Top 10 Worse Things About America
Immortalist
2. The United States is uniquely guilty for the crime of slavery.
3. The Founders intended a secular, not a Christian nation.
4. America has always been a multicultural society, strengthened by
diversity.
5. The power of Big Business hurts the country and oppresses the
people.
6. Government offers the only remedy for economic downturn and
poverty.
7. America is an imperialist nation and a constant threat to world
peace.
8. The two-party system is broken and we urgently need a viable third
party.
9. There is a war going on against the American middle class.
10. America is in the midst of an irreversible moral decline.
http://www.amazon.com/Big-Lies-About-America-Destructive/dp/0307394077/
Bert Hyman
Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 2. The United States is uniquely guilty for the crime of slavery.
Uniquely?
Really?
Please elaborate.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Sir Frederick
Too bad!
Though I suspect the whole world is suspect, not just the U.S.
Shrikeback
> Innews:4e88e231-9477-4904...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com
>
> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 2. The United States is uniquely guilty for the crime of slavery.
>
> Uniquely?
>
> Really?
>
> Please elaborate.
>
> --
Actually, he's linking to a book, entitled
'The Top 10 Lies about America'.
Nevertheless, it's good to look at our
warts:
The Real 10 Worserest Things about
America:
10. Michael Bay movies,
9. Joe Liebermann's whiny voice,
8. Hillary's ass,
7. The 700 Club,
6. Will Farrell movies,
5. The DEA,
4. The prison-industrial complex,
3. The divorce laws,
and, tied for first and second:
Al Gore, he takes up two seats,
just like on the private jet.
Demon Buddha
> In news:4e88e231-9477-4904...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com
> Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> 2. The United States is uniquely guilty for the crime of slavery.
>
> Uniquely?
>
> Really?
>
> Please elaborate.
>
I think this is a list of big lies about America. I read it the way
you seem to have, at first. So the deal of unique guilt is one of those
really big lies.
Demon Buddha
> On Dec 19, 4:06 pm, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> Innews:4e88e231-9477-4904...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com
>>
>> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> 2. The United States is uniquely guilty for the crime of slavery.
>> Uniquely?
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> Please elaborate.
>>
>> --
>> Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN b...@iphouse.com
>
> Actually, he's linking to a book, entitled
> 'The Top 10 Lies about America'.
>
> Nevertheless, it's good to look at our
> warts:
>
> The Real 10 Worserest Things about
> America:
>
> 10. Michael Bay movies,
> 9. Joe Liebermann's whiny voice,
> 8. Hillary's ass,
Oh for Christ's sake... I just ate an apple and almost sent it back up.
Be careful with the imagery, will you? I mean, I wouldn't expose a
condemned mass murderer to *that* sort of thing. I might expose Obama
to it, though... wow I must be a true sadist.
> 7. The 700 Club,
> 6. Will Farrell movies,
Sho' got that one right.
Les Cargill
> 1. America was founded in genocide against Native Americas.
>
Most of the "genocide" was incidental/accidental and actually
started well before colonization. The Spanish conquest was much,
much more brutal, as was the French.
> 2. The United States is uniquely guilty for the crime of slavery.
>
Slavery was a *British* institution. It continued in the
Carribean on a defacto basis long after it was
outlawed in Britain proper.
> 3. The Founders intended a secular, not a Christian nation.
>
That's a good thing.
> 4. America has always been a multicultural society, strengthened by
> diversity.
>
After a fashion, yes. Immigration has always been a source
of strength.
> 5. The power of Big Business hurts the country and oppresses the
> people.
>
Mainly when big businesses seek rent through government
policy. Big or small really doesn't matter that much so long
as it's all private sector.
> 6. Government offers the only remedy for economic downturn and
> poverty.
>
Government can be accused of causing poverty. Can ti be proven? I am
not sure, but the prima facie evidence to accuse is there.
> 7. America is an imperialist nation and a constant threat to world
> peace.
>
America is no such thing. The only imperial things America has done
were under TR, and empire was simply the style of the times.
> 8. The two-party system is broken and we urgently need a viable third
> party.
>
It would be wonderful, but it will not likely happen unless
one of the two parties "gets really sick", which is
highly unlikely.
The Progressives need desperately to understand the book "Obamanomics",
which is about rent-seeking, and the Right needs to have a long, hard
look at entanglement in the roots of the Prosperity Gospel movement
and embrace a real, center-right agenda.
They can either continue to attack abortion, or they can be
conservatives.
> 9. There is a war going on against the American middle class.
>
If so, it is waged by the American middle class, when it's not
waged by Corporatist powers.
> 10. America is in the midst of an irreversible moral decline.
>
No. America is in the middle of an irreversible *intellectual*
decline. The moral decline that runs in parallel is dependent
on that.
> http://www.amazon.com/Big-Lies-About-America-Destructive/dp/0307394077/
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
http://www.funlol.com/8524/Will_Farrell_and_Stewie!.html
>> 5. The DEA,
>> 4. The prison-industrial complex,
>> 3. The divorce laws,
>>
>> and, tied for first and second:
>> Al Gore, he takes up two seats,
>> just like on the private jet.
--
Les Cargill
Arindam Banerjee
> decline.
What else can be expected from a nation of Einstein-worshippers?
The moral decline that runs in parallel is dependent
> on that.
ditto above.
Rod Speed
> Immortalist wrote
>> 1. America was founded in genocide against Native Americas.
> Most of the "genocide" was incidental/accidental
Thats a lie.
> and actually started well before colonization. The Spanish conquest was much, much more brutal, as was the French.
Yes.
>> 2. The United States is uniquely guilty for the crime of slavery.
> Slavery was a *British* institution.
Like hell it was. It was around for a hell of a long time before britain even existed.
> It continued in the Carribean on a defacto basis long after it was outlawed in Britain proper.
>> 3. The Founders intended a secular, not a Christian nation.
> That's a good thing.
>> 4. America has always been a multicultural society, strengthened by diversity.
> After a fashion, yes. Immigration has always been a source of strength.
>> 5. The power of Big Business hurts the country and oppresses the people.
> Mainly when big businesses seek rent through government
> policy. Big or small really doesn't matter that much so long
> as it's all private sector.
>> 6. Government offers the only remedy for economic downturn and poverty.
Like hell it does.
> Government can be accused of causing poverty. Can ti be proven? I am not sure, but the prima facie evidence to accuse
> is there.
It can also be claimed that it avoids poverty in the best
possible way when it deliberately reduces unemployment.
>> 7. America is an imperialist nation and a constant threat to world peace.
> America is no such thing. The only imperial things America has done were under TR,
Thats overstating it.
> and empire was simply the style of the times.
Not everyone got involved in that, even in those times.
>> 8. The two-party system is broken and we urgently need a viable third party.
> It would be wonderful, but it will not likely happen unless one of the two parties "gets really sick", which is highly
> unlikely.
It isnt really much of a two party system with particularly
the dems having quite a range of views in it.
> The Progressives need desperately to understand the book
> "Obamanomics", which is about rent-seeking, and the Right needs to
> have a long, hard look at entanglement in the roots of the Prosperity
> Gospel movement and embrace a real, center-right agenda.
> They can either continue to attack abortion, or they can be conservatives.
Or they can do both.
>> 9. There is a war going on against the American middle class.
> If so, it is waged by the American middle class, when it's not waged by Corporatist powers.
And its been lost anyway.
>> 10. America is in the midst of an irreversible moral decline.
> No. America is in the middle of an irreversible *intellectual* decline.
Like hell it is.
> The moral decline that runs in parallel is dependent on that.
There is no runs in parallel.
>> http://www.amazon.com/Big-Lies-About-America-Destructive/dp/0307394077/
Arindam Banerjee
It shows a boy telling his father that he would like to have a career in
organised crime.
Dad looks up from his paper, and asks "Government or Private Sector?"
"Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:YqgXm.63406$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Lisa Lisa
> 1. America was founded in genocide against Native Americas.
Probably mostly killed off by disease. Not that they've been well-
treated. They haven't.
> 2. The United States is uniquely guilty for the crime of slavery.
When did Saudi Arabia outlaw slavery? 1962 or thereabouts? Come on---
slavery has been the norm in human history.
>
> 3. The Founders intended a secular, not a Christian nation.
Most of them intended no national church. Churches were supported by
public money at the state level, though. I do agree that most of the
founders were not extremely religious men. But they varied somewhat.
> 4. America has always been a multicultural society, strengthened by
> diversity.
It's always been diverse. That's true. But it has always been
dominated by white men.
> 5. The power of Big Business hurts the country and oppresses the
> people.
Capitalism can turn into cannibalism when it's not restrained.
> 6. Government offers the only remedy for economic downturn and
> poverty.
America is definitely a superpower on the way down. It still could be
a very livable and vibrant country. Or it could just go straight down
the chute like 17th century Spain.
It could go either way.
> 7. America is an imperialist nation and a constant threat to world
> peace.
America is an incompetent, unenthusiastic imperialist nation. Threats
to world peace can come from anywhere. People are people.
> 8. The two-party system is broken and we urgently need a viable third
> party.
It's definitely broken. We need something; I don't know what.
> 9. There is a war going on against the American middle class.
Only the top 2% count. The rest can go hang.
> 10. America is in the midst of an irreversible moral decline.
I don't even know what a moral decline is.
> http://www.amazon.com/Big-Lies-About-America-Destructive/dp/0307394077/
Lisa
robert bowman
> Most of the "genocide" was incidental/accidental and actually
> started well before colonization. The Spanish conquest was much,
> much more brutal, as was the French.
Citation on the brutality in New France? It's true the French aided the
Huron, Objibwe and Algonquin peoples in their wars with the Iroquois,
Sioux, and Fox. However, the Algonquins and Iroquois, no strangers to
genocide themselves. were fighting when de Champlain arrived. The Great
Peace of Montreal, brokered by the French, was a step forward.
robert bowman
> Slavery was a British institution. It continued in the
> Carribean on a defacto basis long after it was
> outlawed in Britain proper.
Pope Gregory I is reported to have said, 'Non Angli, sed angeli' (Not
Angles, but angels) on seeing some boys in a slave market. The market was
in Rome, the slaves were Brits, and the time around 550.
Later, in the 9th and 10th centuries when the Danes were running the show,
Dublin was the biggest slave market in Europe. Ivar the Boneless,
fictionalized in 'The Vikings', needed 200 ships to bring over the loot and
slaves he captured in Britain.
Slavery has a long history and while the British didn't invent it, it's
interesting that an icons like Raleigh and Drake learned their trade in
slavers, and Good Queen Bess turned a tidy profit in the trade.
Topaz
Question: did Neanderthal man deserve to be eliminated by cro magnon
man? Probably not [I believe most literature attributes their
extinction at least in part to the encroachment of cro magnon into
their territories]. But we don't judge what apparently was the
natural sequence of events that lead us to...well... what we are
today. My point is that I keep hearing this argument about the native
American over and over and over ad infintum until my brain seems about
to burst. Whatever judgments we cast upon the situation today, much
of which has been a profound orchestration in the last few decades to
usher in multiculturism [by diminishing euro influence and settlement
of the world]...one simple fact screams out that we should all
consider. What else would a sane person imagine would happen when a
stone age culture comes into contact with a culture on the verge of
industrialization and exploding technology?
Let's get rid of this guilt trip baggage that we seem so obsessed with
today [what...over a hundred or more years after the fact] and realize
'IT WAS IN THE CARDS' that any stone age culture was going to vanish.
Perhaps we should consider what it might have been like if Ghingas
Kahn had showed up on American shores before Europeans. Oh, and let's
keep proper perspective on this 'ennobling' thingy, and realize how
'political it really is' when you study the true harshness of the way
of life such Native American culture engendered.
Who got a hold of our education institutions...wow have they done a
number on us. They took all the white hats away from us and handed
them our competitors.
tooly
http://www.ihr.org/ www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/
http://www.natvan.com http://www.nsm88.org
http://heretical.com/ http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/
ZerkonXXXX
The #1 thing wrong with "Top 10 Worse Things About America" list is the
floating metaphor "America".
The second and most boring fault is using metaphor to establish a
construct of good/bad absolutism. So in taking issue with any point one
must defend a polar opposite.
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:25:13 -0800, Immortalist wrote:
> 1. America was founded in genocide against Native Americas.
"founded in"?
> 2. The United States is uniquely guilty for the crime of slavery.
Many people in the United States, unique in all of human history,
sacrificed themselves to end it. The civil rights movement did not start
with MLK.
> 3. The Founders intended a secular, not a Christian nation.
Not altogether true. The "founders" intended, first and foremost, a
political union between differences. Religion was one of those
differences. "Christian nation" is a modern day fantasy concept of
Christian unity. Different Christian religions went to war with one
another in those early colonial days. The 'wall of separation' was as
much a wall between Church and Church as it was State. A Church
(denomination) as state was the threat.
> 4. America has always been a multicultural society, strengthened by
> diversity.
Multiculturalism is two edged. It had and still has the benefit of
keeping a cheap labor force.
> 5. The power of Big Business hurts the country and oppresses the people.
If the word "Corporation" had been used in 1890 there would have been the
"Sherman Anti-Corporation Act". "Big Business" says nothing.
> 6. Government offers the only remedy for economic downturn and poverty.
Tax money and government is used to bail out and cover corporate crime.
Google: Pecora Commission of 1932.
>
> 7. America is an imperialist nation and a constant threat to world
> peace.
Engaging in constant war is not being a constant threat. Threat implies
action not yet taken. "Nation" is defined here by a Federal Government it
is this that actually wages wars.
> 8. The two-party system is broken and we urgently need a viable third
> party.
'Broken' means the two have become as one. A third would be a second. Why
only two?
> 9. There is a war going on against the American middle class.
This is an important modern historical document written during the heady
times of 03/06 when all was good and the economy was strong.
> 10. America is in the midst of an irreversible moral decline.
Moral ascendancy is needed for decline. Given this list, there never was
such a thing.
Les Cargill
<snip>
>> 6. Government offers the only remedy for economic downturn and
>> poverty.
>
> America is definitely a superpower on the way down. It still could be
> a very livable and vibrant country. Or it could just go straight down
> the chute like 17th century Spain.
>
> It could go either way.
>
I expect market forces will right the ship rather forcibly. May not be
all that glittery, but... "there is a lot of ruin in a nation."
>> 7. America is an imperialist nation and a constant threat to world
>> peace.
>
> America is an incompetent, unenthusiastic imperialist nation. Threats
> to world peace can come from anywhere. People are people.
>
America is basically the "stuckee" of all the failed
empires from historical accident.
>> 8. The two-party system is broken and we urgently need a viable third
>> party.
>
> It's definitely broken. We need something; I don't know what.
>
I see more and more, better and better literature and speech
which gets closer to the facts every day. There is much hope
in this. Meanwhile, the underpinnings of the kind of ...
"consumerist-propaganda" complex gets weaker and weaker.
I rather *like* the consumerist-propaganda complex; it's
merely unsustainable in its present form.
>> 9. There is a war going on against the American middle class.
>
> Only the top 2% count. The rest can go hang.
>
The rest aren't doing all that badly, by many measures. It is,
of course, complex. Modulo unreasonable expectations, it's not
that bad at all. Some people are horribly caught out, but
they were riding false trains to start with. They've been
"regressed to the mean" ( and sometimes under the mean).
The effects we now are those expected from "five year plan"-ism
in housing. The effects of the next wave will be those of "five
year plan"-ism in health care.
We'll adapt. Tim Carney's "Obamanomics" looks to be a good
start in exposing this. It's not specific to Obama per se -
Obama is simply the last keeper of it, and he probably needed a
punchy title.
>> 10. America is in the midst of an irreversible moral decline.
>
> I don't even know what a moral decline is.
>
Roughly, people accepting tissues of gross lies instead of
insisting on the truth. Part of the problem is that for
political reasons, the word "moral" has been rendered useless.
"Moral" just means "according to the mores of". The "values"
crowd, beginning (to me at least) with Wm Bennett's books
have tried to make this something it's not in the interest of
political expediency.
But mostly, it's people trying to make morality something clear,
unambiguous and ... analytic, when that really doesn't work all
that well.
>> http://www.amazon.com/Big-Lies-About-America-Destructive/dp/0307394077/
>
>
> Lisa
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
> Question: did Neanderthal man deserve to be eliminated by cro magnon
> man? Probably not [I believe most literature attributes their
> extinction at least in part to the encroachment of cro magnon into
> their territories]. But we don't judge what apparently was the
> natural sequence of events that lead us to...well... what we are
> today. My point is that I keep hearing this argument about the native
> American over and over and over ad infintum until my brain seems about
> to burst. Whatever judgments we cast upon the situation today, much
> of which has been a profound orchestration in the last few decades to
> usher in multiculturism [by diminishing euro influence and settlement
> of the world]...one simple fact screams out that we should all
> consider. What else would a sane person imagine would happen when a
> stone age culture comes into contact with a culture on the verge of
> industrialization and exploding technology?
I think it's much worse than that. If the "We Shall Remain" series is
still on PBS, its central theme is that "diversity" *failed* the
Amerind. They couldn't put a coherent defense together. Maybe thsy
couldn't have - look to King Phillip's War.
But there's this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccj2BH25c0I
On a practical basis, I think it ( particularly broken treaties )
means that yes, us Murkins have a butcher's bill due to Amerinds, but
it may not be worth it for them as individuals to demand payment (as
the tendency for reservations to be poor shows ).
> Let's get rid of this guilt trip baggage that we seem so obsessed with
> today [what...over a hundred or more years after the fact] and realize
> 'IT WAS IN THE CARDS' that any stone age culture was going to vanish.
> Perhaps we should consider what it might have been like if Ghingas
> Kahn had showed up on American shores before Europeans. Oh, and let's
> keep proper perspective on this 'ennobling' thingy, and realize how
> 'political it really is' when you study the true harshness of the way
> of life such Native American culture engendered.
> Who got a hold of our education institutions...wow have they done a
> number on us. They took all the white hats away from us and handed
> them our competitors.
>
> tooly
>
> http://www.ihr.org/ www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/
>
> http://www.natvan.com http://www.nsm88.org
>
> http://heretical.com/ http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/
--
Les Cargill
Demon Buddha
> Capitalism can turn into cannibalism when it's not restrained.
So can anything else. Capitalism *is* restrained. Speaking of
slavery, I may not legally go out and conk a bunch of people on their
heads and attempt to sell them as chattel. Doing so could be viewed as
capitalistic activity, but it is also *illegal*. Capitalism requires no
restraint other than that which applies to us all, which is to day
restraint against criminal acts. In the case of economic activity of
any form, capitalistic or otherwise, we need to be especially watchful
for fraud, theft, and extortion. If we understand these principles and
act appropriately when crimes are discovered, capitalism will have been
properly restrained.
Jerry Okamura
freedom? What country today tried to prevent government from making you
more dependent on them rather than yourself?
"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4e88e231-9477-4904...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Rockinghorse Winner
>It's always been diverse. That's true. But it has always been
>dominated by white men.
>> 5. The power of Big Business hurts the country and oppresses the
>> people.
>Capitalism can turn into cannibalism when it's not restrained.
...by morality
>> 6. Government offers the only remedy for economic downturn and
>> poverty.
>America is definitely a superpower on the way down.
You wish.
>> peace.
>America is an incompetent, unenthusiastic imperialist nation. Threats
>to world peace can come from anywhere. People are people.
Funny, we weren't imperialist when Europe had The S.U. breathing down their
necks.
>> 10. America is in the midst of an irreversible moral decline.
>I don't even know what a moral decline is.
Why am I not surprised?
--
Rockinghorse Winner
"Hug your sweetie today."
Les Cargill
> Lisa Lisa wrote:
>
>> Capitalism can turn into cannibalism when it's not restrained.
>
> So can anything else. Capitalism *is* restrained. Speaking of
> slavery, I may not legally go out and conk a bunch of people on their
> heads and attempt to sell them as chattel. Doing so could be viewed as
> capitalistic activity, but it is also *illegal*.
No, it's mercantilist/Imperialist. If Capitalism is founded on
Adam Smith ( and it is ), slavery is the exercise of extralegal
privilege. You had to have a license from some body to play in
the slave markets.
Slavery *may be worth it*, but given industrialization, it's
not.
> Capitalism requires no
> restraint other than that which applies to us all, which is to day
> restraint against criminal acts.
Uh, no. Capitalism invokes an entire body of case law that would
otherwise be the purview of The King.
> In the case of economic activity of
> any form, capitalistic or otherwise, we need to be especially watchful
> for fraud, theft, and extortion. If we understand these principles and
> act appropriately when crimes are discovered, capitalism will have been
> properly restrained.
More like The Humans have been properly constrained :)
--
Les Cargill
Me, ...again!
The answer to the cartoon below is easy to answer: All you have to do is
find out who has the largest legal compensation package and all organized
crime is basically operated as much as possible to be legal, or at least
not-illegal, or at worst, defendable with sufficient legal help (i.e.
lawyers). You guys would do well to look in any textbook on criminology. I
have many and they all have sections on corporate crime, which is
described as occupying, in terms of moneytary value, a major fraction of
all crime.
Rod Speed
> Lisa Lisa wrote:
>
>> Capitalism can turn into cannibalism when it's not restrained.
>
> So can anything else. Capitalism *is* restrained. Speaking of
> slavery, I may not legally go out and conk a bunch of people on their
> heads and attempt to sell them as chattel. Doing so could be viewed
> as capitalistic activity, but it is also *illegal*. Capitalism
> requires no restraint other than that which applies to us all, which
> is to day restraint against criminal acts.
Thats just plain wrong, most obviously with attempts at monopolys and price fixing etc.
> In the case of economic activity of any form, capitalistic or otherwise, we need to be especially watchful for fraud,
> theft, and extortion. If we understand these principles and act appropriately when crimes are discovered, capitalism
> will have been properly restrained.
Thats just plain wrong, most obviously with attempts at monopolys and price fixing etc.
Shrikeback
> The #1 thing wrong with "Top 10 Worse Things About America" list is the
> floating metaphor "America".
>
> The second and most boring fault is using metaphor to establish a
> construct of good/bad absolutism. So in taking issue with any point one
> must defend a polar opposite.
>
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:25:13 -0800, Immortalist wrote:
> > 1. America was founded in genocide against Native Americas.
>
> "founded in"?
>
> > 2. The United States is uniquely guilty for the crime of slavery.
>
> Many people in the United States, unique in all of human history,
> sacrificed themselves to end it. The civil rights movement did not start
> with MLK.
>
> > 3. The Founders intended a secular, not a Christian nation.
>
> Not altogether true. The "founders" intended, first and foremost, a
> political union between differences. Religion was one of those
> differences. "Christian nation" is a modern day fantasy concept of
> Christian unity. Different Christian religions went to war with one
> another in those early colonial days. The 'wall of separation' was as
> much a wall between Church and Church as it was State. A Church
> (denomination) as state was the threat.
What you discuss here is why the secular state won, but
it must be pointed out that there was a large contingent of
the founders who were philosophically in favor of the secular
state anyway. Bourgeois liberal freedom of conscience
being what it is. I'm just curious what Michael Medved's
take on the whole thing is in the book advertised by
Immortalist's Amazon link. I'm sure it goes something
like this: "They said gawd! Hallelujah!"
Shrikeback
> Question: did Neanderthal man deserve to be eliminated by cro magnon
> man? Probably not [I believe most literature attributes their
> extinction at least in part to the encroachment of cro magnon into
> their territories].
But the fascist Axis did deserve to be eliminated by
WW2. Face it, it's just natural selection. Perhaps
we can put all you Nazis in a reserve so you don't
go completely extinct. You think?
zzbunker
> Demon Buddha wrote:
> > Lisa Lisa wrote:
>
> >> Capitalism can turn into cannibalism when it's not restrained.
>
> > So can anything else. Capitalism *is* restrained. Speaking of
> > slavery, I may not legally go out and conk a bunch of people on their
> > heads and attempt to sell them as chattel. Doing so could be viewed as
> > capitalistic activity, but it is also *illegal*.
>
> No, it's mercantilist/Imperialist. If Capitalism is founded on
> Adam Smith ( and it is ), slavery is the exercise of extralegal
> privilege. You had to have a license from some body to play in
> the slave markets.
Well, that's also why the people with post Wall Street brains
switched over to holographics, rapid prototyping,
desktop publishing, on-line publishing, xml, Drones, UAVs,
Biodiesel, and
Post Cancun AI.
Since the only thing any of them know about mercantile exchanges
is NAFTA, rather than economics. And the only thing any of the
jerks
know about Capitalism is The CIA, rather than anything to do with
actual non NASA buisness.
Demon Buddha
> Demon Buddha wrote:
>> Lisa Lisa wrote:
>>
>>> Capitalism can turn into cannibalism when it's not restrained.
>>
>> So can anything else. Capitalism *is* restrained. Speaking of
>> slavery, I may not legally go out and conk a bunch of people on their
>> heads and attempt to sell them as chattel. Doing so could be viewed
>> as capitalistic activity, but it is also *illegal*.
>
> No, it's mercantilist/Imperialist. If Capitalism is founded on
> Adam Smith ( and it is ), slavery is the exercise of extralegal
> privilege. You had to have a license from some body to play in
> the slave markets.
I didn't say it WAS capitalistic, but could be looked at that way,
given the general level of education on such issues.
>
> Slavery *may be worth it*, but given industrialization, it's
> not.
>
>> Capitalism requires no restraint other than that which applies to us
>> all, which is to day restraint against criminal acts.
>
> Uh, no. Capitalism invokes an entire body of case law that would
> otherwise be the purview of The King.
Please elaborate.
Demon Buddha
> Demon Buddha wrote:
>> Lisa Lisa wrote:
>>
>>> Capitalism can turn into cannibalism when it's not restrained.
>> So can anything else. Capitalism *is* restrained. Speaking of
>> slavery, I may not legally go out and conk a bunch of people on their
>> heads and attempt to sell them as chattel. Doing so could be viewed
>> as capitalistic activity, but it is also *illegal*. Capitalism
>> requires no restraint other than that which applies to us all, which
>> is to day restraint against criminal acts.
>
> Thats just plain wrong, most obviously with attempts at monopolys and price fixing etc.
Price fixing is a form of extortion. It is most often accomplished via
the collusion of oligopolists who agree on pricing schemes. Since there
are effectively no alternatives for consumers, the effect is strongly
analogous to that of extortion and the more basic a commodity is, the
stronger the analog.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Demon Buddha wrote
>>> Lisa Lisa wrote
>>>> Capitalism can turn into cannibalism when it's not restrained.
>>> So can anything else. Capitalism *is* restrained. Speaking of
>>> slavery, I may not legally go out and conk a bunch of people on
>>> their heads and attempt to sell them as chattel. Doing so could be
>>> viewed as capitalistic activity, but it is also *illegal*.
>>> Capitalism requires no restraint other than that which applies to
>>> us all, which is to day restraint against criminal acts.
>> Thats just plain wrong, most obviously with attempts at monopolys and price fixing etc.
> Price fixing is a form of extortion.
Nope, most obviously with recommended retail prices etc. Its what capitalism does when its allowed to.
> It is most often accomplished via the collusion of oligopolists who agree on pricing schemes.
Wrong again. Its most often not done by oligopolists at all.
> Since there are effectively no alternatives for consumers, the effect is strongly analogous to that of extortion
Like hell it is with say the price of a copyrighted book or other media etc.
> and the more basic a commodity is, the stronger the analog.
Even sillier. Most obviously with piped water.
Les Cargill
> Les Cargill wrote:
>> Demon Buddha wrote:
>>> Lisa Lisa wrote:
>>>
>>>> Capitalism can turn into cannibalism when it's not restrained.
>>>
>>> So can anything else. Capitalism *is* restrained. Speaking of
>>> slavery, I may not legally go out and conk a bunch of people on their
>>> heads and attempt to sell them as chattel. Doing so could be viewed
>>> as capitalistic activity, but it is also *illegal*.
>>
>> No, it's mercantilist/Imperialist. If Capitalism is founded on
>> Adam Smith ( and it is ), slavery is the exercise of extralegal
>> privilege. You had to have a license from some body to play in
>> the slave markets.
>
> I didn't say it WAS capitalistic, but could be looked at that way,
> given the general level of education on such issues.
Well, sure. We can always be wrong ;)
>>
>> Slavery *may be worth it*, but given industrialization, it's
>> not.
>>
>>> Capitalism requires no restraint other than that which applies to us
>>> all, which is to day restraint against criminal acts.
>>
>> Uh, no. Capitalism invokes an entire body of case law that would
>> otherwise be the purview of The King.
>
> Please elaborate.
Roughly, the historical movement - progress, if you will - is
to move from central command and control systems - Good Queen
Bess running her privateers like spy-agents - to less central,
something more akin to mercantile traders (and beyond) .
This still requires considerable "executive branch" attention -
you needed royal patents to move certain goods.
As these things grow, you need increasingly decentralized
decision making apparatus. Some of this involves the rise of
the legal profession, some of it is the movement towards
the courts saying what the law is ( as opposed to the King
saying that ) and some *further* is the rise of corporate
counsel to have a first approximation of what is legal,
decided by agents of the companies themselves. Remember that
maritime law and civil law were somewhat distinct in British
history.
Please note that the driver for this is not the criminal
law, but contracts and torts. People write things down,
and the resulting case law becomes the authority. Policies
based on formalizing what constitutes malpractice at sea,
that sort of thing morphed slowly into contract law for
industry.
One of the Founders' reasons for wanting a government of laws
and not men was the weeks it took for simple communications
with Britain from the Colonies.
And Abraham Lincoln was a pioneering railroad lawyer -
one reason he knew what he knew as President was from
trying railroad cases. He knew the game was changing,
and that the old schisms wouldn't work any longer.
So we've grown into this. And frequently, it's simply
communications latency that drives whether or not a
given system survives.
--
Les Cargill
timadam
not guilt - responsibility
simply put, you and I have a great (prosperous) life because tens of
thousands of natives conveniently vanished
M Purcell
wrote:
Topaz would prefer more vanished. I don't know about responsibility
for a ancestor's acts but I do believe we hold the land in trust. And
hopefully we can learn from the past.
Topaz
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."
maxw...@my-deja.com
> 1. America was founded in genocide against Native Americas.
More land grab than genocide.
>
> 2. The United States is uniquely guilty for the crime of slavery.
How do you figure? This was inherited from the Eurpeans, mainly
Britain, France and Spain. Not only that but they didn't invent it,
they mostly inherited it from the Romans.
>
> 3. The Founders intended a secular, not a Christian nation.
Ok so secular is one of things you hate.You are entltled to your
opinion.
>
> 4. America has always been a multicultural society, strengthened by
> diversity.
You must be saying America as synonomous to US.
I don't see this as something to hate about the US. .
> 5. The power of Big Business hurts the country and oppresses the
> people.
I hear people in fear of big govt. and big business. This divides
people.
This is what the politicians like and it is how they can can control.
The only thing to be feared is the concentration of wealth and power
no matter if it is govt or not.
>
> 6. Government offers the only remedy for economic downturn and
> poverty.
Why is that?
>
> 7. America is an imperialist nation and a constant threat to world
> peace.
Well I think that is debatable. The US (America) has also done
a great deal to keep the peace.
> 8. The two-party system is broken and we urgently need a viable third
> party.
Agreed.
>
> 9. There is a war going on against the American middle class.
Yes there is and this is why concentrations of power, not just
govt can be a real threat.
>
> 10. America is in the midst of an irreversible moral decline.
Moral decliine prevails in places ruled by greed.
Zerkon
> What you discuss here is why the secular state won, but it must be
> pointed out that there was a large contingent of the founders who were
> philosophically in favor of the secular state anyway. Bourgeois liberal
> freedom of conscience being what it is. I'm just curious what Michael
> Medved's take on the whole thing is in the book advertised by
> Immortalist's Amazon link. I'm sure it goes something like this: "They
> said gawd! Hallelujah!"
The secular state sort of won. Aside from raw political pragmatics,
philosophically it seems that human reason and laws designed by only it
was the basis and intention. Human reason as envisioned by the European
Humanist tradition. How this is a lie defies basic history as far as I
can see.
Medved is just another commercial media maven to me. I personally find
little to no value in what they get paid to say and pretend to think.
Michael Ejercito
God?
The Easter Bunny?
Michael
Michael Ejercito
kiddie porn studios.
Michael
M Purcell
> Topaz and his ilk control nothing except a handful of meth labs and
> kiddie porn studios.
I suppose there's money to be made in that and advocating population
reduction is understandable but Topaz hasn't told me if he has been
sterilized yet.
Speaking of kiddie porn:
Our laws seem a little short-sighted.
Topaz
Here is part of a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, delivered in
Nuernberg on September 13th, 1935 at the Seventh National-Socialist
Party Congress:
"Almost without exception, the intellectual leaders of Marxist atheism
in Germany were Jews, among them being Erich Weinert, Felix Abraham,
Dr. Levy-Lenz and others. At regular meetings, held in the presence of
a notary public, members were requested to register their declaration
of withdrawal from their church for a fee of 2 Marks. And this the
fight for atheism was carried on. Between 1918 and 1933 the
withdrawals from the German Evangelical Churches alone amounted to
two-and-a-half million persons in Germany. The programme which these
atheistic societies laid down in regard to sexual matters is amply
charcterized in the following demands publicly expressed at meetings
and distributed in leaflet form:
1) The complete abrogation of the paragraphs of the law dealing with
the crime of abortion, and the right to have abortion procured free of
charge in State Hospitals.
2) Non-interference with prostitution.
3) The abrogation of all bourgeois-capitalistic regulations in regard
to marriage and divorce.
4) Official registration to be optional and the children to be
educated by the community.
5) Abrogation of all penalties for sexual perversities and amnesty to
be granted to all persons condemned as 'sexual criminals'.
"Truly a case of methodical insanity, which has for its aim the
wilful destruction of the nations and their civilization and the
substitute of barbarism as a fundamental principle of public life.
"Where are the men behind the scenes of this virulent world
movement? Who are the inventors of all this madness? Who transplanted
this ensemble into Russia and is today making the attempt to have it
prevail in other countries? The answer to these question discloses the
actual secret of our anti-Jewish policy and our uncomromising fight
against Jewry; for the Bolshevic International is in reality nothing
less than a Jewish International."
Topaz
Here are quotes from a speech delivered by Dr. Joseph Goebbels
at the National Socialist Party Congress, Nuernberg, 1937.
"'Spain represents the world at the cross-roads.' Thus wrote
the Bolshevic press organ, Die Rundschau, in its issue dated July 22,
1937. That one sentance precisely defines the international
significance of the Spanish problem. It states exactly what the
Spanish problem is. Here the final decision must lie either with
Bolshevism or the principle of Authority. On the one side stands
ruinous anarchy and, on the other, orderly constructive development."
"Nations which in recent years have kept their eyes closed to
the startling growth of the international Bolshevic menace will one
day experience a terrible awakening from this moral narcosis. The fact
that we, German National Socialists, as conscious and uncompromising
protaganists against the Bolshevic world-front, are still condemned to
play the part of a preacher in the wilderness, calling out to deaf
ears--this cannot prevent us from seeing things as they are and
calling them by their right names. For if the constantly increasing
extension of this Bolshevic infection in Europe should cause still
greater disaster, then future historians will be in a position to
record the fact that we, German National Socialists, were not among
those who allowed themselves to be led astray in the universal chaos
of thought and mental fog purposely created as a sort of smoke-screen
by an insidious epidemic of political propaganda. Nothing could make
us deviate in the least from the straight road we have taken.
"From the very nature of the case it is obvious that the
subversive forces of International Jewry will raise a tumult of rage
when we clearly and dispassionately lay bare the background of this
revolutionary developement which is extending through the world. For,
after all, they are the only people who are drawing profit forn the
chaotic ruin which Bolshevism is bringing upon mankind. That on this
account they will swamp us with a torrrent of abuse and lies and
calumnies is only an honour for us and a further proof that we are
right in warning Europe against this peril."
"The fight which General Franco is waging, with the support of all
the constructive elements, against the Bolshevic menace to his native
land is at the same time a fight for civilization."
"The Moscow Comintern never tires of impressing on public
opinion thoughout the world the theory that the national movement,
which on July 17, 1936, intervened in the seething developements in
Spain, was a military rising oragnised by reactionary generals and
that this rising was definately repudiated by the Spanish people. The
truth however is that this national movement was in reality an act of
self-defence on the part of the people, against the revolt which had
been planned by the Spanish Communist Party for that time and was
subsequently postponed to August 1936. This communist revolt had been
planned in Moscow several years previously, organized from Moscow and
directed from Moscow, and is still being carried out in practice from
Moscow today."
"In 1935 the annual funds which Moscow contributed for the
support of the Communist Party in Spain totalled several million
pesetas, of which two millions were officially acknowledged as having
been paid by the Comintern itself. At the 7th World Congress of the
Comintern in Moscow, in 1935, Dimitroff gave instructions for the
formation of a Front Populaire in Spain. Between February 16 and April
19,1936, 140 people were murdered by gangs of red revolutionaries, and
529 buildings were burned down and destroyed before the Bolshevic
Revolution officially broke out."
"We can account for this baffling style of mutual admiration
between Bolshevism and Western Liberalist Intellectualism only if we
assume it to be some form of mental disease."
"During February and March 101 Russian Soviet aeroplanes were shipped
from Reval to Spain. And on March 1st, 50 heavy guns from Soviet
Russia were brought overland to Almansa. Recently one single large
consignment of was material from Soviet Russia to the Reds in Spain
included 100 heavy tanks, 500 medium-sized tanks, 2000 light tanks,
4000 heavy machine guns, 6000 light machine guns and 300 aeroplanes,
with their pilots."
"I shall now deal with some instances which will help to give an
idea of the extent to which World Liberalism goes in its moral support
of the Reds in Spain. I have already emphasized the fact that the
marriage between Bolshevism and Democracy presents some uncanny
features; indeed one might call them downright perverse. In the
historical developement of its activities Democracy has more and more
become the political facade of World Capitalism. Bolshevism now
carries the democratic principle to its ultimate logical application.
We may call it the Democracy of Terror. It increases the pace of that
sanguinary and pitiless developement of which Liberalism had already
mapped out the path. I might illustrate this point by a rather drastic
comparison. In democracy leading heads were out-voted by the counting
of heads. In Bolshevism the same result is obtained by chopping off
heads with the guillotine. The result in both cases is the same. The
heads are wanting. The masses are robbed of their natural leaders and
left prey to international Jews, who are now free to exercise their
dictatorship by the employment of terrorization and money."
"Pleasing catchwords were used to win the favour of the
workers but when the communist leaders came into power social terror
became the rule of the day. Among the workers and peasant classes
hunger prevailed, as symbol and sign of the Bolshevic rule."
"In keeping with the Soviet Russian pettern, family life and
the instituton of marriage are being ruined by this world plague.
Degradation of married women, the socialization of women, the
martyrdom of children--these are the principles which are in vogue
here."
"According to the 'Daily Mail' of August 22, 1936, Twenty-eight
nuns from the convent of Santa Clara "were subjected to inconceivable
tortures by relays of red maniacs."
"But Bolshevism in practice is nothing better than the most
frightful find of barbarism. It is the outward expression of the
hatred of the underworld agianst all those who are representative of
Western civilization and a cultural level to which Bolshevism can
never hope to attain."
"Among the 20,000 churches and monasteries which the Reds have
plundered and destroyed many were of historical and architectual
significance which cannot be replaced."
"But the churches of the world remain passive to it all and do not
seem to have the least suspicion as to the deadly menace that
threatens them. This is where Bolshevism shows itself again as the
incarnation of evil. Its destructive influence on the popular
religious instinct goes to the very roots of that instinct itself. And
this ruthless atheistic campaign spares nothing whatsoever which might
serve to remind the people of God and religion. The one fact alone
that the Fuerer has saved the German churches from this fate should be
enough to make them feel bound to remain eternally thankful to him.
But instead of this they never tire of going beyond the sphere of
their religious duties, interfering in political matters and making
their influence felt in a way that has no connection whatsoever with
their duties or their divine calling."
"According to indisputable figures based exclusively on
Bolshevic statistics, 42,000 priests have been murdered in Russia. Up
to February 2,1937, approximately 17,000 priests and monks and eleven
bishops were murdered in Spain."
"A Swedish refugee stated, on November 10, 1936: 'I have seen
churches on the walls of which the murdered bodies of women were hung,
nuns that had been beheaded or burned and whose bodies had been nailed
in rows to the church walls."
"The Strassburg paper, 'Der Elsasser', in its issue of
February 27, 1937 published the staggering fact that '50,000 Spanish
children are at the present moment wandering through Spanish
provinces, abandoned and in rags. All public activities for the
welfare of the youth have been abolished. And so the youngsters, very
often no more than four or five years old, are left no alternative.
They stagger along the road in swarms, shivering with cold and are
nothing more than wandering skeletons.'"
"One shudders to think what might happen to humanity if this
system became universal throughout the world."
"Bolshevism and its 'friendly press' throughout the world lose no
opportunity of pointing an accusing finger at the alleged use of
terror in countries which are governed according to the principles of
authority. The whole world gives a cry of agonizing sympathy when, for
example, a Jew in Germany receives a well-earned box on the ears. But
what is this when compared with the terror that disrupts whole
nations"
"Lenin himself, when asked at the 12th Congress of the Red Party,
what were the principles on which Communism relied, answered: 'Murder,
destruction, not a stone to be left in place if its removal should be
to the advantage of the Revolution.'"
"The Jewish Soviet Ambassador in London finds it convenient to
express his moral indignation before the Non-Intervention Committee in
London. The world and the League of Nations are hypocritically
appealed to. Before these tribunals the Jew Litwinow-Finkelstein plays
the part of the civilised philistine and fills Europe with cries of
protest."
"The Intenational Brigades which are sent into action on the Red
Spanish front are commanded by Soviet officers. Their commander was
the Jew, General Kleber."
"We shall not be deterred from pointing to the Jew as the inspirer,
the instigator and the beneficiary of the dreadful catastrophe."
"At Barcelona he sits, in the person of Wladimer Bischitzki as
director of the international oragnization for the smuggling of arms
and munitions, comrades Lurje and Fuchs, of his own racial breed,
sitting by his side. His Paris agents are his racial compatriots,
Fratkin, Rosenfeld and Schapiro. At Hirtenberg in Austria their
collaborator is the Jew, Mandl. In Amsterdam the Jew, Wolf. In
Rotteerdam the Jews, Cohen, Gruenfeld, Kirsch, and Simon. In Denmark
the Jew, Moses Israel Diamant. In Prague the Jews, Kindler, Kahn,
Abter and Hithner. We know them all and we know them well."
"The fact that Western Liberalism closes its eyes to this evil
portent is only a sign of its almost childish naivety."
"A struggle for native land and liberty, for honour and family
and God and religion, for wife and child, for school and upbringing,
for order, moral principle, culture and civilization, for our lives
and our daily bread , has begun. In Germany it has already been
brought to a triumphant issue."
Michael Ejercito
> On Dec 22, 7:23 am, Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Topaz and his ilk control nothing except a handful of meth labs and
> > kiddie porn studios.
>
> I suppose there's money to be made in that and advocating population
> reduction is understandable but Topaz hasn't told me if he has been
> sterilized yet.
> Speaking of kiddie porn:
>
>
> Our laws seem a little short-sighted.
Michael
M Purcell
Yeah, she was a little short-sighted too. But I'm not sure how
imprisonment solves the problem and this example gives a reason why it
continues.
Michael Ejercito
> On Dec 22, 4:07 pm,Michael Ejercito<mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 22, 8:03 am, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:> On Dec 22, 7:23 am,Michael Ejercito<mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Topaz and his ilk control nothing except a handful of meth labs and
> > > > kiddie porn studios.
>
> > > I suppose there's money to be made in that and advocating population
> > > reduction is understandable but Topaz hasn't told me if he has been
> > > sterilized yet.
> > > Speaking of kiddie porn:
>
> > >http://www.detnews.com/article/20091221/METRO01/912210349/Kari-Norman...
>
> > > Our laws seem a little short-sighted.
>
> > She married him only two weeks after meeting him?
>
> Yeah, she was a little short-sighted too. But I'm not sure how
> imprisonment solves the problem and this example gives a reason why it
> continues.
And it can last a VERY long time. Web servers in Russia are used to
storing kiddie porn as much as they are used for hosting fraud web
sites.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
> Here is part of a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, delivered in
> Nuernberg on September 13th, 1935 at the Seventh National-Socialist
> Party Congress:
>
Michael
M Purcell
I wouldn't know about that, my Russian (по-русски) is very rusty. I
suppose it is the demand for child porn that allows it to continue but
legal actions that harm witnesses don't help.