less than half (about 42%) of all murders are ever solved, and that's
using DoJ/FBI figures for clearance, percentage prosecuted, and
percentage convicted and assuming NO unreported or unknown murders (see,
eg, _Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice_, 2nd ed. J Dressler, editor.
Macmillan 2002).
In one study, in only 11% of reported cases of sexual assault was
someone convicted (Gray-Eurom K, Seaberg DC, Wears RL: The prosecution
of sexual assault cases: Correlation with forensic evidence. Ann Emerg
Med 2002; 39:39-46.)
What's more, the Department of Justice's own data on victimization
(e.g., for 2004 Table 91 Criminal Victimization in the United
States--Percent distribution of victimizations, by type of crime and
whether or not reported to the police
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0491.pdf) found that
about 57.5% of crimes overall, and nearly 50% of all violent crimes are
never reported. In _Criminal Violence, Criminal Justice_ by Charles
Silberman, Random House, New York (p76), it states: "Census Bureau
surveys of crime victims indicate that only about half of all robberies,
less than half of all burglaries, and about one-fourth of all larcenies
are reported to the police."
Kansas City preventive patrol experiment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_City_preventive_patrol_experiment
The Kansas City preventive patrol experiment was a landmark
experiment...by the Kansas City Police Department. It was evaluated by
the Police Foundation. It was designed to test the assumption that the
presence (or potential presence) of police officers in marked cars
reduced the likelihood of a crime being committed.
The design took three police beats in Kansas City, and varied patrol
routine in them. The first group received no routine patrols, instead
the police responded only to calls from residents. The second group had
the normal level of patrols, while the third had two to three times as
many patrols.
Victim surveys, reported crime rates, arrest data, a survey of local
businesses, attitudinal surveys, and trained observers who monitored
police-citizen interaction were used to gather data.
Major findings
1. Citizens did not notice the difference when the frequency of
patrols was changed.
2. Increasing or decreasing the level of patrol had no significant
effect on resident and commercial burglaries, auto thefts, larcenies
involving auto accessories, robberies, or vandalism-crimes.
3. The rate at which crimes were reported did not differ
significantly across the experimental beats.
4. Citizen reported fear of crime was not affected by different
levels of patrol.
5. Citizen satisfaction with police did not vary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David H. Bayley, Ph.D. (Princeton University), Distinguished Professor
of Criminal Justice, School of Criminal Justice, State University of New
York at Albany:
_Police for the Future_ Oxford University Press: New York 1994
"The police do not prevent crime (Ch 1)...Dishonest law enforcement...is
by and large what we have now. It occurs when the police promise to
prevent crime but actually provide something else - namely,
authoritative intervention and symbolic justice." (p. 124)
A study of policing in Detroit from 1926 and 1977 found no relationship
between policing and crime rate (Ch 1)
--_What Works in Policing_ by David H. Bayley (Editor). New York:
Oxford University Press, 1998.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are a few of the completely innocent people killed by police. Ask
their families how much protection the government police/justice system
gives the poor and minorities:
Patrick Dorismond--a security guard killed after saying no to an
attempted drug entrapment by an undercover cop looking to fill a nightly
arrest quota.
William J. Whitfield, shot dead in a New York supermarket by police who
said they mistook the keys he was carrying for a gun
Amadou Diallo--killed in a hail of 41 bullets for acting "suspicious" on
his own doorstep
Alberto Sepulveda--an 11-year-old shot in the back
Anibal Carrasquillo (shot for turning to face the police officer in "a
gun stance.")
Dwain Lee--an actor shot 4 times in the back at a costume party
Mario Paz, a 63-year-old grandfather shot twice in the back in a typical
botched drug raid of a wrong address
Frank Lobato, 63, an invalid who needed crutches to move around, who was
unarmed and in bed watching TV when cops climbed through the
second-story window and opened his closed bedroom door. Police said they
thought a can of soda he was holding was a weapon.
Pedro Oregon Navarro, shot 12 times, hit 9 times in the back and killed,
during a warrantless drug raid on his apartment.
These are examples of just some of the worst instances. The fact is
that the police routinely harass, arrest, humiliate, beat, and even kill
the poor and minorities with impunity. Not that their treatment of
others is much better. They can get away with it because THEY ARE
GOVERNMENT AGENTS.
What's more, since the advent of DNA testing allowed definitive
resolution of guilt or innocence in some cases, some studies of people
convicted and imprisoned for years and later exonerated by DNA testing
of other definitive means have reported that up to 25% of persons
convicted are actually innocent.
See, for example, The Innocence Project
http://www.law.washington.edu/ipnw/
_Actual Innocence_by Dwyer, Scheck, Neufeld, New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Dorothy Rabinowitz's book and articles of people falsely convicted:
http://www.injusticebusters.com/2003/Rabinowitz_interview.htm
No Crueler Tyrannies: Accusation, False Witness, and Other Terrors of
Our Times
by Dorothy Rabinowitz, Wall Street Journal book, Free Press, NY, NY, 2003
An extensive study published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (beginning
11/22/98) found hundreds of instances of police and prosecutors lying,
hiding evidence, distorting facts, engaging in cover-ups, paying for
perjury, and setting up innocent people in order to win indictments and
convictions. One former U.S. attorney, Robert Merkle, remarked, "It's a
results-oriented process today; fairness be damned. The philosophy of
the past 10 to 15 years [is] that whatever works is what's right."
Many studies and investigations have reported the same results. For
example:
Shielded from Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United
States
http://www.hrw.org/reports98/police/uspo18.htm
Mollen Commission
According to the commission, "....we found that cops did not simply
become corrupt; they sometimes became corrupt and violent."
"We'd just beat people in general....to show who was in charge."
- Former NYPD officer Bernard Cawley at Mollen Commission hearings.
The Mollen Commission:
"As important as the possible extent of brutality, is the extent of
brutality tolerance we found throughout the Department....[O]fficers
seem fairly tolerant - both outwardly and inwardly - of occasional
police brutality...This tolerance, or willful blindness, extends to
supervisors as well....[W]hen cops come to the stationhouse with a
visibly beaten suspect...[supervisors] often do not question the story
they hear."
"One officer, Michael T. Kalanz, kept $1 million dollars cash in his
police locker as part of, what federal investigators said was, a Cali
drug cartel money laundering operation. Most of the other indicted
officers were charged with "booming doors," i.e., raiding apartments and
robbing the occupants and beating innocent residents with their radios,
clubs, and flash lights."
Christopher Commission (Los Angeles)
"[T]he failure to control these [repeatedly abusive] officers is a
management issue that is at the heart of the problem....The LAPD's
failure to analyze and act upon these revealing data evidences a
significant breakdown in the management and leadership of the Department."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Police Crime
By Christian Parenti
http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/mar96parenti.htm
A similar pattern of police gangs and brutal armed robbery by cops has
emerged in Philadelphia's 39th police district and among an elite
highway patrol unit. Federal prosecutors charge that the officers --
some of whom where known to North Philadelphians as the Four Horsemen of
the Apocalypse -- used their police powers to locate crack houses and
drug distribution hubs which could then be raided for cash, cocaine, and
weapons. The cocaine was then used to pay informants, setup suspects,
bribe witnesses, and buy sexual favors.
"What's most disturbing about the Philly corruption," says Lynn
Washington, legal scholar and editor of the Philadelphia New Observer,
"is that the DA knew what the cops were up to, but tolerated their use
of planted evidence because it boosted conviction rates."
Cleveland 1991 -- 30 police officers are among forty seven individuals
indicted for extortion, obstruction of justice, narcotics dealing, and
gambling.
Gary, Indiana 1991, the entire vice squad is indicted on charges of
extortion, dealing narcotics and robbing drug dealers during phony drug
raids, as well as one count of murder.
Detroit 1991 -- the former police chief, William Hart, and his deputy
chief, Kenneth Weiner, are found guilty of embezzling $2.6 million from
a special fund for undercover investigations.
Camden, New Jersey, 1991 -- Detective Allen R. Schott is arrested and
charged with robbing two banks. In 1995 officers in Jersey City, New
Jersey are charged with selling themselves 113 impounded cars at
discount prices. Newark's chief of police is suspended while under
investigation.
New Orleans 1994 -- ten officers, from what is ranked as the most brutal
police department in the country, are indicted for dealing drugs and
guns. One officer is charged with arranging the murder of a woman who
filed brutality charges against him. The next year, officer Antoinette
Frank is found guilty of robbing a restaurant and murdering three people
in the process, one of whom is her own off-duty partner.
Greenpoint, New York -- 1994, the entire police department (nine
officers in all) is disbanded due to corruption, ineptitude, and
widespread drug and alcohol abuse by on-duty officers.
In another case that has not gone to court, a white professional whose
home was raided for methamphetamine and mescaline, lost $3,000 dollars
worth of video and computer equipment to a SFPD narcotics squad. A 1995
New Years Eve raid on an AIDS benefit in San Francisco's SOMA district
reveals a similar pattern of missing cash, computers, and video
equipment. The victims of that raid -- mostly white political activists
-- are suing and the 21 cops who conducted the raid are being
investigated. But as criminal defense attorney Rose Braz points out,
"most people are too scared and too poor to press charges when the
police rip them off. And most juries and judges think the cops are the
only thing between them and chaos."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia's police are grappling with the latest of the corruption
and brutality scandals that have earned them one of the worst
reputations of big city police departments in the United States.
...Police officers who should not have remained on the force have
unlawfully injured and killed citizens, the city has paid enormous sums
in settlements and awards to victims of police misconduct, and many
minority communities are distrustful of police officers who too often
act like criminals. The shortcomings of the department are reinforced by
a police union that tirelessly defends officers accused of human rights
violations and fights efforts at independent oversight.
Officers... convicted on charges of making false arrests, filing false
reports, and robbing drug suspects.2 Officers raided drug houses, stole
money from dealers, beat anyone who got in the way and, as a judge
trying one of the ringleaders stated, generally "squashed the Bill of
Rights into the mud."3 Due to exposure of the officers' actions,
thousands of drug convictions were under review as of the end of 1997,
with between 160 and 300 cases already overturned because the suspects
were arrested by officers known or believed to have been involved in
misconduct.4 Following the revelations in the courtroom and press, staff
in the police department's Internal Affairs Division (IAD) were
transferred, apparently as punishment. No supervisors, and no one from
the district attorney's office (which ignored warnings from the city's
public defender's office, as early as 1989, that the fabricated
justifications given by the officers to enter homes and conduct drug
raids were identical in case after case), was held accountable.5 In
fact, the district attorney acknowledged in a January 1997 deposition
that, "We have changed nothing in the office with respect to trying to
guarantee that police officers are all going to be credible."6
The only positive aspect of this recent round of exposure of abuse is
that Philadelphia finally agreed to major reforms. Because the city was
faced with paying millions of dollars in civil settlements as a result
of the 39th District scandal, it agreed to work with attorneys and local
police abuse experts to reform the police department. On September 4,
1996, in a far-reaching court-monitored agreement, Philadelphia agreed
to changes that, if implemented, could make the city's police department
a role model for accountability. Although the overdue reforms were only
agreed to under the threat of a class-action lawsuit, it is possible
that the agreement will prevent serious abuse from recurring. An FBI
official warns, however, "The history of these kinds of scandals is that
cops go right back to acting as they always have when the dust settles,
because the pressure they most feel is the pressure to produce results,
the constant demand to get the job done."7
1 Don Terry, "Philadelphia shaken by criminal police officers," New York
Times, August 28, 1995.
2 Michael Kramer, "How cops go bad," Time magazine, December 15, 1997.
3 Mark Fazlollah, "From prison, ex-cops call offenses routine,"
Philadelphia Inquirer, May 12, 1996.
4 Mark Fazlollah, "Phila. ordered to report on police," Philadelphia
Inquirer, March 28, 1997;
Christopher McDougall, "Law and Disorder," Philadelphia Weekly, June 18,
1997. Time
magazine reported the figure of one-hundred and sixty. Kramer, "How cops
go bad, Time magazine, December 15, 1997.
5 Interview with Brad Bridge, city public defender's office, August 20,
1996, and Ibid.
6 McDougall, "Law and Disorder," Philadelphia Weekly.
7 Michael Kramer, "How cops go bad," Time magazine, December 15, 1997
Michael Price
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 02:48:07 -0700, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > Irrevelent, why would someone with brains need votes to rise above
> >the multitude? If one is truely more intelligent then absent serious
> >motivational problems one finds oneself with the ability to direct the
> >labour of many others. Unless the government interfers.
>
> That may work in business. But the best brains often don't get to be
> political leaders unless their is a system that promotes it.
So then you agree there should not be any political leaders
presumably? What "system" could make the best brains political
leaders, rather than those best able to persuade people that they
are good leaders? Certainly not national socialism that depended
deeply on people being convinced of absurdities.
> Look at Bush. He is the president of the United States. And the
> main thing he lacks is brains.
>
So why have a President?
> > Why? What would the organising power by made up of if not people
> > from the mass? They would get just as vulnerable to flatterers and
> > liars, hell more so because they have the power to cover up their
> > mistakes.
>
> >> If you really had anarchism, the gang with the most guns would be
> >> the rulers. We should have civilization, not anarchy.
>
> > Well that's your claim, back it up. How could any gang make
> >themselves rulers over people freely able to arm themselves?
>
> You think you would be safe if you were fast with a gun and a good
> shot, wrong.
No I think I would be safe whether or not I am fast with a gun or
a good shot. That's what professional protection agencies and/or
militia alliances are for.
> The mafia like gang could just shoot you in the back. Or
> they could have a sniper waiting for you to come out of your house.
>
And my relatives could have one waiting for them. You claimed that
the "mafia" would take control. How? How would anyone control
a society where everyone can be armed and is entitled to defend their
rights with lethal force?
>
> > On the contray, the more brains the government has the worse things
> >are. George Bush is brainless and bad for his country, Dick Cheney is
> >brilliant and an absolute disaster.
>
> Of course, besides having brains, they would have to be good people.
>
And if they're good people why would they want to have the monopoly
of force?
> >> Who would pave the roads?
>
> > I have explained this before you slow-witted racist, the people who
> >own them.
>
> So some people would own the roads and could tell other people to stay
> off the roads. This is what you call freedom.
>
And those people could travel on someone else's roads. People
already tell people to stay off their trains, is that not freedom?
> > Why would they? What would make them think that my family would
> >not retaliate? Or my friends? Why would they want a reputation for
> >shooting people in the back for no reason in a society where people
> > who do that can be shot on sight?
>
> For example, they might want your car.
>
And that's worth everyone being willing and legally able to kill
them on sight? Fuck you're a loon.
>
> > No, there are outstanding Jews in every field from biology and
> >physics to economics and medicine.
>
> But not many Black people.
So you admit that you lied when you claimed that there were
only a lot of outstanding jews in "corrupt" fields?
> That's why they have affirmative action.
>
> >> Marxists are just like you. They said Communism was only a temporary
> >> thing and only after they took over the earth would government be
> >> dissolved and they would usher in Marxist anarchy.
>
> > But there is absolutely on evidence that they meant it. I never
> >suggested
> >that a dictatorship be constructed that would one day lead to anarchy.
> >I suggested that anarchy be constructed, today if possible.
>
> > Then why did they do everything possible to strengthen the State?
> > You really are the only person I know stupid enough to believe this.
>
> On the contrary you are the one who doesn't know what is going on.
> You think communists like big government. Actually they are a lot like
> you.
>
When did they not do their best to promote big government? Don't
tell me4 what they say, tell me what they do.
> This is from the Communist party USAhttp://www.cpusa.org/article/static/758/
> "Communists advocate socialism as the first phase of a new stage of
> society, but we don't think that social and economic development will
> end at socialism. We see socialist society eventually leading to a
> higher phase-communism-where the capitalist class and all classes will
> have disappeared, replaced by a commonwealth of all working people,
> and where national and racial enmity and prejudice will be things of
> the past. In communist society, the essentials of life will be
> plentiful and readily available to all, and the repressive apparatus
> of government will wither away leaving purely administrative
> functions."
>
And they were lying you massive moron. How stupid do you have
to be to believe official Marxist propaganda?
>
> > That's why he destoyed his country and suicided in a bunker is it?
>
> His country was destroyed by the evil allies obviously.
No it was destroyed by the war he started.
> And German leaders believed in death before dishonor.
Then he was 12 years too late at least.
> They knew the allies were subhuman monsters:
>
> Eyewitness account by Mrs. Leonora Geier (nee Cavoa, born Oct 22,
> 1925, Sao Paulo,
> Brazil) to Dr. Trutz Foelsche, Ph.D
Who describes _Soviet_ brutality, not Anglo-American acts. Of
course
none of these acts were done by Jews were they?
Tim Howard
> It is more likely that a few will dominate a group under a government
> than an anarchy.
Can you prove that?
>
> > Everyone has different personalities. Just laws are designed
> > to apply to everyone regardless of their personality. Anarchy would
> > only work under Utopian conditions, and we are thousands if not tens of
> > thousands of years from that, assuming we don't destroy ourselves first.
>
>
> The same could be said about a government making "just laws." It does
> not require utopian conditions for an anarchy to work any more than it
> requires utopian conditions for a free market to work or for any group
> of social animals to "work."
>
There is no "free market". The markets are controlled by big business.
The market economy is unjust. And prove an anarchy could work under
current conditions.
>
> >> Humans...evolved as social
> >> animals with certain inherent characteristics for cooperating for
> >> mutual benefit.
> >
> >
> > There you go with that term again. Humans mainly operate out of
> > self-interest. When we do good things apparently for altruistic
> > reasons, usually it is because it makes us feel good about ourselves.
>
>
> Unless you take the position that everything is ultimately done from
> self-interest (which amounts to a tautology), that simply is not true.
> Most people generally have real concern and sympathy for at least some
> other people.
I never said they did not. But no one does anything for purely
altruistic reasons.
But the motivation is not the point in any case. It's
> the behavior that counts. And the evolutionary concept of inclusive
> fitness explains it quite well. Social animals thereby maximize the
> survival of their genes, but other members of the group have many of the
> same genes (worker bees being the classic example).
>
You cannot apply "evolutionary concepts" to humans in the same way you
can apply them to every other animal.
>
> > There is nothing wrong with this--the results are what counts. Early
> > humans realized that in order to cooperate with one another there needed
> > to be rules/norms/laws, and that they needed leaders to enforce all
> > this. It is called civilization.
> >
> > It's true that there are some "bad" people, but government
> >
> >> does not effectively deal with this problem;
> >
> >
> > And how would anarchy "deal with this problem"?
>
>
> It depends on the type of anarchy. In an individualistic anarchy or
> anarcho-capitalism, private protection/justice agencies would be available.
>
That sounds rather cryptic and ominous to me.
>
> > what's more, the existence
> >
> >> of government gives many of the bad people the opportunity to do evil
> >> on an even larger scale.
> >>
> > Government is just a tool. It can be used for good or evil.
>
>
> And it is frequently used for evil. What's more, it does not even
> provide the justice or protection against evil that you claim is so
> critical. Even in a relatively benign state like the U.S., the net
> protection provided by government is barely significant.
People have to do their part with neighborhood watches etc. But don't
tell me you would consider that anarchy.
Look up the
> figures. Very few crimes are ever solved (about one or two percent);
How could crime be solved under anarchy?
> nor is there any evidence that the police have a significant effect in
> preventing crime.
Putting more police on regular beats in high crime areas does reduce
crime. What we have now is many urban areas that have been all but
abandoned by government and criminals control those neighborhoods.
Essentially this is a form of anarchy.
What's more, the police and government do a great
> deal of evil themselves, eg, harassing, beating, imprisoning, and even
> killing innocent people. See the references at the end.
>
I do not need to see any references to believe their are police abuses.
But your "private protection agencies" sound like a mob and sounds
like greater potential for abuse. Your guys would go around hurting
people they suspected were guilty of something, because no one would
have any protection under the law, since there would be no law.
>
> >>> I do not trust a small unaccountable government nor unaccountable
> >>> masses.
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't either. That has nothing to do with anarchy.
> >>
> > It has everything to do with it. How will people be held accountable
> > under anarchy?
>
>
> This was answered above. For a detailed analysis of how such a system
> would function, see David Friedman's _The Machinery of Freedom_ (some
> available on-line)
> http://tinyurl.com/2zppwg
> http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Contents.html
>
> http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
>
I will read this site sometime.
>
> >> > A liberal social democratic system is best. One
> >>> where both the government and the masses can check each other to
> >>> prevent abuse. One where laws both protect the people's freedoms and
> >>> prevent them from taking away other people's freedoms, as well as
> >>> preventing the government from doing so. We need laws and rules to
> >>> prevent both tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority.
> >>
> >>
> >> Those laws are made by people, interpreted by people, and enforced by
> >> people. Unless everyone agrees with a law or rule, it will be tyranny
> >> of the majority or tyranny of the minority, since a large portion of
> >> the population will disagree with the law but be forced to follow it.
> >
> >
> > I completely disagree with your premise.
> >
> >> In
> >> many cases, they will be forced to support laws and policies they
> >> consider outright immoral (eg, Iraq, Vietnam, the war on drugs).
> >
> >
> > If we had the opposite of those policies there would be people who would
> > not like it either. This line is irrelevant.
>
Let me state it more clearly than I did. People have a
do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do-attitude. There is no contradiction to say
people who pass laws to prevent certain behavior or to protect others
from certain behavior, or enforce them, may not themselves act right if
such laws were not in place. Since I also said I think people intend to
do good, I think most just laws are interpreted justly by those in
charge of judging.
>
> You seem to have missed the point: By its very nature, government forces
> at least some people, in many cases a significant portion of the
> population, to follow policies against their will. It often forces them
> to support things they consider morally wrong. What gives the
> government or the majority the right to impose its will on everyone else?
>
It is necessary to have policies that people as a whole must follow.
Civilization could not exist otherwise.
> Under anarchy, no one is forced to follow such policies. People
> undertake all projects by mutual agreement. If some persons want to
> voluntarily form their own associations or governments (on their own
> land, for example), they are free to do so--as long as they do not try
> to impose them on others. Indeed, many different types of
> social-political systems could be available.
>
Everyone will cooperate happily with each other voluntarily. And you
say this is not utopic?
> References for police/government inefficiency and abuse
>
Is your argument that having government and laws causes violent/street
crime?
>
> Kansas City preventive patrol experiment
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_City_preventive_patrol_experiment
>
This experiment was done in 1972-73. Neighborhood policing has been
refined a lot since then. According to this article (if one can believe
what is on Wikipedia) police just drove around in their vehicles.
That is passive. Newer experiments show officers actually walking
through neighborhoods interacting with people is more effective. In my
city with have police officers patrolling on bicycles in the downtown
area where there is a lot of crime. It did and does reduce the types of
crimes that were regularly committed.
Here is a more recent study:
More cops on beat reduce crime on street, FSU study shows
by Jill Elish
Do police deter crime?
A Florida State University law professor who studied the effects of an
increased police presence during high terror alert in Washington, D.C.,
says they do. And not by just a little bit either.
onathan Klick, the Jeffrey A. Stoops Professor of Law at FSU, and
Alexander Tabarrok of George Mason University, found a 15 percent
reduction in crime in the police district where the White House and
National Mall are located when additional officers were on duty during
high terror alert days. The study was published in the Journal of Law
and Economics.
The findings are significant because social scientists, lawmakers and
others have long wondered whether spending more money on additional
police is the answer to reducing crime. Klick and Tabarrok's study
suggests that it is.
"We found that the additional police had a pretty big effect on crime,"
Klick said. "Our local and federal governments spend tons of money on
policing, and it looks like we may be justified in spending much more."
In fact, Klick, who in addition to his law degree has a doctorate in
economics, goes as far as to say that doubling police forces—or at the
very least increasing them by 25 percent—may be a good idea, although
there may be a point of diminishing returns. Already more than $65
billion is spent annually on police in this country.
"We're pretty confident that if we increase police forces by one-fourth,
we would get our money's worth," he said.
Although it seems obvious that more police should result in less crime,
many previous studies have shown that isn't the case—or worse, that more
police actually equal more crime. It's a puzzle that has been difficult
to solve because cities with high crime rates have more officers. Do
more police cause the higher crime rates, or do cities with high crime
rates hire more police?
After the Office of Homeland Security implemented the terror alert
system, Klick, who was working in Washington at the time, noticed police
officers on every corner during high alert times—a reason that had
nothing to do with the city's crime rate. That gave him and Tabarrok the
opportunity to conduct a so-called natural experiment to see the effect
the increased police presence had.
They reviewed data between the day the alert system began, March 12,
2002, and July 30, 2003, a period in which the alert level rose and fell
four times. The changes in the alert system proved to be important
because the researchers were able to replicate the results each time the
alert level was raised and reduce the possibility that the results were
due to other factors.
They found a drop of about three crimes per day, or 15 percent, around
the National Mall area where the increased police were concentrated
during the high alert periods. Overall, crime was down in the city by an
average of seven crimes a day or 6.6 percent, Klick said.
The reduction was mostly in the so-called street crimes—burglaries,
stolen cars and the like. The increased police presence had no effect on
murders and other crimes that typically take place out of sight.
More research is needed to see if the Washington, D.C., findings can be
generalized to other cities, Klick said.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> David H. Bayley, Ph.D. (Princeton University), Distinguished Professor
> of Criminal Justice, School of Criminal Justice, State University of New
> York at Albany:
>
> _Police for the Future_ Oxford University Press: New York 1994
> "The police do not prevent crime (Ch 1)...Dishonest law enforcement...is
> by and large what we have now. It occurs when the police promise to
> prevent crime but actually provide something else - namely,
> authoritative intervention and symbolic justice." (p. 124)
>
Then NY needs to reform it's law enforcement, not eliminate them.
> A study of policing in Detroit from 1926 and 1977 found no relationship
> between policing and crime rate (Ch 1)
> --_What Works in Policing_ by David H. Bayley (Editor). New York:
> Oxford University Press, 1998.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
They were doing the wrong things. Your hero Bayley agrees with me that
proactive community policing works. I know what website you got this
blurb off of so read the summaries of all the chapters of his book.
Tim Howard
I hate to interupt but you are not doing a good job of arguing with our
little Nazi buddy Topaz. He is making his system sound better than yours.
>
Tim Howard
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 00:59:35 -0700, Tim Howard
> <tim.h...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>> What part of that is nonsense?
>
> The part that implies National Socialism wasn't great.
>
> By Walter Ruthard
>
>
> Then there was the "Kinderlandverschickung" program. It was started
> before the war and enabled mothers in need of recreation to spend some
> time in rural settings together with their children…
>
1800s. Hitler's Kinderlandverschickung was only related to evacuating
children in danger of being bombed by the allies. It was good they
implemented such a program, it just that he gives Hitler credit for
something done by previous governments.
> Another very popular social program of the government was "Fraft
> durch Freude" (strength through joy). Here deserving workers could
> take all-inclusive tours on luxury liners that were built especially
> for this purpose.
All paid for by manditory deduction of workers wages. It was a
propaganda program. I would have rather had the extra money.
On these ships there was only one class and
> everybody was treated the same. They visited the Azores and
> Spitsbergen among other places. Those ships were not allowed to dock
> in and English port however. The reason was that the British
> government did not want it's citizens to see what it also could have
> done for them…
>
What lies. Germany would not allow those ships to go to non-axis or
non-facist nation's ports.
> The most misinterpreted program in Germany was the so-called
> "Lebensborn". It was the exact opposite of what people are made to
> believe it was,
No it was not.
Hitler's Children
They were the offspring of a Nazi program to create a racially pure
'Master Race.' Behind the painful search to discover their roots.
Newsweek International, March 20, 2000
By Joshua Hammer
From the time she was a small child, Helga Kahrau always sensed that
she was different. Born in Nazi Germany at the start of World War II,
Kahrau has hazy memories of elegant surroundings, important-looking men
in crisp uniforms, a life of privilege and comfort. Helga's mother, she
knew, had been a secretary in the offices of both Hitler's top aide,
Martin Bormann, and Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels, but other
than admitting that fact, Mathilde Kahrau refused to say anything about
the war. It was only after Mathilde's death in 1993 that Helga began to
examine her family's past,and was horrified by what she discovered.
Her parents barely knew one another. An ardent Nazi, her mother met
Helga's father, a German Army officer, in Berlin at a party celebrating
Hitler's conquest of France in June 1940. They had a one-night stand,
and nine months later Mathilde gave birth in a "Lebensborn",or "Source
of Life",home outside Munich. The home was one of several set up by
Heinrich Himmler's dreaded SS to care for unmarried pregnant women whose
racial characteristics,blond hair, blue eyes, no Jewish ancestry,fit the
Nazis' Aryan ideal. At birth, Helga was anointed as one of the Fuhrer's
elect, part of a generation of "racially pure" children who would
populate the German Empire as it ruled a conquered Europe for the life
of the 1,000-year Reich.
Helga's early years unfolded in an atmosphere of palpable evil. When she
was 6 months old, her mother returned from Munich to work in Goebbels's
ministry in Berlin, and dispatched Helga to the foster care of a
high-ranking Nazi secret policeman. She grew up in a Nazi enclave
outside the city of Lodz in occupied Poland while her foster father
helped to oversee the gassing of thousands of Jews at the nearby Chelmno
concentration camp. At the end of the war she returned to Munich, then a
bomb-shattered ruin, where she was raised for the first time by her
natural mother. Now, as she fits together the pieces of the first years
of her life, Helga admits to being tormented by feelings of
self-loathing. "I spent the first four years raised and tutored by the
Nazi elite," she says. "I was involved, in a fundamental way, with
murderers."
Kahrau and thousands of other middle-aged Europeans are struggling with
the consequences of one of Nazism's most troubling social experiments:
the creation of a "Master Race." During the 12-year history of the Third
Reich, roughly 10,000 infants were born in Lebensborn homes in Germany.
An equal number were born in homes in Nazi-occupied Norway after the
German invasion of 1940, because Himmler admired the Norwegians' "Viking
blood," and encouraged procreation between German soldiers and Norwegian
women. There were also Lebensborn homes in France, Belgium and
Luxembourg. After the war, many of the Lebensborn children grew up
scorned as Nazi progeny and tormented by dark uncertainties about their
origins. Those who tried to get answers were often stymied by Germans
long reluctant to confront their Nazi past. Their natural or foster
parents often kept mum about the Lebensborn program; the German media
didn't report on Himmler's racial experiments for decades. The
destruction of thousands of German Lebensborn files by SS troops during
the last days of World War II deepened the mystery of the children's
real identities.
But recently some of the 20,000 Lebensborn children have been getting
answers. Last December, German TV reporters uncovered 1,000
long-unnoticed Lebensborn files at the German government archive in
Berlin, and two Norwegian Lebensborn organizations are now helping many
local war children trace their parents. For many Lebensborn children,
the revulsion they feel as they learn more about their backgrounds often
goes together with a sense of relief at assembling the missing fragments
of their lives. "They have reached the end of their careers, their
children are grown and they have time to think about who they really
are," says Georg Lilienthal, a German scholar who in 1985 wrote the
first authoritative book about Himmler's racial-engineering program.
"For many it has been nothing but a black hole."
Himmler planned it that way. The Lebensborn homes sprang from a central
tenet of Nazi ideology: the idea that no Germanic baby should go unborn.
In 1933 the newly installed Nazi dictatorship outlawed all abortions and
later executed doctors who violated the law. In August 1936 Himmler
opened the first Lebensborn home at Steinhöring outside Munich, offering
Aryan women a place where they could deliver their illegitimate babies
and keep the births secret from the outside world. Himmler's SS built
nine such homes in Germany,refurbished hotels, villas, ski chalets and
schools,and 10 in Norway. The identities of the mothers were recorded in
tightly guarded Lebensborn files, which the SS kept separate from
municipal and church ultimately decided to keep their babies, but
hundreds,out of shame or financial necessity,turned the children over
for adoption by high-ranking SS officials, or abandoned them.
Himmler considered no method too extreme in the pursuit of his lunatic
goal: the propagation of the Germanic master race. The SS also kidnapped
Aryan-looking children from Poland and other occupied lands and brought
them to the Lebensborn centers across the Third Reich, where they were
"Germanized" and turned over to Nazi foster parents. SS administrators
expelled Lebensborn babies who were born disabled,and sometimes
dispatched them to euthanasia clinics, to be poisoned or starved to
death. Wehrmacht commanders exhorted lower-ranking soldiers serving in
Norway to father as many children as possible, and many Norwegian women
were eager to oblige them. Himmler also offered promotions to SS
men,Nazi zealots who served as Hitler's bodyguards, ran concentration
camps and massacred "racially inferior" people in occupied lands,on the
basis of the number of offspring they produced. The SS chief took a keen
interest in the day-to-day running of homes in Norway and Germany,
conducting inspection tours and even devising a high-protein diet for
the Lebensborn children.
By the spring of 1945, the 1,000-year Reich was in ruins, and with it,
Himmler's master-race baby program. The collapse of the Nazi regime
would have lasting consequences for thousands of now adrift small
children and infants. As the Allies swept across Germany in the spring
of 1945, the SS hurriedly shut down one Lebensborn home after another,
collecting hundreds of remaining babies and their secret files and
taking them to the original home in Steinhöring. In early May, American
troops marched into Steinhöring. According to one account, Nazi Storm
Troops burned all the records in a huge bonfire before they fled. In
another version of the story, U.S. forces stopped the Nazis as they
tried to escape to the mountains. During the confrontation, the files
were dumped into the Isar River and washed away. Either way, the true
identities of many children were lost forever.
The fate of the children would be cruelest in Norway. The SS never
destroyed the Lebensborn files there, but after the Third Reich
capitulated on May 8, 1945, thousands of Lebensborn babies and their
mothers faced the wrath of their liberated countrymen. Many women and
their kids were harassed, beaten and called "Nazi swine" by teachers,
schoolmates and neighbors. Police sent some 14,000 women and girls who
had slept with Wehrmacht soldiers to internment camps. The head of
Norway's largest mental hospital stated that women who had mated with
German soldiers were "mental defectives" and concluded that 80 percent
of their progeny must be retarded.
Paul Hansen bore that label for decades. The progeny of a brief affair
between a Luftwaffe pilot and a cleaning woman who abandoned her child
at birth, Hansen, 57, spent his first three years in relative comfort in
a Lebensborn home north of Oslo. But his life took a terrible turn after
the war, he says, because of his German parentage. Hansen was moved to a
collection center for unclaimed Lebensborn children. An epileptic, he
was passed over for adoption and was thrown together with 20 other
Lebensborn children at this center who could not find homes with
relatives or adoptive families. Ministry of Social Affairs officials
classified these half-German children as retarded and shipped them to
mental institutions. Hansen recalls days of being insulted and beaten by
guards, and remembers nights spent in feces-splattered dormitories
listening to the psychotic screams of fellow inmates. "I told them 'I'm
not insane, let me out'," Hansen says. "But nobody listened." Hansen
didn't get his freedom until he was 22 years old.
He found a tiny apartment and a job in a factory,and began a search for
his parents. The Lebensborn files in Norwegian archives were off-limits,
but through the help of the Salvation Army in Norway, he learned that
his father had died in Germany in 1952. His mother had married another
Wehrmacht soldier and lived in the East German town of Pasewalk. In
1965, Hansen traveled by train and ferry to see her, and remembers the
excitement he felt as he approached her flat. But the reunion was a deep
disappointment. "I expected she would open up her arms to me, and say
'Oh, my son.' But she didn't care," he remembers. "When I told her that
I had spent my life in mental institutions, she replied, 'So what? You
weren't the only one'." Hansen left, and never went back.
In recent years, Hansen has found a measure of peace. He was briefly
married, but the relationship broke up because, after years in
institutions, he found it impossible to share space with another person.
What has made life endurable, he says, is the growing willingness of
Norwegian Lebensborn children to go public and confide in one another
about their experiences. Hansen says he's found "new brothers and
sisters" through his membership in a support group; the recent
declassification of the Lebensborn files has allowed many to discover
their parentage. Last month Hansen joined six other Lebensborn in a
lawsuit filed against the government, asking for millions of dollars in
damages for decades of brutal treatment. On New Year's Eve, Norway's
prime minister seemed to acknowledge his government's responsibility by
apologizing publicly for the first time for "the harassment and
injustice done" to the war children.
Helga Kahrau has never found such peace. Growing up with her mother
Mathilde in Munich, Kahrau often wondered about her origins. "I was big,
blond and Aryan,different from the southern Germans,and everyone asked
me, 'Where did you come from?' " she says. "I couldn't answer them."
Kahrau's mother concealed the truth, saying only that her soldier father
had been killed during World War II. Her only birth record was a cryptic
certificate from an "SS Mother Home" that contained her mother's name
but not her father's. Her mother kept largely silent about her own role
during the war. "Nobody talked about the Nazis back then," Helga says.
Then, one night in the mid-1970s, Helga happened to watch a German
television documentary about the Lebensborn program and the SS-run home
at Steinhöring. Suddenly, she says, "everything clicked." Still, she
asked her mother nothing: "I was afraid. I didn't want a confrontation."
But when Mathilde Kahrau died in 1993, Helga traveled to Pullach, near
Munich, the onetime home of her foster parents and the current site of
the postwar German intelligence headquarters. There she uncovered Nazi
files that provided detailed information about her foster father and his
crimes committed in the service of the "final solution." She spent hours
in libraries, digging up the little scholarship that existed about the
Lebensborn. The last pieces fell into place on her birthday in March
1994, when she received a phone call from a man who identified himself
as her real father.
Kahrau was shocked. "I said, 'Why are you calling me after 53 years?' "
In his 80s and stricken with cancer, he explained that his thoughts had
returned to the daughter he had fathered during the war. They met the
next day. "He was charming," she says. "It was love at first sight." He
told Helga about the night of passion with her mother, about his
military duty in occupied Paris,and his postwar real-estate career. "He
had become a millionaire," Helga says. As her father's health worsened,
she nursed him round the clock, expecting to receive some share of his
estate. But after her father died in 1996, Kahrau received a letter from
attorneys stating that he had left no will. As an illegitimate
Lebensborn child, she would inherit nothing. "All I got were debts," she
says.
In the four years since then, Kahrau has found some solace talking with
a psychologist friend about her upbringing. She has visited her
birthplace, the old Lebensborn home at Steinhöring, several times. But
Kahrau hasn't yet come to terms with her identity. Unlike Norway, no
support groups exist in Germany for Lebensborn children, nor has she
found a willingness to confront the issue in German society. Kahrau
still worries that people will assume she's a Nazi because "I grew up on
the side of the murderers," she says. Meeting a NEWSWEEK correspondent
at a hotel in downtown Munich, she was visibly nervous, tensing when the
word "Lebensborn" was uttered too loudly and insisting on speaking about
her life only in the privacy of a secluded booth. "Being a Lebensborn
child is still a source of shame," she admits. That shame is the Nazis'
bitter legacy to those who they once thought would inherit the earth.
>
> My father was able to buy not one but three guns plus two pistols,
> together with plenty of ammunition. All it took him was proof that he
> was indeed a German citizen without a criminal record. Then in 1945,
> when the French "liberated" us, they disarmed him.
Well gee I wonder why. I guess he thinks the French should have just
let his father shoot them.
>
> Then, after the war was over, we had our first experience with a real
> democracy. The French introduced it and gave us some shining examples;
> one was that the lived off the country and stole everything which
> wasn't nailed down…
>
Exageration, but of course there were abuses. That has nothing to do
with "a real democracy."
> It was not until many years later that I learned that Hitler held at
> least five plebiscites during the first half of his rule. In
> democratic Germany, from 1945 until today there has never been a
> plebiscite.
>
More propaganda. Hitler phrased those questions in ways where people
would vote his way.
> There were foreign workers employed in Germany during WWII. I knew
> one of them. He worked on a farm and was treated exactly like the son
> who was in the army. After the war he stayed on and married the
> daughter of the house. He was a prisoner of war from Poland and I
> never saw him guarded by any policeman. This is how foreigners were
> treated in Germany. They earned the same wages as the Germans, they
> took part in the social insurance program, had paid-for holidays
> including free train fares, and many came back with friends who also
> wanted to work for these "horrible" Germans. Today they are called
> slave laborer.
>
This story makes little sense.
>> What Topaz fails to mention is Ley (in English pronounced lie) was the
>> head of Hitler's German Labor Front, an organization designed to replace
>> the independent labor unions Hitler destroyed after taking over. He
>> also was one of Hitler's top propagandists. So consider the source.
>
> The Unions were for Communism and needed to be replaced.
>
>> Great propaganda tool, gotta give him that. But the other side of that
>> is all those vacations were paid by cutting German worker's wages.
>
> Wages were great. Besides that, before Hitler made everything great,
> they didn't have any wages or any jobs.
>
>> And
>> Ley skimme/d off the top. Here is what historian Robert Evans said:
>> "The DAF quickly began to gain a reputation as perhaps the most
>> corrupt of all the major institutions of the Third Reich. For this, Ley
>> himself had to shoulder a large part of the blame."
>
> Did Mr. Evans ever say anything good about the Third Reich? Did he
> ever remove is lips from the aft ends of Jews for a minute?
>
Of course you have to say the Jews were controlling him...
>> Only allowed to go to pro-Nazi nations. The Nazi's were probably
>> concerned if people went to Western Europe they would defect, or tell
>> the world what evil was going on in Germany.
>
> That is the opposite of the truth. The Jews control your media and
> your mind.
>
>
> England's Guilt
> by Joseph Goebbels
>
There is someone that should have had some guilt.
Topaz
wrote:
>It is more likely that a few will dominate a group under a government
>than an anarchy.
>
Right now the Jews dominate. Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"Human progress and human cultures are not founded by the
multitude. They are exclusively the work of personal genius and
personal efficiency."
"Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in
the composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the
individual personality?"
"The devastating influence of the parliamentary institution might
not easily be recognized by those who read the Jewish Press, unless
the reader has learned how to think independently and examine the
facts for himself. This institution is primarily responsible for the
crowded inrush of mediocre people into the field of politics.
Confronted with such a phenomenon, a man who is endowed with real
qualities of leadership will be tempted to refrain from taking part in
political life; because under these circumstances the situation does
not call for a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship
but rather for a man who is capable of bargaining for the favour of
the majority. Thus the situation will appeal to small minds and will
attract them accordingly."
"One truth which must always be borne in mind is that the majority
can never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance
but also cowardice. And just as a hundred blockheads do not equal one
man of wisdom, so a hundred poltroons are incapable of any political
line of action that requires moral strength and fortitude."
"It is not the aim of our modern democratic parliamentary system
to bring together an assembly of intelligent and well-informed
deputies. Not at all. The aim rather is to bring together a group of
nonentities who are dependant on others for their views and who can
be all the more easily led, the narrower the mental outlook of each
individual is. That is the only way in which a party policy, according
the the evil meaning it has to-day, can be put into effect. And by
this method alone is it possible for the wirepuller, who exercises the
real control, to remain in the dark, so that personally he can never
be brought to account for his actions."
"Such people would raise an outcry, if, for instance, anyone
should attempt to set up a dictatorship, even though the man
responsible for it were Frederick the Great and even though the
politicians for the time being, who constituted the parlimentary
majority, were small and incompetent men or maybe even on a lower
grade of inferiority; because to such sticklers for abstract
principles the law of democracy is more sacred than the welfare of the
nation."
"the best form of government is that which makes it quite natural for
the best brains to reach a position of dominant importance and
influence in the community."
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
Topaz
<tim.h...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>Oh this again. Time for my reposts...
>>
>> Then there was the "Kinderlandverschickung" program. It was started
>> before the war and enabled mothers in need of recreation to spend some
>> time in rural settings together with their children…
>>
>That was started by previous governments in Germany and goes back to the
>1800s. Hitler's Kinderlandverschickung was only related to evacuating
>children in danger of being bombed by the allies. It was good they
>implemented such a program, it just that he gives Hitler credit for
>something done by previous governments.
BS
>
>> Another very popular social program of the government was "Fraft
>> durch Freude" (strength through joy). Here deserving workers could
>> take all-inclusive tours on luxury liners that were built especially
>> for this purpose.
>
>All paid for by manditory deduction of workers wages. It was a
>propaganda program. I would have rather had the extra money.
BS
>
>On these ships there was only one class and
>> everybody was treated the same. They visited the Azores and
>> Spitsbergen among other places. Those ships were not allowed to dock
>> in and English port however. The reason was that the British
>> government did not want it's citizens to see what it also could have
>> done for them…
>>
>What lies. Germany would not allow those ships to go to non-axis or
>non-facist nation's ports.
BS
>
>> The most misinterpreted program in Germany was the so-called
>> "Lebensborn". It was the exact opposite of what people are made to
>> believe it was,
>
>No it was not.
>
>Hitler's Children
>They were the offspring of a Nazi program to create a racially pure
>'Master Race.'
Some Nazis may have said "Herrenvolk"
"'Herrenvolk' can be translated into "noble race" and/or "superior
race". Yet for some reason the English speaking translators chose and
made popular the term 'master race.'"
Heidi
The speeches of Nazis are known. All you have to do is put "Hitler
speeches" or "Goebbels Speeches" in your search engine. But apparantly
"master race" is not to be found in them anywhere. The closest thing I
have seen to it in Mein Kampf is at the end of the book, and what it
says is simply the truth. This is what it says:
"A State which, in an epoch of racial adulteration, devotes itself
to the duty of preserving the best elements of its racial stock must
one day become ruler of the Earth."
Mein Kampf also mentions the colonies and how Whites were the
rulers and the most advanced race. But there is no indication that
Hitler wanted to mistreat the darker people.
Goebbels wrote:
"The German nation will be the intellectual leader of civilized
humanity."
Joseph Goebbels, "Das Jahr 2000," Das Reich, 25 February 1945, pp.
1-2.
>Behind the painful search to discover their roots.
>Newsweek International, March 20, 2000
>By Joshua Hammer
Jew
>
> From the time she was a small child, Helga Kahrau always sensed that
>she was different. Born in Nazi Germany at the start of World War II,
>Kahrau has hazy memories of elegant surroundings, important-looking men
>in crisp uniforms, a life of privilege and comfort. Helga's mother, she
>knew, had been a secretary in the offices of both Hitler's top aide,
>Martin Bormann, and Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels, but other
>than admitting that fact, Mathilde Kahrau refused to say anything about
>the war. It was only after Mathilde's death in 1993 that Helga began to
>examine her family's past,and was horrified by what she discovered.
Jew
>
>Her parents barely knew one another. An ardent Nazi, her mother met
>Helga's father, a German Army officer, in Berlin at a party celebrating
>Hitler's conquest of France in June 1940. They had a one-night stand,
>and nine months later Mathilde gave birth in a "Lebensborn",or "Source
>of Life",home outside Munich. The home was one of several set up by
>Heinrich Himmler's dreaded SS to care for unmarried pregnant women whose
>racial characteristics,blond hair, blue eyes, no Jewish ancestry,fit the
>Nazis' Aryan ideal. At birth, Helga was anointed as one of the Fuhrer's
>elect, part of a generation of "racially pure" children who would
>populate the German Empire as it ruled a conquered Europe for the life
>of the 1,000-year Reich.
>
>Helga's early years unfolded in an atmosphere of palpable evil.
Jew
Eyewitness account by Mrs. Leonora Geier (nee Cavoa, born Oct 22,
1925, Sao Paulo,
Brazil) to Dr. Trutz Foelsche, Ph.D
Deutsche Nationalzeitung, No. 17-65, p. 7:
Topaz
wrote:
>
> So then you agree there should not be any political leaders
>presumably?
We need leaders.
> What "system" could make the best brains political
>leaders,
National Socialism
> rather than those best able to persuade people that they
>are good leaders? Certainly not national socialism that depended
>deeply on people being convinced of absurdities.
The Jews do control the media and rule America. That was the same
thing they had in Germany until Hitler stopped it.
Whites on average are much more intelligent than Blacks.
National Socialism was right about everything.
>
>> Look at Bush. He is the president of the United States. And the
>> main thing he lacks is brains.
>>
> So why have a President?
>
>
> No I think I would be safe whether or not I am fast with a gun or
>a good shot. That's what professional protection agencies and/or
>militia alliances are for.
In that case everybody would indirectly benefit from them whether
they paid for it or not. So everyone should pay. We should have taxes.
> And my relatives could have one waiting for them. You claimed that
>the "mafia" would take control. How? How would anyone control
>a society where everyone can be armed and is entitled to defend their
>rights with lethal force?
Everyone would also have no reason not to rob their neighbor with
lethal force.
> And if they're good people why would they want to have the monopoly
>of force?
To put the bad people in their place.
> And those people could travel on someone else's roads. People
>already tell people to stay off their trains, is that not freedom?
You have to do a lot of work to build a train. Roads obviously should
be public property.
Dr. Zarkov
> Dr. Zarkov wrote:
>
>> It is more likely that a few will dominate a group under a government
>> than an anarchy.
>
>
> Can you prove that?
Can you prove that government does prevent a few from dominating? Such
points cannot be proved to a mathematical certainty, but we can look at
the historical evidence. Historically, that is what has happened with
most governments. But even the relatively benign governments like the
U.S. tend to become dominated by bureaucrats and special interest groups.
...
>>
>> The same could be said about a government making "just laws." It does
>> not require utopian conditions for an anarchy to work any more than it
>> requires utopian conditions for a free market to work or for any group
>> of social animals to "work."
>>
> There is no "free market". The markets are controlled by big business.
> The market economy is unjust. And prove an anarchy could work under
> current conditions.
The advantage of a market economy over government-controlled or
dominated economies is so well documented, it's hardly worth arguing.
Even the former socialist countries have seen it.
...
>
> I never said they did not. But no one does anything for purely
> altruistic reasons.
This is an exercise in semantics. I think that people do indeed
generally act out of self-interest, broadly defined. I have no
illusions about how selfish or even evil people can be--and often are.
But government does not solve this problem; it just makes it worse.
Those attracted to power (rather than beneficial or useful pursuits)
tend to gravitate to government.
>> But the motivation is not the point in any case. It's
>> the behavior that counts. And the evolutionary concept of inclusive
>> fitness explains it quite well. Social animals thereby maximize the
>> survival of their genes, but other members of the group have many of
>> the same genes (worker bees being the classic example).
>>
> You cannot apply "evolutionary concepts" to humans in the same way you
> can apply them to every other animal.
Humans are animals. We differ in many respects from other species, but
in considering human behavior, one cannot ignore our evolutionary heritage.
...
>> > And how would anarchy "deal with this problem"?
>>
>>
>> It depends on the type of anarchy. In an individualistic anarchy or
>> anarcho-capitalism, private protection/justice agencies would be
>> available.
>>
> That sounds rather cryptic and ominous to me.
There's nothing cryptic or ominous about it to anyone familiar with the
concepts. It's useful to know something about a topic before you start
critiquing it; ie, read a little on what anarchists have proposed. The
private protection/justice services advocated were analyzed in detail by
David Friedman, Murray Rothbard, and others many years ago.
_For A New Liberty_ Murray Rothbard (full text on-line)
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp
_The Machinery of Freedom_ David Friedman (some available on-line)
http://tinyurl.com/2zppwg
Or see Bryan Caplan's Anarchy FAQ for a good overview
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm
>> > what's more, the existence
>> >
>> >> of government gives many of the bad people the opportunity to do
evil
>> >> on an even larger scale.
>> >>
>> > Government is just a tool. It can be used for good or evil.
>>
>>
>> And it is frequently used for evil. What's more, it does not even
>> provide the justice or protection against evil that you claim is so
>> critical. Even in a relatively benign state like the U.S., the net
>> protection provided by government is barely significant.
>
>
> People have to do their part with neighborhood watches etc. But don't
> tell me you would consider that anarchy.
>
>> Look up the
>> figures. Very few crimes are ever solved (about one or two percent);
>
>
> How could crime be solved under anarchy?
By the private protection/justice services--and/or including the
individuals affected if they so choose.
>> nor is there any evidence that the police have a significant effect in
>> preventing crime.
>
>
> Putting more police on regular beats in high crime areas does reduce
> crime.
I repeat, the Kansas City study, the Newark study, and in fact a
majority of studies have found that police have no significant effect on
the crime rate:
"Over 30 years of criminological research has shown that the ability of
police to influence crime is extremely limited. For example, neither
the number of police in a community nor the style of policing appears
related to the crime rate. In 1991, San Diego and Dallas had about the
same ratio of police to population, yet twice as many crimes were
reported in Dallas. Meanwhile, Cleveland and San Diego had comparable
crime rates even though Cleveland had twice as many police officers per
capita. And in 1992, the District of Columbia had both the highest
homicide rate and the most metropolitan police per square foot of any
city in the nation.
The most thorough study ever done, a 1981 analysis of police beats in
Newark, NJ, found that foot patrols had virtually no effect on crime rates."
--Richard Moran, professor of criminology at Mount Holyoke College.
"Community Policing Strategies Do Little to Prevent Crime." In: _Crime_
P. Winters, ed. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1998.
> What we have now is many urban areas that have been all but
> abandoned by government and criminals control those neighborhoods.
> Essentially this is a form of anarchy.
Not true. Many such urban areas have a large number of police assigned
to them. For example, Washington, DC has the greatest concentration of
police per area in the nation. The residents of most poor, minority
areas often look upon the police as an occupying army. The police
routinely harass, arrest, and even beat innocent people, especially in
such neighborhoods, where the police know residents have little power.
The police are not uncommonly part of the very criminal gangs they are
supposed to protect against.
That's not an exaggeration: Read some of those references on police
abuse. The problem is that government police are not only a monopoly,
but a monopoly protected by special laws as well as their own code.
It's practically impossible to hold them accountable even for the most
egregious behavior; eg, the cops who killed Amadou Diallo in a hail of
43 bullets for acting "suspicious" on his own doorstep got off with nary
a slap on the wrist.
> What's more, the police and government do a great
>> deal of evil themselves, eg, harassing, beating, imprisoning, and even
>> killing innocent people. See the references at the end.
>>
> I do not need to see any references to believe their are police abuses.
> But your "private protection agencies" sound like a mob and sounds like
> greater potential for abuse. Your guys would go around hurting people
> they suspected were guilty of something, because no one would have any
> protection under the law, since there would be no law.
Unlike government police, private protection agencies-
Would be legally accountable for any abuses--could not hide behind
"sovereign immunity" and the other special laws protecting government
police.
Would be accountable to its customers, who could simply switch service
providers.
Would be inherently more efficient, since private companies are
competitive.
It is not utopian to suggest that people will voluntarily cooperate for
their own interests. It's the way human beings evolved, and it's
something that appeals to anyone capable of rational self-interest.
There is nothing utopian about forming and joining businesses,
charitable organizations, scholarly societies, clubs, trade
associations, etc., etc.
>> References for police/government inefficiency and abuse
>>
> Is your argument that having government and laws causes violent/street
> crime?
No, just that government is very inefficient, even to the point of being
ineffective, in preventing and reacting to crime. And that is supposed
to be one of the primary justifications for government.
Government DOES cause victimless crimes like drug "crime" as well as the
enormous amount of actual crime that results.
"I have estimated statistically that the prohibition of drugs produces,
on the average, ten thousand homicides a year."
--Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate in economics
(Interview with Randy Paige on "America's Drug Forum" on public television)
Jeffrey Miron analyzed the relationship between violent crime in the
U.S. and the enforcement of drug prohibition (including alcohol
prohibition). His results "suggest the homicide rate is currently
25%-75% higher than it would be in the absence of drug prohibition."
[Jeffrey A. Miron, Violence and the U.S. Prohibitions of Drugs and
Alcohol, American Law and Economics Review, 1(Fall 1999):78-114.]
Steven B. Duke, Law of Science and Technology Professor at Yale Law
School wrote, "I have argued elsewhere that the drug war is responsible
for at least half of our serious crime." (The War On Drugs Is Lost.
National Review, February 12, 1996)
>> Kansas City preventive patrol experiment
>> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_City_preventive_patrol_experiment
>>
> This experiment was done in 1972-73. Neighborhood policing has been
> refined a lot since then. According to this article (if one can believe
> what is on Wikipedia) police just drove around in their vehicles. That
> is passive. Newer experiments show officers actually walking through
> neighborhoods interacting with people is more effective. In my city
> with have police officers patrolling on bicycles in the downtown area
> where there is a lot of crime. It did and does reduce the types of
> crimes that were regularly committed.
Not quite; police in patrol cars are (or are supposed to be) on the
lookout for criminal or suspicious behavior. The experimental design was:
"The first group received no routine patrols, instead the police
responded only to calls from residents. The second group had the normal
level of patrols, while the third had two to three times as many patrols."
Isn't it odd that there were NO significant differences between the groups?
Other studies have found the same thing; in fact, even foot patrols has
no significant effect on the crime rate:
"Over 30 years of criminological research has shown that the ability of
police to influence crime is extremely limited. For example, neither
the number of police in a community nor the style of policing appears
related to the crime rate. In 1991, San Diego and Dallas had about the
same ratio of police to population, yet twice as many crimes were
reported in Dallas. Meanwhile, Cleveland and San Diego had comparable
crime rates even though Cleveland had twice as many police officers per
capita. And in 1992, the District of Columbia had both the highest
homicide rate and the most metropolitan police per square foot of any
city in the nation.
The most thorough study ever done, a 1981 analysis of police beats in
Newark, NJ, found that foot patrols had virtually no effect on crime rates."
--Richard Moran, professor of criminology at Mount Holyoke College.
"Community Policing Strategies Do Little to Prevent Crime." In: _Crime_
P. Winters, ed. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1998.
> Here is a more recent study:
> More cops on beat reduce crime on street, FSU study shows
>
> by Jill Elish
>
> Do police deter crime?
>
> A Florida State University law professor who studied the effects of an
> increased police presence during high terror alert in Washington, D.C.,
> says they do. And not by just a little bit either.
>
> onathan Klick, the Jeffrey A. Stoops Professor of Law at FSU, and
> Alexander Tabarrok of George Mason University, found a 15 percent
> reduction in crime in the police district where the White House and
> National Mall are located when additional officers were on duty during
> high terror alert days. The study was published in the Journal of Law
> and Economics.
>
> The findings are significant because social scientists, lawmakers and
> others have long wondered whether spending more money on additional
> police is the answer to reducing crime. Klick and Tabarrok's study
> suggests that it is.
>
> "We found that the additional police had a pretty big effect on crime,"
> Klick said. "Our local and federal governments spend tons of money on
> policing, and it looks like we may be justified in spending much more."
>
> In fact, Klick, who in addition to his law degree has a doctorate in
> economics, goes as far as to say that doubling police forces-or at the
> very least increasing them by 25 percent-may be a good idea, although
> there may be a point of diminishing returns. Already more than $65
> billion is spent annually on police in this country.
>
> "We're pretty confident that if we increase police forces by one-fourth,
> we would get our money's worth," he said.
>
> Although it seems obvious that more police should result in less crime,
> many previous studies have shown that isn't the case-or worse, that more
> police actually equal more crime. It's a puzzle that has been difficult
> to solve because cities with high crime rates have more officers. Do
> more police cause the higher crime rates, or do cities with high crime
> rates hire more police?
Note the above paragraph, especially "Although it seems obvious that
more police should result in less crime, many previous studies have
shown that isn't the case-or worse, that more police actually equal more
crime." Most previous studies have reported that police presence had no
significant effect on the crime rate--at least within very broad limits.
I am aware of Klick's work--His findings and conclusions are in the
minority among criminologists. The study cited was a very short-term
one over a very limited area, namely
> reduction in crime in the police district where the White House and
> National Mall are located when additional officers were on duty during
> high terror alert days.
There are almost always at least a few contradictory studies on any such
point. It would be fair to say the vast majority of studies support the
conclusion that police presence has a *very* limited effect on the crime
rate--indeed, statistically insignificant in most studies.
Against that you have to weigh the enormous cost of the police and the
large amount of *harm* that they do. When you weigh the hundreds of
innocent people abused, killed, or framed by the police each year, it's
doubtful whether they do any net good at all.
> After the Office of Homeland Security implemented the terror alert
> system, Klick, who was working in Washington at the time, noticed police
> officers on every corner during high alert times-a reason that had
> nothing to do with the city's crime rate. That gave him and Tabarrok the
> opportunity to conduct a so-called natural experiment to see the effect
> the increased police presence had.
>
> They reviewed data between the day the alert system began, March 12,
> 2002, and July 30, 2003, a period in which the alert level rose and fell
> four times. The changes in the alert system proved to be important
> because the researchers were able to replicate the results each time the
> alert level was raised and reduce the possibility that the results were
> due to other factors.
>
> They found a drop of about three crimes per day, or 15 percent, around
> the National Mall area where the increased police were concentrated
> during the high alert periods. Overall, crime was down in the city by an
> average of seven crimes a day or 6.6 percent, Klick said.
>
> The reduction was mostly in the so-called street crimes-burglaries,
> stolen cars and the like. The increased police presence had no effect on
> murders and other crimes that typically take place out of sight.
>
> More research is needed to see if the Washington, D.C., findings can be
> generalized to other cities, Klick said.
...
Topaz
wrote:
>
>Can you prove that government does prevent a few from dominating?
Right now the Jews are dominating. In any case money talks in
liberalism. Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"the best form of government is that which makes it quite natural for
the best brains to reach a position of dominant importance and
influence in the community."
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
Tim Howard
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 02:25:57 -0700, Tim Howard
> <tim.h...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Behind the painful search to discover their roots.
>> Newsweek International, March 20, 2000
>> By Joshua Hammer
>
> Jew
>> From the time she was a small child, Helga Kahrau always sensed that
>> she was different. Born in Nazi Germany at the start of World War II,
>> Kahrau has hazy memories of elegant surroundings, important-looking men
>> in crisp uniforms, a life of privilege and comfort. Helga's mother, she
>> knew, had been a secretary in the offices of both Hitler's top aide,
>> Martin Bormann, and Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels, but other
>> than admitting that fact, Mathilde Kahrau refused to say anything about
>> the war. It was only after Mathilde's death in 1993 that Helga began to
>> examine her family's past,and was horrified by what she discovered.
>
> Jew
>
So what? That person he is writing about is a German.
Tim Howard
> Tim Howard wrote:
> > Dr. Zarkov wrote:
> >
> >> It is more likely that a few will dominate a group under a government
> >> than an anarchy.
> >
> >
> > Can you prove that?
>
> Can you prove that government does prevent a few from dominating?
I did not say that it usually does. I already told you it is human
nature for a few people to dominate a group. No system will prevent
that. But under a democratic republic, like we have, people at least
have the chance to vote in/out whoever they want. They have a chance to
participate as much as they like without fear of reprisal. There is not
one single group or type of group that "dominates" and these guys know
one wrong move plastered all over the media and they can be voted out,
fair or not. Under your anarchistic state, it would be rule by the
stronger.
>
> The advantage of a market economy over government-controlled or
> dominated economies is so well documented, it's hardly worth arguing.
> Even the former socialist countries have seen it.
>
Anti-democratic solialism with no market based aspect was wrong, but
that does not mean capitalism is just. As for everyone now agreeing
that "a market economy" is best, just remember capitalists won the
economic war and "the winners write the history books".
> >
> >> > And how would anarchy "deal with this problem"?
> >>
> >>
> >> It depends on the type of anarchy. In an individualistic anarchy or
> >> anarcho-capitalism, private protection/justice agencies would be
> >> available.
> >>
> > That sounds rather cryptic and ominous to me.
>
>
> There's nothing cryptic or ominous about it to anyone familiar with the
> concepts. It's useful to know something about a topic before you start
> critiquing it; ie, read a little on what anarchists have proposed.
I'll answer this further below...
> >> > Government is just a tool. It can be used for good or evil.
> >>
> >>
> >> And it is frequently used for evil. What's more, it does not even
> >> provide the justice or protection against evil that you claim is so
> >> critical. Even in a relatively benign state like the U.S., the net
> >> protection provided by government is barely significant.
> >
One reason for that is all the conservatives who don't want the
government to do anything to protect us from abuses by big business, the
police, etc.
> >
> > People have to do their part with neighborhood watches etc. But don't
> > tell me you would consider that anarchy.
> >
> >> Look up the
> >> figures. Very few crimes are ever solved (about one or two percent);
> >
> >
> > How could crime be solved under anarchy?
>
>
> By the private protection/justice services--and/or including the
> individuals affected if they so choose.
>
This would quickly turn into vigilantism. Since there is no law, no
judging by peers etc, these gun-toting militias would take out whoever
they wanted, and then say that was the criminal. Since most people seem
to have the tough-on-crime attitude, they would probably blindly go
along with it.
>
> >> nor is there any evidence that the police have a significant effect in
> >> preventing crime.
> >
> >
> > Putting more police on regular beats in high crime areas does reduce
> > crime.
>
> I repeat, the Kansas City study,
Keep repeating your false argument...
>
> The most thorough study ever done, a 1981 analysis of police beats in
> Newark, NJ, found that foot patrols had virtually no effect on crime
> rates."
Again, studying past mistakes...
> --Richard Moran, professor of criminology at Mount Holyoke College.
> "Community Policing Strategies Do Little to Prevent Crime." In: _Crime_
> P. Winters, ed. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1998.
>
Here are some different opinions.
From the U.S. Dept. of Justice Website...
Mayors, Police Chiefs Turn Spotlight On Success Of Community Policing
Mayors, police chiefs and other top municipal and law enforcement
officials from 35 cities will assemble in Las Vegas July 22 for a
roundtable review of the contribution that community policing has made
to the reduction of crime and violence across the nation over the past
several years, and an open discussion of some of the community policing
initiatives that have been most effective.
Community policing is an approach in which police, community residents
and other stakeholders work together to define community needs and
implement crime prevention strategies. This approach has been gaining
popularity in law enforcement circles for many years, and the passage of
comprehensive anti-crime legislation and the creation of the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) in 1994 resulted in the
adoption of the concept by over 12,000 police departments and agencies
of all sizes and the hiring and training of thousands of new community
officers and law enforcement support personnel. The U.S. Conference of
Mayors has been monitoring the expansion of community policing and
documenting its successes; the Las Vegas conference gives mayors and
police chiefs an opportunity to compare their experiences, exchange
information, and discuss the future of community policing in cities as
well as the future of the federal COPS program.
The 75 local officials traveling to Las Vegas represent cities ranging
in size from over 1.5 million - Philadelphia - to 10,000 - Los Lunas,
New Mexico. The Mayor of New Orleans, Marc H. Morial, will preside
during the event; Mayor Morial was elected President of The U.S.
Conference of Mayors at the organization's annual meeting last month in
Detroit. He will be joined by New Orleans Police Chief Richard
Pennington in an opening presentation on their City's experience with
community policing. Reno Mayor Jeff Griffin and Police Chief Jerry
Hoover will appear with them to describe the impact that community
policing has had on crime in their City, as will Denver Mayor Wellington
E. Webb and Police Chief Jerry Whitman.
"Community policing has had a dramatic, positive effect on America's
communities," according to Mayor Morial. "It has forged a partnership
between the police and residents that is helping to reduce crime and
build stronger neighborhoods. The U.S. Conference of Mayors, through the
Mayors' Institute for Community Policing, supported by The U.S.
Department of Justice COPS Office, continues to advocate the principles
of community policing and believes that it has a strong role to play in
fostering and institutionalizing the growing community policing movement
in cities across the nation."
A working session on "Lessons Learned from Community Policing" will
include presentations by Saint Paul Mayor Norm Coleman, Tulsa Mayor
Susan Savage, and Richmond (VA) Police Chief Jerry Oliver, and open
discussion among all attendees. A luncheon session will be addressed by
Jack Calhoun, Executive Director of the National Crime Prevention Council.
In the afternoon, a working session on "Sustaining and Building Upon
Community Policing Successes" will include presentations by Richmond
(CA) Mayor Rosemary Corbin, Madison (WI) Police Chief Richard Williams,
and Charleston (SC) Police Chief Reuben Greenberg, and open discussion.
Philadelphia Police Commissioner John Timoney is scheduled to discuss
his City's community policing experiences at the close of the afternoon
session.
>
> > What we have now is many urban areas that have been all but
> > abandoned by government and criminals control those neighborhoods.
> > Essentially this is a form of anarchy.
>
>
> Not true. Many such urban areas have a large number of police assigned
> to them. For example, Washington, DC has the greatest concentration of
> police per area in the nation. The residents of most poor, minority
> areas often look upon the police as an occupying army.
The only lesson here is you can overdo anything.
The police
> routinely harass, arrest, and even beat innocent people, especially in
> such neighborhoods, where the police know residents have little power.
> The police are not uncommonly part of the very criminal gangs they are
> supposed to protect against.
I don't doubt that is true.
>
> > What's more, the police and government do a great
> >> deal of evil themselves, eg, harassing, beating, imprisoning, and even
> >> killing innocent people. See the references at the end.
> >>
> > I do not need to see any references to believe their are police abuses.
> > But your "private protection agencies" sound like a mob and sounds like
> > greater potential for abuse. Your guys would go around hurting people
> > they suspected were guilty of something, because no one would have any
> > protection under the law, since there would be no law.
>
>
> Unlike government police, private protection agencies-
> Would be legally accountable for any abuses--could not hide behind
> "sovereign immunity" and the other special laws protecting government
> police.
Hah! and how can anyone be accountable without a system of rule of law?
Which anarchy dose not have. Who is going to punish them for their
abuses? You seem to want it both ways--calling for anarchy, but what
you talk about sounds like a government sometimes.
> >> > It has everything to do with it. How will people be held
> accountable
> >> > under anarchy?
> >>
> >>
> >> This was answered above.
No it wasn't. Your arnacocapitalism or whatever the hell you called it
will lead to a few wealthy capitalists dominating things, far worse than
it is now in the USA.
For a detailed analysis of how such a system
> >> would function, see David Friedman's _The Machinery of Freedom_ (some
> >> available on-line)
> >> http://tinyurl.com/2zppwg
> >>
> http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Contents.html
>
> >>
> >> http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
> >>
> > I will read this site sometime.
> >
> > Everyone will cooperate happily with each other voluntarily. And you
> > say this is not utopic?
>
> It is not utopian to suggest that people will voluntarily cooperate for
> their own interests. It's the way human beings evolved, and it's
> something that appeals to anyone capable of rational self-interest.
> There is nothing utopian about forming and joining businesses,
> charitable organizations, scholarly societies, clubs, trade
> associations, etc., etc.
>
Those things cannot do what a government does. They have their place,
but cannot replace government. Those organizations only have limited
success. During the early 20th "progressive era" people started forming
and joining all kinds of private charitable organizations, but they only
had a limited effect. The progressives realized they needed to be in
power in the a government to make real change. And don't tell me how
that failed, because the era didn't last long enough for success--the
"roaring 20s" pretty much killed it off. FDR's "New Deal", along with
many similiar programs at state and local levels, did far more good and
was more lasting.
>
> Government DOES cause victimless crimes like drug "crime" as well as
the
> enormous amount of actual crime that results.
I also oppose, to one extent or another, those "victimless crimes". But
under anarchy, there is no law, and thus there would be no consistancy.
At least with government you know what is legal and illegal and how
it can be changed. How do you know what is acceptable under anarchy
from one day to the next?
>
> Other studies have found the same thing; in fact, even foot patrols has
> no significant effect on the crime rate:
> "Over 30 years of criminological research has shown that the ability of
> police to influence crime is extremely limited. For example, neither
> the number of police in a community nor the style of policing appears
> related to the crime rate. In 1991, San Diego and Dallas had about the
> same ratio of police to population, yet twice as many crimes were
> reported in Dallas. Meanwhile, Cleveland and San Diego had comparable
> crime rates even though Cleveland had twice as many police officers per
> capita. And in 1992, the District of Columbia had both the highest
> homicide rate and the most metropolitan police per square foot of any
> city in the nation.
>
Other factors such as poverty/unemployment are larger factors than
police presence. Those cities you compare are like apples and oranges.
I did not say community policing solves everything. We need to end
poverty in America.
> --Richard Moran, professor of criminology at Mount Holyoke College.
> "Community Policing Strategies Do Little to Prevent Crime." In: _Crime_
> P. Winters, ed. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1998.
>
From the Free Library by Farlex...
Community-oriented policing: success insurance strategies
Law enforcement agencies across the country are implementing
community-oriented policing (COP) philosophies. When they do, everyone
from politicians to the press sings their praises, emphasizing the
remarkable results COP programs often obtain. These well-meaning
cheerleaders often downplay or fail to mention the obstacles that
invariably surface when organizational change takes place in one of the
most resistant-to-change establishments in existence: the law
enforcement agency. Law enforcement agencies making the transition to
community-oriented policing need tried-and-true methods for overcoming
such hurdles before they weaken their esprit de corps and simultaneously
undercut the chief executive officer's (CEO) managerial effectiveness.
The country is littered with CEOs and failed attempts to transform law
enforcement agencies from traditional to community policing.
With proper planning, however, law enforcement agencies and the
communities they serve can enjoy the fruits of COP without becoming
embroiled in problems. The Whiteville, North Carolina, Police
Department's and other techniques. The resulting positive organizational
culture provided the fertile ground necessary for COP to take root and
blossom.
The impetus for the move to community policing came from both inside and
outside the department. Whiteville's current chief took the helm of a
department that was rife with dissention and animosity. Teamwork and
morale had reached record lows. The chief saw COP as a long-term
strategy for solving some of these internal problems. In addition,
several officers who had worked for other departments pushed for a
change in the department's traditional policing practices. Other
officers had heard about COP from peers in departments that already had
implemented the philosophy.
Outside the department, members of the community encouraged the WPD to
move toward any type of effort that would form a partnership between the
police and the community. Although residents did not know the term
"community-oriented policing," they wanted a more visible police
presence in their neighborhoods and a better relationship between
citizens and the police. Thus, the chief viewed COP not only as a means
of solving internal problems but also as a way to address the needs of
the city's residents.
THE FOUNDATION
Several key elements contributed to WPD's successful COP implementation.
The most prominent factor was creating the appropriate organizational
culture - i.e., values, beliefs, and behaviors - to empower employees
and help them understand the importance of customer satisfaction and, in
turn, deliver quality services.
Positive Organizational Culture
To avoid the havoc and diminished morale that COP sometimes creates in
agencies, the chief introduced officers to COP slowly. During the first
year, the chief did not introduce any COP practices. Instead, he placed
primary emphasis on building a healthy foundation from which to
institute COP principles. Officers wrote their own personal mission
statements and developed personal goals.(1) The chief also instituted
TQM principles, which played an equally important role in establishing a
positive culture throughout the agency.
The TQM philosophy has three basic elements: teamwork, participative
management, and continuous improvement in quality and productivity.
Initially, officers need to accept the values, beliefs, and behaviors
that lead to customer satisfaction and quality improvement. Once this is
achieved, the goal of delivering law enforcement services in a manner
that satisfies the needs and priorities of customers is much more likely
to become a reality. Such a victory comes from empowerment, a force that
energizes employees to take personal interest and responsibility in
achieving the agency's goals because they realize that they genuinely
have a say in how things get accomplished.
Though an experienced TQM and COP instructor, the chief purposely did
not train any employees. Doing so might have short-circuited the
implementation process and caused employees to believe that they would
be labeled troublemakers if they questioned any of the program's tenets
or processes. Instead, the chief worked with experienced TQM instructors
from the local community college to develop a comprehensive training
program tailored to the unique needs of the department.
Mission Statement
Applying the TQM team approach, the chief appointed a mission statement
team. Within a month, the team had drafted a mission statement that all
department employees reviewed and voted to accept. It then became the
guiding philosophy of the department. Because everyone had a hand in
developing the mission statement, it took on an aura of a constitution
by which all members of the department loyally and wholeheartedly abide.
Today, it sits proudly and conspicuously in the lobby of the department
and the squad room. It also is printed in every employee manual.
THE FRAMEWORK
COP officially began in Whiteville in July 1994 as a target-specific
approach, with the establishment of the West-Side COP Team and the
opening of Substation-West in a federally subsidized low-income housing
complex in an area of the city designated West-Beat. Initially, the
chief assigned a team of two officers to this area known for its high
crime rate and frequent service calls.
WPD originally planned to use its experience from West-Beat operations
to expand COP into the east-side 2 years. However, the West-Side COP
Team caused a massive displacement of crime to the east side of the
city. Additionally, numerous upper-class subdivisions (with low crime
rates) on the east side soon became jealous. They, too, wanted to
receive the special attention from the community policing officers. By
the end of the year, only 5 months after establishing the West-Side COP
Team, the transition team accelerated the conversion to COP on the east
side.
East-Beat emerged as a second target-specific area. Another federally
subsidized apartment complex housed the newly formed Substation-East.
The city then had two target-specific areas with one community policing
officer assigned to each substation. A community policing sergeant
supervised these officers.
Soon, downtown merchants became aware of the program. They envied the
attention and additional police activity on the east and west sides of
town. To satisfy business owners, the community policing sergeant also
covered the business district, becoming its personal community policing
officer. The sergeant solved problems and developed partnerships in the
business district. He worked closely with the chamber of commerce, and
when the WPD established a downtown substation in December 1996, it was
located within the chamber of commerce office.
Although COP began with a targeted approach, in January 1996, it evolved
into a departmentwide, citywide effort. All patrol officers were
assigned designated neighborhoods with the responsibility to conduct the
full range of COP activities. Consequently, all patrol officers and
sergeants now are considered community policing officers.
Transition Team
With the TQM training and mission statement completed, the department
developed a transition team, consisting of the chief and five other
officers. The officers, who were selected by the chief, had expressed
interest in COP. This team represented the think tank, the guiding light
that looked at the overall picture and formulated the agency's approach
to instituting community-oriented policing.
To ensure that the team carried out this endeavor effectively, each
member received training in the evolution of COP, its benefits (e.g.,
lower crime rates, reduced fear of crime, and, ultimately, an enhanced
quality of life in neighborhoods), and implementation strategies. After
acquiring this training, members of the transition team worked to
develop approaches to initiate community policing in Whiteville.
Because the team consisted of representatives with diverse experience
and training, a synergistic effect occurred, and the department's COP
effort began to blossom. The team made numerous judicious
recommendations for tailoring COP to the unique needs of Whiteville.
Today, the team continues to provide an invaluable resource by
fine-tuning the department's current methods and determining the most
appropriate means of infusing additional programs into the COP network.
THE REWARDS
The Whiteville Police Department's successful COP endeavors earned the
department the North Carolina Governor's Award for Excellence in
Community-Oriented Policing in 1996 and 1997. Additionally, the
department serves as a teaching model for the North Carolina Justice
Academy and has been selected, along with six other state agencies, to
provide input in a major state research study to develop a comprehensive
primer for effectively developing COP. These honors cap off the
intrinsic rewards that come from tackling a major task and completing it
well.
Community Involvement
The department introduced COP to citizens in several ways. First, and
most important, officers began working with residents to organize
community watch programs. Because they provide a link between officers
and residents, community watch groups became a part of the department's
hierarchy. These groups also work with WPD in prioritizing and seeking
solutions to problems identified by residents.
Organizing community watch programs is not difficult. Once citizens hear
about the programs and learn they will have a hand in setting police
priorities and allocating police services, they usually respond
enthusiastically.
While most citizens embrace community watch groups, officers should not
be surprised when attendance at meetings drops once problems diminish in
that neighborhood. Experience suggests that people initially may meet
monthly, but quickly go to quarterly meetings. The drop in attendance
and the reduced meeting schedule does not mean that COP has failed.
Rather, it reflects successful problem solving and satisfaction with
police services.
Because the WPD considers community watch one of the most important
factors for ensuring the success of COP, the chief designed a form to
help officers successfully kick off community watch programs. As a
checklist, the form prompts officers to take the necessary steps before
and during the first, most important meeting. The form proved so
valuable that the department uses it as a teaching tool at area COP
conferences.
CONCLUSION
The Whiteville Police Department moved slowly from a traditional
policing model to a community-oriented approach. First, the department
built a positive organizational culture and implemented Total Quality
Management principles. From this foundation, two WPD officers instituted
community policing in one inner-city neighborhood. This methodical,
targeted approach allowed WPD to integrate community policing
successfully throughout the department and the city.
Though COP often is viewed as a silver bullet, capable of reducing
crime, the fear of crime, and neighborhood disorder and decay, CEOs must
remain acutely attuned to the unique adverse side effects that sometimes
flow from the implementation of this new philosophy of policing. COP
Success Insurance Strategies can help CEOs triumph over the pitfalls and
successfully merge community policing into their agencies.
>
> > Here is a more recent study:
> > More cops on beat reduce crime on street, FSU study shows
> >
> > by Jill Elish
> >
> > Do police deter crime?
Beginning snipped.
> > Although it seems obvious that more police should result in less crime,
> > many previous studies have shown that isn't the case-or worse, that more
> > police actually equal more crime. It's a puzzle that has been difficult
> > to solve because cities with high crime rates have more officers. Do
> > more police cause the higher crime rates, or do cities with high crime
> > rates hire more police?
>
>
> Note the above paragraph, especially "Although it seems obvious that
> more police should result in less crime, many previous studies have
> shown that isn't the case-or worse, that more police actually equal more
> crime."
>
As I said because those studies are in the past and do not look at
modern community policing. You deleted my comment that Baley supported
proactive community policing.
> There are almost always at least a few contradictory studies on any such
> point.
Ahh already you are starting to backtrack.
>
> Against that you have to weigh the enormous cost of the police and the
> large amount of *harm* that they do. When you weigh the hundreds of
> innocent people abused, killed, or framed by the police each year, it's
> doubtful whether they do any net good at all.
>
Liberals oppose police brutality. It should not be tolerated. Those
things could be stopped if those in charge of the police would stand up
to them. That is a separate issue.
Dan Clore
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ywsof2
> Government? Who needs it?
> People use the term 'anarchy' recklessly, Daniel Morley Johnson says.
> They might be surprised at what it actually means
> by DANIEL MORLEY JOHNSON
> August 11, 2007
Those interested in how anarchism might work should read An Anarchist FAQ:
A number of the questions raised on this thread are discussed there.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Topaz
Here is proof that it is your side that tell lies:
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that the Jews tell big lies. The
Jewish media took his words out of context and claimed that Hitler was
in favor of big lies. This was in itself a big lie and proof that
Hitler was right. Here is what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf and in
context:
"But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity
for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute
responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had
shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the
catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that
hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for
the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took
away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous
enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the
Fatherland to justice. All this was inspired by the principle--which
is quite true in itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain
force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always
more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature
than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity
of their minds they are more readily fall victims to the big lie than
the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little
matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It
would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and
they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort
truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so
may be brought clearly to their minds, they still doubt and waver and
will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For
the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it
has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in
this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These
people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest
purposes.
"From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than
any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not their
very existence founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a
religious community, whereas in reality they are a race? And what a
race! One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced has
branded the Jews for all time with a statement which is profoundly and
exactly true. He (Schopenhauer) called the Jew 'The Great Master of
Lies'. Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not
wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth
to prevail."
Michael Price
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 19:09:41 -0700, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > That may work in business. But the best brains often
> > > don't get to be political leaders unless their is a system
> > > that promotes it.
> > So then you agree there should not be any political leaders
> >presumably?
>
> We need leaders.
>
Why? Simply claiming that we need something so dangerous
as political leadership is not enough. What are the actual benefits?
> > What "system" could make the best brains political
> >leaders,
>
> National Socialism
That's a laugh, it supported a drug-addicted pyscopath who
killed millions.
>
> > rather than those best able to persuade people that they
> >are good leaders? Certainly not national socialism that depended
> >deeply on people being convinced of absurdities.
>
> The Jews do control the media and rule America. That was the same
> thing they had in Germany until Hitler stopped it.
>
Yeah it's all a conspiracy. Or maybe things were as bad as
the "jews" tell us which is why there were so many gas chambers.
> Whites on average are much more intelligent than Blacks.
>
> National Socialism was right about everything.
>
Then why did it start a war it couldn't win? Why did it do
absurd things like try to beautify workplaces when nobody
wanted beautiful workplaces enough for it to be worth the
effort?
>
> >> Look at Bush. He is the president of the United States. And the
> >> main thing he lacks is brains.
>
> > So why have a President?
>
> > No I think I would be safe whether or not I am fast with a gun or
> >a good shot. That's what professional protection agencies and/or
> >militia alliances are for.
>
> In that case everybody would indirectly benefit from them whether
> they paid for it or not.
What part of "professional" and "mutual" do you not understand?
The protection agencies and the militia would protect only those
who they agreed to protect and therefore everybody would not
indirectly benefit.
> So everyone should pay. We should have taxes.
>
> > And my relatives could have one waiting for them. You claimed that
> > the "mafia" would take control. How? How would anyone control
> > a society where everyone can be armed and is entitled to defend their
> > rights with lethal force?
>
> Everyone would also have no reason not to rob their neighbor with
> lethal force.
>
Other than the fact that their neighbour would have armed friends,
armed family and probably an armed professional protection agency.
You really should try to remember what I have said before lying
about it.
> > And if they're good people why would they want to have the monopoly
> > of force?
>
> To put the bad people in their place.
>
But a monopoly isn't useful for that. If people are being "bad"
then they
are abusing rights and the most efficent way to deal with them is to
have the people whose rights are abused act against them or hire
someone
to do so.
> > And those people could travel on someone else's roads. People
> >already tell people to stay off their trains, is that not freedom?
>
> You have to do a lot of work to build a train.
And to build a road moron.
> Roads obviously should be public property.
>
No that's not obvious at all. Saying something is obvious
is not evidence.
Michael Price
Michael Price
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:45:37 -0400, "Dr. Zarkov" <M...@Mongo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Can you prove that government does prevent a few from dominating?
I'll take that as a "no".
Michael Price
> Dr. Zarkov wrote:
> > Tim Howard wrote:
> > > Dr. Zarkov wrote:
>
> > >> It is more likely that a few will dominate a group under a government
> > >> than an anarchy.
>
> > > Can you prove that?
>
> > Can you prove that government does prevent a few from dominating?
>
> I did not say that it usually does. I already told you it is human
> nature for a few people to dominate a group. No system will prevent
> that.
Well that's your claim but I don't see that you can support it. If
you can't
prove that anarchism can't prevent it then you can't prove that no
system
will prevent it.
> But under a democratic republic, like we have, people at least
> have the chance to vote in/out whoever they want. They have a chance to
> participate as much as they like without fear of reprisal.
So what? Participation doesn't mean you're not dominated.
> There is not
> one single group or type of group that "dominates" and these guys know
> one wrong move plastered all over the media and they can be voted out,
Only if they victimise people who are a) numerous and b) conscious
of
their victimisation. Few people are.
> fair or not. Under your anarchistic state, it would be rule by the
> stronger.
Well by definition there is not anarchistic state. And why do you
think that
there will be rule by the stronger? Where's the evidence? What's your
theory?
>
> > The advantage of a market economy over government-controlled or
> > dominated economies is so well documented, it's hardly worth arguing.
> > Even the former socialist countries have seen it.
>
> Anti-democratic solialism with no market based aspect was wrong, but
> that does not mean capitalism is just. As for everyone now agreeing
> that "a market economy" is best, just remember capitalists won the
> economic war and "the winners write the history books".
>
And they won it by producing more of what people wanted. That's
called
"being better".
> > >> > And how would anarchy "deal with this problem"?
>
> > >> It depends on the type of anarchy. In an individualistic anarchy or
> > >> anarcho-capitalism, private protection/justice agencies would be
> > >> available.
>
> > > That sounds rather cryptic and ominous to me.
>
Ok, why?
> > There's nothing cryptic or ominous about it to anyone familiar with the
> > concepts. It's useful to know something about a topic before you start
> > critiquing it; ie, read a little on what anarchists have proposed.
>
> I'll answer this further below...
>
> > >> > Government is just a tool. It can be used for good or evil.
>
> > >> And it is frequently used for evil. What's more, it does not even
> > >> provide the justice or protection against evil that you claim is so
> > >> critical. Even in a relatively benign state like the U.S., the net
> > >> protection provided by government is barely significant.
>
> One reason for that is all the conservatives who don't want the
> government to do anything to protect us from abuses by big business, the
> police, etc
Another is that liberals don't wawnt the government to protect us
against
being robbed, because they want to rob us for a "good cause". So do
the
conservatives.
>
> > > People have to do their part with neighborhood watches etc. But don't
> > > tell me you would consider that anarchy.
>
> > >> Look up the
> > >> figures. Very few crimes are ever solved (about one or two percent);
>
> > > How could crime be solved under anarchy?
>
> > By the private protection/justice services--and/or including the
> > individuals affected if they so choose.
>
> This would quickly turn into vigilantism.
What do you mean by that? What is it about vigilantism you think
would
be bad? Vigilantism simply means that a person is judged and punished
by force without the intervention of the government. How is that
worse
than being judged and punished by force with the intervention of the
government?
Now you might say that the government is accountable and private
citizens not
but the reverse is true. How often do prosecutors go to jail for bad
faith
prosecutions? Almost never and it's not because they're honest (see
the
Duke rape case for proof). But private citizens that punished by
force would
be liable to punishment themselves. They would have no protection
from
it but the evidence that they acted in accordance with accepted law.
> Since there is no law, no judging by peers etc, these gun-toting militias would take out whoever
> they wanted, and then say that was the criminal.
Why would their be no law? You're assuming the consequent here.
> Since most people seem to have the tough-on-crime attitude, they would probably
> blindly go along with it.
>
Well you're assuming that a) people would have this "tough on crime"
attitude even
without State propaganda and the massive increase in crime caused by
the State, b)
that they would go along with something even when it means their own
oppression.
>
> > >> nor is there any evidence that the police have a significant effect in
> > >> preventing crime.
>
Is there any evidence that police prevent more crime than they
cause? One of the
primary causes of crime is things like drug prohibition, poverty etc.
caused by
government.
> > > Putting more police on regular beats in high crime areas does reduce
> > > crime.
>
> > I repeat, the Kansas City study,
>
> Keep repeating your false argument...
>
>
>
> > The most thorough study ever done, a 1981 analysis of police beats in
> > Newark, NJ, found that foot patrols had virtually no effect on crime
> > rates."
>
> Again, studying past mistakes...
>
> > --Richard Moran, professor of criminology at Mount Holyoke College.
> > "Community Policing Strategies Do Little to Prevent Crime." In: _Crime_
> > P. Winters, ed. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1998.
>
> Here are some different opinions.
>
> From the U.S. Dept. of Justice Website...
>
> Mayors, Police Chiefs Turn Spotlight On Success Of Community Policing
>
All this says is that one method of using police reduces crime
compared
to another method of using police. It says nothing about what would
happen if police were removed.
No the lesson is that you can't claim something with a massive
police presence is anarchy on usenet and get away with it.
> > The police
> > routinely harass, arrest, and even beat innocent people, especially in
> > such neighborhoods, where the police know residents have little power.
> > The police are not uncommonly part of the very criminal gangs they are
> > supposed to protect against.
>
> I don't doubt that is true.
>
> > > What's more, the police and government do a great
> > >> deal of evil themselves, eg, harassing, beating, imprisoning, and even
> > >> killing innocent people. See the references at the end.
>
> > > I do not need to see any references to believe their are police abuses.
> > > But your "private protection agencies" sound like a mob and sounds like
> > > greater potential for abuse. Your guys would go around hurting people
> > > they suspected were guilty of something, because no one would have any
> > > protection under the law, since there would be no law.
>
> > Unlike government police, private protection agencies-
> > Would be legally accountable for any abuses--could not hide behind
> > "sovereign immunity" and the other special laws protecting government
> > police.
>
> Hah! and how can anyone be accountable without a system of rule of law?
I don't know but you apparently believe it's possible since you
support the
State system. In the State system the State is not subject to the
rule of
law since it commands the law. Only in anarchy can there be the rule
of
law.
> Which anarchy dose not have.
Says who? Where's you evidence?
> Who is going to punish them for their abuses?
Those they abuse or their agents.
> You seem to want it both ways--calling for anarchy, but what
> you talk about sounds like a government sometimes.
>
How? Government has a monopoly and is not subject to
being hauled into an independent court, or failing to go to court,
to punitive action.
> > >> > It has everything to do with it. How will people be held
> > accountable
> > >> > under anarchy?
>
> > >> This was answered above.
>
> No it wasn't. Your arnacocapitalism or whatever the hell you called it
> will lead to a few wealthy capitalists dominating things, far worse than
> it is now in the USA.
>
How? How could a few wealthy capitalists force anyone to do
anything?
They can't control the courts because the courts want everyone's
business
and cannot force anyone to accept a corrupt ruling. They can't
control the
police because the police work for many different agencies some of
them
specialising in providing service to poor people (and some not-for-
profit),
they can't control the military because it doesn't exist.
> For a detailed analysis of how such a system
>
> > >> would function, see David Friedman's _The Machinery of Freedom_ (some
> > >> available on-line)
> > >>http://tinyurl.com/2zppwg
>
> >http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_C...
>
> > >>http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
>
> > > I will read this site sometime.
>
> > > Everyone will cooperate happily with each other voluntarily. And you
> > > say this is not utopic?
>
> > It is not utopian to suggest that people will voluntarily cooperate for
> > their own interests. It's the way human beings evolved, and it's
> > something that appeals to anyone capable of rational self-interest.
> > There is nothing utopian about forming and joining businesses,
> > charitable organizations, scholarly societies, clubs, trade
> > associations, etc., etc.
>
> Those things cannot do what a government does. They have their place,
> but cannot replace government. Those organizations only have limited
> success. During the early 20th "progressive era" people started forming
> and joining all kinds of private charitable organizations, but they only
> had a limited effect.
They had a massive effect and were only made obselete when
government
came in and replaced their efforts at higher costs and lower
usefulness.
> The progressives realized they needed to be in
> power in the a government to make real change.
And how did that work out? I'll tell you, it was a disaster that
increased
poverty and made everyone subject to the whims of the "progressives".
That's the real change they needed government for.
> And don't tell me how
> that failed, because the era didn't last long enough for success--the
> "roaring 20s" pretty much killed it off.
Yeah it was going real well.
> FDR's "New Deal", along with
> many similiar programs at state and local levels, did far more good and
> was more lasting.
>
No it prolonged the depression and brought unheard of levels of
corruption
and incompetence to government while destroying capital and in the
end only being saved by Britain's war purchases.
> > Government DOES cause victimless crimes like drug "crime"
> > as well as the enormous amount of actual crime that results.
>
> I also oppose, to one extent or another, those "victimless crimes". But
> under anarchy, there is no law, and thus there would be no consistancy.
Why do you keep saying there would be no law? Why would there be
no law?
> At least with government you know what is legal and illegal and how
> it can be changed.
Bullshit. I have no idea how many crimes I've committed under
government
law and neither do you.
> How do you know what is acceptable under anarchy
> from one day to the next?
>
The courts would establish precedent so that people would know what
to
expect from their services. Changing the law would have to be
justified
otherwise it would lose business. how do you know what will be
acceptable
tommorrow under the State? For instance was tapping your phone
acceptable?
Then why was it accepted?
<snip>
> > > > Although it seems obvious that more police should result in less crime,
> > > many previous studies have shown that isn't the case-or worse, that more
> > > police actually equal more crime. It's a puzzle that has been difficult
> > > to solve because cities with high crime rates have more officers. Do
> > > more police cause the higher crime rates, or do cities with high crime
> > > rates hire more police?
>
> > Note the above paragraph, especially "Although it seems obvious that
> > more police should result in less crime, many previous studies have
> > shown that isn't the case-or worse, that more police actually equal more
> > crime."
>
> As I said because those studies are in the past and do not look at
> modern community policing. You deleted my comment that Baley supported
> proactive community policing.
Only compared to other methods of monopoly policing.
>
> > There are almost always at least a few contradictory studies on any such
> > point.
>
> Ahh already you are starting to backtrack.
>
> > Against that you have to weigh the enormous cost of the police and the
> > large amount of *harm* that they do. When you weigh the hundreds of
> > innocent people abused, killed, or framed by the police each year, it's
> > doubtful whether they do any net good at all.
>
> Liberals oppose police brutality. It should not be tolerated. Those
> things could be stopped if those in charge of the police would stand up
> to them. That is a separate issue.
No they couldn't because the police are only subject to other
police.
What would you do if the police simply told those in charge "We do
not accept your command."? Under anarchy brutal police would
be just as in danger as brutal muggers from retaliation.
Topaz
wrote:
>On Aug 21, 6:21 am, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I am against libertarianism and especially anarchy. Yet you want
that to dominate.
Topaz
wrote:
> Why? Simply claiming that we need something so dangerous
>as political leadership is not enough. What are the actual benefits?
By Walter Ruthard
I myself was brought up in a small village in the southwest of
Germany. In 1939, when the war broke out, we left for the less exposed
Odenwald area until the possible danger of a French invasion had
passed. Shortly after that my father was transferred to the Ruhr
region. He as requested work as a foreman for the Mauser arms factory.
The government, true to their claims to be national and socialist,
took their promises seriously and provided young people starting a
family, as well as those who already had children, with affordable
housing. The first child brought a reduction of the mortgage by 25
percent, and when the fourth child arrived the mortgage was no more.
My parents already had four children then and thus were eligible for a
free newly built house from the government.
This was but one of the many programs the government established in
order to improve the quality of life for its citizens…
Then there was the "Kinderlandverschickung" program. It was started
before the war and enabled mothers in need of recreation to spend some
time in rural settings together with their children…
Another very popular social program of the government was "Fraft
durch Freude" (strength through joy). Here deserving workers could
take all-inclusive tours on luxury liners that were built especially
for this purpose. On these ships there was only one class and
everybody was treated the same. They visited the Azores and
Spitsbergen among other places. Those ships were not allowed to dock
in and English port however. The reason was that the British
government did not want it's citizens to see what it also could have
done for them…
The most misinterpreted program in Germany was the so-called
"Lebensborn". It was the exact opposite of what people are made to
believe it was, or should I say, of what people like to believe… The
Lebensborn was the institution to help unwed mothers who did not know
where to turn for help. They were taken care of during their
pregnancies and afterward as well. This was the Lebensborn, and any
other interpretation is plain hogwash…
My father was able to buy not one but three guns plus two pistols,
together with plenty of ammunition. All it took him was proof that he
was indeed a German citizen without a criminal record. Then in 1945,
when the French "liberated" us, they disarmed him. I know that he was
not the only one to have guns at home, because I saw the many, many
arms that were handed over to the French, and this was in a very small
village…
Then, after the war was over, we had our first experience with a real
democracy. The French introduced it and gave us some shining examples;
one was that the lived off the country and stole everything which
wasn't nailed down…
It was not until many years later that I learned that Hitler held at
least five plebiscites during the first half of his rule. In
democratic Germany, from 1945 until today there has never been a
plebiscite.
There were foreign workers employed in Germany during WWII. I knew
one of them. He worked on a farm and was treated exactly like the son
who was in the army. After the war he stayed on and married the
daughter of the house. He was a prisoner of war from Poland and I
never saw him guarded by any policeman. This is how foreigners were
treated in Germany. They earned the same wages as the Germans, they
took part in the social insurance program, had paid-for holidays
including free train fares, and many came back with friends who also
wanted to work for these "horrible" Germans. Today they are called
slave laborer.
Not everyone was entitled to go on to a university. Only good marks
and above-average performance in schools qualified. But good
performers were promoted with all means available. Today we are much
more democratic; everyone is entitled to a university education and if
the parents are wealthy enough, the son or daughter can study until
they are 35…
Germany was also the country to introduce, in 1933, the first-ever
comprehensive animal protection law. Farm animals had to be kept in
strictly natural environments and no animal factories were allowed. Of
course, no testing of products on animals was permitted, and no kosher
slaughter.
If new industrial facilities were built they had to conform to the
highest standards with adequate lighting and air inside, canteens
where the workers were served nutritious meals at affordable prices,
and beautiful lawns outside: all for the benefit of the workers…In
national socialist Germany, no child labor was allowed as it still was
in other European countries.
And finally, although I could still go on for a while, I would like to
mention that on express orders from Hitler himself, it was strictly
forbidden to use corporal punishment in the army. He was of the
opinion that in was incompatible with the honor of a German to be
punished by such degrading means.
That was the Germany I grew up in, and I am glad that I did.
> That's a laugh, it supported a drug-addicted pyscopath who
>killed millions.
The Jews control your media and your mind.
During World War Two the Germans put Jews and Communists in
concentration camps. The USA locked also up the Japanese and their
political opponents and for less reason. At the end of the war there
was a lot of deaths in the German camps from disease and starvation
because Germany was being bombed to rubble. There is no evidence that
the Germans had gas chambers or an extermination plan.
Newsweek magazine May 15, 1989 says on page 64:
"the way the Nazis did things: the secrecy, the unwritten orders, the
destruction of records and the innocent-sounding code names for the
extermination of the Jews. Perhaps it was inevitable that historians
would quarrel over just what happened"
The real reason there are no records of an extermination plan is
because there was no extermination plan. The Germans planned to deport
the Jews out of Germany. The records show that they planned to move
them to Madagascar.
Here is part of the Leuchter Report:
"Thirty-one samples were selectively removed from the alleged gas
chambers at Kremas I, II, III, IV and V. A control sample was taken
from delousing facility #1 at Birkenau. The control sample was removed
from a delousing chamber in a location where cyanide was known to have
been used and was apparently present as blue staining. Chemical
testing of the control sample #32 showed a cyanide content of 1050
mg/kg, a very heavy concentration. The conditions at areas from which
these samples were taken are identical with those of the control
sample, cold, dark, and wet. Only Kremas IV and V differed, in the
respect that these locations had sunlight (the buildings have been
torn down) and sunlight may hasten the destruction of uncomplexed
cyanide. The cyanide combines with the iron in the mortar and brick
and becomes ferric-ferro-cyanide or prussian blue pigmentation, a very
stable iron-cyanide complex.
"The locations from which the analyzed samples were removed are set
out in Table III.
"It is notable that almost all the samples were negative and that the
few that were positive were very close to the detection level
(1mg/kg); 6.7 mg/kg at Krema III; 7.9 mg/kg at Krerma I. The absence
of any consequential readings at any of the tested locations as
compared to the control sample reading 1050 mg/kg supports the
evidence that these facilities were not execution gas chambers. The
small quantities detected would indicate that at some point these
buildings were deloused with Zyklon B - as were all the buildings at
all these facilities"
Professional holocaust believers have admitted that the "gas chamber"
which is shown to the tourists at Auschwitz was actually built by the
allies after the war was over. This is what they wrote:
Brian Harmon <har...@msg.ucsf.edu> wrote in article
<080620000051136373%har...@msg.ucsf.edu>...
"You're confusing Krema I with Kremas II-V. Krema I is a
reconstruction, this has never been a secret. Kremas II-V are in
their demolished state as they were left."
Charles Don Hall <cdhall...@erols.com> wrote in article
<8F4CB71B...@news.erols.com>...
"Certainly not! The word "fake" implies a deliberate attempt to
deceive.
"The staff of the Auschwitz museum will readily explain that the Nazis
tried to destroy the gas chambers in a futile attempt to conceal their
crimes. And they'll tell you that reconstruction was done later on. So
it would be dishonest for me to call it a "fake". I'll cheerfully
admit that it's a "reconstruction" if that makes you happy."
They admit that the "gas chamber" shown to the tourists at Auschwitz
was built by the allies after the war was over. There is no physical
evidence that the Germans had gas chambers. No bodies of people who
died from gas have been found. The Communists were the first to enter
the camps. How do the other allies know the Communists didn't blow up
the buildings? Then they could claim that these demolished buildings
used to be gas chambers.
But then the believers will say the Germans confessed. Their main
confession is from Hoess. Here are the details:
"In the introduction to Death Dealer [Buffalo: Prometheus, 1992], the
historian Steven Paskuly wrote: "Just after his capture in 1946, the
British Security Police were able to extract a statement from Hoess by
beating him and filling him with liquor." Paskuly was reiterating what
Rupert Butler and Bernard Clarke had already described.
In 1983, Rupert Butler published an unabashed memoir (Legions of
Death, Hamlyn: London) describing in graphic detail how, over three
days, he and Clarke and other British policemen managed to torture
Hoess into making a "coherent statement." According to Butler [Legions
of Death, p. 237], he and the other interrogators put the boots to
Hoess the moment he was captured. For starters, Clarke struck his face
four times to get Höess to reveal his true identity.
<quote>
The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of Jewish sergeants in
the arresting party whose parents had died in Auschwitz following an
order signed by Höss.
The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pajamas ripped from his
body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where
it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless.
Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: "Call them off,
unless you want to take back a corpse."
A blanket was thrown over Höss and he was dragged to Clarke's car,
where the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whisky down his
throat. Höss tried to sleep.
Clarke thrust his service stick under the man's eyelids and ordered in
Geffnan: "Keep your pig eyes open, you swine."
For the first time Höss trotted out his oft-repeated justification: "I
took my orders from Himmler. I was a soldier in the same way as you
are a soldier and we had to obey orders."
The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The snow
was swirling
still, but the blanket was torn from Höss and he was made to walk
completely nude
through the prison yard to his cell.
</quote>
An article in the British newspaper Wrexham Leader [Mike Mason, "In a
cell with a Nazi war criminal-We kept him awake until he confessed,"
October 17, 1986] following the airing of a TV documentary on the case
of Rudolf Hoess included eyewitness recollections by Ken Jones:
<quote>
Mr. Ken Jones was then a private with the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery
stationed at
Heid[e] in Schleswig-Holstein. "They brought him to us when he
refused to
cooperate over questioning about his activities during the war. He
came in the winter
of 1945/6 and was put in a small jail cell in the barracks," recalls
Mr. Jones. Two
other soldiers were detailed with Mr. Jones to join Höss in his cell
to help break
him down for interrogation. "We sat in the cell with him, night and
day, armed with
axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to
help break down
his resistance," said Mr. Jones. When Höss was taken out for exercise
he was made
to wear only jeans and a cotton shirt in the bitter cold. After three
days and
nights without sleep, Höss finally broke down and made a full
confession to
the authorities.
</quote>
The confession Hoess signed was numbered document NO-1210; later
revamped, as document PS-3868, which became the basis for an oral
deposition Hoess made for the IMT on April 15, 1946, a month after it
had been extracted from him by torture...
Since what people confess to after they have been captured by the
Communists and their liberal comrades is not proof of anything, this
leaves only the stories of survivors. These contradict each other and
not believable. One professional survivor said that he could tell if
the Germans were gassing German Jews or Polish Jews by the color of
the smoke.
The fact that there are so many "survivors" is not proof of an
extermination plan. There may be six million survivors. Just about
every Jew that is old says he is a survivor.
The real "holocaust" was when the Communist Jews murdered millions of
Christians. Communism was Jewish. Here is proof:
Article Winston Churchill wrote in 1920:
"This movement amongst the Jews (the Russian Revolution) is not new.
From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down
to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany)
and Emma Goldman (United States), this world wide conspiracy for the
overthrow of civilization and the reconstruction of society on the
basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible
equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer,
Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part
in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of
every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at
last this band of extraordinary personalities has gripped the Russian
people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the
undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to
exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the
actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international
and for the most part atheistic Jews. Moreover, the principal
inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders." (ibid)
Lev Trotzky wrote a book called "Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and
His Influence", Harper Bros., New York and London, 1941, translated by
Charles Malamuth.
In this book he told who the principle members of the October Central
Committee were. This group was the leadership of the Bolshevik Party
during the October Revolution. This is what he wrote:
"In view of the Party's semi-legality the names of persons elected by
secret ballot were not announced at the Congress, with the exception
of the four who had received the largest number of votes. Lenin--133
out of a possible 134, Zinoviev--132, Kamenev--131, Trotzky--131."
Of these four top leaders of the Bolshevik Party the last three were
known Jews. Lenin was thought to be a gentile married to a Jewess. It
was later proven that he was one quarter Jewish, London Jewish
Chronicle April 21, 1995, Lenin: Life and Legacy.
David Francis, the American Ambassador to Russia at the time of the
Revolution, wrote:
"The Bolshevic leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of
whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country
but are internationalists and they are trying to start a world-wide
revolution."
The Director of British Intelligence to the U.S. Secretary of State
wrote this:
"There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international
movement controlled by Jews."
In 1945 the FBI arrested six individuals for stealing 1700 highly
confidential documents from State Department files. This was the
Amerasia case they were:
Philip Jaffe, a Russian Jew who came to the U.S. in 1905. He was at
one time the editor of the communist paper "Labor Defense" and the
ringleader of the group arrested.
Andrew Roth, a Jew.
Mark Gayn, a Jew, changed his name from Julius Ginsberg.
John Service, a gentile.
Emmanuel Larsen, nationality unknown
Kate Mitchel, nationality unknown.
In 1949 the Jewess Judith Coplin was caught passing classified
documents from Justice Department files to a Russian agent.
The highest ranking communist brought to trial in the U.S. was Gerhart
Eisler. He was a Jew. He was the secret boss of the Communist Party
in the U.S. and commuted regularly between the U.S. and Russia.
In 1950 there was the "Hollywood Ten" case. Ten leading film writers
of the Hollywood Film Colony were convicted for contempt of Congress
and sentenced to prison. Nine of the ten were Jews. Six of the ten
were communist party members and the other four were flagrantly
pro-communist.
One of the top new stories of 1949 was the trial of Eugene Dennis and
the Convicted Eleven. This group comprised the National Secretariat of
the American Communist Party. Six were Jews, two gentiles, three
nationality unknown.
Also in 1949 the German-born atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs was
convicted for passing atomic secrets to the Russians. Acting on
information obtained from Fuchs the FBI arrested nine other members of
the ring. All of them were convicted. Eight of the nine were Jews.
Here are some quotes from a very pro-Jewish book that was first
published in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis
Browne.
"But save for such exceptions, the Jews who led or participated in the
heroic efforts to remold the world of the last century, were neither
Reform or Orthodox. Indeed, they were often not professing Jews at
all.
"For instance, there was Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne, both
unfaltering champions of freedom. And even more conspicuously, there
was Karl Marx, one of the great prophetic geniuses of modern times.
"Jewish historians rarely mention the name of this man, Karl Marx,
though in his life and spirit he was far truer to the mission of
Israel than most of those who were forever talking of it. He was born
in Germany in 1818, and belonged to an old rabbinic family. He was not
himself reared as a Jew, however, but while still a child was baptized
a Christian by his father. Yet the rebel soul of the Jew flamed in him
throughout his days, for he was always a 'troubler' in Europe."
"Then, of course, there are Ludwig Borne and Heinrich Heine, two men
who by their merciless wit and sarcasm became leaders among the
revolutionary writers. Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Johann Jacoby,
Gabriel Riesser, Adolphe Cremieux, Signora Nathan- all these of Jewish
lineage played important roles in the struggle that went throughout
Europe in this period. Wherever the war for human liberty was being
waged, whether in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Italy, there
the Jew was to be found. It was little wonder that the enemies of
social progress, the monarchists and the Churchmen, came to speak of
the whole liberal movement as nothing but a Jewish plot."
The book "Soviet Russia and the Jews" by Gregor Aronson and published
by the American Jewish League Against Communism, quotes Stalin in an
interview in 1931 with the Jewish Telegraph Agency. Stalin said:
"...Communists cannot be anything but outspoken enemies of
Anti-Semitism. We fight anti-Semites by the strongest methods in the
Soviet Union. Active anti-Semites are punished by death under the
law."
The following quotes are taken directly from documents available from
the
U.S. Archives:
State Department document 861.00/1757 sent May 2, 1918 by U.S. consul
general in Moscow, Summers: "Jews prominent in local Soviet
government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population...."
State Department document 861.00/2205 was sent from Vladivostok on
July 5, 1918 by U.S. consul Caldwell: "Fifty percent of Soviet
government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type."
From the Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia on
March 1, 1919, comes this telegram from Omsk by Chief of Staff, Capt.
Montgomery Shuyler: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the
United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since it's
beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest
type" type."
A second Schuyler telegram, dated June 9, 1919 from Vladivostok,
reports on the make-up of the presiding Soviet government: "...(T)here
were 384 'commissars' including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen,
22 Armenians, AND MORE THAN 300 JEWS. Of the latter number, 264 had
come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the
Imperial Government.
The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, confirmed this:
"Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to
spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is
organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one
object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."
"The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of
Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a
new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in
Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction
and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental an
physical forces, become a reality all over the world." (The American
Hebrew, September 10, 1920 "In the Bolshevik era, 52 percent of the
membership of the Soviet communist party was Jewish, though Jews
comprised only 1.8 percent of the total population." (Stuart Kahan,
The Wolf of the Kremlin, p. 81)
Interestingly, one of the first acts by the Bolsheviks was to make
so-called "anti-Semitism" a capital crime. This is confirmed by Stalin
himself:
"National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic
customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as
an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of
cannibalism...under USSR law active anti-Semites are liable to the
death penalty." (Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13, p. 30).
Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried to read
articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous
stuff. From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I
recalled to mind the names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then
I realized that most of them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social
Democratic representatives in the Imperial Cabinet as well as the
secretaries if the Trades Unions and the street agitators. Everywhere
the same sinister picture presented itself. I shall never forget the
row of names- Austerlitz, David, Adler, Ellonbogen, and others. One
fact became quite evident to me. It was that this alien race held in
its hands the leadership of that Social Democratic Party with whose
minor representatives I had been disputing for months past."
Solzhenitsyn named in his book the six top administrators of the
Soviet death camps. All six of them were Jews.
Here is something the National Socialists wrote:
"The Soviet Union was in fact a paradise for one group: the Jews. Even
at times when for foreign policy reasons Jews were less evident in the
government, or when they ruled through straw men, the Jews were always
visible in the middle and lower levels of the administration."
Dan Clore
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 01:15:06 -0700, Michael Price <nini...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> On Aug 21, 6:21 am, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:45:37 -0400, "Dr. Zarkov" <M...@Mongo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can you prove that government does prevent a few from dominating?
>> <snip irrevelencies>
>>
>> I'll take that as a "no".
>
> I am against libertarianism and especially anarchy. Yet you want
> that to dominate.
There's something elegant about the wording there.
Dr. Zarkov
> Dr. Zarkov wrote:
>> Tim Howard wrote:
>> > Dr. Zarkov wrote:
>> >
>> >> It is more likely that a few will dominate a group under a
government
>> >> than an anarchy.
>> >
>> >
>> > Can you prove that?
>> Can you prove that government does prevent a few from dominating?
>
>
> I did not say that it usually does. I already told you it is human
> nature for a few people to dominate a group. No system will prevent
> that. But under a democratic republic, like we have, people at least
> have the chance to vote in/out whoever they want. They have a chance to
> participate as much as they like without fear of reprisal. There is not
> one single group or type of group that "dominates" and these guys know
> one wrong move plastered all over the media and they can be voted out,
> fair or not. Under your anarchistic state, it would be rule by the
> stronger.
No, an anarchy is rule by NO ONE. Even "democratic republics" are rule
by the majority and special interests. Everyone is *forced* to follow
the policies adopted by the government.
...
> > >> > And how would anarchy "deal with this problem"?
>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It depends on the type of anarchy. In an individualistic anarchy or
>> >> anarcho-capitalism, private protection/justice agencies would be
>> >> available.
>> >>
>> > That sounds rather cryptic and ominous to me.
>>
>>
>> There's nothing cryptic or ominous about it to anyone familiar with
>> the concepts. It's useful to know something about a topic before you
>> start critiquing it; ie, read a little on what anarchists have
proposed.
>
>
> I'll answer this further below...
>
>> >> > Government is just a tool. It can be used for good or evil.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And it is frequently used for evil. What's more, it does not even
>> >> provide the justice or protection against evil that you claim is so
>> >> critical. Even in a relatively benign state like the U.S., the net
>> >> protection provided by government is barely significant.
>> >
>
> One reason for that is all the conservatives who don't want the
> government to do anything to protect us from abuses by big business, the
> police, etc.
Why should that happen if your "democratic republic" works so well? But
the fact is that "liberals" have been just as supportive of abuses as
conservatives. It is the "liberals" who supported expansion of policing
(eg, the TSA, federal funding for more local police) as well as laws
against victimless crimes like drugs. It is the "liberals" who want to
disarm everyone and expect people to place their trust in the police.
>> > People have to do their part with neighborhood watches etc. But
don't
>> > tell me you would consider that anarchy.
>> >
>> >> Look up the
>> >> figures. Very few crimes are ever solved (about one or two
percent);
>> >
>> >
>> > How could crime be solved under anarchy?
>>
>>
>> By the private protection/justice services--and/or including the
>> individuals affected if they so choose.
>>
> This would quickly turn into vigilantism. Since there is no law, no
> judging by peers etc, these gun-toting militias would take out whoever
> they wanted, and then say that was the criminal. Since most people seem
> to have the tough-on-crime attitude, they would probably blindly go
> along with it.
I repeat, it is useful to know something about a topic before you
critique it. Under anarcho-capitalism there would be laws contractually
agreed to with the protection/justice services. And your attitude
toward people is rather contradictory: How can you argue that people
should have power in a democracy but think they would act so
irresponsibly in an anarchy? A democracy is supposed to carry out the
will of the people.
>> >> nor is there any evidence that the police have a significant
>> effect in
>> >> preventing crime.
>> >
>> >
>> > Putting more police on regular beats in high crime areas does reduce
>> > crime.
>>
>> I repeat, the Kansas City study,
>
>
> Keep repeating your false argument...
>
>>
>> The most thorough study ever done, a 1981 analysis of police beats in
>> Newark, NJ, found that foot patrols had virtually no effect on crime
>> rates."
>
>
> Again, studying past mistakes...
We've been hearing that excuse for at least 40 years now. Apologists
for police claim that there were problems and abuses but that they have
corrected or are correcting them. The Knapp commission in the 1970s
found that essentially the entire New York City police department was
corrupt. They supposedly made some reforms, but the present department
is as abusive as ever. The problems always seem to resurface. More
recent investigations in Los Angeles, New Orleans, Philadelphia, New
Jersey, etc. have found that even worse abuses are widespread.
Nor is there any reason to believe that new policing methods will be an
improvement. They are always coming up with some new fad--community
policing, pro-active policing, the broken windows theory, or whatever.
There is no evidence that any really work, as Dr. Moran pointed out.
What've more, many are even more abusive. Even if it did "work" (ie,
reduce crime) "pro-active" policing is simply unacceptable because it is
so intrusive and abusive of rights.
There simply is no way to make a government monopoly like policing
effective, responsible, and nonabusive. It is not responsive to its
customers' needs and desires, as a private company must be. Instead,
the police typically make up criteria like number of arrests to judge
cops--leading to a vast number of arrests for nonsense like marijuana
possession while most thefts, rapes, and even murders remain unsolved.
Also leading to a lot of unnecessary harassment and arrests by cops
trying to meet their quota or make themselves look good. Indeed,
innocent people have been killed by cops trying to make their nightly
quota in New York (eg, Patrick Dorismund, a security guard on his way
home from work who resisted an entrapment by cops and was shot to death).
>> --Richard Moran, professor of criminology at Mount Holyoke College.
>> "Community Policing Strategies Do Little to Prevent Crime." In:
>> _Crime_ P. Winters, ed. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1998.
>>
> Here are some different opinions.
>
> From the U.S. Dept. of Justice Website...
>
> Mayors, Police Chiefs Turn Spotlight On Success Of Community Policing
>
> Mayors, police chiefs and other top municipal and law enforcement
> officials from 35 cities will assemble in Las Vegas July 22 for a
> roundtable review of the contribution that community policing has made
> to the reduction of crime and violence across the nation over the past
> several years, and an open discussion of some of the community policing
> initiatives that have been most effective.
<snip a lot of descriptions & self-congratulations>
1. That is not a scholarly study; it is just a lot of
self-congratulatory BS.
2. It is from police chiefs and similar people who have a vested
interest in promoting their programs.
3. It cites as evidence the reduction in crime that occurred in the
1990s. That's typical government BS. The crime rate did indeed fall
sharply in the 90s, but there is no evidence that it had anything to do
with the police or government policies.
4. The overall crime rate declined significantly over that period mainly
because the population is aging (the same reason we'll be having
problems with social security and Medicare). It is one of the best
established facts of criminology that most crimes are committed by
younger people. The rate has also been declining in Canada and other
countries where this is happening. ("Canada's crime rate for 1999 hit
the lowest level in 20 years." Dateline: 07/21/00[Statistics Canada,
Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics])
The crime rate went up dramatically in the 60s and 70s as the baby
boomers came of age and the average age of the population fell. I don't
recall any politicians or police taking the blame for that, but a lot of
them are rushing to take credit for the drop in recent years, which has
nothing to do with anything they have done But of course, government
officials never miss a chance at self-aggrandizement.
"The proportion of the population involved in crime tends to peak in
adolescence and early adulthood and then decline with age. This
age-crime relationship is remarkably similar across historical periods,
geographic locations, and crime types."
--Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice, 2nd ed. J Dressler, editor.
Macmillan 2002 (Vol 1, p31)
Judge Burton Roberts, administrative judge for the 12th Judicial
District of the Supreme Court of New York, was quoted in Forbes as
stating, "Crime is down as a result of demographics. Right now you have
less people in the 15-to-25-year age group, in which criminals are most
active."
>>
>> > What we have now is many urban areas that have been all but
>> > abandoned by government and criminals control those neighborhoods.
>> > Essentially this is a form of anarchy.
>>
>>
>> Not true. Many such urban areas have a large number of police
>> assigned to them. For example, Washington, DC has the greatest
>> concentration of police per area in the nation. The residents of most
>> poor, minority areas often look upon the police as an occupying army.
>
>
> The only lesson here is you can overdo anything.
That's changing the point. You claimed that there were few police in
such areas. And if the police did any good at all, one would expect at
least some positive effects in areas with a high police concentration.
Again, you might want to read up on such a system before commenting on
it. There would be "laws" entered into as contractual obligations with
whatever protection/justice service a person wanted (for those who so
choose). Individuals could also provide their own protection and call
upon such services as needed. David Friedman has given an extensive
(mainly economic) analysis of how and why such a system would work (eg,
how differences in laws and systems could be resolved to everyone's
acceptance).
>> >> > It has everything to do with it. How will people be held
>> accountable
>> >> > under anarchy?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> This was answered above.
>
>
> No it wasn't. Your arnacocapitalism or whatever the hell you called it
> will lead to a few wealthy capitalists dominating things, far worse than
> it is now in the USA.
No it would not--any more than any single company can dominate a market
in a free market system. Especially not if real choices in
social-political system were available--if anarchy is so terrible and
your statist system so wonderful, why would you have to force everyone
to accept statism?
Again, there would be "laws" administered and enforced by private
protection/justice agencies.
...
> The Whiteville Police Department's successful COP endeavors earned the
> department the North Carolina Governor's Award for Excellence in
> Community-Oriented Policing in 1996 and 1997.
...
> Because the WPD considers community watch one of the most important
> factors for ensuring the success of COP, the chief designed a form to
> help officers successfully kick off community watch programs. As a
> checklist, the form prompts officers to take the necessary steps before
> and during the first, most important meeting. The form proved so
> valuable that the department uses it as a teaching tool at area COP
> conferences.
<snip details of community policing>
Again, that is mostly self-congratulatory boasting or one government
agency awarding another government agency. It is not a scholarly study
proving (or even providing evidence) that the method works. See my
above comments on how we've been hearing excuses and promises of change
for at least 40 years now.
>> > Here is a more recent study:
>> > More cops on beat reduce crime on street, FSU study shows
>> >
>> > by Jill Elish
>> > Do police deter crime?
>
> Beginning snipped.
>
>> > Although it seems obvious that more police should result in less
>> crime,
>> > many previous studies have shown that isn't the case-or worse, that
>> more
>> > police actually equal more crime. It's a puzzle that has been
>> difficult
>> > to solve because cities with high crime rates have more officers. Do
>> > more police cause the higher crime rates, or do cities with high
crime
>> > rates hire more police?
>>
>>
>> Note the above paragraph, especially "Although it seems obvious that
>> more police should result in less crime, many previous studies have
>> shown that isn't the case-or worse, that more police actually equal
>> more crime."
>
> As I said because those studies are in the past and do not look at
> modern community policing. You deleted my comment that Baley supported
> proactive community policing.
It's irrelevant--Some criminologists support it because practically
anything would be an improvement over what we have now. My points remain:
1. There is no hard evidence that it works (ie, represents a significant
improvement in preventing crime).
2. There is no evidence that it will prevent police abuses.
3. As long as policing remains a protected government monopoly, it's
likely to stay inefficient and abusive.
>> There are almost always at least a few contradictory studies on any
>> such point.
>
>
> Ahh already you are starting to backtrack.
Nonsense. This is an elementary point to anyone familiar with
scientific and scholarly reports. There are typically dozens, if not
hundreds of studies on a topic. If you pick out just the studies
supporting your point, you can "prove" just about anything. You have to
go with the weight of the evidence, which is what I did and what
Professor Moran does in his review article, i.e.,
"Over 30 years of criminological research has shown that the ability of
police to influence crime is extremely limited. For example, neither
the number of police in a community nor the style of policing appears
related to the crime rate...The most thorough study ever done, a 1981
analysis of police beats in Newark, NJ, found virtually no effect on
crime rates."--Richard Moran, professor of criminology and sociology at
Mount Holyoke College. Community Policing Strategies Do Little to
Prevent Crime. In: _Crime_ P. Winters, ed. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven
Press, 1998.
>> Against that you have to weigh the enormous cost of the police and the
>> large amount of *harm* that they do. When you weigh the hundreds of
>> innocent people abused, killed, or framed by the police each year,
>> it's doubtful whether they do any net good at all.
>>
> Liberals oppose police brutality. It should not be tolerated. Those
> things could be stopped if those in charge of the police would stand up
> to them. That is a separate issue.
It is not a separate issue. Police abuses are a natural result of
having policing done by a protected government monopoly.
Michael Price
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 01:15:06 -0700, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Aug 21, 6:21 am, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:45:37 -0400, "Dr. Zarkov" <M...@Mongo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Can you prove that government does prevent a few from dominating?
> ><snip irrevelencies>
>
> > I'll take that as a "no".
>
> I am against libertarianism and especially anarchy. Yet you want
> that to dominate.
I want nobody to dominate. You are the one who, when asked if
government prevents a few dominating starts talking about getting
the right people to dominate.
Tim Howard
> Tim Howard wrote:
> > Dr. Zarkov wrote:
> >> Tim Howard wrote:
> >> > Dr. Zarkov wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> It is more likely that a few will dominate a group under a
> government
> >> >> than an anarchy.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Can you prove that?
> >> Can you prove that government does prevent a few from dominating?
> >
> >
> > I did not say that it usually does. I already told you it is human
> > nature for a few people to dominate a group. No system will prevent
> > that. But under a democratic republic, like we have, people at least
> > have the chance to vote in/out whoever they want. They have a chance to
> > participate as much as they like without fear of reprisal. There is not
> > one single group or type of group that "dominates" and these guys know
> > one wrong move plastered all over the media and they can be voted out,
> > fair or not. Under your anarchistic state, it would be rule by the
> > stronger.
>
>
> No, an anarchy is rule by NO ONE. Even "democratic republics" are rule
> by the majority and special interests. Everyone is *forced* to follow
> the policies adopted by the government.
You seem to want it both ways. You say no one will rule, but you say
there will be laws, which I assume people will have to follow.
> > One reason for that is all the conservatives who don't want the
> > government to do anything to protect us from abuses by big business, the
> > police, etc.
>
>
> Why should that happen if your "democratic republic" works so well?
Because not enough people are involved in making government work.
But
> the fact is that "liberals" have been just as supportive of abuses as
> conservatives. It is the "liberals" who supported expansion of policing
> (eg, the TSA, federal funding for more local police) as well as laws
> against victimless crimes like drugs.
True liberals and the left do not support all these 9/11 policies. As
for local police, I'd rather have more money going to them than federal
police like the FBI/CIA.
It is the "liberals" who want to
> disarm everyone and expect people to place their trust in the police.
>
Oh yes, if everyone was armed with guns things would be fine. That is
main assumption of the libertarian or anarchistic system. Well a lot of
people with too many guns makes me nervous whether it is the military,
police, or my neighbors. This is how you guys think you will have
success, if everyone thinks someone my shoot them, they will act right,
so we could get rid of governement.
>
> I repeat, it is useful to know something about a topic before you
> critique it. Under anarcho-capitalism there would be laws contractually
> agreed to with the protection/justice services.
Again you try to have it both ways. You want to call government
something else. Who will come up with these laws--all the people? And
what if I am living under your system and I don't want to "contractually
agree" with your laws? Am I not being opressed in the same way you
claim you are oppressed now? Under a democratic system, at least I am
free to disagree/protest/try to change these laws through elected
representatives. Under anarchy capitalism, how do I know your
"protection/justice services" just won't have me shot?
And your attitude
> toward people is rather contradictory: How can you argue that people
> should have power in a democracy but think they would act so
> irresponsibly in an anarchy? A democracy is supposed to carry out the
> will of the people.
There is nothing contradictory nor wrong with wanting to have power as
long as it is used for the benefit of the people. Power is a motivator
for good as well as evil. And I did not say I want so much democracy
that it is direct democracy. I believe in the Republic too. Leaders
should be acting in the people's best interest, not simply carrying out
their will. I think we both can agree with that.
>
> There simply is no way to make a government monopoly like policing
> effective, responsible, and nonabusive. It is not responsive to its
> customers' needs and desires, as a private company must be. Instead,
> the police typically make up criteria like number of arrests to judge
> cops--leading to a vast number of arrests for nonsense like marijuana
> possession while most thefts, rapes, and even murders remain unsolved.
> Also leading to a lot of unnecessary harassment and arrests by cops
> trying to meet their quota or make themselves look good. Indeed,
> innocent people have been killed by cops trying to make their nightly
> quota in New York (eg, Patrick Dorismund, a security guard on his way
> home from work who resisted an entrapment by cops and was shot to death).
>
You private capitalist militia organizations would do the same thing.
They would tout their arrests for marketing purposes. I assume people
would pay for these policing services under your system. Suppose I did
not want or were too poor to afford to pay? Then would I just be on my
own and not protected by anyone?
> > From the U.S. Dept. of Justice Website...
> >
> > Mayors, Police Chiefs Turn Spotlight On Success Of Community Policing
> >
> 1. That is not a scholarly study; it is just a lot of
> self-congratulatory BS.
> 2. It is from police chiefs and similar people who have a vested
> interest in promoting their programs.
Okay so far you have a point, not that it makes what they say untrue,
but you have a point.
> 3. It cites as evidence the reduction in crime that occurred in the
> 1990s. That's typical government BS. The crime rate did indeed fall
> sharply in the 90s, but there is no evidence that it had anything to do
> with the police or government policies.
Yes there is. The poverty and unemployment rates fell during the
Clinton Presidency. Guess what? Crime is on the increase in recent
years coinciding with increases in poverty rates due to the policies of
your profit driven capitalist friends and complacent neo-liberals in the
Democratic party.
> 4. The overall crime rate declined significantly over that period mainly
> because the population is aging
BS as I just pointed out above, and soon below.
(the same reason we'll be having
> problems with social security and Medicare).
We will be having far more problems once your capitalist buddies get rid
of them.
It is one of the best
> established facts of criminology that most crimes are committed by
> younger people.
Yeah when they have no jobs and a bleak outlook for the future.
> The crime rate went up dramatically in the 60s and 70s as the baby
> boomers came of age and the average age of the population fell.
>
> "The proportion of the population involved in crime tends to peak in
> adolescence and early adulthood and then decline with age.
>
Your the one who says only 2% of crimes are solved, so how do you know
who is committing them? In my area, there is a significant # of
baby-boomer aged homeless/mentally ill/fringes of society types. They
are habitual criminals because of their economic circumstances, which is
mainly because of their mental illnesses.
> Judge Burton Roberts, administrative judge for the 12th Judicial
> District of the Supreme Court of New York, was quoted in Forbes as
> stating, "Crime is down as a result of demographics. Right now you have
> less people in the 15-to-25-year age group, in which criminals are most
> active."
>
Government needs to do more proactive crime prevention programs for this
group. Republicans removed fed. funding for some such programs when
they all took over after 2000.
>
>
> That's changing the point. You claimed that there were few police in
> such areas. And if the police did any good at all, one would expect at
> least some positive effects in areas with a high police concentration.
And there are examples of this as I have already sited.
> > Hah! and how can anyone be accountable without a system of rule of law?
> > Which anarchy dose not have. Who is going to punish them for their
> > abuses? You seem to want it both ways--calling for anarchy, but what
> > you talk about sounds like a government sometimes.
>
>
> Again, you might want to read up on such a system before commenting on
> it. There would be "laws" entered into as contractual obligations with
> whatever protection/justice service a person wanted (for those who so
> choose). Individuals could also provide their own protection and call
> upon such services as needed. David Friedman has given an extensive
> (mainly economic) analysis of how and why such a system would work (eg,
> how differences in laws and systems could be resolved to everyone's
> acceptance).
>
I don't care what anyone named Friedman (Milton, David, etc.) has to say
about capitalism. There are some things that must operate in the public
good. You anarchists don't care about the public good though.
Your arnacocapitalism or whatever the hell you called it
> > will lead to a few wealthy capitalists dominating things, far worse than
> > it is now in the USA.
>
>
> No it would not--any more than any single company can dominate a market
> in a free market system. Especially not if real choices in
> social-political system were available--if anarchy is so terrible and
> your statist system so wonderful, why would you have to force everyone
> to accept statism?
>
> > I also oppose, to one extent or another, those "victimless crimes". But
> > under anarchy, there is no law, and thus there would be no consistancy.
> > At least with government you know what is legal and illegal and how it
> > can be changed. How do you know what is acceptable under anarchy from
> > one day to the next?
>
>
> Again, there would be "laws" administered and enforced by private
> protection/justice agencies.
> >
> > As I said because those studies are in the past and do not look at
> > modern community policing. You deleted my comment that Baley supported
> > proactive community policing.
>
>
> It's irrelevant--Some criminologists support it because practically
> anything would be an improvement over what we have now.
Because it contradicts the point you tried to make.
>
> >> There are almost always at least a few contradictory studies on any
> >> such point.
> >
> >
> > Ahh already you are starting to backtrack.
>
>
> Nonsense. This is an elementary point to anyone familiar with
> scientific and scholarly reports. There are typically dozens, if not
> hundreds of studies on a topic. If you pick out just the studies
> supporting your point, you can "prove" just about anything. You have to
> go with the weight of the evidence, which is what I did and what
> Professor Moran does in his review article, i.e.,
>
I could say the same thing about you, "Dr."
Topaz
wrote:
> I want nobody to dominate.
You want to get your way though most people don't agree with it.
> You are the one who, when asked if
>government prevents a few dominating starts talking about getting
>the right people to dominate.
That is the only sensible thing.
Tim Howard
If you can't
> prove that anarchism can't prevent it then you can't prove that no
> system
> will prevent it.
>
in modern recorded history. Unless you can show me some examples.
Since modern recorded history people have formed groups and had
governments and/or leaders--call them kings, tribal chieftains,
politicians, emperors, parlamentarians etc. This is what is responsible
for civilization.
>> But under a democratic republic, like we have, people at least
>> have the chance to vote in/out whoever they want. They have a chance to
>> participate as much as they like without fear of reprisal.
>
> So what? Participation doesn't mean you're not dominated.
>
It is the first and most important step to prevent domination.
>> There is not
>> one single group or type of group that "dominates" and these guys know
>> one wrong move plastered all over the media and they can be voted out,
>
> Only if they victimise people who are a) numerous and b) conscious
> of
> their victimisation. Few people are.
>
And I am accused of insulting the masses! People like you would not be
conscious of being victimized under anarchy.
Tim Howard
If
> you can't
> prove that anarchism can't prevent it then you can't prove that no
> system
> will prevent it.
>
in modern recorded history. Unless you can show me some examples. Since
modern recorded history people have formed groups and had governments
and/or leaders--call them kings, tribal chieftains, politicians,
emperors, parlamentarians etc. This is what is responsible for
civilization.
>> But under a democratic republic, like we have, people at least
>> have the chance to vote in/out whoever they want. They have a chance to
>> participate as much as they like without fear of reprisal.
>
> So what? Participation doesn't mean you're not dominated.
>
It is the first and most important step.
>> There is not
>> one single group or type of group that "dominates" and these guys know
>> one wrong move plastered all over the media and they can be voted out,
>
> Only if they victimise people who are a) numerous and b) conscious
> of
> their victimisation. Few people are.
>
Hah! And I am accused of insulting the masses. You and your side might
not be conscious then of being dominated under anarchy.
>> fair or not. Under your anarchistic state, it would be rule by the
>> stronger.
>
> Well by definition there is not anarchistic state. And why do you
> think that
> there will be rule by the stronger? Where's the evidence? What's your
> theory?
I have already discussed this.
>>> The advantage of a market economy over government-controlled or
>>> dominated economies is so well documented, it's hardly worth arguing.
>>> Even the former socialist countries have seen it.
>> Anti-democratic solialism with no market based aspect was wrong, but
>> that does not mean capitalism is just. As for everyone now agreeing
>> that "a market economy" is best, just remember capitalists won the
>> economic war and "the winners write the history books".
>>
> And they won it by producing more of what people wanted. That's
> called "being better".
>
Or maybe people are not conscious of being exploited under capitalism.
Materialism is very seductive.
>> One reason for that is all the conservatives who don't want the
>> government to do anything to protect us from abuses by big business, the
>> police, etc
>
> Another is that liberals don't want the government to protect us
> against
> being robbed, because they want to rob us for a "good cause". So do
> the
> conservatives.
I assume you refer to taxes as the robbery. When you disparagingly say
"good cause" do you mean roads, fire departments, water treatment
systems, stop lights...?
>>> > People have to do their part with neighborhood watches etc. But don't
>>> > tell me you would consider that anarchy.
>>> >> Look up the
>>> >> figures. Very few crimes are ever solved (about one or two percent);
>>> > How could crime be solved under anarchy?
>>> By the private protection/justice services--and/or including the
>>> individuals affected if they so choose.
>> This would quickly turn into vigilantism.
>
> What do you mean by that? What is it about vigilantism you think
> would
> be bad? Vigilantism simply means that a person is judged and punished
> by force without the intervention of the government. How is that
> worse
> than being judged and punished by force with the intervention of the
> government?
That depends on whether or not the government is a dictatorship or not.
But being punished by the government at least guarantees one a trial
of their peers, a defense, rights to appeal, sentences based on the
crime (we can agree or disagree about those sentences) and not on the
person. Oh and of course separation of powers--there is a line between
those who make law, judge law, enforce law. Under anarchy how do I know
any of that will exist. Or maybe you don't want it too.
> Now you might say that the government is accountable and private
> citizens not
> but the reverse is true. How often do prosecutors go to jail for bad
> faith
> prosecutions? Almost never and it's not because they're honest (see
> the
> Duke rape case for proof).
I do believe there are prosecutors who wrongly go after people. One way
to stop that would be to make a DA an appointed, not elected position.
Then they would be less pressured by politics. It is the masses that
want these convictions. The masses do not want to get rid of
prosecutors or police as you seem to hope. What we need is a more level
playing field for the defense. But then your side would say government
is protecting criminals from being prosecuted.
But private citizens that punished by
> force would
> be liable to punishment themselves. They would have no protection
> from
> it but the evidence that they acted in accordance with accepted law.
>
And then they would be punished by other private individuals right?
Don't you see how illogical this argument is?
>> Since there is no law, no judging by peers etc, these gun-toting militias would take out whoever
>> they wanted, and then say that was the criminal.
>
> Why would their be no law? You're assuming the consequent here.
>
I don't know how you can call it law under anarchy.
>> Since most people seem to have the tough-on-crime attitude, they would probably
>> blindly go along with it.
>>
> Well you're assuming that a) people would have this "tough on crime"
> attitude even without State propaganda
Yes they would. I would hate to break one of your "laws" in your anarchy.
One of the
> primary causes of crime is things like drug prohibition, poverty etc.
> caused by government.
>
Yes they do. True civil libertarians oppose such things. But our
answer is to have laws that protect people's liberty.
>> Hah! and how can anyone be accountable without a system of rule of law?
>
> I don't know but you apparently believe it's possible since you
> support the
> State system. In the State system the State is not subject to the
> rule of
> law since it commands the law.
BS! People take the government to court all the time. Sometimes they
win, sometimes they loose.
Only in anarchy can there be the rule of law.
>
What Orwellian BS!
>> Which anarchy dose not have.
>
> Says who? Where's you evidence?
>
>> Who is going to punish them for their abuses?
>
> Those they abuse or their agents.
What is people are unable to exact this revenge? Or what if people
cannot afford to have "agents"?
>
>> You seem to want it both ways--calling for anarchy, but what
>> you talk about sounds like a government sometimes.
>>
> How? Government has a monopoly and is not subject to
> being hauled into an independent court, or failing to go to court,
> to punitive action.
>
This is a lie.
>>> >> > It has everything to do with it. How will people be held
>>> accountable
>>> >> > under anarchy?
>>> >> This was answered above.
>> No it wasn't. Your arnacocapitalism or whatever the hell you called it
>> will lead to a few wealthy capitalists dominating things, far worse than
>> it is now in the USA.
>>
> How? How could a few wealthy capitalists force anyone to do
> anything?
With their money.
> They can't control the courts because the courts want everyone's
> business
Oh so courts would be like businesses too? Don't rich people have
enough advantage in court now by being able to hire high-priced lawyers?
The courts would want the most money, not "everyone's business".
> and cannot force anyone to accept a corrupt ruling.
That would mean people would not have to accept honest rulings either.
They can't
> control the
> police because the police work for many different agencies some of
> them
> specialising in providing service to poor people (and some not-for-
> profit),
That will never happen.
> they can't control the military because it doesn't exist.
They will just create there own, and then god help all of you.
>> Those things cannot do what a government does. They have their place,
>> but cannot replace government. Those organizations only have limited
>> success. During the early 20th "progressive era" people started forming
>> and joining all kinds of private charitable organizations, but they only
>> had a limited effect.
>
> They had a massive effect and were only made obselete when
> government
> came in and replaced their efforts at higher costs and lower
> usefulness.
Then why did many in those organizations also call for the government to
do it's part? I guess you have your interpretation of history and I
have mine.
>
>> The progressives realized they needed to be in
>> power in the a government to make real change.
>
> And how did that work out? I'll tell you, it was a disaster that
> increased
> poverty and made everyone subject to the whims of the "progressives".
> That's the real change they needed government for.
>
See my comment below. Progressives were not in power long enough for
you to blame them for anything.
>> And don't tell me how
>> that failed, because the era didn't last long enough for success--the
>> "roaring 20s" pretty much killed it off.
>
> Yeah it was going real well.
>
>> FDR's "New Deal", along with
>> many similiar programs at state and local levels, did far more good and
>> was more lasting.
>>
> No it prolonged the depression and brought unheard of levels of
> corruption
> and incompetence to government
Crap! There were no more higher levels of "corruption and incompetence"
in government than before. At the most the crooks were now just in more
visible positions.
while destroying capital
???
and in the
> end only being saved by Britain's war purchases.
>
Of course WWII got us out of the Depression. FDR might not have stopped
the Depression by 1940, but how worse off would the nation have been had
we not enacted the New Deal? Look at the great infrastructural legacy
that exists because of the New Deal.
>> > Government DOES cause victimless crimes like drug "crime"
>>> as well as the enormous amount of actual crime that results.
>> I also oppose, to one extent or another, those "victimless crimes". But
>> under anarchy, there is no law, and thus there would be no consistancy.
>
> Why do you keep saying there would be no law? Why would there be
> no law?
>
Then explain to me how a law would be created under anarchy--if that is
what it really is, and how it would be different than law created under
government.
>> At least with government you know what is legal and illegal and how
>> it can be changed.
>
> Bullshit. I have no idea how many crimes I've committed under
> government
> law and neither do you.
>
Speak for yourself.
>> How do you know what is acceptable under anarchy
>> from one day to the next?
>>
> The courts would establish precedent so that people would know what
> to
> expect from their services. Changing the law would have to be
> justified
> otherwise it would lose business.
Again I think it is disgusting that you advocate treating courts like
business and allowing people to buy justice that way. An independent
judiciary not subject to the whims of the masses or to money is far
better than your set-up.
how do you know what will be
> acceptable
> tommorrow under the State? For instance was tapping your phone
> acceptable?
> Then why was it accepted?
>
Because of 9/11 unfortunately. Most of the time though Congress makes
the law and people can follow what is of interest to them. People need
to be activists and be involved.
> No they couldn't because the police are only subject to other
> police.
> What would you do if the police simply told those in charge "We do
> not accept your command."? Under anarchy brutal police would
> be just as in danger as brutal muggers from retaliation.
>
Yeah, in danger from other brutal police. Sounds like this would result
in some kind of gangland war.
Michael Price
> Michael Price wrote:
>
> > If you can't prove that anarchism can't prevent it then you can't prove that no
> > system
> > will prevent it.
>
> It is hard to prove when there never has been such an anarchistic system
> in modern recorded history.
Why only "modern" recorded history? How modern are we talking
about? What's
wrong with Sage Period Iceland as an example? In any case I didn't
ask you to
prove that there wasn't such an anarchist system I asked you to prove
their
couldn't be, which was your claim.
> Unless you can show me some examples.
Well parts of the Wild West, Saga Period Iceland, parts of
Pennsylvania etc.
> Since modern recorded history people have formed groups and had
> governments and/or leaders--call them kings, tribal chieftains,
> politicians, emperors, parlamentarians etc. This is what is responsible
> for civilization.
Where's your evidence for this? Just because the State existed at
the same time
as "civilisation" doesn't mean that it caused it. The State may be a
mere parasitic
growth on civilisation.
In fact you don't deal with details of how anarchies would work and
simply seem intent
on ignoring the facts.
>
> >> But under a democratic republic, like we have, people at least
> >> have the chance to vote in/out whoever they want. They have a chance to
> >> participate as much as they like without fear of reprisal.
>
> > So what? Participation doesn't mean you're not dominated.
>
> It is the first and most important step to prevent domination.
>
No it's not, the first and most important step to prevent domination
is
to reject the legitimacy of domination.
> >> There is not
> >> one single group or type of group that "dominates" and these guys know
> >> one wrong move plastered all over the media and they can be voted out,
>
> > Only if they victimise people who are a) numerous and b) conscious
> > of their victimisation. Few people are.
>
> And I am accused of insulting the masses! People like you would not be
> conscious of being victimized under anarchy.
Of course we would and we would resist it because resisting it would
be
worth it. Resisting domination under a democracy is rarely worth it
because
your vote changes nothing.
>> fair or not. Under your anarchistic state, it would be rule by the
> >> stronger.
>
> > Well by definition there is not anarchistic state. And why do you
> > think that
> > there will be rule by the stronger? Where's the evidence? What's your
> > theory?
Please answer these questions.
James A. Donald
<tim.h...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> Michael Price wrote:
> If you can't
> > prove that anarchism can't prevent it then you can't prove that no
> > system
> > will prevent it.
> >
> It is hard to prove when there never has been such an anarchistic system
> in modern recorded history. Unless you can show me some examples.
> Since modern recorded history people have formed groups and had
> governments and/or leaders--call them kings, tribal chieftains,
> politicians, emperors, parlamentarians etc. This is what is responsible
> for civilization.
Saga period iceland, and wild west America, provides a counter
example. Godar were not chieftains, since people could, and sometimes
did, simply change Godar without needing to move. If enough people
changed Godar the Godar might need to move.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
Michael Price
without
any supporting analysis.
> >>> The advantage of a market economy over government-controlled or
> >>> dominated economies is so well documented, it's hardly worth arguing.
> >>> Even the former socialist countries have seen it.
> >> Anti-democratic solialism with no market based aspect was wrong, but
> >> that does not mean capitalism is just. As for everyone now agreeing
> >> that "a market economy" is best, just remember capitalists won the
> >> economic war and "the winners write the history books".
>
> > And they won it by producing more of what people wanted. That's
> > called "being better".
>
> Or maybe people are not conscious of being exploited under capitalism.
> Materialism is very seductive.
Then why were they conscious of being exploited under capitalism?
Capitalism
didn't make people materialisitic, it just responded to their
materialism. It gave
them what they wanted.
>
> >> One reason for that is all the conservatives who don't want the
> >> government to do anything to protect us from abuses by big business, the
> >> police, etc
>
> > Another is that liberals don't want the government to protect us
> > against being robbed, because they want to rob us for a "good cause". So do
> > the conservatives.
>
> I assume you refer to taxes as the robbery. When you disparagingly say
> "good cause" do you mean roads, fire departments, water treatment
> systems, stop lights...?
>
No I mean oppression. Taxes aren't needed for roads, water
treatment systems,
stop lights (which _increased_ fatalities), fire departments etc.
They are needed
so that people will be forced to finance things they object to and for
no
other reason.
Consider water treatment, does anyone believe that you need to force
people to
buy clean water for their kids? Or that people would pay to have
someone come
to their house to put out a fire? Bear in mind that insurance
companies had
professional fire fighters years before the State.
> >>> > People have to do their part with neighborhood watches etc. But don't
> >>> > tell me you would consider that anarchy.
> >>> >> Look up the
> >>> >> figures. Very few crimes are ever solved (about one or two percent);
> >>> > How could crime be solved under anarchy?
> >>> By the private protection/justice services--and/or including the
> >>> individuals affected if they so choose.
> >> This would quickly turn into vigilantism.
>
> > What do you mean by that? What is it about vigilantism you think
> > would be bad? Vigilantism simply means that a person is judged and punished
> > by force without the intervention of the government. How is that
> > worse than being judged and punished by force with the intervention of the
> > government?
>
> That depends on whether or not the government is a dictatorship or not.
No it doesn't. I don't care whether it's "democratic", it's still
imposed on
me against my will and with no real accountability.
> But being punished by the government at least guarantees one a trial
> of their peers, a defense, rights to appeal, sentences based on the
> crime (we can agree or disagree about those sentences) and not on the
> person.
No it doesn't. Haven't you read about the Padilla case? The idea
that government
guarantees anything is incredibly naive. What guarantees were given
to the Nisei?
> Oh and of course separation of powers--there is a line between
> those who make law, judge law, enforce law.
Sometimes but they are all paid by the same people by the same
method. They
work for the same boss. So how much "seperation" can there be?
> Under anarchy how do I know any of that will exist.
The law will be made by what is accepted as a judgement. Those
judges who
try to make law that people don't like will find themselves losing
customers and
therefore the ability to make and judge law. Law will be enforced by
whoever
wants to, as is legal now.
> Or maybe you don't want it too.
>
> > Now you might say that the government is accountable and private
> > citizens not but the reverse is true. How often do prosecutors go to jail for bad
> > faith prosecutions? Almost never and it's not because they're honest (see
> > the Duke rape case for proof).
>
> I do believe there are prosecutors who wrongly go after people. One way
> to stop that would be to make a DA an appointed, not elected position.
That's an assinine suggestion. Do you think being appointed by a
politician
makes you less corrupt than the politician that appoints you?
> Then they would be less pressured by politics. It is the masses that
> want these convictions.
Really? Then none of it has to do with elites wanting people fitted
up?
> The masses do not want to get rid of
> prosecutors or police as you seem to hope.
I don't care what the masses want. Why should I?
> What we need is a more level playing field for the defense. But then your
> side would say government is protecting criminals from being prosecuted.
>
They already do that by their incompetence. Why do you think that
so many poor people are on death row? Because against decent lawyers
the State usually can't make a case. The playing field will never be
level
as long as one side can afford masses of investigators, and all the
legal
time they need while the other cannot.
> > But private citizens that punished by force would
> > be liable to punishment themselves. They would have no protection
> > from
> > it but the evidence that they acted in accordance with accepted law.
>
> And then they would be punished by other private individuals right?
If they acted illegally yes.
> Don't you see how illogical this argument is?
>
No I don't and I don't see why you think it is. Look it's simple.
If you break
the law under pretence of enforcing it you can be dealt with as a
criminal.
That means you can be taken to court or directly sanctioned. If you
think
that those direct sanctions are illegal you can take someone to court
or directly sanction them. People will tend not to try to sanction
someone
for something legal because that would mean they'd lose the court
case.
Therefore the ability to sanction illegally would be less than the
ability to
sanction legally.
> >> Since there is no law, no judging by peers etc, these gun-toting militias would take out whoever
> >> they wanted, and then say that was the criminal.
>
> > Why would their be no law? You're assuming the consequent here.
>
> I don't know how you can call it law under anarchy.
>
It's an enforcable code of conduct, what is that but law?
> >> Since most people seem to have the tough-on-crime attitude, they would probably
> >> blindly go along with it.
>
> > Well you're assuming that a) people would have this "tough on crime"
> > attitude even without State propaganda
>
> Yes they would.
Thanks for that mindless assertion.
> I would hate to break one of your "laws" in your anarchy.
>
Well good. In fact breaking the law in an anarchy would almost
certainly result in compensatory damages. Only when people try to
resist the law is there likely to be violence.
> > One of the primary causes of crime is things like drug prohibition, poverty etc.
> > caused by government.
>
> Yes they do. True civil libertarians oppose such things. But our
> answer is to have laws that protect people's liberty.
How can a law protect someone's liberty if the government can change
it?
>
> >> Hah! and how can anyone be accountable without a system of rule of law?
>
> > I don't know but you apparently believe it's possible since you
> > support the State system. In the State system the State is not subject to the
> > rule of law since it commands the law.
>
> BS!
Then I can shoot dead a taxman who comes to take my property?
> People take the government to court all the time. Sometimes they
> win, sometimes they loose.
>
And the government sometimes lets them win, but it's always on it's
rules.
It's like I make up the game and change the rules and be the umpire
and
then say "Well if you don't like how I'm playing talk to the ref.".
> > Only in anarchy can there be the rule of law.
>
> What Orwellian BS!
>
Assertions are not evidence. Without anarchy there is always a
group
that decides how and when the law is enforced. That group is outside
the law and thus there is no rule of law.
> >> Which anarchy dose not have.
>
> > Says who? Where's you evidence?
>
> >> Who is going to punish them for their abuses?
>
> > Those they abuse or their agents.
>
> What is people are unable to exact this revenge?
When would that happen? When would you find someone who
cannot even sell their claim to compensation to someone ?
> Or what if people cannot afford to have "agents"?
>
Well considering that most people would have friends to help
them and that those that didn't could sell the right to confiscate
their abusers property it's not really a problem.
In any case such people would be in the same position as we
all are now. Now I cannot hire agents to extract compensation
or revenge or do it myself.
> >> You seem to want it both ways--calling for anarchy, but what
> >> you talk about sounds like a government sometimes.
>
> > How? Government has a monopoly and is not subject to
> > being hauled into an independent court, or failing to go to court,
> > to punitive action.
>
> This is a lie.
>
Then where is this independent court liar? Where is the court not
paid for by the government where I can sue the government?
> >>> >> > It has everything to do with it. How will people be held
> >>> accountable
> >>> >> > under anarchy?
> >>> >> This was answered above.
> >> No it wasn't. Your arnacocapitalism or whatever the hell you called it
> >> will lead to a few wealthy capitalists dominating things, far worse than
> >> it is now in the USA.
>
> > How? How could a few wealthy capitalists force anyone to do
> > anything?
>
> With their money.
>
You can't force anyone to do anything with money, that's why it's
money.
> > They can't control the courts because the courts want everyone's
> > business
>
> Oh so courts would be like businesses too?
Yes, or at least some of them would. No doubt there would be non-
profits too.
> Don't rich people have enough advantage in court now by being able to hire
> high-priced lawyers?
Yes they do because the law is made artificially expensive by the
monopoly.
When courts have to compete on cost as well as quality the advantage
to
expensive lawyers is less. Why would a poor person agree to
arbitration
by a court where the one with the most expensive lawyer wins?
> The courts would want the most money, not "everyone's business".
>
And how would they get the most money if the poor didn't agree to
deal with them? Without that the only disputes they could arbitrate
would by those with rich-vs-rich disputants. While no doubt some
might specialise in this I can't see everyone doing so.
> > and cannot force anyone to accept a corrupt ruling.
>
> That would mean people would not have to accept honest rulings either.
>
People would have agreements on what courts they are prepared to
accept.
Generally speaking these would be part of their agreement with their
protection
agency. Corrupt courts would not be respected by other courts and so
attempts to enforce their decisions would be treated as simple
assault
and theft. The courts have to be acceptable to both parties you see,
so being acceptable to the rich is not much help.
> > They can't control the
> > police because the police work for many different agencies some of
> > them specialising in providing service to poor people (and some not-for-
> > profit),
>
> That will never happen.
>
Simple assertion again. Why wouldn't it happen? There are special
car
manufacturers for poor people, specialist food suppliers for poor
people,
specialist landlords, holiday destinations etc. why not a poor
person's
police force?
> > they can't control the military because it doesn't exist.
>
> They will just create there own, and then god help all of you.
>
And why would they do that? What good would it do them? Look how
much
good a professional military is doing in Iraq against a ruined
people. If those
who profitted by the war had to pay the expenses it would be over in a
week.
A rich person seeking to impose his will through mercenaries would
have
to guarantee the mercenaries against damages by those they kill, maim
or
steal from. If he doesn't pay these (and if he does he's ruined) then
everyone's
protection agencies have a motive to blow them up on sight. Since the
mercenaries
are the aggressors they won't recieve compensation when they are
killed or
maimed. This is an expensive way to do business. Particularly when
the
mercenaries decide to take the money and run.
> >> Those things cannot do what a government does. They have their place,
> >> but cannot replace government. Those organizations only have limited
> >> success. During the early 20th "progressive era" people started forming
> >> and joining all kinds of private charitable organizations, but they only
> >> had a limited effect.
>
> > They had a massive effect and were only made obselete when
> > government came in and replaced their efforts at higher costs and lower
> > usefulness.
>
> Then why did many in those organizations also call for the government to
> do it's part?
Because that way they didn't have to pay for it.
> I guess you have your interpretation of history and I
> have mine.
>
> >> The progressives realized they needed to be in
> >> power in the a government to make real change.
>
> > And how did that work out? I'll tell you, it was a disaster that
> > increased poverty and made everyone subject to the whims of the "progressives".
> > That's the real change they needed government for.
>
> See my comment below. Progressives were not in power long enough for
> you to blame them for anything.
>
Utter BS. What about sterilisation and prohibition?
> >> And don't tell me how
> >> that failed, because the era didn't last long enough for success--the
> >> "roaring 20s" pretty much killed it off.
>
> > Yeah it was going real well.
>
> >> FDR's "New Deal", along with
> >> many similiar programs at state and local levels, did far more good and
> >> was more lasting.
>
> > No it prolonged the depression and brought unheard of levels of
> > corruption
> > and incompetence to government
>
> Crap! There were no more higher levels of "corruption and incompetence"
> in government than before.
Oh for god's sake read something other than government propaganda.
It's
acknowledged that there is such a thing as "pork". FDR created more
of
it than anyone before.
> At the most the crooks were now just in more
> visible positions.
>
> > while destroying capital
>
> ???
>
What? You don't think that his policies destroyed the capital base
of the
country? Then what happened to it?
> > and in the end only being saved by Britain's war purchases.
>
> Of course WWII got us out of the Depression.
Specifically Britain being in WWII.
> FDR might not have stopped
> the Depression by 1940, but how worse off would the nation have been had
> we not enacted the New Deal?
A lot better off as anyone who studied economic history should
know.
How many depressions before that one lasted as long as it did? Why
were there still shanty towns a decade after it started?
> Look at the great infrastructural legacy
> that exists because of the New Deal.
>
No it exists because people worked and saved prior to the New
Deal.
The New Deal simply sent the capital to places where it wasn't needed
economically and was needed politically. The infrastructure was
simply moved, not created.
> >> > Government DOES cause victimless crimes like drug "crime"
> >>> as well as the enormous amount of actual crime that results.
> >> I also oppose, to one extent or another, those "victimless crimes". But
> >> under anarchy, there is no law, and thus there would be no consistancy.
>
> > Why do you keep saying there would be no law? Why would there be
> > no law?
>
> Then explain to me how a law would be created under anarchy--if that is
> what it really is, and how it would be different than law created under
> government.
Judgements would be made about cases, these judgements containing
principals to justify them. These principals would then be adopted
as
the law. This is exacly how most of our legal system was created.
>
> >> At least with government you know what is legal and illegal and how
> >> it can be changed.
>
> > Bullshit. I have no idea how many crimes I've committed under
> > government law and neither do you.
>
> Speak for yourself.
>
No I'll speak for you too. You have not read 1/100th of the laws
that
apply to you and have no idea how many you are transgressing.
> >> How do you know what is acceptable under anarchy
> >> from one day to the next?
>
> > The courts would establish precedent so that people would know what
> > to expect from their services. Changing the law would have to be
> > justified otherwise it would lose business.
>
> Again I think it is disgusting that you advocate treating courts like
> business and allowing people to buy justice that way.
Why? What's disgusting about paying the market rate for the service
of adjudication? Why is that worse than forcing someone to submit
to the adjudication of someone they don't want to submit to? Why
is the market worse than force?
> An independent judiciary not subject to the whims of the masses
> or to money is far better than your set-up.
>
And that's happened anywhere has it? What's bad about courts
actually having to justify their existance economically? If people
don't want to be judged by someone and prefer to be judged by
someone else why not?
> > how do you know what will be
> > acceptable tommorrow under the State? For instance was tapping your phone
> > acceptable? Then why was it accepted?
>
> Because of 9/11 unfortunately.
So in other words you know what is acceptable tommorrow under the
State, except when you don't. In fact you have no idea what is
acceptable
under the State and would have said, while the tapping without
warrants
was going on that it was unacceptable, but clearly it isn't.
> Most of the time though Congress makes
> the law and people can follow what is of interest to them. People need
> to be activists and be involved.
>
> > No they couldn't because the police are only subject to other
> > police. What would you do if the police simply told those in charge "We do
> > not accept your command."? Under anarchy brutal police would
> > be just as in danger as brutal muggers from retaliation.
>
> Yeah, in danger from other brutal police.
No from everyone.
> Sounds like this would result in some kind of gangland war.
Why? What would be gained from winning that war? People chose
which police force to pay. Why would they pay one that starts wars
and therefore is too busy to help them when they need it? Why would
they trust one that tried to gain territory by force?
Michael Price
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:10:03 -0700, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I want nobody to dominate.
>
> You want to get your way though most people don't agree with it.
>
to be allowed to coerce me. Beyond that people may have
their own way.
> > You are the one who, when asked if
> >government prevents a few dominating starts talking about getting
> >the right people to dominate.
>
> That is the only sensible thing.
>
No it's not. The right people will not dominate. That's what
makes them the right people.
Michael Price
So they will, but that doesn't mean that anyone will rule. It means
that
there are rules not rulers.
>
> > > One reason for that is all the conservatives who don't want the
> > > government to do anything to protect us from abuses by big business, the
> > > police, etc.
>
> > Why should that happen if your "democratic republic" works so well?
>
> Because not enough people are involved in making government work.
>
And how is that problem to be solved? It simply can't be. Making
government
work is a general benefit but it's a personal cost. The rational
solution therefore
is never to fix the government because the cost is enormous and the
benefit
to you is slight.
> > But the fact is that "liberals" have been just as supportive of abuses as
> > conservatives. It is the "liberals" who supported expansion of policing
> > (eg, the TSA, federal funding for more local police) as well as laws
> > against victimless crimes like drugs.
>
> True liberals and the left do not support all these 9/11 policies.
You supported the "progressives" who certain supported expansion of
policing.
> As
> for local police, I'd rather have more money going to them than federal
> police like the FBI/CIA.
>
> > It is the "liberals" who want to
> > disarm everyone and expect people to place their trust in the police.
>
> Oh yes, if everyone was armed with guns things would be fine. That is
> main assumption of the libertarian or anarchistic system. Well a lot of
> people with too many guns makes me nervous whether it is the military,
> police, or my neighbors.
Your phobias are not a rational basis for policy.
> This is how you guys think you will have
> success, if everyone thinks someone my shoot them, they will act right,
> so we could get rid of governement.
>
If you don't think that then why do you pay your taxes?
>
> > I repeat, it is useful to know something about a topic before you
> > critique it. Under anarcho-capitalism there would be laws contractually
> > agreed to with the protection/justice services.
>
> Again you try to have it both ways. You want to call government
> something else.
No your ignorance only makes it seem that way.
> Who will come up with these laws--all the people?
Learn to read, "contractually".
> And what if I am living under your system and I don't want to "contractually
> agree" with your laws?
Well you're free to try find a protection agency that will provide
protection
while you rape, murder, steal etc. and shield you from legal claims
against you for these. It will be somewhat expensive however. About
as expensive as running a State, but without the income.
> Am I not being opressed in the same way you
> claim you are oppressed now? Under a democratic system, at least I am
> free to disagree/protest/try to change these laws through elected
> representatives. Under anarchy capitalism, how do I know your
> "protection/justice services" just won't have me shot?
>
Oh for god's sake read up about it.
> > And your attitude
> > toward people is rather contradictory: How can you argue that people
> > should have power in a democracy but think they would act so
> > irresponsibly in an anarchy? A democracy is supposed to carry out the
> > will of the people.
>
> There is nothing contradictory nor wrong with wanting to have power as
> long as it is used for the benefit of the people.
And how is that defined? Why can't they have the power they have
in an anarchy? What is so much better about the power to control
the law through votes than the power to live your life without being
involuntarily subject to such?
> Power is a motivator
> for good as well as evil. And I did not say I want so much democracy
> that it is direct democracy. I believe in the Republic too. Leaders
> should be acting in the people's best interest, not simply carrying out
> their will.
Oh yes because treating people as children whose wishes should be
ignored in favour of what you think are their interests always works
out
well.
> I think we both can agree with that.
>
Wrong again.
> > There simply is no way to make a government monopoly like policing
> > effective, responsible, and nonabusive. It is not responsive to its
> > customers' needs and desires, as a private company must be. Instead,
> > the police typically make up criteria like number of arrests to judge
> > cops--leading to a vast number of arrests for nonsense like marijuana
> > possession while most thefts, rapes, and even murders remain unsolved.
> > Also leading to a lot of unnecessary harassment and arrests by cops
> > trying to meet their quota or make themselves look good. Indeed,
> > innocent people have been killed by cops trying to make their nightly
> > quota in New York (eg, Patrick Dorismund, a security guard on his way
> > home from work who resisted an entrapment by cops and was shot to death).
>
> You private capitalist militia organizations would do the same thing.
> They would tout their arrests for marketing purposes.
Why? People pay for protection not quotas. Any police force that
went around
negligently killing people would be hauled into court by their police
forces. If
they refused to go they'd be hunted down like dogs.
> I assume people would pay for these policing services under your system.
Most people. Some would get it by charity.
> Suppose I did not want or were too poor to afford to pay?
What happens if you don't pay now? In any case why would anyone
be so poor as not to be able to afford police protection? It's not
that
expensive on the lower end of the market. People could pay in labour
if they don't have a job or they could form mutaul protection
societies.
> Then would I just be on my own and not protected by anyone?
>
Aren't you now?
> > > From the U.S. Dept. of Justice Website...
>
> > > Mayors, Police Chiefs Turn Spotlight On Success Of Community Policing
>
> > 1. That is not a scholarly study; it is just a lot of
> > self-congratulatory BS.
> > 2. It is from police chiefs and similar people who have a vested
> > interest in promoting their programs.
>
> Okay so far you have a point, not that it makes what they say untrue,
> but you have a point.
>
> > 3. It cites as evidence the reduction in crime that occurred in the
> > 1990s. That's typical government BS. The crime rate did indeed fall
> > sharply in the 90s, but there is no evidence that it had anything to do
> > with the police or government policies.
>
> Yes there is. The poverty and unemployment rates fell during the
> Clinton Presidency. Guess what? Crime is on the increase in recent
> years coinciding with increases in poverty rates due to the policies of
> your profit driven capitalist friends and complacent neo-liberals in the
> Democratic party.
For a start there are no capitalists making policy, socialists are.
For
a second thing you claimed it was something other than the police
that caused the effect. Make up your mind.
>
> > 4. The overall crime rate declined significantly over that period mainly
> > because the population is aging
>
> BS as I just pointed out above, and soon below.
>
> (the same reason we'll be having
>
> > problems with social security and Medicare).
>
> We will be having far more problems once your capitalist buddies get rid
> of them.
>
Again, who is capitalist and in any position to influence policy?
> > It is one of the best
> > established facts of criminology that most crimes are committed by
> > younger people.
>
> Yeah when they have no jobs and a bleak outlook for the future.
>
Regardless of whether they have jobs and what sort of outlook for
the future they have young people commit more crimes.
> > The crime rate went up dramatically in the 60s and 70s as the baby
> > boomers came of age and the average age of the population fell.
>
> > "The proportion of the population involved in crime tends to peak in
> > adolescence and early adulthood and then decline with age.
>
> Your the one who says only 2% of crimes are solved, so how do you know
> who is committing them?
So you think the geriatrics are committing the same amount of crime
but
getting away with it? I suppose they have really good disguises to
make
them look younger?
> In my area, there is a significant # of
> baby-boomer aged homeless/mentally ill/fringes of society types. They
> are habitual criminals because of their economic circumstances, which is
> mainly because of their mental illnesses.
>
> > Judge Burton Roberts, administrative judge for the 12th Judicial
> > District of the Supreme Court of New York, was quoted in Forbes as
> > stating, "Crime is down as a result of demographics. Right now you have
> > less people in the 15-to-25-year age group, in which criminals are most
> > active."
>
> Government needs to do more proactive crime prevention programs for this
> group. Republicans removed fed. funding for some such programs when
> they all took over after 2000.
>
It's irrevelent whether there are crime prevention programs or not,
this
age group will always be more criminal. When was the last time you
saw a crime prevention programme in a nursing home? Never because
60 years olds don't jump over bank counters.
>
> > That's changing the point. You claimed that there were few police in
> > such areas. And if the police did any good at all, one would expect at
> > least some positive effects in areas with a high police concentration.
>
> And there are examples of this as I have already sited.
>
> > > Hah! and how can anyone be accountable without a system of rule of law?
> > > Which anarchy dose not have. Who is going to punish them for their
> > > abuses? You seem to want it both ways--calling for anarchy, but what
> > > you talk about sounds like a government sometimes.
>
> > Again, you might want to read up on such a system before commenting on
> > it. There would be "laws" entered into as contractual obligations with
> > whatever protection/justice service a person wanted (for those who so
> > choose). Individuals could also provide their own protection and call
> > upon such services as needed. David Friedman has given an extensive
> > (mainly economic) analysis of how and why such a system would work (eg,
> > how differences in laws and systems could be resolved to everyone's
> > acceptance).
>
> I don't care what anyone named Friedman (Milton, David, etc.) has to say
> about capitalism.
In other words you're ignorant and want to remain so.
> There are some things that must operate in the public good.
That is your claim, support it. For a start define the "public good"
and then
show that it is served by a government monopoly on the provision of
law courts.
> You anarchists don't care about the public good though.
>
We do and we actually think about what will serve people better. We
do
not conclude that giving the monopoly of force to people we don't
trust
will.
Dr. Zarkov
Having laws is not the same as having someone rule. The "laws" will be
contractual agreements entered into voluntarily. No one would be forced
to subscribe to any laws or protection/justice service, but such persons
would then have to rely on their own devices for protection.
>> > One reason for that is all the conservatives who don't want the
>> > government to do anything to protect us from abuses by big
>> business, the
>> > police, etc.
>>
>>
>> Why should that happen if your "democratic republic" works so well?
>
>
> Because not enough people are involved in making government work.
You were just blaming it on the "conservatives." The point is that this
is the way that government systems actually function in practice--there
will be people who disagree with your policies and people who won't or
can't get involved. You seem to be arguing that if we had an ideal
world, government would work well.
>> But
>> the fact is that "liberals" have been just as supportive of abuses as
>> conservatives. It is the "liberals" who supported expansion of
>> policing (eg, the TSA, federal funding for more local police) as well
>> as laws against victimless crimes like drugs.
>
>
> True liberals and the left do not support all these 9/11 policies. As
> for local police, I'd rather have more money going to them than federal
> police like the FBI/CIA.
The TSA is a federal agency created largely because liberals pushed for
it. And its abuses and inefficiencies have been well documented even in
the short period in which it has existed.
> It is the "liberals" who want to
>> disarm everyone and expect people to place their trust in the police.
>>
> Oh yes, if everyone was armed with guns things would be fine. That is
> main assumption of the libertarian or anarchistic system. Well a lot of
> people with too many guns makes me nervous whether it is the military,
> police, or my neighbors. This is how you guys think you will have
> success, if everyone thinks someone my shoot them, they will act right,
> so we could get rid of governement.
This paragraph is either incomprehensible or little more than ranting.
>> I repeat, it is useful to know something about a topic before you
>> critique it. Under anarcho-capitalism there would be laws
>> contractually agreed to with the protection/justice services.
>
>
> Again you try to have it both ways. You want to call government
> something else. Who will come up with these laws--all the people? And
> what if I am living under your system and I don't want to "contractually
> agree" with your laws? Am I not being opressed in the same way you
> claim you are oppressed now? Under a democratic system, at least I am
> free to disagree/protest/try to change these laws through elected
> representatives. Under anarchy capitalism, how do I know your
> "protection/justice services" just won't have me shot?
Persons would contract with whatever protection/justice system they
choose, or none if they so choose. Individuals would also be free to
form whatever other social-political system they wanted on their own
properties. If you wanted to live under a statist system, you would be
free to do so. Other social-political groups like anarcho-socialists
and anarcho-syndicalists could form their own communities without
private property if they choose. You just couldn't force everyone else
to live under your system.
As David Friedman writes in _Machinery of Freedom_:
"In such an anarchist society, who would make the laws? On what basis
would the private arbitrator decide what acts were criminal and what
their punishments should be? The answer is that systems of law would be
produced for profit on the open market, just as books and bras are
produced today. There could be competition among different brands of
law, just as there is competition among different brands of cars.
In such a society there might be many courts and even many legal
systems. Each pair of protection agencies agree in advance on which
court they will use in case of conflict. Thus the laws under which a
particular case is decided are determined implicitly by advance
agreement between the protection agencies whose customers are involved.
In principle, there could be a different court and a different set of
laws for every pair of protection agencies. In practice, many agencies
would probably find it convenient to patronize the same courts, and many
courts might find it convenient to adopt identical, or nearly identical,
systems of law in order to simplify matters for their customers."
...
>> There simply is no way to make a government monopoly like policing
>> effective, responsible, and nonabusive. It is not responsive to its
>> customers' needs and desires, as a private company must be. Instead,
>> the police typically make up criteria like number of arrests to judge
>> cops--leading to a vast number of arrests for nonsense like marijuana
>> possession while most thefts, rapes, and even murders remain unsolved.
>> Also leading to a lot of unnecessary harassment and arrests by cops
>> trying to meet their quota or make themselves look good. Indeed,
>> innocent people have been killed by cops trying to make their nightly
>> quota in New York (eg, Patrick Dorismund, a security guard on his way
>> home from work who resisted an entrapment by cops and was shot to
death).
>>
> You private capitalist militia organizations would do the same thing.
> They would tout their arrests for marketing purposes. I assume people
> would pay for these policing services under your system. Suppose I did
> not want or were too poor to afford to pay? Then would I just be on my
> own and not protected by anyone?
A private organization would be fully liable for any abuses; it could
not hide behind the protections of "sovereign immunity" and the many
other laws that shield government police and prosecutors from being held
accountable. What's more, individuals could switch companies if the
company was abusive; any company that did abuse people would lose
business and probably rapidly go out of business.
>> > From the U.S. Dept. of Justice Website...
>> > Mayors, Police Chiefs Turn Spotlight On Success Of Community Policing
>> >
>> 1. That is not a scholarly study; it is just a lot of
>> self-congratulatory BS.
>> 2. It is from police chiefs and similar people who have a vested
>> interest in promoting their programs.
>
>
> Okay so far you have a point, not that it makes what they say untrue,
> but you have a point.
>
>> 3. It cites as evidence the reduction in crime that occurred in the
>> 1990s. That's typical government BS. The crime rate did indeed fall
>> sharply in the 90s, but there is no evidence that it had anything to
>> do with the police or government policies.
>
>
> Yes there is. The poverty and unemployment rates fell during the
> Clinton Presidency. Guess what? Crime is on the increase in recent
> years coinciding with increases in poverty rates due to the policies of
> your profit driven capitalist friends and complacent neo-liberals in the
> Democratic party.
>
>> 4. The overall crime rate declined significantly over that period
>> mainly because the population is aging
>
>
> BS as I just pointed out above, and soon below.
A number of references were given to support the claim that crime fell
during that period mainly because the population is aging. If the
decline were due to government actions, why did the crime rate also fall
in others countries (eg, Canada) where a similar phenomenon is
occurring? Why did it fall in places in the country that did not adopt
new policies?
"Males between the ages of 15 and 24 commit the most crimes.
Some criminologists predict that all crime rates will increase in the
next decades, as the children of the baby boomers...become teenagers and
young adults.
In 1996, persons under 25 accounted for 47% of the arrests in cities and
40-41% in rural and suburban areas...46.1% of violent crimes arrests and
59.5% of property crime arrests."
--_Crime: A Serious American Problem_ JF Quiram et al, editors.
Information Plus, Wylie, TX, 1998.
"The proportion of the population involved in crime tends to peak in
adolescence and early adulthood and then decline with age. This
age-crime relationship is remarkably similar across historical periods,
geographic locations, and crime types."
--Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice, 2nd ed. J Dressler, editor.
Macmillan 2002 (Vol 1, p31)
...
> It is one of the best
>> established facts of criminology that most crimes are committed by
>> younger people.
>
>
> Yeah when they have no jobs and a bleak outlook for the future.
>
>> The crime rate went up dramatically in the 60s and 70s as the baby
>> boomers came of age and the average age of the population fell.
>> "The proportion of the population involved in crime tends to peak in
>> adolescence and early adulthood and then decline with age.
>
>
> Your the one who says only 2% of crimes are solved, so how do you know
> who is committing them? In my area, there is a significant # of
> baby-boomer aged homeless/mentally ill/fringes of society types. They
> are habitual criminals because of their economic circumstances, which is
> mainly because of their mental illnesses.
The characteristics of criminals can be determined from those crimes
solved, which still represent a very large number of crimes, as well as
more general studies of the population. This is a well-established
point in criminology (that younger people tend to commit most crimes),
as that reference pointed out:
The proportion of the population involved in crime tends to peak in
adolescence and early adulthood and then decline with age. This
age-crime relationship is remarkably similar across historical periods,
geographic locations, and crime types.
--Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice, 2nd ed. J Dressler, editor.
Macmillan 2002 (Vol 1, p31)
Males between the ages of 15 and 24 commit the most crimes.
Some criminologists predict that all crime rates will increase in the
next decades, as the children of the baby boomers...become teenagers and
young adults.
In 1996, persons under 25 accounted for 47% of the arrests in cities and
40-41% in rural and suburban areas...46.1% of violent crimes arrests and
59.5% of property crime arrests.
--_Crime: A Serious American Problem_ JF Quiram et al, editors.
Information Plus, Wylie, TX, 1998.
Nonsense. It just states an opinion supporting community policing.
Actually, I could even agree with that, since any change would be an
improvement over the present system. But that comment does not
constitute evidence that community policing will solve the problems and
inefficiencies I pointed out, ie, the 1-2% rate of solving crimes, the
inefficiency of police in preventing crimes, the routine abuse of people
by police.
>> >> There are almost always at least a few contradictory studies on any
>> >> such point.
>> >
>> >
>> > Ahh already you are starting to backtrack.
>>
>>
>> Nonsense. This is an elementary point to anyone familiar with
>> scientific and scholarly reports. There are typically dozens, if not
>> hundreds of studies on a topic. If you pick out just the studies
>> supporting your point, you can "prove" just about anything. You have
>> to go with the weight of the evidence, which is what I did and what
>> Professor Moran does in his review article, i.e.,
>>
> I could say the same thing about you, "Dr."
The difference is that I did go with the weight of the evidence as
stated by a professional criminologist. Essentially your argument is
that, although all those abuses and inefficiencies in policing existed
in the past, the reforms now in progress will finally eliminate them.
But you offer no hard evidence for this. And (1) It is doubtful whether
the reforms will be actually implemented as intended, and (2) Even if
implemented, there is a strong tendency for a protected monopoly like
law-enforcement to develop abuses again. This is not some theoretical
objection; it is what has constantly happened in the past.
Indeed, in recent years as some definitive methods of evaluating police
(and prosecutors) have been developed (eg, DNA testing of people
formerly convicted), it's become clear that abuses have been even more
widespread than thought. Police have fabricated and falsified evidence
in many cases (this was almost routine in some departments) to convict a
substantial number of innocent people. Judging by the percentage proved
innocent in some studies, it's estimated that 10% to as much as 20% of
all those convicted of crimes are actually innocent.
The reason for this is not hard to see: Even in the most egregious
cases, the police and prosecutors involved have gotten away without
punishment. They are protected by various forms of immunity (plus the
de facto immunity of the system).
Dr. Zarkov
> Michael Price wrote:
...
>>
>> I don't know but you apparently believe it's possible since you
>> support the
>> State system. In the State system the State is not subject to the
>> rule of
>> law since it commands the law.
>
>
> BS! People take the government to court all the time. Sometimes they
> win, sometimes they loose.
I'd like to elaborate on this one point (Michael has answered the others
well).
Government is protected from lawsuits by the legal doctrine of
"sovereign immunity" as well as many special laws giving immunity and
special protections to police, prosecutors, and other government agents.
"American rulers had to come up with another rationale to protect their
power. One they came up with is that the 'sovereign is exempt from suit
[on the] practical ground that there can be no legal right against the
authority that makes the law on which the right depends. 205 U.S. 349, 353.
[S]tatutes waiving the sovereign immunity of the United States must
be'construed strictly in favor of the sovereign." McMahon v. United
States, 342 U.S. 25, 27 (1951).'"
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s103.htm
But in addition to the formal protections, it is very difficult to win a
civil or criminal case against government agents for practical reasons.
Cops, for example, will almost never incriminate other cops; in fact,
they routinely lie, fabricate evidence, falsify reports, or do just
about anything to protect each other. In a case against the government,
you are fighting the entire apparatus of government power.
It's become evident in recent years, as DNA and similar testing have
allowed some cases to be definitely resolved, that the police (and
prosecutors) have manipulated evidence to convict a large number of
innocent people. Reliable studies have found that in those cases that
could be definitely resolved by DNA testing, in about one-tenth to
one-fourth of the convictions the person was actually innocent (See, for
example, _Actual Innocence_ by Dwyer, Scheck, and Neufeld).
One outrageous case in my area was Santiago Villanueva. He was an
epileptic who had a seizure at work. Colleagues called 911 for help,
but "the Bloomfield Police Department arrived instead and, according to
witnesses at the scene, declared that Villanueva had consumed narcotics
and attempted to restrain him. They handcuffed him, then sat on or held
down his neck, upper- and lower-back, repeatedly screaming at him to
'speak English.' Villanueva lost consciousness and was declared dead
later in the day."
(The Commentator, Volume 66, Issue 12, May 7, 2002, Community Outraged
at Death of Santiago Villanueva, By Steven I. Weiss)
The cops involved got off without so much as a reprimand.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/Racial_Profiling/While_Walking/page.do?id=1106668&n1=3&n2=850&n3=1298
Many cases of police killing innocent people have come to light, eg:
Patrick Dorismond--a security guard killed after saying no to an
attempted drug entrapment by an undercover cop looking to fill a nightly
arrest quota.
William J. Whitfield, shot dead in a New York supermarket by police who
said they mistook the keys he was carrying for a gun
Amadou Diallo--killed in a hail of 41 bullets for acting "suspicious" on
his own doorstep
Alberto Sepulveda--an 11-year-old shot in the back
Anibal Carrasquillo (shot for turning to face the police officer in "a
gun stance.")
Dwain Lee--an actor shot 4 times in the back at a costume party
Mario Paz, a 63-year-old grandfather shot twice in the back in a typical
botched drug raid of a wrong address
Frank Lobato, 63, an invalid who needed crutches to move around, who was
unarmed and in bed watching TV when cops climbed through the
second-story window and opened his closed bedroom door. Police said they
thought a can of soda he was holding was a weapon.
Pedro Oregon Navarro, shot 12 times, hit 9 times in the back and killed,
during a warrantless drug raid on his apartment.
In all cases, there was an investigation, but the cops responsible got
off with nary a slap on the wrist. Government protects its own.
Topaz
wrote:
>
> I only want to "get my way" to the extent that I don't want people
>to be allowed to coerce me. Beyond that people may have
>their own way.
You should be coerced to help pay for the roads, the street lights,
police, and a lot of other stuff. We should all pay our fair share.
And we should outlaw a lot of stuff for example heroin. The civilized
people should just say no to anarchy.
> No it's not. The right people will not dominate. That's what
>makes them the right people.
Anarchists and libertarians are the wrong people. They are so against
having leadership they would rather live in a hell hole, which is what
their system would be.
Tim Howard
statements and then I'm done.
You have only theories to go by that your type of anarchy will work.
You have asked me for evidence that government works. I could discuss
the last few thousand years of human civilization where people have
advanced and progressed while living under one form of governance or
another, but I'll site a more specific example. How about most of
Western Europe since the post WWII era. Social Democracy, or
Keynesianism was dominate. In the last generation many of those
nations have watered it down due to the influence of the Reagan/Thatcher
era of the 80s, but they have not abandoned it. During that era, yes
there was high taxes and lots of regulation. There was strict gun
control. There was not the huge consumerism that is found in the US.
But the fact is most people were very well off. Their basic needs were
taken care of by their governments you find so evil. There was not high
crime nor high police abuses. There were no wars in Europe. There was
a lot less poverty and unemployement. People were governed but they
were not dictated to. There probably is not the level of "rugged
individualism" amoungst these Europeans that we may find in the USA, or
what you anarchists would like to see, but they feel a greater sense of
community there. These nations were and still are good places to live,
in no small part due to Social Democracy.
Michael Price wrote:
> On Aug 23, 5:51 pm, Tim Howard <tim.how...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>> You seem to want it both ways. You say no one will rule, but you say
>> there will be laws, which I assume people will have to follow.
>
> So they will, but that doesn't mean that anyone will rule. It means
> that
> there are rules not rulers.
>
I think I understand what you and Dr. Zarkov want. You don't want
anarchy at all. You merely want to privatize government.
> You supported the "progressives" who certain supported expansion of
> policing.
I am not sure which progressives you are talking about. If you mean
modern ones who went along with the 9/11 hysteria, well lets get real.
This is how a nation like ours reacts to such an attack. I don't like
it but that does not mean I will abandon the system permanently because
politicians have a habit of changing their minds if it is in their
political interest. If you mean the progressives of the early 20th
century, I was not alive to support or oppose them.
>
> Your phobias are not a rational basis for policy.
>
They are my opinions on who I would choose to live around and what
situations I feel comfortable in. You would choose differently, and
base your policies on that.
>> And what if I am living under your system and I don't want to "contractually
>> agree" with your laws?
>
> Well you're free to try find a protection agency that will provide
> protection
> while you rape, murder, steal etc. and shield you from legal claims
> against you for these.
So you assume true anarchists who don't want to be forced into a
contract by your side will be rapists and murders. You have confirmed
my earlier accusation. I think I understand what your private "agents"
would do to those you suspect will act that way.
>> There is nothing contradictory nor wrong with wanting to have power as
>> long as it is used for the benefit of the people.
>
> And how is that defined?
Not everyone has the same definition. But people respect the leadership
of popularly elected politicians and if they disagree they have the next
election to change leaders and thus change priorities. Works pretty
good for the most part.
Why can't they have the power they have
> in an anarchy?
What? You have been arguing for the opposite of that!
What is so much better about the power to control
> the law through votes than the power to live your life without being
> involuntarily subject to such?
If people were "contractually obligated" to use your term, then they
would be no more free to live their own lives they way they want than
you claim is the case now.
>
>> Power is a motivator
>> for good as well as evil. And I did not say I want so much democracy
>> that it is direct democracy. I believe in the Republic too. Leaders
>> should be acting in the people's best interest, not simply carrying out
>> their will.
>
> Oh yes because treating people as children whose wishes should be
> ignored in favour of what you think are their interests always works
> out well.
Tyranny of the majority does not work out well.
>
> Why? People pay for protection not quotas. Any police force that
> went around
> negligently killing people would be hauled into court by their police
> forces. If they refused to go they'd be hunted down like dogs.
>
Nice theory.
>
>> I assume people would pay for these policing services under your system.
>
> Most people. Some would get it by charity.
>
A charity private police force??? Good Lord do you really believe what
you are saying? You keep telling me to read up on things. Perhaps you
should read up on Machiavelli. Read what he thought of private
armies/police and how Florence suffered from such things.
>> Suppose I did not want or were too poor to afford to pay?
>
> What happens if you don't pay now? In any case why would anyone
> be so poor as not to be able to afford police protection? It's not
> that
> expensive on the lower end of the market.
How the hell do you know how expensive it would be.
People could pay in labour
> if they don't have a job or they could form mutaul protection
> societies.
>
We have those now, they go by many names--street gangs, mafias, etc.
>
>> Then would I just be on my own and not protected by anyone?
>>
> Aren't you now?
>
No.
>
> For a start there are no capitalists making policy, socialists are.
Total bullshit! I suppose you think politicians speak before those rich
corporate leaders at $1,000 a plate dinners just for the food? I
suppose you think all those big businessmen and their lobbieists hanging
around the federal and every state capital are just there for the hell
of it? You think Dick Cheney just got together with all those energy
executives before writing the administrations energy policy? You think
Clinton pardoned those crooks in Ark. that he and his wife did business
with just because he loved them? Capitalists pull the politicians
strings and just because there would be no politicians as you would
define the term under your system does not mean the rich would not rule
over the rest of us.
>
> So you think the geriatrics are committing the same amount of crime
> but
> getting away with it? I suppose they have really good disguises to
> make
> them look younger?
>
> It's irrevelent whether there are crime prevention programs or not,
> this
> age group will always be more criminal. When was the last time you
> saw a crime prevention programme in a nursing home?
You are twisting my words around to mean something I did not mean.
>>
>> I don't care what anyone named Friedman (Milton, David, etc.) has to say
>> about capitalism.
>
> In other words you're ignorant and want to remain so.
I am not ignorant of the injustices of corporate capitalism.
>
>> There are some things that must operate in the public good.
>
> That is your claim, support it. For a start define the "public good"
There is no point in my doing that because you will just disagree.
Tim Howard
statements and then I'm done.
You have only theories to go by that your type of anarchy will work. You
have asked me for evidence that government works. I could discuss the
last few thousand years of human civilization where people have advanced
and progressed while living under one form of governance or another, but
I'll site a more specific example. How about most of Western Europe
since the post WWII era. Social Democracy, or Keynesianism was
dominate. In the last generation many of those nations have watered it
down due to the influence of the Reagan/Thatcher era of the 80s, but
they have not abandoned it. During that era, yes there was high taxes
and lots of regulation. There was strict gun control. There was not
the huge consumerism that is found in the US. But the fact is most
people were very well off. Their basic needs were taken care of by
their governments you find so evil. There was not high crime nor high
police abuses. There were no wars in Europe. There was a lot less
poverty and unemployement. People were governed but they were not
dictated to. There probably is not the level of "rugged individualism"
amoungst these Europeans that we may find in the USA, or what you
anarchists would like to see, but they feel a greater sense of community
there. These nations were and still are good places to live, in no
small part due to Social Democracy.
Dr. Zarkov wrote:
> Tim Howard wrote:
> > Dr. Zarkov wrote:
> >> Tim Howard wrote:
> >> > Dr. Zarkov wrote:
> >> >> Tim Howard wrote:
> > You seem to want it both ways. You say no one will rule, but you say
> > there will be laws, which I assume people will have to follow.
>
> Having laws is not the same as having someone rule. The "laws" will be
> contractual agreements entered into voluntarily. No one would be forced
> to subscribe to any laws or protection/justice service, but such persons
> would then have to rely on their own devices for protection.
>
I think I understand what you and Price want. You don't really want
anarchy at all. You merely want to privatize government.
>
> You were just blaming it on the "conservatives." The point is that this
> is the way that government systems actually function in practice--there
> will be people who disagree with your policies and people who won't or
> can't get involved. You seem to be arguing that if we had an ideal
> world, government would work well.
>
No, I said what I said. You are trying to twist my words around.
>
> > True liberals and the left do not support all these 9/11 policies. As
> > for local police, I'd rather have more money going to them than federal
> > police like the FBI/CIA.
>
>
> The TSA is a federal agency created largely because liberals pushed for
> it. And its abuses and inefficiencies have been well documented even in
> the short period in which it has existed.
>
This is the reality of how politicians act when we are attacked. What
do you expect? But politicians are known for changing their minds over
time aren't they? The pendulum is already swinging the other way.
>
> > It is the "liberals" who want to
> >> disarm everyone and expect people to place their trust in the police.
> >>
> > Oh yes, if everyone was armed with guns things would be fine. That is
> > main assumption of the libertarian or anarchistic system. Well a lot of
> > people with too many guns makes me nervous whether it is the military,
> > police, or my neighbors. This is how you guys think you will have
> > success, if everyone thinks someone my shoot them, they will act right,
> > so we could get rid of governement.
>
> This paragraph is either incomprehensible or little more than ranting.
>
If you cannot understand my points that is not my problem.
>
> >> I repeat, it is useful to know something about a topic before you
> >> critique it. Under anarcho-capitalism there would be laws
> >> contractually agreed to with the protection/justice services.
> >
> >
> > Again you try to have it both ways. You want to call government
> > something else. Who will come up with these laws--all the people? And
> > what if I am living under your system and I don't want to "contractually
> > agree" with your laws? Am I not being opressed in the same way you
> > claim you are oppressed now? Under a democratic system, at least I am
> > free to disagree/protest/try to change these laws through elected
> > representatives. Under anarchy capitalism, how do I know your
> > "protection/justice services" just won't have me shot?
>
> Persons would contract with whatever protection/justice system they
> choose, or none if they so choose. Individuals would also be free to
> form whatever other social-political system they wanted on their own
> properties. If you wanted to live under a statist system, you would be
> free to do so. Other social-political groups like anarcho-socialists
> and anarcho-syndicalists could form their own communities without
> private property if they choose. You just couldn't force everyone else
> to live under your system.
>
If this is what people really want then why hasn't hardly anyone tried
it in the last few thousand years, and why have none been successful?
> As David Friedman writes in _Machinery of Freedom_:
> "In such an anarchist society, who would make the laws? On what basis
> would the private arbitrator decide what acts were criminal and what
> their punishments should be? The answer is that systems of law would be
> produced for profit on the open market, just as books and bras are
> produced today. There could be competition among different brands of
> law, just as there is competition among different brands of cars.
>
Law is not some commodity like a car. It is disgusting to me that you
would try to make a profit off of the law.
> In such a society there might be many courts and even many legal
> systems. Each pair of protection agencies agree in advance on which
> court they will use in case of conflict.
No protection agency unaccountable to a higher authority will agree to
use a court voluntarily.
Thus the laws under which a
> particular case is decided are determined implicitly by advance
> agreement between the protection agencies whose customers are involved.
> In principle, there could be a different court and a different set of
> laws for every pair of protection agencies. In practice, many agencies
> would probably find it convenient to patronize the same courts, and many
> courts might find it convenient to adopt identical, or nearly identical,
> systems of law in order to simplify matters for their customers."
>
So you think laws and courts should cater to the whims of "customers".
Funny, I thought they were supposed to decide guilt/innocence,
right/wrong, just/unjust. You want those concepts subject to what the
majority of "customers" want?
> ...
> A number of references were given to support the claim that crime fell
> during that period mainly because the population is aging.
That is part of it.
If the
> decline were due to government actions, why did the crime rate also fall
> in others countries (eg, Canada) where a similar phenomenon is
> occurring?
If by "other countries" you mean other Western nations like Canada, they
did not have crime rates as high as the US to begin with.
> "Males between the ages of 15 and 24 commit the most crimes.
> Some criminologists predict that all crime rates will increase in the
> next decades, as the children of the baby boomers...become teenagers and
> young adults.
Umm children of the baby boomers are already teens and young adults.
Many are older than that above demographic. And those baby boomers were
long past 24 by the early 90s when crime started falling.
> In 1996, persons under 25 accounted for 47% of the arrests in cities and
> 40-41% in rural and suburban areas...46.1% of violent crimes arrests and
> 59.5% of property crime arrests."
> --_Crime: A Serious American Problem_ JF Quiram et al, editors.
> Information Plus, Wylie, TX, 1998.
And you think your system would lower those crimes by younger people?
>
> The difference is that I did go with the weight of the evidence as
> stated by a professional criminologist. Essentially your argument is
> that, although all those abuses and inefficiencies in policing existed
> in the past, the reforms now in progress will finally eliminate them.
I did not say eliminate.
> But you offer no hard evidence for this.
You offer no evidence that your private police would be able to find and
arrest more people who commit crimes or that your private courts would
be able to convict more people.
> Indeed, in recent years as some definitive methods of evaluating police
> (and prosecutors) have been developed (eg, DNA testing of people
> formerly convicted), it's become clear that abuses have been even more
> widespread than thought. Police have fabricated and falsified evidence
> in many cases (this was almost routine in some departments) to convict a
> substantial number of innocent people. Judging by the percentage proved
> innocent in some studies, it's estimated that 10% to as much as 20% of
> all those convicted of crimes are actually innocent.
>
> The reason for this is not hard to see: Even in the most egregious
> cases, the police and prosecutors involved have gotten away without
> punishment. They are protected by various forms of immunity (plus the
> de facto immunity of the system).
>
You don't have to have anarchy to fix this. There are many reforms that
can be taken for corrupt/abusive police. Since you believe people can
hold your private agents accountable whome we would pay in fees, then
why can we not hold public police accountable whome we pay for with our
taxes?
James A. Donald
<tim.h...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> I am getting tired of belaboring these points. I will make a few more
> statements and then I'm done.
>
> You have only theories to go by that your type of anarchy will work. You
> have asked me for evidence that government works. I could discuss the
> last few thousand years of human civilization where people have advanced
> and progressed while living under one form of governance or another,
Government, in the sense of the Westphalian state - an entity with a
monoly of legitimate force in a geographic area, has only existed in
the west since 1648.
After the Roman empire in the west fell, and before the Peace of
Westphalia, what we had were cartels of force, not monopolies of
force. Only nobles, or only gentlemen, could use force, but there
was no monopoly of legitimate force - a system that had all the
disadvantages that you attribute to anarchy.
Dr. Zarkov
> I am getting tired of belaboring these points. I will make a few more
> statements and then I'm done.
>
> You have only theories to go by that your type of anarchy will work. You
> have asked me for evidence that government works.
What I specifically asked for was evidence that government provides
significant net protection for people, since this is one of the main
reasons that statists claim we need government. I listed a number of
references showing that government policing/justice does not do so in
the U.S. To summarize briefly:
* Only about 1%-2% of crimes are ever solved (perp. caught and convicted)
* The police do not have a significant effect in lowering crime rates
* The police do a great deal of harm: harassing, arresting, beating,
even killing innocent people
* The "justice" system convicts a large number of innocent people
> I could discuss the
> last few thousand years of human civilization where people have advanced
> and progressed while living under one form of governance or another,
During that period, governments also oppressed and murdered millions of
people.
> but I'll site a more specific example.
> How about most of Western Europe
> since the post WWII era. Social Democracy, or Keynesianism was
> dominate. In the last generation many of those nations have watered it
> down due to the influence of the Reagan/Thatcher era of the 80s, but
> they have not abandoned it. During that era, yes there was high taxes
> and lots of regulation. There was strict gun control. There was not
> the huge consumerism that is found in the US. But the fact is most
> people were very well off. Their basic needs were taken care of by
> their governments you find so evil. There was not high crime nor high
> police abuses. There were no wars in Europe. There was a lot less
> poverty and unemployement. People were governed but they were not
> dictated to. There probably is not the level of "rugged individualism"
> amoungst these Europeans that we may find in the USA, or what you
> anarchists would like to see, but they feel a greater sense of community
> there. These nations were and still are good places to live, in no
> small part due to Social Democracy.
You are assuming what you are trying to prove, ie, that "social
democracy" was responsible for whatever was "good" in those countries at
that time. Much of the progress in that period was due to technical
progress, which raises the standard of living, plus recovery from WWII.
Nor does that provide evidence that other systems would not work much
better.
> Dr. Zarkov wrote:
>> Tim Howard wrote:
>> > Dr. Zarkov wrote:
>> >> Tim Howard wrote:
>> >> > Dr. Zarkov wrote:
>> >> >> Tim Howard wrote:
>
>
>> > You seem to want it both ways. You say no one will rule, but you say
>> > there will be laws, which I assume people will have to follow.
>>
>> Having laws is not the same as having someone rule. The "laws" will
>> be contractual agreements entered into voluntarily. No one would be
>> forced to subscribe to any laws or protection/justice service, but
>> such persons would then have to rely on their own devices for
protection.
>>
> I think I understand what you and Price want. You don't really want
> anarchy at all. You merely want to privatize government.
Contrary to common belief, anarchy does not mean no order or
organization; it means no government. We advocate privatizing certain
functions of government, but there would be no overall government at
all. And no one would be *forced* to subscribe to any of these private
services. Indeed, those who choose could form their own governments as
long as they did not try to force others to accept it. Unlike statists,
I don't want to force my preferences on others. Why do you object to
having a system that allows such freedom?
...
>> >> I repeat, it is useful to know something about a topic before you
>> >> critique it. Under anarcho-capitalism there would be laws
>> >> contractually agreed to with the protection/justice services.
>> >
>> >
>> > Again you try to have it both ways. You want to call government
>> > something else. Who will come up with these laws--all the people?
>> And
>> > what if I am living under your system and I don't want to
>> "contractually
>> > agree" with your laws? Am I not being opressed in the same way you
>> > claim you are oppressed now? Under a democratic system, at least
I am
>> > free to disagree/protest/try to change these laws through elected
>> > representatives. Under anarchy capitalism, how do I know your
>> > "protection/justice services" just won't have me shot?
>>
>> Persons would contract with whatever protection/justice system they
>> choose, or none if they so choose. Individuals would also be free to
>> form whatever other social-political system they wanted on their own
>> properties. If you wanted to live under a statist system, you would
>> be free to do so. Other social-political groups like
>> anarcho-socialists and anarcho-syndicalists could form their own
>> communities without private property if they choose. You just
>> couldn't force everyone else to live under your system.
>>
> If this is what people really want then why hasn't hardly anyone tried
> it in the last few thousand years, and why have none been successful?
There have been several examples of similar systems that were
successful. But governments eventually claimed control of all
territories. That argument--that because something has not existed up
till now, it cannot exist--is basically fallacious. Airplanes did not
exist before they were invented. A U.S. style constitutional republic
did not exist before it was founded.
>> As David Friedman writes in _Machinery of Freedom_:
>> "In such an anarchist society, who would make the laws? On what basis
>> would the private arbitrator decide what acts were criminal and what
>> their punishments should be? The answer is that systems of law would
>> be produced for profit on the open market, just as books and bras are
>> produced today. There could be competition among different brands of
>> law, just as there is competition among different brands of cars.
>>
> Law is not some commodity like a car. It is disgusting to me that you
> would try to make a profit off of the law.
Why? Don't lawyers make a profit nowadays? Don't the people in
law-enforcement, the courts, and government get salaries?
>> In such a society there might be many courts and even many legal
>> systems. Each pair of protection agencies agree in advance on which
>> court they will use in case of conflict.
>
>
> No protection agency unaccountable to a higher authority will agree to
> use a court voluntarily.
As Friedman points out, they will because it's the smart business move.
Unlike government, which is concerned with power, businesses are
mainly concerned with making a profit and pleasing their customers.
>> Thus the laws under which a
>> particular case is decided are determined implicitly by advance
>> agreement between the protection agencies whose customers are
>> involved. In principle, there could be a different court and a
>> different set of laws for every pair of protection agencies. In
>> practice, many agencies would probably find it convenient to patronize
>> the same courts, and many courts might find it convenient to adopt
>> identical, or nearly identical, systems of law in order to simplify
>> matters for their customers."
>>
> So you think laws and courts should cater to the whims of "customers".
> Funny, I thought they were supposed to decide guilt/innocence,
> right/wrong, just/unjust. You want those concepts subject to what the
> majority of "customers" want?
Would you voluntarily patronize a court if you thought it did not
dispense justice? If not, why would you think anyone else would?
>> ...
>
> > A number of references were given to support the claim that crime fell
>> during that period mainly because the population is aging.
>
>
> That is part of it.
>
>> If the
>> decline were due to government actions, why did the crime rate also
>> fall in others countries (eg, Canada) where a similar phenomenon is
>> occurring?
> If by "other countries" you mean other Western nations like Canada, they
> did not have crime rates as high as the US to begin with.
That evades the point: Whatever the initial crime rate, why would it
also fall dramatically in other countries during that period if it were
due to some policy of the U.S. government? The more logical explanation
is that the fall in crime rates in the U.S. and other countries (like
Canada) where the average population age is also increasing is due to
the demographic shift, since it is a well-established fact that most
crimes are committed by younger people.
> > "Males between the ages of 15 and 24 commit the most crimes.
>
>> Some criminologists predict that all crime rates will increase in the
>> next decades, as the children of the baby boomers...become teenagers
>> and young adults.
>
>
> Umm children of the baby boomers are already teens and young adults.
> Many are older than that above demographic. And those baby boomers were
> long past 24 by the early 90s when crime started falling.
The baby boomers were aging into the 1990s. The baby boom began in 1946
but did not peak until 1957-1961 or end till the mid-60s.
"New births continued to grow throughout the 1940s and 1950s, leading to
a peak in the late 1950s with 4.3 million births in 1957 and 1961."
http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/babyboom.htm
So the youngest of the baby boomers would not have turned 25 until
1990. And that cohort started having children at a later age than
previous cohorts. You have to look at the overall age distribution of
the country. There is no doubt that the average age of the population
increased in the 90s. It will probably continue to do so for several
reasons, but there will be a little jump in the number of
teenagers/young adults.
>> In 1996, persons under 25 accounted for 47% of the arrests in cities
>> and 40-41% in rural and suburban areas...46.1% of violent crimes
>> arrests and 59.5% of property crime arrests."
>> --_Crime: A Serious American Problem_ JF Quiram et al, editors.
>> Information Plus, Wylie, TX, 1998.
>
>
> And you think your system would lower those crimes by younger people?
Yes. For one thing, it would not waste time arresting them for
victimless crimes like drugs (which now account for nearly 40% of those
imprisoned).
We've been hearing for over 40 years that they are going to reform
policing to prevent corruption and abuses. The Knapp commission in the
1970s found that essentially the entire New York police department was
on the take. Investigations in many areas found that abuses were
widespread. The problems always seem to recur.
The reason why we can't hold the public police accountable, even though
we pay for them with our taxes, is that they are a protected government
monopoly. Cops are protected from prosecution and liability by various
special laws. Equally important, cops will cover for each other--even
fabricate and falsify reports and evidence to prevent other cops from
being held accountable. To make matters worse, politicians will not
take the really tough actions needed because they don't want to offend
the police unions. Giuliani in New York made all kind of excuses for
cops no matter what they did (even in the killing of Dorismund, for
example).
Look, as a practical matter I'm all for trying to stop abuses in the
system we now have. But I just don't see it happening. Neither major
party has had the guts to stand up and recognize that the
policing/justice system in this country is broken and needs a major
overhaul. They are afraid of offending the police or appearing soft on
crime.
John
> ...what we had were cartels of force, not monopolies of
> force. Only nobles, or only gentlemen, could use force, but there
> was no monopoly of legitimate force - a system that had all the
> disadvantages that you attribute to anarchy.
And thus perhaps the perfect definition of anarcho-capitalism,
controlled by the noble class.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
brique
John <jus...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:46d064e8$0$17114$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> James A. Donald wrote:
>
> > ...what we had were cartels of force, not monopolies of
> > force. Only nobles, or only gentlemen, could use force, but there
> > was no monopoly of legitimate force - a system that had all the
> > disadvantages that you attribute to anarchy.
>
> And thus perhaps the perfect definition of anarcho-capitalism,
> controlled by the noble class.
James has suggested this 'noble' element to his Utopian vision before... of
course, the attractiveness of such a vision does depend somewhat on just
where in the vision you assume your place will be. For the 'nobles' it is,
no doubt, a delight, for the serfs a somewhat less desirable concoction and
one I doubt they would consider enduring for very long. Which is maybe why
it is necessary for the 'nobles' to hold the monopoly of violence within
their cartel lest the common herd fail to recognise the good fortune
inherent in their servitude.
What any of that may have to do with 'anarchism' is subject to defining
'anarchism'as something else entirely..... then again, James manages that
too, without even blushing.
Michael Price
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:20:34 -0700, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > I only want to "get my way" to the extent that I don't want people
> >to be allowed to coerce me. Beyond that people may have
> >their own way.
>
> You should be coerced to help pay for the roads, the street lights,
> police, and a lot of other stuff.
Why? If the street lights are worth it they're worth it to the
people
who live in houses near them. Those people will willingly pay the
cost of them in higher rents. Why should I have to pay? The roads
can be privatised and paid for by those who use them. As for the
police why should I pay to be told what to do? If I wanted to do
that I'd hire a dominatrix.
> We should all pay our fair share.
>
> And we should outlaw a lot of stuff for example heroin.
Why? Outlawing heroine has done nothing but encourage
overdoses and AIDS. If you weren't a pathetic nazi moron you'd
make a better arguement than simply asserting something is
desirable.
> The civilized people should just say no to anarchy.
>
Assertion != evidence.
> > No it's not. The right people will not dominate. That's what
> >makes them the right people.
>
> Anarchists and libertarians are the wrong people. They are so against
> having leadership they would rather live in a hell hole, which is what
> their system would be.
Again, assertion not evidence.
Michael Price
> I am getting tired of belaboring these points. I will make a few more
> statements and then I'm done.
>
> You have only theories to go by that your type of anarchy will work.
No there is the practical examples of Saga period Iceland as well
as other times and places. Try to learn something.
> You have asked me for evidence that government works. I could discuss
> the last few thousand years of human civilization where people have
> advanced and progressed while living under one form of governance or
> another, but I'll site a more specific example.
And those thousands of years have about 5 that didn't have a war
going
on, that we know of. Possibly they have none. The incidence of
genocide and murderous conflict was high and highest when governments
were most powerful. They are not evidence that government works,
merely
that it is not so disasterous that all humanity dies.
> How about most of Western Europe since the post WWII era.
I see, and did France for instance use terroristic tactics against
it's subject populations in that era? Were there beatings of
demonstrators? Did government supply justice at a price and
quality better than would be supplied without it?
> Social Democracy, or
> Keynesianism was dominate. In the last generation many of those
> nations have watered it down due to the influence of the Reagan/Thatcher
> era of the 80s, but they have not abandoned it. During that era, yes
> there was high taxes and lots of regulation.
And that crippled economic growth and made people poorer.
> There was strict gun control.
Which hasn't worked once.
> There was not the huge consumerism that is found in the US.
> But the fact is most people were very well off. Their basic needs were
> taken care of by their governments you find so evil.
No they were taken care of by the people they bought things
from with the money that they got working. The government needless
to say inhibited this process.
> There was not high crime nor high police abuses.
The fuck there wasn't.
> There were no wars in Europe.
No but there were wars by Europe.
> There was a lot less poverty and unemployement.
Than what? Than another form of government control. You
haven't show it was better than any anarchy.
> People were governed but they were not dictated to.
So they could marry two women? A man and a woman?
They could take heroine if they wanted to?
> There probably is not the level of "rugged
> individualism" amoungst these Europeans that we may find in the USA, or
> what you anarchists would like to see, but they feel a greater sense of
> community there.
Yeah, I always notice the sense of community as theiving farmers
riot to steal from their fellow countrymen.
> These nations were and still are good places to live,
> in no small part due to Social Democracy.
>
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 5:51 pm, Tim Howard <tim.how...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> >> You seem to want it both ways. You say no one will rule, but you say
> >> there will be laws, which I assume people will have to follow.
>
> > So they will, but that doesn't mean that anyone will rule. It means
> > that there are rules not rulers.
>
> I think I understand what you and Dr. Zarkov want. You don't want
> anarchy at all. You merely want to privatize government.
>
Privatise and de-monopolise government i.e. make an anarchy.
> > You supported the "progressives" who certain supported expansion of
> > policing.
>
> I am not sure which progressives you are talking about.
The ones that called themselves progressives and expanded
government with the horrible results you celebrate.
> If you mean
> modern ones who went along with the 9/11 hysteria, well lets get real.
> This is how a nation like ours reacts to such an attack.
And why? Because there is a government. The government motivated
the attack, it made it's funding possible, it disarmed those in a
position
to prevent the attack, it failed in it's claimed responsibility to
prevent it,
it claimed that it needed greater powers to deal with it and then
enacted
laws that are only possible because it is a government.
> I don't like it but that does not mean I will abandon the system
> permanently because politicians have a habit of changing their
> minds if it is in their political interest. If you mean the progressives
> of the early 20th century, I was not alive to support or oppose them.
>
You've been saying how wonderful they are, that's support.
> > Your phobias are not a rational basis for policy.
>
> They are my opinions on who I would choose to live around and what
> situations I feel comfortable in.
So are you comfortable with blacks? How about arabs? If not
then why shouldn't they be banned if your phobias are a rational
basis for policy?
> You would choose differently, and base your policies on that.
>
> >> And what if I am living under your system and I don't want to "contractually
> >> agree" with your laws?
>
> > Well you're free to try find a protection agency that will provide
> > protection
> > while you rape, murder, steal etc. and shield you from legal claims
> > against you for these.
>
> So you assume true anarchists who don't want to be forced into a
> contract by your side will be rapists and murders.
I'm not forcing anyone into a contract. They can be totally
contractless,
I just don't see who would want to be except rapists and murderers.
The law will be known and anyone who doesn't want to live under
it can try to contract for protection outside it or live without
protection.
> You have confirmed my earlier accusation.
God you're a paranoid little man. It's ironic that institutions
known to torture and kill you don't suspect at all but anyone
offering protection from them you automatically assume to
be homicidal.
> I think I understand what your private "agents"
> would do to those you suspect will act that way.
>
You only understand your own delusions.
> >> There is nothing contradictory nor wrong with wanting to have power as
> >> long as it is used for the benefit of the people.
>
> > And how is that defined?
>
> Not everyone has the same definition.
For instance some think that removing all the jews is for the
benefit
of the people. Others think that collectivising the kulaks is just
the thing.
> But people respect the leadership of popularly elected politicians
> and if they disagree they have the next election to change leaders
> and thus change priorities.
Which neither you or I will ever be able to do. Why is it a good
thing
that people respect the leadership of the people most likely to use
force against them? Is it likely that there will ever be an election
where I can vote to not be coerced as opposed to being coerced
by a slightly less loathsome group?
> Works pretty good for the most part.
>
Millions are dead from the war on drugs alone. This is not
"working pretty good".
> > Why can't they have the power they have
> > in an anarchy?
>
> What? You have been arguing for the opposite of that!
>
No, I haven't.
> > What is so much better about the power to control
> > the law through votes than the power to live your life without being
> > involuntarily subject to such?
>
> If people were "contractually obligated" to use your term, then they
> would be no more free to live their own lives they way they want than
> you claim is the case now.
>
Of course they would be because they could choose their contractor.
They could also choose not to contract, although few would.
> >> Power is a motivator
> >> for good as well as evil. And I did not say I want so much democracy
> >> that it is direct democracy. I believe in the Republic too. Leaders
> >> should be acting in the people's best interest, not simply carrying out
> >> their will.
>
> > Oh yes because treating people as children whose wishes should be
> > ignored in favour of what you think are their interests always works
> > out well.
>
> Tyranny of the majority does not work out well.
>
And yet still you cheer for it.
>
> > Why? People pay for protection not quotas. Any police force that
> > went around negligently killing people would be hauled into court
> > by their police forces. If they refused to go they'd be hunted down
> > like dogs.
>
> Nice theory.
>
And why wouldn't it happen? What would prevent private police
forces from protecting against other private police forces?
> >> I assume people would pay for these policing services under your system.
>
> > Most people. Some would get it by charity.
>
> A charity private police force??? Good Lord do you really believe what
> you are saying?
Why is this so unbelievable? After all people provide food to the
poor by charity, clean drinking water etc. why not police protection?
After all you think it's fine to be forced to pay for the protection
of
the poor why wouldn't you pay for it voluntarily?
> You keep telling me to read up on things. Perhaps you
> should read up on Machiavelli.
I have. You have not.
> Read what he thought of private armies/police and how Florence
> suffered from such things.
>
Machiavelli said nothing about private police forces because
there were none at the time. You are appallingly ignorant of
what he said. He disliked mercenaries because they did not
serve the State well and were unreliable but since what I'm talking
about has nothing to do with serving the State and would have
far more reason to be reliable this is irrevelent.
> >> Suppose I did not want or were too poor to afford to pay?
>
> > What happens if you don't pay now? In any case why would anyone
> > be so poor as not to be able to afford police protection? It's not
> > that expensive on the lower end of the market.
>
> How the hell do you know how expensive it would be.
>
What's expensive about it? Most people rarely need the more
expensive services like DNA testing of blood, highly trained
full time investigators working around the clock to solve a murder
etc. If it were so expensive to investigate crime why hasn't
the State gone bankrupt doing it? It's not even that big a part
of State expenditure.
> > People could pay in labour if they don't have a job or they
> > could form mutual protection societies.
>
> We have those now, they go by many names--street gangs, mafias, etc.
>
No they go by one name, militias, and they protected people
far better than the government did.
>
> >> Then would I just be on my own and not protected by anyone?
>
> > Aren't you now?
>
> No.
>
Yes you are. You are not protected by the government in
fact it increases the chance of people trying to kill you. If have
reason to believe you might be killed the government might agree
to provide protection. I have had one instance where I had good
reason to believe people might try to kill me. The police were not
interested in protecting me in the slightest.
> > For a start there are no capitalists making policy, socialists are.
>
> Total bullshit!
Then name one thing that GWB has done that makes the market
freer for every 10 I name that makes it more socialist.
> I suppose you think politicians speak before those rich
> corporate leaders at $1,000 a plate dinners just for the food?
So you think because someone is a rich corporate leader they're
not a socialist? You really don't know your history.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer75.html
John T. Flynn, stated, in 1928, that "most of the laws that control or
hamper business have been passed - surprising as it may seem to those
who clamor for 'less government in business' - at the demand of
business itself." A Kansas farmer was more succinct in commenting upon
the role business organizations have played in fostering government
regulation: "I have heard more socialism preached at meetings of
commercial bodies than in socialistic gatherings."
> I suppose you think all those big businessmen and their lobbieists hanging
> around the federal and every state capital are just there for the hell
> of it?
Of course not, they're there to increase socialism.
> You think Dick Cheney just got together with all those energy
> executives before writing the administrations energy policy?
No I think they planned and executed a socialist policy for the
benefit of socialists.
> You think Clinton pardoned those crooks in Ark. that he and
> his wife did business with just because he loved them?
Of course not
> Capitalists pull the politicians strings and just because there would
> be no politicians as you would define the term under your system
> does not mean the rich would not rule over the rest of us.
>
How would they rule over the rest of us? What would they do?
You've just given me a list of how they do it in your system but
you haven't got a clue how they'd do it in mine.
>
> > So you think the geriatrics are committing the same amount
> > of crime but getting away with it? I suppose they have really
> > good disguises to make them look younger?
>
> > It's irrevelent whether there are crime prevention programs or not,
> > this age group will always be more criminal. When was the last
> > time you saw a crime prevention programme in a nursing home?
>
> You are twisting my words around to mean something I did not mean.
>
No you're simply trying to dodge out of your claim that age
has nothing to do with crime statistics. It's a stupid claim and
you should abandon it.
>
> >> I don't care what anyone named Friedman (Milton, David, etc.) has to say
> >> about capitalism.
>
> > In other words you're ignorant and want to remain so.
>
> I am not ignorant of the injustices of corporate capitalism.
>
Which is nothing to do with what I'm talking about, which you
would know if you didn't wish to remain ignorant.
>
> >> There are some things that must operate in the public good.
>
> > That is your claim, support it. For a start define the "public good"
>
> There is no point in my doing that because you will just disagree.
So there are some things that should operate in the public good,
but you can't define the public good so your statement is
meaningless. You can't support your claim but are reduced to
mere assertions that don't actually make sense. If there is something
called the "public good" that justifies government then it is
definable.
What is it?
Topaz
wrote:
> Why? If the street lights are worth it they're worth it to the
>people
>who live in houses near them. Those people will willingly pay the
>cost of them in higher rents. Why should I have to pay? The roads
>can be privatised and paid for by those who use them. As for the
>police why should I pay to be told what to do? If I wanted to do
>that I'd hire a dominatrix.
We should have a great country instead of anarchy. Maybe there is some
jungle where anarchists can go if they refuse to help pay for the
street lights and other things we obviously should have.
>
> Why? Outlawing heroine has done nothing but encourage
>overdoses and AIDS. If you weren't a pathetic nazi moron you'd
>make a better arguement than simply asserting something is
>desirable.
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHING/OPIUM.HTM
" By the 1830's, the English had become the major drug-trafficking
criminal organization in the world; very few drug cartels of the
twentieth century can even touch the England of the early nineteenth
century in sheer size of criminality. Growing opium in India, the East
India Company shipped tons of opium into Canton which it traded for
Chinese manufactured goods and for tea. This trade had produced, quite
literally, a country filled with drug addicts, as opium parlors
proliferated all throughout China in the early part of the nineteenth
century. This trafficing, it should be stressed, was a criminal
activity after 1836, but the British traders generously bribed Canton
officials in order to keep the opium traffic flowing. The effects on
Chinese society were devestating. In fact, there are few periods in
Chinese history that approach the early nineteenth century in terms of
pure human misery and tragedy. In an effort to stem the tragedy, the
imperial government made opium illegal in 1836 and began to
aggressively close down the opium dens.
Lin Tse-hsü
The key player in the prelude to war was a brilliant and highly
moral official named Lin Tse-hsü. Deeply concerned about the opium
menace, he maneuverd himself into being appointed Imperial
Commissioner at Canton. His express purpose was to cut off the opium
trade at its source by rooting out corrupt officials and cracking down
on British trade in the drug.
He took over in March of 1839 and within two months, absolutely
invulnerable to bribery and corruption, he had taken action against
Chinese merchants and Western traders and shut down all the traffic in
opium. He destroyed all the existing stores of opium and, victorious
in his war against opium, he composed a letter to Queen Victoria of
England requesting that the British cease all opium trade. His letter
included the argument that, since Britain had made opium trade and
consumption illegal in England because of its harmful effects, it
should not export that harm to other countries. Trade, according to
Lin, should only be in beneficial objects…"
>
>> The civilized people should just say no to anarchy.
>>
> Assertion != evidence.
>
>> Anarchists and libertarians are the wrong people. They are so against
>> having leadership they would rather live in a hell hole, which is what
>> their system would be.
>
> Again, assertion not evidence.
Not only the roads, but the sidewalks and everything else would be
privately owned in your system. There would be no forest or beach one
could go to without trespassing. Those who don't own property could be
told to leave no matter where they were. This is what you call
"freedom".
Michael Price
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 00:19:02 -0700, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Why? If the street lights are worth it they're worth it to the
> >people
> >who live in houses near them. Those people will willingly pay the
> >cost of them in higher rents. Why should I have to pay? The roads
> >can be privatised and paid for by those who use them. As for the
> >police why should I pay to be told what to do? If I wanted to do
> >that I'd hire a dominatrix.
>
> We should have a great country instead of anarchy.
Why? What does being in a "great country" give us except
dead sons and debt to arms dealers?
> Maybe there is some jungle where anarchists can go if they refuse
> to help pay for the street lights
Or maybe you could go there if you can't contain your habit of
demanding
money with menaces. Of course I never said that the anarchists would
refuse to pay for street lights, just that they would refuse to pay
for
your street lights while the pay for their own.
> and other things we obviously should have.
>
> > Why? Outlawing heroine has done nothing but encourage
> >overdoses and AIDS. If you weren't a pathetic nazi moron you'd
> >make a better arguement than simply asserting something is
> >desirable.
>
> http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHING/OPIUM.HTM
> " By the 1830's, the English had become the major drug-trafficking
> criminal organization in the world; very few drug cartels of the
> twentieth century can even touch the England of the early nineteenth
> century in sheer size of criminality. Growing opium in India, the East
> India Company shipped tons of opium into Canton which it traded for
> Chinese manufactured goods and for tea. This trade had produced, quite
> literally, a country filled with drug addicts, as opium parlors
> proliferated all throughout China in the early part of the nineteenth
> century. This trafficing, it should be stressed, was a criminal
> activity after 1836, but the British traders generously bribed Canton
> officials in order to keep the opium traffic flowing. The effects on
> Chinese society were devestating. In fact, there are few periods in
> Chinese history that approach the early nineteenth century in terms of
> pure human misery and tragedy. In an effort to stem the tragedy, the
> imperial government made opium illegal in 1836 and began to
> aggressively close down the opium dens.
> Lin Tse-hsü
And how does this indicate that opium dealing is a bad thing?
> The key player in the prelude to war was a brilliant and highly
> moral official named Lin Tse-hsü. Deeply concerned about the opium
> menace, he maneuverd himself into being appointed Imperial
> Commissioner at Canton. His express purpose was to cut off the opium
> trade at its source by rooting out corrupt officials and cracking down
> on British trade in the drug.
>
> He took over in March of 1839 and within two months, absolutely
> invulnerable to bribery and corruption, he had taken action against
> Chinese merchants and Western traders and shut down all the traffic in
> opium. He destroyed all the existing stores of opium and, victorious
> in his war against opium, he composed a letter to Queen Victoria of
> England requesting that the British cease all opium trade. His letter
> included the argument that, since Britain had made opium trade and
> consumption illegal in England because of its harmful effects, it
> should not export that harm to other countries. Trade, according to
> Lin, should only be in beneficial objects..."
>
And that started a war that ruined China. And what did he achieve?
Only taking away one of the few pleasures the oppressed had.
>
> >> The civilized people should just say no to anarchy.
>
> > Assertion != evidence.
>
> >> Anarchists and libertarians are the wrong people. They are so against
> >> having leadership they would rather live in a hell hole, which is what
> >> their system would be.
>
> > Again, assertion not evidence.
>
> Not only the roads, but the sidewalks and everything else would be
> privately owned in your system. There would be no forest or beach one
> could go to without trespassing.
Of course there would, my own and that of people I'm on good terms
with.
> Those who don't own property could be
> told to leave no matter where they were. This is what you call
> "freedom".
>
Yes it is because they could make a deal to stay even if they
were totally landless. In your system they would be shoved into
stinking concentration camps and die.
You Will Submit To Allah Or DIE!!
> On Aug 19, 9:24 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 19:09:41 -0700, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > That may work in business. But the best brains often
> > > > don't get to be political leaders unless their is a system
> > > > that promotes it.
> > > So then you agree there should not be any political leaders
> > >presumably?
>
> > We need leaders.
>
> Why? Simply claiming that we need something so dangerous
> as political leadership is not enough. What are the actual benefits?
>
> > > What "system" could make the best brains political
> > >leaders,
>
> > National Socialism
>
> That's a laugh, it supported a drug-addicted pyscopath who
> killed millions.
>
> > > rather than those best able to persuade people that they
> > >are good leaders? Certainly not national socialism that depended
> > >deeply on people being convinced of absurdities.
>
> > The Jews do control the media and rule America. That was the same
> > thing they had in Germany until Hitler stopped it.
>
> Yeah it's all a conspiracy. Or maybe things were as bad as
> the "jews" tell us which is why there were so many gas chambers.
>
> > Whites on average are much more intelligent than Blacks.
>
> > National Socialism was right about everything.
>
> Then why did it start a war it couldn't win? Why did it do
> absurd things like try to beautify workplaces when nobody
> wanted beautiful workplaces enough for it to be worth the
> effort?
>
>
>
> > >> Look at Bush. He is the president of the United States. And the
> > >> main thing he lacks is brains.
>
> > > So why have a President?
>
> > > No I think I would be safe whether or not I am fast with a gun or
> > >a good shot. That's what professional protection agencies and/or
> > >militia alliances are for.
>
> > In that case everybody would indirectly benefit from them whether
> > they paid for it or not.
>
> What part of "professional" and "mutual" do you not understand?
> The protection agencies and the militia would protect only those
> who they agreed to protect and therefore everybody would not
> indirectly benefit.
>
> > So everyone should pay. We should have taxes.
>
> > > And my relatives could have one waiting for them. You claimed that
> > > the "mafia" would take control. How? How would anyone control
> > > a society where everyone can be armed and is entitled to defend their
> > > rights with lethal force?
>
> > Everyone would also have no reason not to rob their neighbor with
> > lethal force.
>
> Other than the fact that their neighbour would have armed friends,
> armed family and probably an armed professional protection agency.
> You really should try to remember what I have said before lying
> about it.
>
> > > And if they're good people why would they want to have the monopoly
> > > of force?
>
> > To put the bad people in their place.
>
> But a monopoly isn't useful for that. If people are being "bad"
> then they
> are abusing rights and the most efficent way to deal with them is to
> have the people whose rights are abused act against them or hire
> someone
> to do so.
>
> > > And those people could travel on someone else's roads. People
> > >already tell people to stay off their trains, is that not freedom?
>
> > You have to do a lot of work to build a train.
>
> And to build a road moron.
>
> > Roads obviously should be public property.
>
> No that's not obvious at all. Saying something is obvious
> is not evidence.
Whacko Anarchist, go to Amsterdam and North Korea. you will learn.
You Will Submit To Allah Or DIE!!
Nutty conspiracies from nutty squirrel-brains. A simple truth can't
be true when an elaborate conspiracy can be invented! Hahahaha
John A
I was always astounded by the sheer will and determination of certain
individuals to adhere to this 'strand of anarchism' and shrug off any
and all criticisms that might arise in the course of discussion.
I suppose to some of them it may be likened to 'class war' (far be it
from anyone to judge the legitimacy of a noble class). And in war all
bets are off, including finding any middle ground or questioning one's
own belief system or some such.
I do find it interesting the way capitalism in America is starting to
wobble again. I don't think the state much less "the invisible hand" of
the marketplace will save it in the long run. Just because it happens to
be vampiric doesn't make it immortal.
-J
Topaz
wrote:
> Why? What does being in a "great country" give us except
>dead sons and debt to arms dealers?
A great country wouldn't go to war without a really good reason.
>
>> Maybe there is some jungle where anarchists can go if they refuse
>> to help pay for the street lights
>
> Or maybe you could go there if you can't contain your habit of
>demanding
>money with menaces. Of course I never said that the anarchists would
>refuse to pay for street lights, just that they would refuse to pay
>for
>your street lights while the pay for their own.
If a nation didn't have an army or anything, then some group such and
Genghis Khan's outfit could just come along and do whatever they
pleased. Everyone benefits from the army so everyone should have to
pay their fair share.
> And how does this indicate that opium dealing is a bad thing?
Their children were dying in opium dens.
> And that started a war that ruined China. And what did he achieve?
>Only taking away one of the few pleasures the oppressed had.
>>
>> Not only the roads, but the sidewalks and everything else would be
>> privately owned in your system. There would be no forest or beach one
>> could go to without trespassing.
>
> Of course there would, my own and that of people I'm on good terms
>with.
>
>> Those who don't own property could be
>> told to leave no matter where they were. This is what you call
>> "freedom".
>>
> Yes it is because they could make a deal to stay even if they
>were totally landless. In your system they would be shoved into
>stinking concentration camps and die.
Auschwitz: Myths and facts
by Mark Weber
Nearly everyone has heard of Auschwitz, the German wartime
concentration camp where many prisoners-most of them Jewish-were
reportedly exterminated, especially in gas chambers. Auschwitz is
widely regarded as the most terrible Nazi extermination center. The
camp's horrific reputation cannot, however, be reconciled with the
facts.
Scholars challenge Holocaust story
Astonishing as it may seem, more and more historians and engineers
have been challenging the widely accepted Auschwitz story. These
"revisionist" scholars do not dispute the fact that large numbers of
Jews were deported to the camp, or that many died there, particularly
of typhus and other diseases. But the compelling evidence they present
shows that Auschwitz was not an extermination center and that the
story of mass killings in "gas chambers" is a myth.
The Auschwitz camps
The Auschwitz camp complex was set up in 1940 in what is now
south-central Poland. Large numbers of Jews were deported there
between 1942 and mid-1944.
The main camp was known as Auschwitz I. Birkenau, or Auschwitz II, was
supposedly the main extermination center, and Monowitz, or Auschwitz
III, was a large industrial center where gasoline was produced from
coal. In addition there were dozens of smaller satellite camps devoted
to the war economy.
Four million victims?
At the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal, the Allies charged that the Germans
exterminated four million people at Auschwitz. This figure, which was
invented by the Soviets, was uncritically accepted for many years. It
often appeared in major American newspapers and magazines, for
example. (note 1)
Today no reputable historian, not even those who generally accept the
extermination story, believes this figure. Israeli Holocaust historian
Yehuda Bauer said in 1989 that it is time to finally acknowledge the
familiar four million figure is a deliberate myth. In July 1990 the
Auschwitz State Museum in Poland, along with Israel's Yad Vashem
Holocaust Center, suddenly announced that altogether perhaps one
million people (both Jews and non-Jews) died there. Neither
institution would say how many of these people were killed, nor were
any estimates given of the numbers of those supposedly gassed. (note
2) One prominent Holocaust historian, Gerald Reitlinger, has estimated
that perhaps 700,000 or so Jews perished at Auschwitz. More recently,
Holocaust historian Jean-Claude Pressac has estimated that about
800,000 persons-of whom 630,000 were Jewish-perished at Auschwitz.
While even such lower figures are incorrect, they show how the
Auschwitz story has changed drastically over the years. (note 3)
Bizarre tales
At one time it was seriously claimed that Jews were systematically
electrocuted at Auschwitz. American newspapers, citing a Soviet
eyewitness report from liberated Auschwitz, told readers in February
1945 that the methodical Germans had killed Jews there using an
"electric conveyor belt on which hundreds of persons could be
electrocuted simultaneously [and] then moved on into furnaces. They
were burned almost instantly, producing fertilizer for nearby cabbage
fields." (note 4)
And at the Nuremberg Tribunal, chief U.S. prosecutor Robert Jackson
charged that the Germans used a "newly invented" device to
instantaneously "vaporize" 20,000 Jews near Auschwitz "in such a way
that there was no trace left of them." (note 5) No reputable historian
now accepts either of these fanciful tales.
The Höss 'confession'
A key Holocaust document is the "confession" of former Auschwitz
commandant Rudolf Höss of April 5, 1946, which was submitted by the
U.S. prosecution at the main Nuremberg trial. (note 6)
Although it is still widely cited as solid proof for the Auschwitz
extermination story, it is actually a false statement that was
obtained by torture.
Many years after the war, British military intelligence sergeant
Bernard Clarke described how he and five other British soldiers
tortured the former commandant to obtain his "confession." Höss
himself privately explained his ordeal in these words: "Certainly, I
signed a statement that I killed two and half million Jews. I could
just as well have said that it was five million Jews. There are
certain methods by which any confession can be obtained, whether it is
true or not." (note 7)
Even historians who generally accept the Holocaust extermination story
now acknowledge that many of the specific statements made in the Höss
"affidavit" are simply not true. For one thing, no serious scholar now
claims that anything like two and a half or three million people
perished in Auschwitz.
The Höss "affidavit" further alleges that Jews were already being
exterminated by gas in the summer of 1941 at three other camps:
Belzec, Treblinka and Wolzek. The "Wolzek" camp mentioned by Höss is a
total invention. No such camp existed, and the name is no longer
mentioned in Holocaust literature. Moreover, the story these days by
those who believe in the Holocaust legend is that gassings of Jews did
not begin at Auschwitz, Treblinka, or Belzec until sometime in 1942.
No documentary evidence
Many thousands of secret German documents dealing with Auschwitz were
confiscated after the war by the Allies. Not a single one refers to a
policy or program of extermination. In fact, the extermination story
cannot be reconciled with the documentary evidence.
Many Jewish inmates unable to work
For example, it is often claimed that all Jews at Auschwitz who were
unable to work were immediately killed. Jews who were too old, young,
sick, or weak were supposedly gassed on arrival, and only those who
could be worked to death were temporarily kept alive.
But the evidence shows that, in fact, a very high percentage of the
Jewish inmates were not able to work, and were nevertheless not
killed. For example, an internal German telex message dated Sept. 4,
1943, from the chief of the Labor Allocation department of the SS
Economic and Administrative Main Office (WVHA), reported that of
25,000 Jewish inmates in Auschwitz, only 3,581 were able to work, and
that all of the remaining Jewish inmates-some 21,500, or about 86
percent-were unable to work. (note 8)
This is also confirmed in a secret report dated April 5, 1944, on
"security measures in Auschwitz" by Oswald Pohl, head of the SS
concentration camp system, to SS chief Heinrich Himmler. Pohl reported
that there was a total of 67,000 inmates in the entire Auschwitz camp
complex, of whom 18,000 were hospitalized or disabled. In the
Auschwitz II camp (Birkenau), supposedly the main extermination
center, there were 36,000 inmates, mostly female, of whom
"approximately 15,000 are unable to work." (note 9)
These two documents simply cannot be reconciled with the Auschwitz
extermination story.
The evidence shows that Auschwitz-Birkenau was established primarily
as a camp for Jews who were not able to work, including the sick and
elderly, as well as for those who were temporarily awaiting assignment
to other camps. That's the considered view of Dr. Arthur Butz of
Northwestern University, who also says that this was the reason for
the unusually high death rate there. (note 10)
Princeton University history professor Arno Mayer, who is Jewish,
acknowledges in a recent book about the "final solution" that more
Jews perished at Auschwitz as a result of typhus and other "natural"
causes than were executed. (note 11)
Anne Frank
Perhaps the best known Auschwitz inmate was Anne Frank, who is known
around the world for her famous diary. But few people know that
thousands of Jews, including Anne and her father, Otto Frank,
"survived" Auschwitz.
The 15-year-old girl and her father were deported from the Netherlands
to Auschwitz in September 1944. Several weeks later, in the face of
the advancing Soviet army, Anne was evacuated along with many other
Jews to the Bergen-Belsen camp, where she died of typhus in March
1945.
Her father came down with typhus in Auschwitz and was sent to the camp
hospital to recover. He was one of thousands of sick and feeble Jews
who were left behind when the Germans abandoned the camp in January
1945, shortly before it was overrun by the Soviets. He died in
Switzerland in 1980.
If the German policy had been to kill Anne Frank and her father, they
would not have survived Auschwitz. Their fate, tragic though it was,
cannot be reconciled with the extermination story.
Allied propaganda
The Auschwitz gassing story is based in large part on the hearsay
statements of former Jewish inmates who did not personally see any
evidence of extermination. Their beliefs are understandable, because
rumors about gassings at Auschwitz were widespread.
Allied planes dropped large numbers of LEAFLETS , written in Polish
and German, on Auschwitz and the surrounding areas which claimed that
people were being gassed in the camp. The Auschwitz gassing story,
which was an important part of the Allied wartime propaganda effort,
was also broadcast to Europe by Allied radio stations. (note 12)
Survivor testimony
Former inmates have confirmed that they saw no evidence of
extermination at Auschwitz.
An Austrian woman, Maria Vanherwaarden, testified about her camp
experiences in a Toronto District Court in March 1988. She was
interned in Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1942 for having sexual relations
with a Polish forced laborer. On the train trip to the camp, a Gypsy
woman told her and the others that they would all be gassed at
Auschwitz.
Upon arrival, Maria and the other women were ordered to undress and go
into a large concrete room without windows to take a shower. The
terrified women were sure that they were about to die. But then,
instead of gas, water came out of the shower heads.
Auschwitz was no vacation center, Maria confirmed. She witnessed the
death of many fellow inmates by disease, particularly typhus, and
quite a few committed suicide. But she saw no evidence at all of mass
killings, gassings, or of any extermination program. (note 13)
A Jewish woman named Marika Frank arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau from
Hungary in July 1944, when 25,000 Jews were supposedly gassed and
cremated daily. She likewise testified after the war that she heard
and saw nothing of "gas chambers" during the time she was interned
there. She heard the gassing stories only later. (note 14)
Inmates released
Auschwitz internees who had served their sentences were released and
returned to their home countries. If Auschwitz had actually been a top
secret extermination center, the Germans would certainly not have
released inmates who "knew" what was happening in the camp. (note 15)
Himmler orders death rate reduced
In response to the deaths of many inmates due to disease, especially
typhus, the German authorities responsible for the camps ordered firm
counter-measures.
The head of the SS camp administration office sent a directive dated
Dec. 28, 1942, to Auschwitz and the other concentration camps. It
sharply criticized the high death rate of inmates due to disease, and
ordered that "camp physicians must use all means at their disposal to
significantly reduce the death rate in the various camps."
Furthermore, it ordered:
The camp doctors must supervise more often than in the past the
nutrition of the prisoners and, in cooperation with the
administration, submit improvement recommendations to the camp
commandants . . . The camp doctors are to see to it that the working
conditions at the various labor places are improved as much as
possible.
Finally, the directive stressed that "the Reichsfhrer SS [Heinrich
Himmler] has ordered that the death rate absolutely must be reduced."
(note 16)
German camp regulations
Official German camp regulations make clear that Auschwitz was not an
extermination center. They ordered: (note 17)
New arrivals in the camp are to be given a thorough medical
examination, and if there is any doubt [about their health], they must
be sent to quarantine for observation.
Prisoners who report sick must be examined that same day by the camp
physician. If necessary, the physician must transfer the prisoners to
a hospital for professional treatment.
The camp physician must regularly inspect the kitchen regarding the
preparation of the food and the quality of the food supply. Any
deficiencies that may arise must be reported to the camp commandant.
Special care should be given in the treatment of accidents, in order
not to impair the full productivity of the prisoners.
Prisoners who are to be released or transfered must first be brought
before the camp physician for medical examination.
Telltale aerial photos
Detailed aerial reconnaissance photographs taken of Auschwitz-Birkenau
on several random days in 1944 (during the height of the alleged
extermination period there) were made public by the CIA in 1979. These
photos show no trace of piles of corpses, smoking crematory chimneys
or masses of Jews awaiting death, things that have been repeatedly
alleged, and all of which would have been clearly visible if Auschwitz
had been the extermination center it is said to have been. (note 18)
Absurd cremation claims
Cremation specialists have confirmed that thousands of corpses could
not possibly have been cremated every day throughout the spring and
summer of 1944 at Auschwitz, as commonly alleged.
For example, Mr. Ivan Lagace, manager of a large crematory in Calgary,
Canada, testified in court in April 1988 that the Auschwitz cremation
story is technically impossible. The allegation that 10,000 or even
20,000 corpses were burned every day at Auschwitz in the summer of
1944 in crematories and open pits is simply "preposterous" and "beyond
the realm of reality," he declared under oath. (note 19)
Gassing expert refutes extermination story
America's leading gas chamber expert, Boston engineer Fred A.
Leuchter, carefully examined the supposed "gas chambers" in Poland and
concluded that the Auschwitz gassing story is absurd and technically
impossible.
Leuchter is the foremost specialist on the design and installation of
gas chambers used in the United States to execute convicted criminals.
For example, he designed a gas chamber facility for the Missouri state
penitentiary.
In February 1988 he carried out a detailed onsite examination of the
"gas chambers" at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek in Poland, which
are either still standing or only partially in ruins. In sworn
testimony to a Toronto court and in a technical report, Leuchter
described every aspect of his investigation.
He concluded by emphatically declaring that the alleged gassing
facilities could not possibly have been used to kill people. Among
other things, he pointed out that the so-called "gas chambers" were
not properly sealed or vented to kill human beings without also
killing German camp personnel. (note 20)
Dr. William B. Lindsey, a research chemist employed for 33 years by
the Dupont Corporation, likewise testified in a 1985 court case that
the Auschwitz gassing story is technically impossible. Based on a
careful on-site examination of the "gas chambers" at Auschwitz,
Birkenau and Majdanek, and on his years of experience, he declared: "I
have come to the conclusion that no one was willfully or purposefully
killed with Zyklon B [hydrocyanic acid gas] in this manner. I consider
it absolutely impossible." (note 21)
www.ihr.org
Dan Clore
> On Aug 28, 8:20 am, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 00:19:02 -0700, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> We should have a great country instead of anarchy.
>
> Why? What does being in a "great country" give us except
> dead sons and debt to arms dealers?
It allows people who are themselves pathetic losers to feel good about
themselves by identifying with a collective -- just as those good
Germans felt good about themselves not for any individual qualities or
achievements, but because they were members of the "Aryan race" and the
Nazi state, or the Americans who go around repeating endlessly that
America is the greatest country in the world and therefore support the
invasion/occupation of Iraq and call anyone who opposes the crimes of
the US government "anti-American".
See for example Eric Hoffer's _The True Believer_.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Topaz
lost half its territory, all of its colonies, and most of its
industries. Inflation had reduced the German mark to a joke. The
economy was in a shambles, and Industry and commerce was at a
standstill. Foreign carpetbaggers were picking off German assets at
bargain prices. Unemployment was everywhere, and those who worked did
so for slave wages. The victorious international powers who won World
War I were stripping the Germans of everything, including their pride.
Germany had no army, no navy, no allies, and no influence in the
world. Reparations paid annually to the victorious Allies were
designed to keep Germany in a state of poverty and submission.
Germany couldn't even defend itself against international theft. When
the German government couldn't meet reparation payments, the French
simply marched in and seized the industrial Ruhr; sending black troops
as a deliberate insult.
Germany couldn't even defend itself against internal takeovers.
Jewish-Communist rowdies, taking directions for the Jewish Bolsheviks
in Russia, roamed the German streets at will, some even took over the
reins of local governments, and street riots were a regular
occurrence. A worldwide boycott of anything German was organized by
foreign Jews to block even modest economic recovery. To the German
citizenry, the situation was hopeless.
Then Adolf Hitler took over the leadership of the country. Within a
few years, Germany became an economic powerhouse in Europe while the
rest of the world struggled under a worldwide depression. Communist
agitators and street rowdies either went to work or went to jail.
Germany experienced a miraculous transformation.
German industries reassumed their leadership role in the world
economy. The German mark was stabilized and became a powerful
exchange medium in world commerce. Everything from agriculture to
banking was modernized. Newly constructed high speed autobahns
connected bustling cities, and newly built trains whistled through the
countryside carrying passengers and freight to newly refurbished
cities supplying their newly rejuvenated commerce. Unemployment
simply disappeared.
Prosperity was distributed to every class of citizens. Artists and
writers flourished. New schools, theatres, churches, auditoriums, and
stadiums were filled with the prosperous and proud Germans. The
result: citizens jammed the streets whenever Hitler passed. Where a
few years before people were afraid to leave their homes because of
the violence, Hitler and his entourage paraded in open cars without
fear while German crowds shouted and cheered his arrival.
No leader in history ever unified so many millions of people to a
common peacetime cause and mutual cooperation as Hitler did in
Germany. No leader in history ever did as much for the common people
under his charge as Hitler did for the Germans...
Morghus
You Will Submit To Allah Or DIE!!
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On Aug 28, 8:20 am, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 00:19:02 -0700, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> We should have a great country instead of anarchy.
>
> > Why? What does being in a "great country" give us except
> > dead sons and debt to arms dealers?
>
> It allows people who are themselves pathetic losers to feel good about
> themselves by identifying with a collective -- just as those good
> Germans felt good about themselves not for any individual qualities or
> achievements, but because they were members of the "Aryan race" and the
> Nazi state, or the Americans who go around repeating endlessly that
> America is the greatest country in the world and therefore support the
> invasion/occupation of Iraq and call anyone who opposes the crimes of
> the US government "anti-American".
>
> See for example Eric Hoffer's _The True Believer_.
>
> --
> Dan Clore
>
> My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
> immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
> -- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Tsk tsk, you forgot about the crimes of the global Jihadists.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Latest Offerings from the Religion of Peace
8/28/2007 ( Mogadishu, Somalia ) - Four civilians are pumped full of
bullets as Somali Islamists vow to keep 'fighting.'
8/28/2007 ( Pattani, Thailand ) - A 40-year-old Buddhist woman is shot
to death by Muslim militants as she arrives for work at a rubber
plantation.
8/28/2007 ( Paktia, Afghanistan ) - A religious extremist murders
three NATO soldiers helping to build a bridge.
8/27/2007 ( Pattani, Thailand ) - A second school teacher is murdered
by Islamic extremists.
8/27/2007 ( Fallujah, Iraq ) - A suicidal Sunni blows himself up near
a rival mosque, taking ten innocents out with him.
8/27/2007 ( Baghdad, Iraq ) - Shia pilgrims are shot dead by Sunni
snipers, adding to the sectarian violence.
Topaz
<Mohamme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Tsk tsk, you forgot about the crimes of the global Jihadists.
>
>http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
>
>Latest Offerings from the Religion of Peace
I never heard them say they were a religion of pansies. You should see
the movie "Kingdom of Heaven".
>
>8/28/2007 ( Mogadishu, Somalia ) - Four civilians are pumped full of
>bullets as Somali Islamists vow to keep 'fighting.'
Perhaps these four had it coming to them?
>8/28/2007 ( Pattani, Thailand ) - A 40-year-old Buddhist woman is shot
>to death by Muslim militants as she arrives for work at a rubber
>plantation.
So what's the "rest of the story".
>8/28/2007 ( Paktia, Afghanistan ) - A religious extremist murders
>three NATO soldiers helping to build a bridge.
Does NATO kiss up to the Jewish controlled USA?
>8/27/2007 ( Pattani, Thailand ) - A second school teacher is murdered
>by Islamic extremists.
So what's the rest of the story.
>8/27/2007 ( Fallujah, Iraq ) - A suicidal Sunni blows himself up near
>a rival mosque, taking ten innocents out with him.
Catholics also fought against Protestants. Not that this is a good
thing.
>8/27/2007 ( Baghdad, Iraq ) - Shia pilgrims are shot dead by Sunni
>snipers, adding to the sectarian violence.
I agree that there are some problems with religion. But it's a lot
better than liberalism, which rules the USA:
GAY MILITANT INTENT: OUR KIDS
From Concerned Women From America
by Beverly LaHaye
Dear Concerned American,
What I am about to tell you in this letter is so outrageous you may
find it hard to believe. I was astounded myself. I could not believe
that our nation had fallen so far. But the reports here are true. I
have warned many times that our children are under attack. Now I'm
writing to sound the alarm that the situation is even worse than I
thought. I'll tell you more details in a moment, but here's just a
sample of what I've discovered:
Cross-dressing promoted to grade-school children Graphic instruction
in "gay" sex taught to teenage boys and girls Armed guards posted to
keep parents out of high school assemblies led by radical homosexual
activists A book - published by a taxpayer-funded university - that
endorses sex between children and adults!
I've warned about this for many years. Now the evidence is beyond
dispute: there is an evil scheme aimed at destroying our children. The
attack comes on many fronts. It aims to expose children to sex at
earlier and earlier ages... to rob them of their innocence and open
them up to immoral and unhealthy practices... to set them up to accept
messages of
"safe sex" and homosexuality... to usher them into becoming advocates
for - and ultimately participants in - sexual promiscuity, sodomy,
bisexuality, and transgenderism.
These reports confirm my worst fears about this scheme. The time is
short! Radical homosexual activists have long said, "Whoever controls
the schools, controls the future." If they can convince the next
generation that homosexuality is "just another lifestyle," there will
be no stopping them. Even more chilling: If they can lure a whole
generation of young people to explore "alternative" sexual behavior...
to discover their "gay side"...
they will have a whole new generation of young, willing sex partners.
Their first step is to promote gender confusion. Nothing I have ever
seen promises to confuse kids more than a lesson guide obtained and
given to me by one of the researchers here at CWA.
GRADE SCHOOL LESSON PROMOTES CROSS-DRESSING The Gay, Lesbian, and
Straight Education Network, also known as "GLSEN, is pushing a
grade-school curriculum book that promotes cross-dressing. This book
was created by a homosexual parents group at the Buena Vista
Elementary School in San Francisco. It includes a lesson based on a
children's book titled "Jesse's Dream Skirt."
As incredible as it sounds, this is real! The story is about a young
boy named Jesse who likes trying on his mother's dresses, and dreams
of a skirt "that whirled, twirled, flowed and glowed, and felt soft
inside." Jesse's mom helps him make a skirt, and he wears it to
daycare, where his classmates make fun of him. The daycare teacher,
Bruce, gathers the
children together and says, "Jesse loves his skirt. Why are some of
you making fun of him?" A girl says, "Well, I wear pants. Why can't
Jesse wear a skirt?"
A boy, Mike, says that one day his mother let him dress up in her old
dresses and hats. "It was a lot of fun," he said, until his father
came in and yelled at him, saying, "Take off that dress, I don't want
my son to be a sissy!" Mike told his daycare classmates, "I don't
know, - I still don't see what was wrong with it." The children and
their teacher discuss the issue and most of the children end up liking
Jesse's skirt. Some even start making dresses themselves. The book
ends with Jesse twirling around in his "dream skirt," with his
boy-style underwear showing. The companion lesson plan says the "key
message" of "Jesse's Dream Skirt" is: "Respect means keeping our minds
open. Having open minds means giving people freedom to be who they
want to be." I don't know what's worse: encouraging boys to wear
dresses, or the negative portrayal of Mike's father. Children who
study "Jesse's Dream Skirt" are getting the message that their
parents' view of morality cannot be trusted. Lest you think this sort
of insanity is restricted to California, take a loot at this next
report, straight from the Midwest. Armed Security Guard Ejects Mother
of Student from School Assembly on Homosexuality
This really made me angry when I heard about it! The incident took
place in St. Louis, Missouri last year just after school had started
for fall. Debra Loveless, whose daughter attends Metro High School,
heard that GLESEN was conducting a school-sponsored assembly. Loveless
had told school officials that she considered the event inappropriate.
When she tried to view it for herself, she was escorted out of the
assembly by an armed security guard. (Just for wanting to view it!)
Can you believe the arrogance of those school administrators! We may
never know all of what those dear young people were exposed to during
that assembly. But if GLSEN's past performance is any indication, the
material was corrupting an destructive. GLESEN has produced some of
the most foul "educational" material in the dishonorable history of
sex education. Two years ago, CWA uncovered a pornographic teaching
session conducted in Massachusetts by GLSEN. During that workshop,
homosexual instructors indoctrinated children as young
as 14 years old. The children heard detailed descriptions of
perverted sex acts, including the dangerous practice known in
homosexual slang as "fisting." After it was exposed, that session
sparked outrage across the nation. It was such a scandal that it
became known as "Fistgate." GLSEN leaders responded by becoming much
more secretive. Apparently this has led them to keep parents out of
their workshops like the one in St. Louis.
So it has come to this. Our tax dollars foot the bill for homosexual
propaganda to poison our children's minds and defile their hearts.
And when parents want to find out what's going on, they get thrown out
of public schools by armed guards! It's time for parents and
grandparents to stand up and fight to protect our children. We can't
think that just because it hasn't happened in our school yet that it
never will! The radical homosexual activists won't stop with just the
California schools. They won't stop with just the big city
schools. They won't stop until they have reached every school in the
nation.
DANGEROUS NEW BOOK PROVIDES ACADEMIC "COVER" FOR PEDOPHILES AND CHILD
MOLESTERS
The University of Minnesota Press has just published Judith Levine's
Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex. This
book includes such outrageous statements as, "Sex is not harmful to
children... There are many ways even the smallesst children can
partake of it."
On another page, the author gushes over a "lush and mysterious" photo
of a "naked 3- or 4-year-old." Quoting a variety of pedophiles,
Levine says children are not necessarily harmed by sex with adults.
She also advocates that America adopt a law like Holland's that
legalizes sex between adults and children as young as 12! It's
unbelievable, but this book is defended by the liberal media elite.
I'm shocked and heartbroken. But we should not be surprised.
America's standards of sexual morality have been belittled as
"taboos," and been worn down step by step. Today, almost nothing is
off limits. Sex between adults and children is just the next barrier
to be torn down. How long will it take these radical activists to
achieve their next evil objective? Our grade-school children are
already being taught that cross-dressing is just wonderful
self-expression. Graphic details of perverted sex practices are
already being taught to high school children, and parents are being
locked out of assemblies taught by radical homosexual activists. We
must - and we can - stop this. NOW! I grieve for our children and
grandchildren. And I fear for our nation if we do not stand up to
this assault of immorality and defeat it...
I've learned that GLSEN now boasts a budget of 3.5 million and a
membership of more than 1,200 homosexual-activist educators. Their
mission is to promote homosexuality and gender confusion in the
schools under any guise that works.
You Will Submit To Allah Or DIE!!
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:38:38 -0000, You Will Submit To Allah Or DIE!!
>
Ugh, I know I hate liberalism so damn much! Liberals are on the edge
of anarchy, and that makes them as dangerous as Muslims, yet the
Muslims will kill liberals and gays just like they'll kill those in
their right mind.
Topaz
<Mohamme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Ugh, I know I hate liberalism so damn much! Liberals are on the edge
>of anarchy, and that makes them as dangerous as Muslims, yet the
>Muslims will kill liberals and gays just like they'll kill those in
>their right mind.
They say bad things about Whites too. How dangerous we supposedly are
and how they need hate crime laws. These same kikes are telling us
Muslims are dangerous. I don't blame Muslims for wanting to wipe out
the USA government. I wish them success. We are ruled by evil Jews.
Michael Price
Why don't you teach me if you actually know anything which I doubt.
How exactly would I learn about anarchism in NORTH KOREA?
Michael Price
What elaborate conspiracy did I invent? Simply asserting something
is a "simple truth" doesn't make it so loser.
Michael Price
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:23:54 -0700, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Why? What does being in a "great country" give us except
> >dead sons and debt to arms dealers?
>
> A great country wouldn't go to war without a really good reason.
>
sort of countries that go to war for trivial reasons.
> >> Maybe there is some jungle where anarchists can go if they refuse
> >> to help pay for the street lights
>
> > Or maybe you could go there if you can't contain your habit of
> >demanding money with menaces. Of course I never said that the
> > anarchists would
> > refuse to pay for street lights, just that they would refuse to pay
> > for your street lights while the pay for their own.
>
> If a nation didn't have an army or anything, then some group such and
> Genghis Khan's outfit could just come along and do whatever they
> pleased.
Non sequitur and thanks for implictedly admitting I'm right on the
street lights. You don't need an army to defeat Genghis Khan, and
the armies he faced didn't defeat him. What you need is a sufficent
number of people armed and willing to fight to prevent him achieveing
dominance. You don't need a government for that as people can arm
themselves and decide to cooperate without a government.
> Everyone benefits from the army so everyone should have to
> pay their fair share.
No everyone does not benefit from the army, in fact most people
make a net lose from it. The army helps enforce laws that
oppress them, invades other countries for no good reason,
increases taxes etc. In most countries the army is engaged
in supporting some groups in their efforts to oppress other groups
and so it's hardly clear the oppressed are obliged to pay for it.
>
> > And how does this indicate that opium dealing is a bad thing?
>
> Their children were dying in opium dens.
>
No generally they weren't. Most opium addicts lived quite
long because the drug wasn't turned into more potent forms
like heroine. This is because there was little need to do so
to avoid prosecution. Most of those who did take opium were
not children who could hardly have afforded it. While no doubt
there were some overdose deaths there's little evidence to
suggest that making drugs illegal reduces this. In fact the
evidence is the other way. Prior to opiates being made illegal
in the US there were less overdose deaths.
> > And that started a war that ruined China. And what did he achieve?
> >Only taking away one of the few pleasures the oppressed had.
>
> >> Not only the roads, but the sidewalks and everything else would be
> >> privately owned in your system. There would be no forest or beach one
> >> could go to without trespassing.
>
> > Of course there would, my own and that of people I'm on good terms
> >with.
>
> >> Those who don't own property could be
> >> told to leave no matter where they were. This is what you call
> >> "freedom".
>
> > Yes it is because they could make a deal to stay even if they
> >were totally landless. In your system they would be shoved into
> >stinking concentration camps and die.
>
> Auschwitz: Myths and facts
> by Mark Weber
>
> Nearly everyone has heard of Auschwitz, the German wartime
> concentration camp where many prisoners-most of them Jewish-were
> reportedly exterminated, especially in gas chambers. Auschwitz is
> widely regarded as the most terrible Nazi extermination center. The
> camp's horrific reputation cannot, however, be reconciled with the
> facts.
Yes it can and you're lying again. In any case even if the
concentration
camps were not death camps they would still have been deadly as
concentration camps were in South Africa.
> Professional liars challenge Holocaust story
corrected.
<snip usual lies>
Michael Price
> "By the time Hitler reached the position of leadership, Germany had
> lost half its territory, all of its colonies, and most of its
> industries. Inflation had reduced the German mark to a joke.
And all this was a result of Germany trying to become or stay a
"Great Nation".
> The economy was in a shambles, and
> Industry and commerce was at a
> standstill. Foreign carpetbaggers were
> picking off German assets at
> bargain prices.
And due to Hitler's incompetent economic
leadership even that wasn't worth it.
> Unemployment was everywhere, and those who
> worked did so for slave wages.
A contradiction in terms.
> The victorious international powers who won World
> War I were stripping the Germans of
> everything, including their pride.
Which cannot be stripped from anyone but
only given voluntarily.
> Germany had no army, no navy, no allies, and
> no influence in the world.
And when they had those things what good
did it do them?
> Reparations paid annually to the victorious
> Allies were designed to keep Germany in a
> state of poverty and submission.
Actually no they were designed to pay back
some of the damage Germany caused.
> Germany couldn't even defend itself
> against international theft. When
> the German government couldn't meet
> reparation payments, the French
> simply marched in and seized the industrial
> Ruhr; sending black troops as a deliberate insult.
Which means that it wasn't theft it was repossession. You're really
not very good
at sticking to a story.
> Germany couldn't even defend itself
> against internal takeovers. Jewish-
> Communist rowdies, taking directions
> for the Jewish Bolsheviks in Russia,
> roamed the German streets at will,
> some even took over the reins of local
> governments, and street riots were a regular
> occurrence.
And of course the Nazis had nothing to do
with these riots.
> A worldwide boycott of anything German
> was organized by foreign Jews to block
> even modest economic recovery.
That happened after Hitler came to power.
> To the German
> citizenry, the situation was hopeless.
> Then Adolf Hitler took over the leadership of the country. Within a
> few years, Germany became an economic powerhouse in Europe while the
> rest of the world struggled under a worldwide depression.
No it was still a wreck it just lied about the
figures better. In fact availibility of consumer
goods went down due to Hitler's policies and
even stealing everything the Jews owned didn't
plug the gap for long.
Topaz
wrote:
>> A great country wouldn't go to war without a really good reason.
>>
> Of course it would. What you call a great country is typical of the
>sort of countries that go to war for trivial reasons.
By Mark Weber
Much has already been written about Roosevelt's campaign of deception
and outright lies in getting the United States to intervene in the
Second World War prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in
December 1941. Roosevelt's aid to Britain and the Soviet Union in
violation of American neutrality and international law, his acts of
war against Germany in the Atlantic in an effort to provoke a German
declaration of war against the United States, his authorization of a
vast "dirty tricks" campaign against U.S. citizens by British
intelligence agents in violation of the Constitution, and his
provocations and ultimatums against Japan which brought on the attack
against Pearl Harbor-all this is extensively documented and reasonably
well known.[1]
Not so well known is the story of Roosevelt's enormous responsibility
for the outbreak of the Second World War itself. This essay focuses on
Roosevelt's secret campaign to provoke war in Europe prior to the
outbreak of hostilities in September 1939. It deals particularly with
his efforts to pressure Britain, France and Poland into war against
Germany in 1938 and 1939.
Franklin Roosevelt not only criminally involved America in a war which
had already engulfed Europe. He bears a grave responsibility before
history for the outbreak of the most destructive war of all time.
This paper relies heavily on a little-known collection of secret
Polish documents which fell into German hands when Warsaw was captured
in September 1939.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html
These documents clearly establish Roosevelt's crucial role in bringing
on the Second World War…
Poland had refused to even negotiate over self-determination for the
German city of Danzig and the ethnic German minority in the so-called
Polish Corridor. Hitler felt compelled to resort to arms when he did
in response to a growing Polish campaign of terror and dispossession
against the one and a half million ethnic Germans under Polish rule.
In my view, if ever a military action was justified, it was the German
campaign against Poland in 1939.
Poland's headstrong refusal to negotiate was made possible because of
a fateful blank check guarantee of military backing from Britain-a
pledge that ultimately proved completely worthless to the hapless
Poles. Considering the lightning swiftness of the victorious German
campaign, it is difficult to realize today that the Polish government
did not at all fear war with Germany. Poland's leaders foolishly
believed that German might was only an illusion. They were convinced
that their troops would occupy Berlin itself within a few weeks and
add further German territories to an enlarged Polish state. It is also
important to keep in mind that the purely localized conflict between
Germany and Poland was only transformed into a Europe-wide
conflagration by the British and French declarations of war against
Germany…
On 9 February 1938, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, Count Jerzy
Potocki, reported to the Foreign Minister in Warsaw on the Jewish role
in making American foreign policy:
The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State
Department is becoming ever more powerful ...
... The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis
which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general
catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent.
in their definition of democratic states, the Jews have also created
real chaos: they have mixed together the idea of democracy and
communism and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred
against Nazism.
This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by
every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans
are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler which
wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean
of blood.
In conversations with Jewish press representatives I have repeatedly
come up against the inexorable and convinced view that war is
inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of
propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation
and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is
growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans
and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be
subdued by the 'democratic world.'…
Ambassador Potocki's report from Washington of 9 January 1939 dealt in
large part with President Roosevelt's annual address to Congress:
President Roosevelt acts on the assumption that the dictatorial
governments, above all Germany and Japan, only understand a policy of
force. Therefore he has decided to react to any future blows by
matching them. This has been demonstrated by the most recent measures
of the United States.
The American public is subject to an ever more alarming propaganda
which is under Jewish influence and continuously conjures up the
specter of the danger of war. Because of this the Americans have
strongly altered their views on foreign policy problems, in comparison
with last year.
Of all the documents in this collection, the most revealing is
probably the secret report by Ambassador Potocki of 12 January 1939
which dealt with the domestic situation in the United States. This
report is given here in full:
The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing
hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything
connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews
who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical
press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents
Germany as black as possible-above all religious persecution and
concentration camps are exploited-this propaganda is nevertheless
extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and
knows nothing of the situation in Europe…
It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign
which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia
is almost completely excluded. If mentioned at all, it is only in a
friendly manner and things are presented in such a way as if Soviet
Russia were working with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the
clever propaganda the sympathy of the American public is completely on
the side of Red Spain.
Besides this propaganda, a war psychosis is being artificially
created. The American people are told that peace in Europe is hanging
only by a thread and that war is unavoidable. At the same time the
American people are unequivocally told that in case of a world war,
America must also take an active part in order to defend the slogans
of freedom and democracy in the world…
These groups of people who occupy the highest positions in the
American government and want to pose as representatives of 'true
Americanism' and 'defenders of democracy' are, in the last analysis,
connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.
For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the
interests of its race, to portray the President of the United States
as the 'idealist' champion on human rights was a very clever move. In
this manner they have created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and
hostility in this hemisphere and divided the world into two hostile
camps. The entire issue is worked out in a masterly manner. Roosevelt
has been given the foundation for activating American foreign policy,
and simultaneously has been procuring enormous military stocks for the
coming war, for which the Jews are striving very consciously. With
regard to domestic policy, it is very convenient to divert public
attention from anti-Semitism, which is constantly growing in the
United States, by talking about the necessity of defending religion
and individual liberty against the onslaught of Fascism.
On 16 January 1939, Polish Ambassador Potocki reported to the Warsaw
Foreign Ministry on another lengthy conversation he had with
Roosevelt's personal envoy, William Bullitt…
1. The vitalizing of foreign policy under the leadership of President
Roosevelt, who severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian
countries.
2. United States preparations for war on sea, land and air will be
carried out at an accelerated pace and will consume the colossal sum
of 1.25 billion dollars.
3. It is the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain
must put an end to any sort of compromise with the totalitarian
countries. They must not get into any discussions aiming at any kind
of territorial changes.
4. They have the moral assurance that the United States will abandon
the policy of isolation and be prepared to intervene actively on the
side of Britain and France in case of war. America is ready to place
its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.
The Polish Ambassador to Paris, Juliusz (Jules) Lukasiewicz, sent a
top secret report to the Foreign Ministry in Warsaw at the beginning
of February 1939 which outlined U.S. policy towards Europe as
explained to him by William Bullitt:
A week ago, the Ambassador of the United States, William Bullitt
returned to Paris after a three months' leave in America. Meanwhile, I
have had two conversations with him which enable me to inform you of
his views regarding the European situation and to give a survey of
Washington's policy.
The international situation is regarded by official circles as
extremely serious and in constant danger of armed conflict. Those in
authority are of the opinion that if war should break out between
Britain and France on the one hand, and Germany and Italy on the
other, and should Britain and France be defeated, the Germans would
endanger the real interests of the United States on the American
continent. For this reason, one can foresee right from the beginning
the participation of the United States in the war on the side of
France and Britain, naturally some time after the outbreak of the war.
As Ambassador Bullitt expressed it: 'Should war break out we shall
certainly not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall finish
it.'
On 7 March 1939, Ambassador Potocki sent a remarkably lucid and
perceptive report on Roosevelt's foreign policy to his government in
Warsaw. This document was first made public when leading German
newspapers published it in German translation, along with a facsimile
reproduction of the first page of the Polish original, in their
editions of 28 October 1940. The main National Socialist party
newspaper, the Voelkischer Beobachter, published the Ambassador's
report with this observation:
The document itself needs no commentary. We do not know, and it does
not concern us, whether the internal American situation as reported by
the Polish diplomat is correct in every detail. That must be decided
by the American people alone. But in the interest of historical truth
it is important for us to show that the warmongering activities of
American diplomacy, especially in Europe, are once again revealed and
proven by this document. It still remains a secret just who, and for
what motives, have driven American diplomacy to this course. In any
case, the results have been disastrous for both Europe and America.
Europe was plunged into war and America has brought upon itself the
hostility of great nations which normally have no differences with the
American people and, indeed, have not been in conflict but have lived
for generations as friends and want to remain so…
While the Polish documents alone are conclusive proof of Roosevelt's
treacherous campaign to bring about world war, it is fortunate for
posterity that a substantial body of irrefutable complementary
evidence exists which confirms the conspiracy recorded in the
dispatches to Warsaw…
On 19 September 1938 -- that is, a year before the outbreak of war in
Europe-Roosevelt called Lindsay to a very secret meeting at the White
House. At the beginning of their long conversation, according to
Lindsay's confidential dispatch to London, Roosevelt "emphasized the
necessity of absolute secrecy. Nobody must know I had seen him and he
himself would tell nobody of the interview. I gathered not even the
State Department." The two discussed some secondary matters before
Roosevelt got to the main point of the conference. "This is the very
secret part of his communication and it must not be known to anyone
that he has even breathed a suggestion." The President told the
Ambassador that if news of the conversation was ever made public, it
could mean his impeachment. And no wonder. What Roosevelt proposed was
a cynically brazen but harebrained scheme to violate the U.S.
Constitution and dupe the American people.
The President said that if Britain and France "would find themselves
forced to war" against Germany, the United States would ultimately
also join. But this would require some clever maneuvering. Britain and
France should impose a total blockade against Germany without actually
declaring war and force other states (including neutrals) to abide by
it. This would certainly provoke some kind of German military
response, but it would also free Britain and France from having to
actually declare war. For propaganda purposes, the "blockade must be
based on loftiest humanitarian grounds and on the desire to wage
hostilities with minimum of suffering and the least possible loss of
life and property, and yet bring the enemy to his knees." Roosevelt
conceded that this would involve aerial bombardment, but "bombing from
the air was not the method of hostilities which caused really great
loss of life."
The important point was to "call it defensive measures or anything
plausible but avoid actual declaration of war." That way, Roosevelt
believed he could talk the American people into supporting war against
Germany, including shipments of weapons to Britain and France, by
insisting that the United States was still technically neutral in a
non-declared conflict. "This method of conducting war by blockade
would in his [Roosevelt's] opinion meet with approval of the United
States if its humanitarian purpose were strongly emphasized," Lindsay
reported.[19]
The American Ambassador to Italy, William Phillips, admitted in his
postwar memoirs that the Roosevelt administration was already
committed to going to war on the side of Britain and France in late
1938. "On this and many other occasions," Phillips wrote, "I would
like to have told him [Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister]
frankly that in the event of a European war, the United States would
undoubtedly be involved on the side of the Allies. But in view of my
official position, I could not properly make such a statement without
instructions from Washington, and these I never received."[20]…
The fateful British pledge to Poland of 31 March 1939 to go to war
against Germany in case of a Polish-German conflict would not have
been made without strong pressure from the White House…
In their nationally syndicated column of 14 April 1939, the usually
very well informed Washington journalists Drew Pearson and Robert S.
Allen reported that on 16 March 1939 Roosevelt had "sent a virtual
ultimatum to Chamberlain" demanding that henceforth the British
government strongly oppose Germany. According to Pearson and Allen,
who completely supported Roosevelt's move, "the President warned that
Britain could expect no more support, moral or material through the
sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy continued."[22] Chamberlain
gave in and the next day, 17 March, ended Britain's policy of
cooperation with Germany in a speech at Birmingham bitterly denouncing
Hitler. Two weeks later the British government formally pledged itself
to war in case of German-Polish hostilities…
In a confidential telegram to Washington dated 9 April 1939, Bullitt
reported from Paris on another conversation with Ambassador
Lukasiewicz. He had told the Polish envoy that although U.S. law
prohibited direct financial aid to Poland, it might be possible to
circumvent its provisions. The Roosevelt administration might be able
to supply war planes to Poland indirectly through Britain. "The Polish
Ambassador asked me if it might not be possible for Poland to obtain
financial help and aeroplanes from the United States. I replied that I
believed the Johnson Act would forbid any loans from the United States
to Poland but added that it might be possible for England to purchase
planes for cash in the United States and turn them over to
Poland."[24]
On 25 April 1939, four months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt
called American newspaper columnist Karl von Wiegand, chief European
correspondent of the International News Service, to the U.S. embassy
in Paris and told him: "War in Europe has been decided upon. Poland
has the assurance of the support of Britain and France, and will yield
to no demands from Germany. America will be in the war soon after
Britain and France enter it."[25]
In a lengthy secret conversation at Hyde Park on 28 May 1939,
Roosevelt assured the former President of Czechoslovakia, Dr. Edvard
Benes, that America would actively intervene on the side of Britain
and France in the anticipated European war.[26]
In June 1939, Roosevelt secretly proposed to the British that the
United States should establish "a patrol over the waters of the
Western Atlantic with a view to denying them to the German Navy in the
event of war." The British Foreign Office record of this offer noted
that "although the proposal was vague and woolly and open to certain
objections, we assented informally as the patrol was to be operated in
our interests."[27]
Many years after the war, Georges Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister
in 1939, confirmed Bullitt's role as Roosevelt's deputy in pushing his
country into war. In a letter to Hamilton Fish dated 26 March 1971,
Bonnet wrote: "One thing is certain is that Bullitt in 1939 did
everything he could to make France enter the war."[28] An important
confirmation of the crucial role of Roosevelt and the Jews in pushing
Britain into war comes from the diary of James V. Forrestal, the first
U.S. Secretary of Defense. In his entry for 27 December 1945, he
wrote:
Played golf today with [former Ambassador] Joe Kennedy. I asked him
about his conversations with Roosevelt and [British Prime Minister]
Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain's position in
1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she
could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy's view: That Hitler
would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it
had not been for [William] Bullitt's urging on Roosevelt in the summer
of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the
French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had
not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said,
kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn't fight; Kennedy that
they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says,
stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the
war. In his telephone conversations with Roosevelt in the summer of
1939, the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain's
backside.[29]…
"In the West," the Ambassador told Szembek, "there are all kinds of
elements openly pushing for war: the Jews, the super-capitalists, the
arms dealers. Today they are all ready for a great business, because
they have found a place which can be set on fire: Danzig; and a nation
that is ready to fight: Poland. They want to do business on our backs.
They are indifferent to the destruction of our country. Indeed, since
everything will have to be rebuilt later on, they can profit from that
as well."[30]
On 24 August 1939, just a week before the outbreak of hostilities,
Chamberlain's closest advisor, Sir Horace Wilson, went to Ambassador
Kennedy with an urgent appeal from the British Prime Minister for
President Roosevelt. Regretting that Britain had unequivocally
obligated itself in March to Poland in case of war, Chamberlain now
turned in despair to Roosevelt as a last hope for peace. He wanted the
American President to "put pressure on the Poles" to change course at
this late hour and open negotiations with Germany. By telephone
Kennedy told the State Department that the British "felt that they
could not, given their obligations, do anything of this sort but that
we could." Presented with this extraordinary opportunity to possibly
save the peace of Europe, Roosevelt rejected Chamberlain's desperate
plea out of hand. At that, Kennedy reported, the Prime Minister lost
all hope. "The futility of it all," Chamberlain had told Kennedy, "is
the thing that is frightful. After all, we cannot save the Poles. We
can merely carry on a war of revenge that will mean the destruction of
all Europe."[31]…
But Roosevelt rejected out of hand this chance to save the peace of
Europe. To a close political crony, he called Kennedy's plea "the
silliest message to me that I have ever received." He complained to
Henry Morgenthau that his London Ambassador was nothing but a pain in
the neck: "Joe has been an appeaser and will always be an appeaser ...
If Germany and Italy made a good peace offer tomorrow, Joe would start
working on the King and his friend the Queen and from there on down to
get everybody to accept it."[33]
Infuriated at Kennedy's stubborn efforts to restore peace in Europe or
at least limit the conflict that had broken out, Roosevelt instructed
his Ambassador with a "personal" and "strictly confidential" telegram
on 11 September 1939 that any American peace effort was totally out of
the question. The Roosevelt government, it declared, "sees no
opportunity nor occasion for any peace move to be initiated by the
President of the United States. The people [sic] of the United States
would not support any move for peace initiated by this Government that
would consolidate or make possible a survival of a regime of force and
aggression."[34]
In the months before armed conflict broke out in Europe, perhaps the
most vigorous and prophetic American voice of warning against
President Roosevelt's campaign to incite war was that of Hamilton
Fish, a leading Republican congressman from New York. In a series of
hard-hitting radio speeches, Fish rallied considerable public opinion
against Roosevelt's deceptive war policy. Here are only a few excerpts
from some of those addresses.[35]
On 6 January 1939, Fish told a nationwide radio audience:
The inflammatory and provocative message of the President to Congress
and the world [given two days before] has unnecessarily alarmed the
American people and created, together with a barrage of propaganda
emanating from high New Deal officials, a war hysteria, dangerous to
the peace of America and the world. The only logical conclusion to
such speeches is another war fought overseas by American soldiers.
All the totalitarian nations referred to by President Roosevelt ...
haven't the faintest thought of making war on us or invading Latin
America.
I do not propose to mince words on such an issue, affecting the life,
liberty and happiness of our people. The time has come to call a halt
to the warmongers of the New Deal, backed by war profiteers,
Communists, and hysterical internationalists, who want us to
quarantine the world with American blood and money.
He [Roosevelt] evidently desires to whip up a frenzy of hate and war
psychosis as a red herring to take the minds of our people off their
own unsolved domestic problems. He visualizes hobgoblins and creates
in the public mind a fear of foreign invasions that exists only in his
own imagination.
On 5 March, Fish spoke to the country over the Columbia radio network:
The people of France and Great Britain want peace but our warmongers
are constantly inciting them to disregard the Munich Pact and resort
to the arbitrament of arms. If only we would stop meddling in foreign
lands the old nations of Europe would compose their own quarrels by
arbitration and the processes of peace, but apparently we won't let
them.
Fish addressed the listeners of the National Broadcasting Company
network on 5 April with these words:
The youth of America are again being prepared for another blood bath
in Europe in order to make the world safe for democracy.
If Hitler and the Nazi government regain Memel or Danzig, taken away
from Germany by the Versailles Treaty, and where the population is 90
percent German, why is it necessary to issue threats and denunciations
and incite our people to war? I would not sacrifice the life of one
American soldier for a half dozen Memels or Danzigs. We repudiated the
Versailles Treaty because it was based on greed and hatred, and as
long as its inequalities and injustices exist there are bound to be
wars of liberation.
The sooner certain provisions of the Versailles Treaty are scrapped
the better for the peace of the world.
I believe that if the areas that are distinctly German in population
are restored to Germany, except Alsace-Lorraine and the Tyrol, there
will be no war in western Europe. There may be a war between the Nazis
and the Communists, but if there is that is not our war or that of
Great Britain or France or any of the democracies.
New Deal spokesmen have stirred up war hysteria into a veritable
frenzy. The New Deal propaganda machine is working overtime to prepare
the minds of our people for war, who are already suffering from a bad
case of war jitters.
President Roosevelt is the number one warmonger in America, and is
largely responsible for the fear that pervades the Nation which has
given the stock market and the American people a bad case of the
jitters.
I accuse the administration of instigating war propaganda and hysteria
to cover up the failure and collapse of the New Deal policies, with 12
million unemployed and business confidence destroyed.
I believe we have far more to fear from our enemies from within than
we have from without. All the Communists are united in urging us to go
to war against Germany and Japan for the benefit of Soviet Russia.
Great Britain still expects every American to do her duty, by
preserving the British Empire and her colonies. The war profiteers,
munitions makers and international bankers are all set up for our
participation in a new world war.
On 21 April, Fish again spoke to the country over nationwide radio:
It is the duty of all those Americans who desire to keep out of
foreign entanglements and the rotten mess and war madness of Europe
and Asia to openly expose the war hysteria and propaganda that is
impelling us to armed conflict.
What we need in America is a stop war crusade, before we are forced
into a foreign war by internationalists and interventionists at
Washington, who seem to be more interested in solving world problems
rather than our own.
In his radio address of 26 May, Fish stated:
He [Roosevelt] should remember that the Congress has the sole power to
declare war and formulate the foreign policies of the United States.
The President has no such constitutional power. He is merely the
official organ to carry out the policies determined by the Congress.
Without knowing even who the combatants will be, we are informed
almost daily by the internationalists and interventionists in America
that we must participate in the next world war.
On 8 July 1939, Fish declared over the National Broadcasting Company
radio network:
If we must go to war, let it be in defense of America, but not in
defense of the munitions makers, war profiteers, Communists, to cover
up the failures of the New Deal, or to provide an alibi for a third
term.
It is well for all nations to know that we do not propose to go to war
over Danzig, power politics, foreign colonies, or the imperialistic
wars of Europe or anywhere in the world.
President Roosevelt could have done little to incite war in Europe
without help from powerful allies. Behind him stood the self-serving
international financial and Jewish interests bent on the destruction
of Germany. The principal organization which drummed up public support
for U.S. involvement in the European war prior to the Pearl Harbor
attack was the cleverly named "Committee to Defend America by Aiding
the Allies." President Roosevelt himself initiated its founding, and
top administration officials consulted frequently with Committee
leaders.[36]
Although headed for a time by an elderly small-town Kansas newspaper
publisher, William Allen White, the Committee was actually organized
by powerful financial interests which stood to profit tremendously
from loans to embattled Britain and from shrewd investments in giant
war industries in the United States.
At the end of 1940, West Virginia Senator Rush D. Holt issued a
detailed examination of the Committee which exposed the base interests
behind the idealistic-sounding slogans:
The Committee has powerful connections with banks, insurance
companies, financial investing firms, and industrial concerns. These
in turn exert influence on college presidents and professors, as well
as on newspapers, radio and other means of communication. One of the
powerful influences used by the group is the '400' and social set. The
story is a sordid picture of betrayal of public interest.
The powerful J.P. Morgan interest with its holdings in the British
Empire helped plan the organization and donated its first expense
money.
Some of the important figures active in the Committee were revealed by
Holt: Frederic R. Coudert, a paid war propagandist for the British
government in the U.S. during the First World War; Robert S. Allen of
the Pearson and Allen syndicated column; Henry R. Luce, the
influential publisher of Time, Life, and Fortune magazines; Fiorella
LaGuardia, the fiery half-Jewish Mayor of Now York City; Herbert
Lehman, the Jewish Governor of New York with important financial
holdings in war industries; and Frank Altschul, an officer in the
Jewish investment firm of Lazard Freres with extensive holdings in
munitions and military supply companies.
If the Committee succeeded in getting the U.S. into war, Holt warned,
"American boys will spill their blood for profiteers, politicians and
'paytriots.' If war comes, on the hands of the sponsors of the White
Committee will be blood-the blood of Americans killed in a needless
war."[37]
In March 1941 a list of most of the Committee's financial backers was
made public. It revealed the nature of the forces eager to bring
America into the European war. Powerful international banking
interests were well represented. J.P. Morgan, John W. Morgan, Thomas
W. Lamont and others of the great Morgan banking house were listed.
Other important names from the New York financial world included Mr.
and Mrs. Paul Mellon, Felix M. and James F. Warburg, and J. Malcolm
Forbes. Chicago department store owner and publisher Marshall Field
was a contributor, as was William Averill Harriman, the railroad and
investment millionaire who later served as Roosevelt's ambassador in
Moscow.
Of course, Jewish names made up a substantial portion of the long
list. Hollywood film czar Samuel Goldwyn of Goldwyn Studios was there,
along with David Dubinsky, the head of the International Ladies
Garment Workers Union. The William S. Paley Foundation, which had been
set up by the head of the giant Columbia Broadcasting System,
contributed to the Committee. The name of Mrs. Herbert H. Lehman, wife
of the New York Governor, was also on the list.[38]
Without an understanding of his intimate ties to organized Jewry,
Roosevelt's policies make little sense. As Jewish historian Lucy
Dawidowicz noted: "Roosevelt himself brought into his immediate circle
more Jews than any other President before or after him. Felix
Frankfurter, Bernard M. Baruch and Henry Morgenthau were his close
advisers. Benjamin V. Cohen, Samuel Rosenman and David K. Niles were
his friends and trusted aides."[39] This is perhaps not so remarkable
in light of Roosevelt's reportedly one-eighth Jewish ancestry.[40]
In his diary entry of 1 May 1941, Charles A. Lindbergh, the American
aviator hero and peace leader, nailed the coalition that was pushing
the United States into war:
The pressure for war is high and mounting. The people are opposed to
it, but the Administration seems to have 'the bit in its teeth' and
[is] hell-bent on its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in the
country are behind war, and they control a huge part of our press and
radio and most of our motion pictures. There are also the
'intellectuals,' and the 'Anglophiles,' and the British agents who are
allowed free rein, the international financial interests, and many
others.[41]
Joseph Kennedy shared Lindbergh's apprehensions about Jewish power.
Before the outbreak of war he privately expressed concerns about "the
Jews who dominate our press" and world Jewry in general, which he
considered a threat to peace and prosperity. Shortly after the
beginning of hostilities, Kennedy lamented "the growing Jewish
influence in the press and in Washington demanding continuance of the
war "[42]
Roosevelt's efforts to get Poland, Britain and France into war against
Germany succeeded all too well. The result was untold death and misery
and destruction. When the fighting began, as Roosevelt had intended
and planned, the Polish and French leaders expected the American
president to at least make good on his assurances of backing in case
of war. But Roosevelt had not reckoned on the depth of peace sentiment
of the vast majority of Americans. So, in addition to deceiving his
own people, Roosevelt also let down those in Europe to whom he had
promised support.
Seldom in American history were the people as united in their views as
they were in late 1939 about staying out of war in Europe. When
hostilities began in September 1939, the Gallup poll showed 94 percent
of the American people against involvement in war. That figure rose to
96.5 percent in December before it began to decline slowly to about 80
percent in the Fall of 1941. (Today, there is hardly an issue that
even 60 or 70 percent of the people agree upon.)[43]
Roosevelt was, of course, quite aware of the intensity of popular
feeling on this issue. That is why he lied repeatedly to the American
people about his love of peace and his determination to keep the U.S.
out of war, while simultaneously doing everything in his power to
plunge Europe and America into war.
In a major 1940 re-election campaign speech, Roosevelt responded to
the growing fears of millions of Americans who suspected that their
President had secretly pledged United States support to Britain in its
war against Germany. These well-founded suspicions were based in part
on the publication in March of the captured Polish documents. The
speech of 23 October 1940 was broadcast from Philadelphia to the
nation on network radio. In the most emphatic language possible,
Roosevelt categorically denied that he had
pledged in some way the participation of the United States in some
foreign war. I give to you and to the people of this country this most
solemn assurance: There is no secret Treaty, no secret understanding
in any shape or form, direct or indirect, with any Government or any
other nation in any part of the world, to involve this nation in any
war or for any other purpose.[44]
We now know, of course, that this pious declaration was just another
one of Roosevelt's many brazen, bald-faced lies to the American
people.
Roosevelt's policies were more than just dishonest-they were criminal.
The Constitution of the United States grants authority only to the
Congress to make war and peace. And Congress had passed several major
laws to specifically insure U.S. neutrality in case of war in Europe.
Roosevelt continually violated his oath as President to uphold the
Constitution. If his secret policies had been known, the public demand
for his impeachment would very probably have been unstoppable.
The Watergate episode has made many Americans deeply conscious of the
fact that their presidents can act criminally. That affair forced
Richard Nixon to resign his presidency, and he is still widely
regarded as a criminal. No schools are named after him and his name
will never receive the respect that normally goes to every American
president. But Nixon's crimes pale into insignificance when compared
to those of Franklin Roosevelt. What were Nixon's lies compared to
those of Roosevelt? What is a burglary cover-up compared to an illegal
and secret campaign to bring about a major war?
Those who defend Roosevelt's record argue that he lied to the American
people for their own good-that he broke the law for lofty principles.
His deceit is considered permissible because the cause was noble,
while similar deception by presidents Johnson and Nixon, to name two,
is not. This is, of course, a hypocritical double standard. And the
argument doesn't speak very well for the democratic system. It implies
that the people are too dumb to understand their own best interests.
It further suggests that the best form of government is a kind of
benevolent liberal-democratic dictatorship.
Roosevelt's hatred for Hitler was deep, vehement, passionate-almost
personal. This was due in no small part to an abiding envy and
jealousy rooted in the great contrast between the two men, not only in
their personal characters but also in their records as national
leaders.
Superficially, the public fives of Roosevelt and Hitler were
astonishingly similar. Both assumed the leadership of their respective
countries at the beginning of 1933. They both faced the enormous
challenge of mass unemployment during a catastrophic worldwide
economic depression. Each became a powerful leader in a vast military
alliance during the most destructive war in history. Both men died
while still in office within a few weeks of each other in April 1945,
just before the end of the Second World War in Europe. But the
enormous contrasts in the lives of these two men are even more
remarkable.
Roosevelt was born into one of the wealthiest families in America. His
was a life utterly free of material worry. He took part in the First
World War from an office in Washington as UnderSecretary of the Navy.
Hitler, on the other hand, was born into a modest provinicial family.
As a young man he worked as an impoverished manual laborer. He served
in the First World War as a front line soldier in the hell of the
Western battleground. He was wounded many times and decorated for
bravery.
In spite of his charming manner and soothing rhetoric, Roosevelt
proved unable to master the great challenges facing America. Even
after four years of his presidency, millions remained unemployed,
undernourished and poorly housed in a vast land richly endowed with
all the resources for incomparable prosperity. The New Deal was
plagued with bitter strikes and bloody clashes between labor and
capital. Roosevelt did nothing to solve the country's deep, festering
racial problems which erupted repeatedly in riots and armed conflict.
The story was very different in Germany. Hitler rallied his people
behind a radical program that transformed Germany within a few years
from an economically ruined land on the edge of civil war into
Europe's powerhouse. Germany underwent a social, cultural and economic
rebirth without parallel in history. The contrast between the
personalities of Roosevelt and Hitler was simultaneously a contrast
between two diametrically different social-political systems and
ideologies.
And yet, it would be incorrect to characterize Roosevelt as merely a
cynical politician and front man for powerful alien interests.
Certainly he did not regard himself as an evil man. He sincerely
believed that he was doing the right and noble thing in pressuring
Britain and France into war against Germany. Like Wilson before him,
and others since, Roosevelt felt himself uniquely qualified and called
upon by destiny to reshape the world according to his vision of an
egalitarian, universalist democracy. He was convinced, as so many
American leaders have been, that the world could be saved from itself
by remodeling it after the United States.
Presidents like Wilson and Roosevelt view the world not as a complex
of different nations, races and cultures which must mutually respect
each others' separate collective identities in order to live together
in peace, but rather according to a selfrighteous missionary
perspective that divides the globe into morally good and evil
countries. In that scheme of things, America is the providentially
permanent leader of the forces of righteousness. Luckily, this view
just happens to correspond to the economic and political interests of
those who wield power in the United States.
President Roosevelt's War
In April 1941, Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota prophetically
predicted that one day the Second World War would be remembered as
Roosevelt's war. "If we are ever involved in this war, it will be
called by future historians by only one title, 'the President's War,'
because every step of his since his Chicago quarantine speech [of 5
October 1937] has been toward war.[45]
The great American historian, Harry Elmer Barnes, believed that war
could probably have been prevented in 1939 if it had not been for
Roosevelt's meddling. "Indeed, there is fairly conclusive evidence
that, but for Mr. Roosevelt's pressure on Britain, France and Poland,
and his commitments to them before September 1939, especially to
Britain, and the irresponsible antics of his agent provocateur,
William C. Bullitt, there would probably have been no world war in
1939, or, perhaps, for many years thereafter."[46] In Revisionism: A
Key to Peace, Barnes wrote:
President Roosevelt had a major responsibility, both direct and
indirect, for the outbreak of war in Europe. He began to exert
pressure on France to stand up to Hitler as early as the German
reoccupation of the Rhineland in March 1936, months before he was
making his strongly isolationist speeches in the campaign of 1936.
This pressure on France, and also England, continued right down to the
coming of the war in September 1939. It gained volume and momentum
after the quarantine speech of October 1937. As the crisis approached
between Munich and the outbreak of war, Roosevelt pressed the Poles to
stand firm against any demands by Germany, and urged the English and
French to back up the Poles unflinchingly.
There is grave doubt that England would have gone to war in September
1939 had it not been for Roosevelt's encouragement and his assurances
that, in the event of war, the United States would enter on the side
of Britain just as soon as he could swing American public opinion
around to support intervention.
Roosevelt had abandoned all semblance of neutrality, even before war
broke out in 1939, and moved as speedily as was safe and feasible in
the face of anti-interventionist American public opinion to involve
this country in the European conflict.[47]
One of the most perceptive verdicts on Franklin Roosevelt's place in
history came from the pen of the great Swedish explorer and author,
Sven Hedin. During the war he wrote:
The question of the way it came to a new world war is not only to be
explained because of the foundation laid by the peace treaties of
1919, or in the suppression of Germany and her allies after the First
World War, or in the continuation of the ancient policies of Great
Britain and France. The decisive push came from the other side of the
Atlantic Ocean.
Roosevelt speaks of democracy and destroys it incessantly. He slanders
as undemocratic and un-American those who admonish him in the name of
peace and the preservation of the American way of life. He has made
democracy into a caricature rather than a model. He talks about
freedom of speech and silences those who don't hold his opinion.
He talks about freedom of religion and makes an alliance with
Bolshevism.
He talks about freedom from want, but cannot provide ten million of
his own people with work, bread or shelter. He talks about freedom
from the fear of war while working for war, not only for his own
people but for the world, by inciting his country against the Axis
powers when it might have united with them, and he thereby drove
millions to their deaths.
This war will go down in history as the war of President
Roosevelt.[48]
Officially orchestrated praise for Roosevelt as a great man of peace
cannot conceal forever his crucial role in pushing Europe into war in
1939.
* * * * *
It is now more than forty years since the events described here took
place. For many they are an irrelevant part of a best-forgotten past.
But the story of how Franklin Roosevelt engineered war in Europe is
very pertinent-particularly for Americans today. The lessons of the
past have never been more important than in this nuclear age. For
unless at least an aware minority understands how and why wars are
made, we will remain powerless to restrain the warmongers of our own
era.
Notes
1. See, for example: Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and
the Coming of the War 1941 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948);
William Henry Chamberlin, America's Second Crusade (Chicago: Regnery,
1952, 1962); Benjamin Colby, 'Twas a Famous Victory (New Rochelle,
N.Y.: Arlington House, 1979); Frederic R. Sanborn, Design for War (New
York: Devin-Adair, 1951); William Stevenson, A Man Called Intrepid
(New York: Ballantine Books, 1980); Charles C. Tansill, Back Door to
War (Chicago: Regnery, 1952); John Toland, Infamy: Pearl Harbor and
Its Aftermath (New York: Doubleday, 1982).
2. Saul Friedlander, Prelude to Downfall: Hitler and the United
States 1939-1941 (New York: Knopf, 1967), pp. 73-77; U.S., Congress,
House, Special Committee on Investigation of Un-American Activities in
the United States, 1940, Appendix, Part II, pp. 1054-1059.
3. Friedlander, pp. 75-76.
4. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1.
5. Ibid., p. 4, and 31 March 1940, p. 1.
6. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1. Baltimore Sun, 30 March
1940, p. 1.
7. A French-language edition was published in 1944 under the
title Comment Roosevelt est Entre en Guerre.
8. Tansill, "The United States and the Road to War in Europe," in
Harry Elmer Barnes (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (Caldwell,
Idaho: Caxton, 1953; reprint eds., New York: Greenwood, 1969 and
Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review [supplemented],
1982), p. 184 (note 292). Tansill also quoted from several of the
documents in his Back Door to War, pp. 450-51.
9. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Court Historians Versus Revisionism
(N.p.: privately printed, 1952), p. 10. This booklet is reprinted in
Barnes, Selected Revisionist Pamphlets (New York: Arno Press & The New
York Times, 1972), and in Barnes, The Barnes Trilogy (Torrance,
Calif.: Institute for Historical Review, 1979).
10. Chamberlin, p. 60.
11. Edward Raczynski, In Allied London (London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1963), p. 51.
12. Orville H. Bullitt (ad.), For the President: Personal and
Secret (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. x1v [biographical
foreword]. See also Time, 26 October 1936, p. 24.
13. Current Biography 1940, ed. Maxine Block (New York: H.W.
Wilson, 1940), p. 122 ff.
14. Gisleher Wirsing, Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um
die Weltherrschaft (Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942), p. 224.
15. Bullitt obituary in New York Times, 16 February 1967, p. 44.
16. Jack Alexander, "He Rose From the Rich," Saturday Evening
Post, 11 March 1939, p. 6. (Also see continuation in issue of 18 March
1939.) Bullitt's public views on the European scene and what should be
America's attitude toward it can be found in his Report to the
American People (Boston: Houghton Mifflin [Cambridge: Riverside
Press], 1940), the text of a speech he delivered, with the President's
blessing, under the auspices of the American Philosophical Society in
Independence Hall in Philadelphia shortly after the fall of France.
For sheer, hyperventilated stridency and emotionalist hysterics, this
anti-German polemic could hardly be topped, even given the similar
propensities of many other interventionists in government and the
press in those days.
17. Michael R. Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt (New York: Norton,
1980), pp. 203-04.
18. Robert Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign
Policy 1932-1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 31. See
also pp. 164-65.
19. Dispatch No. 349 of 20 September 1938 by Sir. R. Lindsay,
Documents on British Foreign Policy (ed. Ernest L. Woodward), Third
series, Vol. VII (London, 1954), pp. 627-29. See also: Joseph P. Lash,
Roosevelt and Churchill 1939-1941 (New York: Norton, 1976), pp. 25-27;
Dallek, pp. 164-65; Arnold A. Offner, America and the Ori-, gins of
World War II (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971), p. 61.
20. William Phillips, Ventures in Diplomacy (North Beverly, Mass.:
privately published, 1952), pp. 220-21.
21. Carl Burckhardt, Meine Danziger Mission 1937-1939 (Munich:
Callwey, 1960), p. 225.
22. Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen, "Washington Daily
Merry-Go-Round," Washington Times-Herald, 14 April 1939, p. 16. A
facsimile reprint of this column appears in Conrad Grieb (ed.),
American Manifest Destiny and The Holocausts (New York: Examiner
Books, 1979), pp. 132-33. See also: Wirsing, pp. 238-41.
23. Jay P. Moffat, The Moffat Papers 1919-1943 (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1956), p. 232.
24. U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United
States (Diplomatic Papers), 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956),
p. 122.
25. "Von Wiegand Says-," Chicago Herald-American, 8 October 1944,
p. 2.
26. Edvard Benes, Memoirs of Dr. Eduard Benes (London: George
Allen & Unwin, 1954), pp. 79-80.
27. Lash, p. 64.
28. Hamilton Fish, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin (Now York:
Vantage, 1976; Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review,
1980), p. 62.
29. James V. Forrestal (ads. Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield), The
Forrestal Diaries (New York: Viking, 1951), pp. 121-22. I have been
privately informed by a colleague who has examined the original
manuscript of the Forrestal diaries that many very critical references
to the Jews were deleted from the published version.
30. Jan Szembek, Journal 1933-1939 (Paris: Plan, 1952), pp.
475-76.
31. David E. Koskoff, Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), p. 207; Moffat, p. 253;
A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (London: Hamish
Hamilton, 1961; 2nd ed. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Premier [paperback],
1965), p. 262; U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the
United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 355.
32. Dallek, p. 164.
33. Beschloss, pp. 190-91; Lash, p. 75; Koskoff, pp. 212-13.
34. Hull to Kennedy (No. 905), U.S., Department of State, Foreign
Relations of the United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington:
1956), p. 424.
35. The radio addresses of Hamilton Fish quoted here were
published in the Congressional Record Appendix (Washington) as
follows: (6 January 1939) Vol. 84, Part 11, pp. 52-53; (5 March 1939)
same, pp. 846-47; (5 April 1939) Vol. 84, Part 12, pp. 1342-43; (21
April 1939) same, pp. 1642-43; (26 May 1939) Vol. 84, Part 13, pp.
2288-89; (8 July 1939) same, pp. 3127-28.
36. Wayne S. Cole, Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle Against
American Intervention in World War II (New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1974), pp. 128, 136-39.
37. Congressional Record Appendix (Washington: 1941), (30 December
1940) Vol. 86, Part 18, pp. 7019-25. See also: Appendix, Vol. 86, Part
17, pp. 5808-14.
38. New York Times, 11 March 1941, p. 10.
39. Lucy Dawidowicz, "American Jews and the Holocaust," The New
York Times Magazine, 18 April 1982, p. 102.
40. "FDR 'had a Jewish great-grandmother'" Jewish Chronicle
(London), 5 February 1982, p. 3.
41. Charles A. Lindbergh, The Wartime Journals of Charles A.
Lindbergh (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970), p. 481.
42. Koskoff, pp. 282, 212. The role of the American press in
fomenting hatred against Germany between 1933 and 1939 is a subject
that deserves much more detailed treatment. Charles Tansill provides
some useful information on this in Back Door to War. The essay by
Professor Hans A. Muenster, "Die Kriegsschuld der Presse der USA" in
Kriegsschuld und Presse, published in 1944 by the German
Reichsdozentenfuehrung, is worth consulting.
43. An excellent essay relating and contrasting American public
opinion measurements to Roosevelt's foreign policy moves in 1939-41 is
Harry Elmer Barnes, Was Roosevelt Pushed Into War By Popular Demand in
1941? (N.p.: privately printed, 1951). It is reprinted in Barnes,
Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
44. Lash, p. 240.
45. New York Times, 27 April 1941, p. 19.
46. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Struggle Against the Historical
Blackout, 2nd ed. (N.p.: privately published, ca. 1948), p. 12. See
also the 9th, final revised and enlarged edition (N.p.: privately
published, ca. 1954), p. 34; this booklet is reprinted in Barnes,
Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
47. Harry Elmer Barnes, "Revisionism: A Key to Peace," Rampart
Journal of Individualist Thought Vol. II, No. 1 (Spring 1966), pp.
29-30. This article was republished in Barnes, Revisionism: A Key to
Peace and Other Essays (San Francisco: Cato Institute [Cato Paper No.
12], 1980).
48. Sven Hedin, Amerika im Kampf der Kontinente (Leipzig: F.A.
Brockhaus, 1943), p. 54.
Bibliography
Listed here are the published editions of the Polish documents, the
most important sources touching on the questions of their authenticity
and content, and essential recent sources on what President Roosevelt
was really-as opposed to publicly-doing and thinking during the
prelude to war. Full citations for all references in the article will
be found in the notes.
Beschloss, Michael R. Kennedy and Roosevelt. New York: Norton, 1980.
Bullitt, Orville H. (ed.). For the President: Personal and Secret.
[Correspondence between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt.]
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.
Germany. Foreign Office Archive Commission. Roosevelts Weg in den
Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der
Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 1943.
Germany. Foreign Office. The German White Paper. [White Book No. 3.]
New York: Howell, Soskin and Co., 1940.
Germany. Foreign Office. Polnische Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des
Kriegs. [White Book No. 3.] Berlin: F. Eher, 1940.
Koskoff, David E. Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974.
Lukasiewicz, Juliusz (Waclaw Jedrzejewicz, ed.). Diplomat in Paris
1936-1939. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970.
Wirsing, Giselher. Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um die
Weltherrschaft. Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942.
>>
>> If a nation didn't have an army or anything, then some group such and
>> Genghis Khan's outfit could just come along and do whatever they
>> pleased.
>
> Non sequitur and thanks for implictedly admitting I'm right on the
>street lights. You don't need an army to defeat Genghis Khan, and
>the armies he faced didn't defeat him. What you need is a sufficent
>number of people armed and willing to fight to prevent him achieveing
>dominance. You don't need a government for that as people can arm
>themselves and decide to cooperate without a government.
You are wrong about the street lights. And an army without leadership
is not effective in battle. And anarchy lets some men do all the
fighting while other men choose not to but get all the benefits
anyway.
>
> No everyone does not benefit from the army, in fact most people
>make a net lose from it. The army helps enforce laws that
>oppress them, invades other countries for no good reason,
>increases taxes etc. In most countries the army is engaged
>in supporting some groups in their efforts to oppress other groups
>and so it's hardly clear the oppressed are obliged to pay for it.
You may be right that most governments are not good. But having
anarchy is no answer. Having a government that is good is the answer.
>
> No generally they weren't. Most opium addicts lived quite
>long because the drug wasn't turned into more potent forms
>like heroine. This is because there was little need to do so
>to avoid prosecution. Most of those who did take opium were
>not children who could hardly have afforded it. While no doubt
>there were some overdose deaths there's little evidence to
>suggest that making drugs illegal reduces this. In fact the
>evidence is the other way. Prior to opiates being made illegal
>in the US there were less overdose deaths.
Typical liberal theorizing. In reality there were big problems. That
is why they had a war about it.
>
> Yes it can and you're lying again. In any case even if the
>concentration
>camps were not death camps they would still have been deadly as
>concentration camps were in South Africa.
>
They had a swimming pool for the inmates at Auschwitz for one thing.
What turned deadly was the bombs from the allies.
Topaz
wrote:
> And due to Hitler's incompetent economic
>leadership even that wasn't worth it.
>
The Jews control your media and you mind.
This is what President Nixon said:
http://www.hnn.us/comments/15664.html
"There may be some truth in that if the Arabs have some complaints
about my policy towards Israel, they have to realize that the Jews in
the U.S. control the entire information and propaganda machine, the
large newspapers, the motion pictures, radio and television, and the
big companies. And there is a force that we have to take into
consideration."
From a German pamphlet:
Do you remember the state of Germany and the German people in the days
before the aged Reich President von Hindenburg chose Adolf Hitler and
his party as the last hope of saving Germany from certain political,
social and economic collapse that would lead to chaos? Tens of
thousands of factories had closed their gates. Millions of workers and
employees lost their jobs and were thrown ruthlessly into the gray
misery of mass unemployment. There seemed no way out...
By the end of 1933, 2 million citizens had jobs again. By September
1936, the number of unemployed had fallen beneath a million. By 1937
unemployment had vanished...
One of the foundations of National Socialism is the knowledge that
only work creates value and prosperity...
But not only the dreadful misery before 1933 reduced the desire of
countless Germans to have children. Crass egotism and materialism also
played a role. The System Era saw having children as foolish and
backward. The transformation that has occurred is clear in the rising
German birth rate...
The National Socialist state gives major tax reductions to fathers for
each child. Families with three or more children receive payments of
10 and 20 marks monthly. By the end of 1937, 510,000 children were
receiving such support...
By the end of 1937, 252,000 mothers had received free vacations...
The Winterhilfswerk is the most beautiful expression of the new German
people's community. It is not the work of a small group of rich
people. No, each German, all of us, rich and poor, manual laborers,
farmers and city-dwellers cooperate in fulfilling the Führer's will:
No German may be hungry or cold!
One does not know whom to admire more: the cheerful willingness of
those who collect, or the rising amount of the gifts, to which even
the poorest contribute their share. The success of the
Winterhilfswerk, written permanently into the law of 1 December 1936,
demonstrates the efforts of the entire German nation. Gifts of money
alone totaled over 920 million marks during the four winters from
1933/34 to 1936/37. An additional 570 million marks of goods were
contributed. 50,000 freight cars alone would have been needed for the
potatoes contributed in the past years. The three million meters of
clothing given out by the WHW would stretch from Berlin to the Middle
East. The two million kilograms of coal would form a wall ten meters
high around all of Germany. These few examples, and more could be
given, prove the strength of the German people's will to be active
socialists..
Another sign of this socialism is the entirely different status of the
German worker in factories. The social honor of each working German is
guaranteed by law. The state's representatives ensure that exploiting
workers is impossible. The legal working conditions correspond to
National Socialism's high opinion of work. Workers have a right to a
vacation and for paid holidays, even hourly and temporary workers.
There is nothing like this elsewhere in the world.
The dignity of labor is evidenced by improvements in the appearance of
the work place. Wherever one looks in Germany, ugly dark buildings are
vanishing. The "Beauty of Labor" movement in today's Germany is not
empty talk or an impossible demand, but living reality. Large sums
that formerly would have been wasted in strikes and lockouts have been
used since 1933 to improve work places. 23,000 places have been
transformed form soulless drudgery to pleasant places to work. 6,000
factory courtyards now offer space for real relaxation, which was not
true in the past. 17,000 canteens and lounges, 13,000 shower and
changing rooms have been transformed. The dirtier the work, the
cleaner the workers. More than 800 community buildings and 1200 sport
facilities , including over 200 swimming pools, have been established.
The crew quarters in over 3500 ships have also been improved.
The NS Society Kraft durch Freude brings cheer and pleasure to
workplaces through concerts and art exhibits. The art exhibits alone
introduced more than 2,5 million workers to the creations of true
German art. Just five years ago, it was obvious that the great works
of German culture belonged to a small group of the upper class.
Besides the factory concerns and art exhibitions, the NS Society Kraft
durch Freude uses theatrical performances, other concerts, singing and
musical groups to introduce the creations of German art to every
working German. 22 million citizens have attended theatrical
performances..
Of no less importance is the KdF's vacation program. Earlier, German
workers did not know what to do with their, at best, five days of
annual vacation. They could not visit the beauties of the German
landscape, much less travel abroad. The NS Society Kraft durch Freude
gave German workers the possibility of vacationing at the beach or in
the mountains, or to explore the homeland. Over 20 million have
participated in KdF trips since 1934. That is more than a quarter of
Germany's population. 19 million citizens participated in 60,000
vacation trips at home. Hand to hand, they would stretch from Berlin
to Tokyo. KdF trains have traveled 2,160,000 kilometers, or 54 times
around the world. The nine large KdF cruise ships have covered a
distance equal to twice the distance from the earth to the moon. They
have carried German workers to Madeira, Italy and Norway, broadening
their horizons and giving them unforgettable experiences. Three
additional ships will be added the KdF's own fleet of four. A KdF
resort is being built on the island of Rügen. It will not be the only
one. A series of other vacation and spa resorts will be built. They
will fulfill the Führer's wishes at the start of the NS Society Kraft
durch Freude: to lead a cheerful, creative and strong people to
success in the world.
The goal of bringing German culture to the entire German people,
regardless of their income, is especially clear with the German radio.
Thanks to the People's Radio Set, a solid, inexpensive and capable
receiver, the number of radio listeners has risen from around 4
million in 1932 to 9.1 million today. The un-German programming of the
System Era has been transformed by National Socialism. Now radio
acquaints the German people with the work of their great masters of
music and literature. Alongside these artistic programs, the
entertaining programming provides for the relaxation of hard-working
people.
Clear proof for the rising prosperity of the German people is provided
by the growing consumption of foodstuffs and luxury items of every
variety. During the prewar year 1913, only a little more than 2.9
million tons of meat were consumed. In 1937, that figure had risen to
3.7 million, up about 5% from 1932. Thanks to the elimination of
unemployment, bread consumption increased by about 10%, sugar by 15%.
Butter consumption rose from 420,000 to 519,000 tons. Milk production,
both for drinking and for making butter and cheese, rose from 23.5 to
25.4 billion liters from 1932 to 1937. Coffee consumption rose from
104,000 to 140,000 tons. Beer consumption has risen from 3.3 to 4.4
billion liters. That is an increase of about 3 billion glasses of
beer...
The growing prosperity and rising consumption of foodstuffs and luxury
items required hard work. A people can only consume what it produces.
In the face of this obvious truth, which however only became clear to
us after 1933, all the parliamentary resolutions, all the decisions of
international conferences and the demands of the international unions
become silly talk. The German people have proved that by our own work.
Germany has worked untiringly since 1933, producing itself the goods
it needs to improve its standard of living.
The rising production in all areas, which has never before been seen,
is the fruit of our work. The foundation of our life is agriculture,
whose task is to guarantee that the nation is fed. When the Führer
took power, agriculture was in a ruinous state. Officers of the court
were regular visitors at German farms. The animals and the harvest
were seized ruthlessly because taxes and interests had risen to
impossible levels that German soil could not meet. Forced auctions
drove tens of thousands of German farmers from their land. Desperation
prevailed in the villages. As a result of the desperate situation,
agriculture could not ensure the feeding of the German nation. The
ghost of hunger threatened.
Here too the Führer set to work immediately. Interest and taxes were
lowered, and the German soil was freed from usurious capital. Between
1927 and 1931, German agricultural debt rose by 2,9 billion marks.
From 1933 to 1936, it fell by 800 million marks. The interest burden,
which was over a billion marks in 1931/32, was reduced by National
Socialist actions to 630 million marks. The crowning achievement was
the creation of the Reich Inherited Farm Law, which guaranteed that
the German family farm will always remain the wellspring of the
nation...
Just as for farmers and agricultural workers, the urban population is
also being cared for. Although more than enough willing and able
workers were available in 1932, and although the housing need was
certainly great, the government put workers on the dole and built only
141,265 dwellings. This was an area in which the need for new jobs was
particularly clear. Even in 1933, the number of new dwellings rose to
178,000, with particular attention being given to small and mid-sized
units for those with limited incomes. This number grew year by year,
reaching 340,000 dwellings in 1937, double the number of 1932. In all,
National Socialist has built more than 1.4 million new, and above all
healthy and affordable, dwellings for the German people since 1933.
This is enough to house the entire population of Berlin...
Growing prosperity and production led to a growth in traffic. The
entirely neglected German highway system had to be repaired and
expanded. 40,000 kilometers of highway have been repaired since 1933.
That is enough to go all the way around the world! Then there are the
Reich Autobahns, the most splendid construction project in the world.
2,000 kilometers were open to traffic by the end of 1937. 1,000
kilometers more will be added yearly, until Germany has a highway
network unique in all the world.
Automobile production has reached a level that no one would have
thought possible a few years ago.
The number of motor vehicles in Germany has doubled, exceeding the 3
million mark in 1937. Thanks to the growing prosperity, broad circles
of our nation can now afford a car. 137,141 of the new vehicles in
1937, well over half, were purchased by workers and employees. 30,015
workers and employees were able to buy a car the previous year. Cars
are becoming both better and cheaper. The increase in cars will be
even more striking when the Volkswagen comes on the market. Enormous
factories are even now being built. The best proof for the quality and
good pricing of German cars is the fact that automobile exports have
increased by a factor of eight since 1932!..
The great improvements in the German transportation system have
resulted in a growing stream of foreign visitors. The pulsing life in
Germany is drawing more and more visitors to the Third Reich. The
number of overnights by foreigners has risen from 2.7 million in 1932
is far above 7 million in 1937. These foreigners, who often come to
Germany with false ideas, see with their own eyes the work of the
Führer and the remarkable efforts of the German people. They return
home as the best witnesses of the greatness and strength of the German
Reich...
The Führer has repeatedly reminded the German people that strong
policies are the absolute prerequisite to our economic, social and
cultural health. Only intentional hostility and stupidity can still
deny that the Führer was right in every respect...
Dan Clore
Ask the government, and I'm sure that they will be happy to give you a
very intensive education on the subject.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
uri
preferences to their citizens over foreigners who seek jobs in their
country.
Michael Price
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On Aug 28, 2:01 pm, You Will Submit To Allah Or DIE!!
> > <Mohammedmcpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Aug 22, 4:05 am, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> On Aug 19, 9:24 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 19:09:41 -0700, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >> Whacko Anarchist, go to Amsterdam and North Korea. you will learn.
>
> > Why don't you teach me if you actually know anything which I doubt.
> > How exactly would I learn about anarchism in NORTH KOREA?
>
> Ask the government, and I'm sure that they will be happy to give you a
> very intensive education on the subject.
>
> --
> Dan Clore
>
knowledge.
> My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
> Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
no surrender
"uri" <dan...@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
news:1189352667.2...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Governments don't let people to go where they want. Governments give
> preferences to their citizens over foreigners who seek jobs in their
> country.
And your point is what, exactly?
Dennis
>
uri
wants?
no surrender
> Why isn't it possible to let everyone live in whatever country he
> wants?
Because the nation state is the most stable political unit that has ever
existed. Such stability requires citizenship, not transient wanderers. TW's
have no stake in the state, and as such do not contribute to its security or
wealth. "It's a small world
after all" just doesn't work.
Dennis
>
uri
> Because the nation state is the most stable political unit that has ever
> existed. Such stability requires citizenship, not transient wanderers. TW's
> have no stake in the state, and as such do not contribute to its security or
> wealth. "It's a small world
> after all" just doesn't work.
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
But can we not have a unified world without nation states and everyone
can live in whatever country he wants?
Actually the family is the most stable social unit. I realized that
people are not altruistic. People care about their own and their
family's well-being before they care about strangers.