calling all Yank National Capitalists
BIG 0NE
is Mcarthy still riding up over your shoulders or something? Why do you
(plural and general) consistantly have such a problem with these
ideologies - to the extent that they seem to be used as petty insults -
I don't personally support any of them but rather view them as
legitimate and meaningfull political perspectives. Don't you realise
that your country came to within an inch of destroying life on this
planet through such narrow minded indoctrinated biggotry - or would that
be seen as another triumph over those pinkos.
--
јЄ КА`АКЄј,ИИИ,јЄКА`АКЄј,ИИИ,јЄ КА`АКЄј,ИИИ,јЄКА`АКЄј,ИИИ,јЄКАј
'I'm Sparticus' the thorn in the side of the emperor
Alan R.
BIG 0NE <tr...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:89i8dq$ln5$3...@apple.news.easynet.net...
> What is it about you yanks and communism/socialism/leftism etc.....
> is Mcarthy still riding up over your shoulders or something? Why do you
> (plural and general) consistantly have such a problem with these
> ideologies - to the extent that they seem to be used as petty insults -
> I don't personally support any of them but rather view them as
> legitimate and meaningfull political perspectives. Don't you realise
> that your country came to within an inch of destroying life on this
> planet through such narrow minded indoctrinated biggotry - or would that
> be seen as another triumph over those pinkos.
to answer your concerns, but, first, I have no idea what you are talking
about on our "coming within an inch of destroying life on this planet"; did
I sleep through something?
On the main point, yes, Americans are hard on anything socialistic. From my
contacts with people from your Commonwealth, (is that still a valid term,
oh, you conquerors of peoples and natural resources?), I would say that we
are in much bettter shape from the old-school liberal viewpoint, than is,
say, England.
My impression is that you have created so many laws that the legal
infrastructure is just about unbearable for anyone who expects to enjoy a
little freedom. For me, this is comparable to living in California; I stayed
there just one year--had to get out--everything is regulated!
The assumption that there is a right way and a wrong way would have made
Steinbeck puke. Since he is generally considered to be left-leaning, we have
a total contradiction--the merging of "Good and Evil" as "just whatever that
people do," does not seem consistent with the limitations placed by
unnecessary laws. But, maybe, there are too many followers of Steinbeck who
accept no laws whatsoever.
So, either the definition of left has changed since the days of the
extension of empowerment through "guaranteed" Civil Rights, or we have
something else working here--and I am happy to be living in the Heartland
now, away from the fray of 'can we force you to do the "right thing"' that
calls itself the liberal government of the State of California.
The "something else" is certainly not conservatism; Indiana is much more
conservative than California. What I think is working in California (and in
England, but, for contrast, not in Australia), is a strange balance between
the fear of total "anything goes," which is a distinct threat in California
(but not in Indiana, where social pressures keep people in line, not through
institutionalization in law), and, on the other hand the justifiable feeling
that some will fall behind without help in this complicated, computer-driven
world.
I'm afraid you Brits. have lost it, though. I studied Common Law versus the
Napoleanic Code at one point and could see elements that dictated the
mini-revolutions that the French go through every 5 years or so. Basically,
when all is institutionalized, particularly if the formal realm is given too
much weight, the tension creates the need for rapid change to stack up, as
if behind a dam. Eventually, the weight of the water forces a hole in the
dam.
England used to be exempt from such pressures; simply put, because of the
reliance of empirical (or Common) law. You've gone in the other direction
from I've seen lately, and everyone is reliant on the state because of the
fear of missing out on somoething free or of breaking the law
unintentionally. (There are so many in California that one is sure to do
something wrong, sooner or later. I've never lived anywhere else where so
many were turned into white-collar criminals, just to do the normal business
of the day.)
This has nothing to do with left or right, except that the right is more
sensitive to freedom issues here, than the left--this is that
incomprehensible switch from the early '60's. I believe (without proof) that
the Civil Rights movement has run amuck in the power politics of total
pragmatism. Realpolitik takes over whenever there is no agreement as to
basic issues of right and wrong. There's much gray, but the truths of
self-reliance (a la Emerson) and of individuality can never change--they can
only be repressed, and a few extra laws can only turn this life into a Hell
for anyone who remembers freedom.
From Ventura's statement of beliefs:
"Government doesn't exist to sustain itself on policies and programs that no
longer serve the people. No duplication, no dabbling, no pork or fat. For
government to serve the people of our State, it needs to be accountable,
responsible and limited; it does not need to be bigger. "That's how we've
always done it..." don't cut it. Government should reward creativity,
efficiency and productivity -- and create an environment that fosters all of
the above. It should encourage competition. It should leave tax and
spending decisions to the people- no unfunded mandates. Personal freedoms
must remain untouched. There is a place for whizbang thinking about state
government."
Maybe his grammar ain't right, but, damn, he's right on!
Alan Roth
James A. Donald
> > Don't you realise
> > that your country came to within an inch of destroying life on this
> > planet through such narrow minded indoctrinated biggotry - or would that
> > be seen as another triumph over those pinkos.
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 08:50:11 -0500, "Alan R." <Al...@fwi.com> wrote:
> I have no idea what you are talking
> about on our "coming within an inch of destroying life on this planet"; did
> I sleep through something?
I believe that BIG ONE is referring to the nuclear umbrella, to the
fact that the US used to station nuclear weapons in Europe, thereby
ensuring that any attempt by the Russians to extends the blessing of
their wonderful political system to Europe would probably escalate all
the way to the battle of Armaggedon. ;-)
If the US had refrained from doing this, we would all now be enjoying
the blessings of a world united under a single government, a
government located in Moscow. ;-)
------
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/jamesd/ James A. Donald
Al Montestruc
"BIG 0NE"
<tr...@NOSPAMIAMAVEGANANDDONOTEATTINNEDFOODSukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> What is it about you yanks and communism/socialism/leftism etc.....
> is Mcarthy still riding up over your shoulders or something? Why do
you
> (plural and general) consistantly have such a problem with these
> ideologies
Because they are based upon the ideals of slavery of the individual to
somebody else. The somebody else varies between flavors of left wing
types, but the basic idea goes like this:
Anyone with more than "X" amount of money/capital/land is guilty of
the "theft" of the property he claims until he is proven innocent. If
he is proven innocent, even then other "right thinking" people have
the "right" to take his property and use it to buy toys and ply their
mistresses with goodies while claiming it is spent for the "poor".
Yes sometimes they do give it to the poor. So what? It wasn’t theirs
to give.
The amount X is of course undefined and left up to the individual
leftist to decide how much it is in each specific case. In practice,
if full blown Marxist societies, this means party members can
declare anyone a Capitalist/thief, and confiscate his labor.
That is slavery.
Take an extreme example: Mr. Gates. I will acknowledge that it is
possible that some or all of his wealth is stolen in a meaningful sense
of the word (as in he took the technologies that form the basis of his
wealth without the consent of the rightful owners), but I hold that to
confiscate his property you must meet the same burden of proof that you
would for anyone in any case of theft. Simply that he has the property
is not proof.
Please don't give me that tired old saw about wage slavery. It is not
slavery. The "wage slave" is free to walk away from the job at any
time, and no one owes anyone a living for free.
>- to the extent that they seem to be used as petty insults -
> I don't personally support any of them but rather view them as
> legitimate and meaningfull political perspectives. Don't you realise
> that your country came to within an inch of destroying life on this
> planet through such narrow minded indoctrinated biggotry - or would
>that be seen as another triumph over those pinkos.
I don't think so. To which specific incident do you refer.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
BIG 0NE
James A. Donald wrote in message
<38c04e22...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
|BIG 0NE <tr...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote
|> > Don't you realise
|> > that your country came to within an inch of destroying life on
this
|> > planet through such narrow minded indoctrinated biggotry - or would
that
|> > be seen as another triumph over those pinkos.
|
|> about on our "coming within an inch of destroying life on this
planet"; did
|> I sleep through something?
|
|I believe that BIG ONE is referring to the nuclear umbrella, to the
|fact that the US used to station nuclear weapons in Europe, thereby
|ensuring that any attempt by the Russians to extends the blessing of
|their wonderful political system to Europe would probably escalate all
|the way to the battle of Armaggedon. ;-)
|
The point is correctly made- and in doing so the yanks ensured that any
attempt to limit the extent 'of their wonderful political system ...
would probably escalate all the way to the battle' which yanks hung up
on eschatological shit are constantly attempting to promote, inflame,
navigate and ignite. Fortunately for the planet most countries including
the the USSR weren't controlled by such religous zealots and psychopaths
looking to kill us all in the name of their solar deity. However,
unfortunately you're cuntree still is - look how easily James A. Donald
fits in the terms specific to this outlook in his above comment - and
even polishes it off with a little winking smile. I'm not stating that
he (personally) has any intrest in the New test-mant, but as a yank
nationalist how could he not be influenced by those who have?
|If the US had refrained from doing this, we would all now be enjoying
|the blessings of a world united under a single government, a
|government located in Moscow. ;-)
|
If I were a rat I would rather be quickly killed by the dog than played
with/tortured by the cat- I would rather hear the wolf in the distance,
knowing that I was on the menu than be slowly eaten from inside by
paracites. But I'm not a rat and so would even choose the face of Stalin
on the wall rather than Cindy Crawford. I would know that Jo himself was
out to get me, as it is I'm pretty sure Cindy C. isn't 8¬( and has no
intrest in my conduct - unlike the faceless bounty hunters she (and
those like her) front for. A concrete ideology - even if flawed and
flexible in it's implementation is preferable to the 100% devious self
seeking intrests of yank national capitalists.
'I'M SPARTICUS'
BIG 0NE
Al Montestruc wrote in message <89jqgn$314$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
|In article <89i8dq$ln5$3...@apple.news.easynet.net>,
| "BIG 0NE"
|<tr...@NOSPAMIAMAVEGANANDDONOTEATTINNEDFOODSukonline.co.uk> wrote:
|> What is it about you yanks and communism/socialism/leftism etc.....
|> is Mcarthy still riding up over your shoulders or something? Why do
|you
|> (plural and general) consistantly have such a problem with these
|> ideologies
|
|Because they are based upon the ideals of slavery of the individual to
|somebody else. The somebody else varies between flavors of left wing
|types, but the basic idea goes like this:
|
|Anyone with more than "X" amount of money/capital/land is guilty of
|the "theft" of the property he claims until he is proven innocent. If
|he is proven innocent, even then other "right thinking" people have
|the "right" to take his property and use it to buy toys and ply their
|mistresses with goodies while claiming it is spent for the "poor".
|Yes sometimes they do give it to the poor. So what? It wasn’t theirs
|to give.
whose was it - surely not the slave master capitalists ?
|
|The amount X is of course undefined and left up to the individual
|leftist to decide how much it is in each specific case. In practice,
|if full blown Marxist societies, this means party members can
|declare anyone a Capitalist/thief, and confiscate his labor.
|
|That is slavery.
it is not good - but if done with the intent of assisting the common
good - surely it is preferable to the more selfish forms of slavery
indulged in by the privailaged classes i.e. wages
|Take an extreme example: Mr. Gates. I will acknowledge that it is
|possible that some or all of his wealth is stolen in a meaningful sense
|of the word (as in he took the technologies that form the basis of his
|wealth without the consent of the rightful owners), but I hold that to
|confiscate his property you must meet the same burden of proof that you
|would for anyone in any case of theft. Simply that he has the property
|is not proof.
How much money/power/greed has he got- is a technological or economic
despotism better than any other form? Why can you defend someone who
hoards in such measures when there are those (maybe not on your or my
doorstep ~ but still) who have no access to shelter or food?
|Please don't give me that tired old saw about wage slavery. It is not
|slavery. The "wage slave" is free to walk away from the job at any
|time, and no one owes anyone a living for free.
|
Ok I won't but I will quote you a line from a song by the band
Crass' -8¬)
'do they owe us a living? - ofcourse they fuckin' do.'
|
|>- to the extent that they seem to be used as petty insults -
|> I don't personally support any of them but rather view them as
|> legitimate and meaningfull political perspectives. Don't you realise
|> that your country came to within an inch of destroying life on this
|> planet through such narrow minded indoctrinated biggotry - or would
|>that be seen as another triumph over those pinkos.
|
|I don't think so. To which specific incident do you refer.
I'm not referring to a specific incident - but if you're sences are so
deadened by constant exposure to the same bigotry that you fail to even
see it - I would hope that you give yourself a good shake.
'I'M SPARTICUS'
Alan R.
BIG 0NE ..
[...]
..would
> that
> |> > be seen as another triumph over those pinkos.
> |
> |> about on our "coming within an inch of destroying life on this
> planet"; did
> |> I sleep through something?
> |
I am old enough to remember crawling under desks and weekly tests of the
air-raid sirens. That you could construe the protection of freedom as an
attempt to destroy "life on this planet" goes beyond belief. We made some
mistakes towards the middle of the Cold War in getting involved in France's
Dreck in SE Asia, but the early part of the Cold War was inevitable. Stalin
was insane--or didn't you notice?
> |I believe that BIG ONE is referring to the nuclear umbrella, to the
> |fact that the US used to station nuclear weapons in Europe, thereby
> |ensuring that any attempt by the Russians to extends the blessing of
> |their wonderful political system to Europe would probably escalate all
> |the way to the battle of Armaggedon. ;-)
Live free or die! (I do believe this had something to do with what we call
the Revolution here--what do the Brits. call it?, the Tea Party gone wild?)
> The point is correctly made- and in doing so the yanks ensured that any
> attempt to limit the extent 'of their wonderful political system ...
> would probably escalate all the way to the battle' which yanks hung up
> on eschatological shit are constantly attempting to promote, inflame,
> navigate and ignite.
Not a valid assessment. 'isms are eschatological shit, not basic freedoms.
We are not particularly 'ismic, doctrinnaire, or hung up on the imminent
resurrection of Christ, (except in some rural parts of Texas). Our
"wonderful political system" has withstood the test of time--of course, I
won't go on here because I'd hate to pull down the image of the Royal
family. Do you have a Congress yet? Is knighthood possible for someone of
foreign birth? I suppose we should have stayed in the Commonwealth. But we
have enough bureaucracy of our own to pay for, thank you very much.
Fortunately for the planet most countries including
> the the USSR weren't controlled by such religous zealots and psychopaths
Ah, the truth will out--you are anti-religious in a zealous fashion, now I
get it.
> looking to kill us all in the name of their solar deity.
Don't make fun of the Sun--she can be a real bitch on a cloudless day.
..However,
> unfortunately you're cuntree still is - look how easily James A. Donald
> fits in the terms specific to this outlook in his above comment - and
> even polishes it off with a little winking smile. I'm not stating that
> he (personally) has any intrest in the New test-mant, but as a yank
> nationalist how could he not be influenced by those who have?
Is there anything wrong with God that you would like to clue us in on?
> |If the US had refrained from doing this, we would all now be enjoying
> |the blessings of a world united under a single government, a
> |government located in Moscow. ;-)
> |
> If I were a rat I would rather be quickly killed by the dog than played
> with/tortured by the cat- I would rather hear the wolf in the distance,
> knowing that I was on the menu than be slowly eaten from inside by
> paracites. But I'm not a rat and so would even choose the face of Stalin
> on the wall rather than Cindy Crawford.
Couldn't we make it Heather Locklear? Then, I would be absolutely sure that
you got something backwards.
..I would know that Jo himself was
> out to get me, as it is I'm pretty sure Cindy C. isn't 8¬( and has no
> intrest in my conduct - unlike the faceless bounty hunters she (and
> those like her) front for.
Huh? Once again I am clueless--is this part of the Cold War I slept through
too? What is she fronting for--Lipton's Noodle Soup? There's a joke there
if you are at all visual.
..A concrete ideology
Absolute self-contradiction. Ideology cannot be concrete or there would be
no dispute over it. F=ma is an abstraction of concrete observations. It
always works (except in relativistic equations where it can be corrected).
Religion is "above this sceptered sway. It is an attribute unto God Himself.
And earthly power doth then show likest God's when..seasons justice"..this
is not Shakespeare's ideology--it is fact.
- even if flawed and
> flexible in it's implementation is preferable to the 100% devious self
> seeking intrests of yank national capitalists.
Ultimately, ideology with no spirituality is scientific materialism, the
basis of Marxism. We don't need any more science here, not of the political
variety--politics can be "oh" so self-serving. God save us from the
pragmatism of Communism and from the hard-headedness of intellectual
masturbations called "..ism".
> 'I'M SPARTICUS'
Hmm, Sparticusism.
Alan Roth-ist
and Himself
Alan R.
BIG 0NE
<tr...@TOMAKETHEukABETTERPLACETOLIVE.BUTDON'TBOTHERWITHSPAMIAMAVEGANANDDONOT
EATTINNEDFOODSonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:89k62c$49u$2...@apple.news.easynet.net...
>
> Al Montestruc wrote in message <89jqgn$314$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> |In article <89i8dq$ln5$3...@apple.news.easynet.net>,
> | "BIG 0NE"
> |<tr...@NOSPAMIAMAVEGANANDDONOTEATTINNEDFOODSukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> |> What is it about you yanks and communism/socialism/leftism etc.....
> |> is Mcarthy still riding up over your shoulders or something? Why do
> |Anyone with more than "X" amount of money/capital/land is guilty of
> |the "theft" of the property he claims until he is proven innocent
> |Yes sometimes they do give it to the poor. So what? It wasn't theirs
> |to give.
>
> whose was it - surely not the slave master capitalists ?
would be no wealth to distribute. That, in fact, the argument can be made
that the ability to lead, organize, and persevere in developing a business,
should not go unrewarded is obvious except to a Crimean ant. (I do assume
there are insects in the Crimea; although I am without an ideology to
support that belief.)
Whether the ability to rule the world should be tied into the absolute
victory imposed by Gates and others, is a different story. Inheritance laws
were set up to avoid the more nasty consequences of power that becomes
centralized through wealth--hence, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford
Foundation, etc.
But we have not yet 'advanced' to the state where the legal and
market-driven activities of an entrepreneur, can put him/her into jail. We
may not like the consequences of such centralizations of power, but it is
only the abuses that can be prosecuted, not the imminent, contingent, or
vaguely-perceived, threats that one might attribute to the power that is
involved. Big may not be beautiful, but that doesn't mean you can shoot it
if it moves.
If there comes a time when property can be estranged because of suspicion of
possible abuse, then, I will willingly move to Moscow. I like cold weather
and there would be no difference between the U.S. and the former Soviet
Union, (present Republics excluded of course).
> |
> |The amount X is of course undefined and left up to the individual
> |leftist to decide how much it is in each specific case. In practice,
> |if full blown Marxist societies, this means party members can
> |declare anyone a Capitalist/thief, and confiscate his labor.
> |
> |That is slavery.
>
> it is not good - but if done with the intent of assisting the common
> good - surely it is preferable to the more selfish forms of slavery
> indulged in by the privailaged classes i.e. wages
Honor amongst theives? I've never seen it. How does it work after the big
guy has gone under.
There is slavery, it's not in the wages..it's in the relationship of power
to person. Don't blame the gun for going off..look at who's standing behind
it.
> |Take an extreme example: Mr. Gates. I will acknowledge that it is
> |possible that some or all of his wealth is stolen in a meaningful sense
> |of the word (as in he took the technologies that form the basis of his
> |wealth without the consent of the rightful owners), but I hold that to
> |confiscate his property you must meet the same burden of proof that you
> |would for anyone in any case of theft. Simply that he has the property
> |is not proof.
>
> How much money/power/greed has he got- is a technological or economic
> despotism better than any other form? Why can you defend someone who
> hoards in such measures when there are those (maybe not on your or my
> doorstep ~ but still) who have no access to shelter or food?
Ah, he who hath not sinned, shall cast the first stone.
> |Please don't give me that tired old saw about wage slavery. It is not
> |slavery. The "wage slave" is free to walk away from the job at any
> |time, and no one owes anyone a living for free.
Not in an efficient and perfect market. Highest and best use of personnel
shall obtain at all times. The market shall rule?? Of course, the market has
no brain; or does it?
>
> Ok I won't but I will quote you a line from a song by the band
> Crass' -8¬)
>
> 'do they owe us a living? - ofcourse they fuckin' do.'
Does society owe you the "right to work;" of course it does. Is Bill Gates
society? No, but what percentage of his wealth goes into lobbying? I don't
know, but one has to find out how power is actually used, not what anyone is
owed. In the natural state, no one owes anyone else a damned thing except
the right to get out of my way.
> |
> |>- to the extent that they seem to be used as petty insults -
> |> I don't personally support any of them but rather view them as
> |> legitimate and meaningfull political perspectives. Don't you realise
> |> that your country came to within an inch of destroying life on this
> |> planet through such narrow minded indoctrinated biggotry - or would
> |>that be seen as another triumph over those pinkos.
> |
> |I don't think so. To which specific incident do you refer.
His anti-Royal, anti-Majesty seems to think that speaking Russian is better
than speaking English if push comes to shove.
> I'm not referring to a specific incident - but if you're sences are so
> deadened by constant exposure to the same bigotry that you fail to even
> see it - I would hope that you give yourself a good shake.
The Shakers died out because of lack of sexual contact. Another ..ism bites
the dust--so much the better.
> 'I'M SPARTICUS'
>
>
BIG 0NE
holding on to my bollokz for fear they will drop off at the hillarity of
your stupid christian shit)
YOU ARE A CRANK AND A YANK
what are you doing posting on ALT.ANARCHY go back to church or join the
police/army - but please don't pretend to have any @ in your blood-
P.s. whats you'r idea of freedom - a pension?<lol>
--
јЄ КА`АКЄј,ИИИ,јЄКА`АКЄј,ИИИ,јЄКАјЄ КА`АКЄј,ИИИ,јЄКА`АКЄј,ИИИ,јЄКАј
'I'M SPARTICUS' - think about it stupid-
Alan R. wrote in message ...
|
|BIG 0NE ..
|[...]
|..would
|> that
|> |> > be seen as another triumph over those pinkos.
|> |
|> |On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 08:50:11 -0500, "Alan R." <Al...@fwi.com> wrote:
|> |> I have no idea what you are talking
|> |> about on our "coming within an inch of destroying life on this
|> planet"; did
|> |> I sleep through something?
|> |
|> out to get me, as it is I'm pretty sure Cindy C. isn't 8Ќ( and has no
BIG 0NE
Alan R. wrote in message ...
|
|BIG 0NE
DONOT
|EATTINNEDFOODSonline.co.uk> wrote in message
|news:89k62c$49u$2...@apple.news.easynet.net...
|>
|> Al Montestruc wrote in message <89jqgn$314$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
|> |In article <89i8dq$ln5$3...@apple.news.easynet.net>,
|> | "BIG 0NE"
|> |<tr...@NOSPAMIAMAVEGANANDDONOTEATTINNEDFOODSukonline.co.uk> wrote:
|> whose was it - surely not the slave master capitalists ?
|The usual argument here is that without the "robber baron" types, there
|would be no wealth to distribute. That, in fact, the argument can be
made
|that the ability to lead, organize, and persevere in developing a
business,
|should not go unrewarded is obvious except to a Crimean ant. (I do
assume
|there are insects in the Crimea; although I am without an ideology to
|support that belief.)
|
|Whether the ability to rule the world should be tied into the absolute
|victory imposed by Gates and others, is a different story. Inheritance
laws
|were set up to avoid the more nasty consequences of power that becomes
|centralized through wealth--hence, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford
|Foundation, etc.
When I summonsed you yank national socialists /I mean capitalists - I
was interested to see how many of you would turn up - this thread isn't
crossed to other ng's - so I can only assume you all feel an 'interest'
in anarchy - but I really fail to see how a belief in / approval of
despotism is in any way relevant - aren't you way off topic - why don't
you go back to alt.apple.pie - and the rewards you mention - I assume
you can only percieve a reward in terms of $ and ability - well only a
yank could possibly be 'the king' or bill gates - who else exists to
rule the world but yanks. And what about this 'wealth to distribute' - I
suppose that is all measurable in terms of $$$ as well - sorry to rain
on your parade boyo but there's a more genuine and natural solution to
this it's called leave your imperialist baggage at the door if you want
to discuss anarchy.
|
|But we have not yet 'advanced' to the state where the legal and
|market-driven activities of an entrepreneur, can put him/her into jail.
more the pity
|We may not like the consequences of such centralizations of power, but
it is
|only the abuses that can be prosecuted, not the imminent, contingent,
or
|vaguely-perceived, threats that one might attribute to the power that
is
|involved. Big may not be beautiful, but that doesn't mean you can shoot
it
|if it moves.
|
says who - I'm not governed by your constitution - I've got my own fight
concerning being a subject - you CAN'T rant to the world about what we
can or can't do - yank
|If there comes a time when property can be estranged because of
suspicion of
|possible abuse, then, I will willingly move to Moscow. I like cold
weather
|and there would be no difference between the U.S. and the former Soviet
|Union, (present Republics excluded of course).
|
save the fact that Russian women are a danm sight more tasty, and the
people have a guenuine concern for their neighbour.
|> |
|> |The amount X is of course undefined and left up to the individual
|> |leftist to decide how much it is in each specific case. In
practice,
|> |if full blown Marxist societies, this means party members can
|> |declare anyone a Capitalist/thief, and confiscate his labor.
|> |
|> |That is slavery.
|>
|> it is not good - but if done with the intent of assisting the common
|> good - surely it is preferable to the more selfish forms of slavery
|> indulged in by the privailaged classes i.e. wages
|Honor amongst theives? I've never seen it. How does it work after the
big
|guy has gone under.
it's called empathy - maybe you've not seen it on your propoganda Tv
machine - you should try it some time
|There is slavery, it's not in the wages..it's in the relationship of
power
|to person. Don't blame the gun for going off..look at who's standing
behind
|it.
And I look ...........
Oh It' unKILL SPAM again
|> |Take an extreme example: Mr. Gates. I will acknowledge that it is
|> |possible that some or all of his wealth is stolen in a meaningful
sense
|> |of the word (as in he took the technologies that form the basis of
his
|> |wealth without the consent of the rightful owners), but I hold that
to
|> |confiscate his property you must meet the same burden of proof that
you
|> |would for anyone in any case of theft. Simply that he has the
property
|> |is not proof.
|>
|> How much money/power/greed has he got- is a technological or economic
|> despotism better than any other form? Why can you defend someone who
|> hoards in such measures when there are those (maybe not on your or my
|> doorstep ~ but still) who have no access to shelter or food?
|Ah, he who hath not sinned, shall cast the first stone.
another typically indoctrinated xatian crock-a-shit commin' out of a
yank on alt.anarchy. don't you guys ever learn to stop your billy
grahamisms?
|> |Please don't give me that tired old saw about wage slavery. It is
not
|> |slavery. The "wage slave" is free to walk away from the job at any
|> |time, and no one owes anyone a living for free.
|Not in an efficient and perfect market. Highest and best use of
personnel
|shall obtain at all times. The market shall rule?? Of course, the
market has
|no brain; or does it?
|
wot? are you implying thet the forces behind Us market imperialism are
conciously fukin' us over? - well if you ae I may descend from my soap
box and discuss this with yo. However, your'e not so f*ck off fascist.
|>
|> Ok I won't but I will quote you a line from a song by the band
|> Crass' -8¬)
|>
|> 'do they owe us a living? - ofcourse they fuckin' do.'
(listen to the music - thats all - fine quality original shit check out
'the feeding of the 5000' - it's not your sex pistols image crap or your
make-a-buck shit)
|Does society owe you the "right to work;" of course it does. Is Bill
Gates
|society? No, but what percentage of his wealth goes into lobbying? I
don't
|know, but one has to find out how power is actually used, not what
anyone is
|owed. In the natural state, no one owes anyone else a damned thing
except
|the right to get out of my way.
|
YOU ARE BOARING ME - I can work - no problems go into the forrest and
pick some nuts or leaves (I'm a vegan) - but society prohibits me from
doing that - (I had to work in a forrest to get access to that way of
living) there is no fuckin' forrest left it's all eaten up by big
macows- So you'r Gates are society and I don't give a toss about his
lobbying - he sure as hell ain't got no intrest in my rights. And if you
want me to get out of your way - you better ask nicely - I'm not called
BIG ONE for nothing.
|> |
|> |>- to the extent that they seem to be used as petty insults -
|> |> I don't personally support any of them but rather view them as
|> |> legitimate and meaningfull political perspectives. Don't you
realise
|> |> that your country came to within an inch of destroying life on
this
|> |> planet through such narrow minded indoctrinated biggotry - or
would
|> |>that be seen as another triumph over those pinkos.
|> |
|> |I don't think so. To which specific incident do you refer.
|His anti-Royal, anti-Majesty seems to think that speaking Russian is
better
|than speaking English if push comes to shove.
The only force shoving is you yanks - Russian is a beautifull language -
but English has more words and is my native tongue.
|> I'm not referring to a specific incident - but if you're sences are
so
|> deadened by constant exposure to the same bigotry that you fail to
even
|> see it - I would hope that you give yourself a good shake.
|The Shakers died out because of lack of sexual contact. Another ..ism
bites
|the dust--so much the better.
|
go away idiot
|> 'I'M still SPARTICUS and Rome ain't coming close'
|>
|>
|
|
Al Montestruc
"BIG 0NE" <tr...@NOSPAMIAMAVEGANANDDONOTEATTINNEDFOODSukonline.co.uk>
wrote:
>
> Al Montestruc wrote in message <89jqgn$314$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> |In article <89i8dq$ln5$3...@apple.news.easynet.net>,
> | "BIG 0NE"
> |<tr...@NOSPAMIAMAVEGANANDDONOTEATTINNEDFOODSukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> |> is Mcarthy still riding up over your shoulders or something? Why do
> |> (plural and general) consistantly have such a problem with these
> |> ideologies
> |
> |Because they are based upon the ideals of slavery of the individual
to
> |somebody else. The somebody else varies between flavors of left wing
> |types, but the basic idea goes like this:
> |
If
> |he is proven innocent, even then other "right thinking" people have
> |the "right" to take his property and use it to buy toys and ply their
> |mistresses with goodies while claiming it is spent for the "poor".
theirs
> |to give.
>
There you go! You prove my point, you assume a person guilty without
proof or even evidence. You state "slave master capitalists" in one
statement as if they go together without thought. Note that I attack
the specific IDEALS of the "left" which are, or can be used to violate
the rights of the individual. The left attacks the capitalists as a
class and justifies violent acts agaist them as individuals based upon
almost wholly imaginary wrongs they are claimed to have committed.
And YES DAMN IT property belongs to those who have aquired it without
the use of force, threat of force or fraud. If you cannot make a case
that the SPECIFIC individual commited a SPECIFIC crime to get the
property, screw you the property is his.
> |The amount X is of course undefined and left up to the individual
> |leftist to decide how much it is in each specific case. In practice,
> |if full blown Marxist societies, this means party members can
> |declare anyone a Capitalist/thief, and confiscate his labor.
> |
> |That is slavery.
>
> it is not good - but if done with the intent of assisting the common
> good
The common good is ONLY served by respecting the rights of the
individual. If you violate that, any temporary good you may have done
is shattered by the example set.
>- surely it is preferable to the more selfish forms of slavery
> indulged in by the privailaged classes i.e. wages
Slavery is slavery. All slavery is wrong.
> |Take an extreme example: Mr. Gates. I will acknowledge that it is
> |possible that some or all of his wealth is stolen in a meaningful
sense
> |of the word (as in he took the technologies that form the basis of
his
> |wealth without the consent of the rightful owners), but I hold that
to
> |confiscate his property you must meet the same burden of proof that
you
> |would for anyone in any case of theft. Simply that he has the
property
> |is not proof.
>
> How much money/power/greed has he got- is a technological or economic
> despotism better than any other form? Why can you defend someone who
> hoards in such measures when there are those (maybe not on your or my
> doorstep ~ but still) who have no access to shelter or food?
>
> |Please don't give me that tired old saw about wage slavery. It is
not
> |slavery. The "wage slave" is free to walk away from the job at any
> |time, and no one owes anyone a living for free.
> |
>
> Ok I won't but I will quote you a line from a song by the band
> Crass' -8¬)
>
> 'do they owe us a living? - ofcourse they fuckin' do.'
I'll admit to being willing to give you a 7.62 mm hunk of lead right
between the eyes at about Mach 2 if you try and make me support you.
> |>- to the extent that they seem to be used as petty insults -
> |> I don't personally support any of them but rather view them as
> |> legitimate and meaningfull political perspectives. Don't you
realise
> |> that your country came to within an inch of destroying life on
this
> |> planet through such narrow minded indoctrinated biggotry - or would
> |>that be seen as another triumph over those pinkos.
> |
> |I don't think so. To which specific incident do you refer.
>
> I'm not referring to a specific incident - but if you're sences are so
> deadened by constant exposure to the same bigotry
I've seen a lot of bigotry in my time. Including your leftist bigotry
against people whom you have never met, and who have never harmed
anyone. You hate for the oldest reasons of all, greed and sloth.
>that you fail to even
> see it - I would hope that you give yourself a good shake.
>
> 'I'M SPARTICUS'
Sparticus was a hero. You are not. Sparticus had every moral right to
kill those who would steal his freedom and life. You have no moral
right to take from people just because they have more than you.
Alan R.
BIG 0NE
<tr...@TOMAKETHEukABETTERPLACETOLIVE.BUTDON'TBOTHERWITHSPAMIAMAVEGANANDDONOT
EATTINNEDFOODSonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:89l1hj$kra$2...@apple.news.easynet.net...
> <ROTFALOLHOTMBFFTWDOATHOFSCS>(rolling on the floor and laughing out loud
> holding on to my bollokz for fear they will drop off at the hillarity of
> your stupid christian shit)
Alan R.
BIG 0NE ...
Alan R.:
> |were set up to avoid the more nasty consequences of power that becomes
> |centralized through wealth--hence, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford
> |Foundation, etc.
>
> When I summonsed you yank national socialists /I mean capitalists - I
> was interested to see how many of you would turn up - this thread isn't
> crossed to other ng's - so I can only assume you all feel an 'interest'
> in anarchy - but I really fail to see how a belief in / approval of
> despotism is in any way relevant - aren't you way off topic - why don't
> you go back to alt.apple.pie - and the rewards you mention - I assume
> you can only percieve a reward in terms of $ and ability - well only a
> yank could possibly be 'the king' or bill gates - who else exists to
> rule the world but yanks.
I think recent events in Yugoslavia are demonstrative of the inability of
Europeans to take any job that smacks of trouble, sacrifice, or enforcement
of right over wrong. While I don't think some of what we did was totally
without political overtones, it is still an indictment of European Will,
that so much had to be undergone to get NATO involved, let alone subsequent
re-inforcements.
If you believe that all enterprise is corrupt--we'd might as well go back to
the caves. If you believe, as I do, (and to quote a British lord), that
"power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," then it is a
different ball game. This has nothing to do with who shall rule the
world--it has much to do whether effort is transformable into profits, and
this applies as much to the man in the street as to Bill Gates.
We are not Fascists; although, if the alternative is state socialism of the
'we will determine "the Good" for you,' well, then, there is no real
alternative, is there? The right and left meet in harmonious idiocy at the
extreme called "social control" or "state morality".
Thank God I lived in the South (Tennesse and Georgia) for about 10 years.
This Philadelphia-raised Yankee learned that states' rights and individual
rights are intrinsically linked together. Size is the problem, and I am just
an individual ..What are you? A coop.? A union? How do you deal with the
power of scale as an individual?
You should be asking yourself what the people in Seattle asked themselves
before they put themselves at risk--why is everything tied up in the hands
of so few? Why are the decisions made at corporate headquarters, now, more
important than the edicts of the government, (which IS elected, not the
President of IBM).
And where is the corporate figment who can be held responsible for this
crazed merger madness that just makes larger and larger monoliths?
..And what about this 'wealth to distribute' - I
> suppose that is all measurable in terms of $$$ as well - sorry to rain
> on your parade boyo but there's a more genuine and natural solution to
> this it's called leave your imperialist baggage at the door if you want
> to discuss anarchy.
There is a vast difference between defence and offence. It's called 'The
Department of Defence" here--if you think that anarchy is an absolute state,
then, fine, let's not discuss trends or directions. If you think that the
only good government is no government at all, then, I'm out of here. And I
wish you a very happy, (but, unavoidably short), life.
It's either a matter of degree and direction or it is an "..ism." Down with
..ism's. Period.
..but that doesn't mean you can shoot
> it
> |if it moves.
> |
> says who - I'm not governed by your constitution - I've got my own fight
> concerning being a subject - you CAN'T rant to the world about what we
> can or can't do - yank
I guess common decency is not a criterion in your part of the globe anymore.
What a shame, I always thought that we still should look up towards honoring
our heritage. It seems that we should look down on and watch very carefully.
Your principles are your own, but since when did being "a subject" become so
totally objectionable. Are you a citizen? Do you vote? Do you pay taxes? No,
then, as I told a a friend in Georgia who never paid taxes, "Good luck with
the taxman; he'll catch up to you some day"--and he did. Call this unfair
power, but other's pay taxes. Anarchy is only reminiscent of the freedom of
nature; again, it is a matter of degree, and absolute anarchy is chaos,
total immersion in animal self, and a short, cold, life without the goodies
that civilization, (and, yes, many entrepreneurs), help to provide.
Down with law and order--up with what?--every man, woman, and child for
him/herself, NO DOUBT.
> |If there comes a time when property can be estranged because of
> suspicion of
> |possible abuse, then, I will willingly move to Moscow. I like cold
> weather
> |and there would be no difference between the U.S. and the former Soviet
> |Union, (present Republics excluded of course).
> |
> save the fact that Russian women are a danm sight more tasty, and the
> people have a guenuine concern for their neighbour.
It's the pork they eat--it changes body smells and neighbors are always more
sociable in poor neighborhoods.
..selfish forms of slavery
> |> indulged in by the privailaged classes i.e. wages
> |Honor amongst theives? I've never seen it. How does it work after the
> big
> |guy has gone under.
>
> it's called empathy - maybe you've not seen it on your propoganda Tv
> machine - you should try it some time
Yes I do remember it from somewhere. Maybe, it was the Ed. Psych. studies I
read as a doctoral candidate. Yes, there was one that said altruism could
not be demonstrated. So, if we are not being altruistic right now, what are
we doing? Maybe, we can establish a party and takeover the Commonwealth and
join it with the U.S. But, then, we would have that absolute power that is
so decriable. No one is any better or any worse--some families can claim a
few more years of experience; that is all. BTW, is the Queen still out and
about? Does anyone listen to her?
I have noticed that Billy Graham is a decent man. I don't believe in his
particular brand of religion, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't support the
idea that religion has its uses, and the conventional maintenance of law and
order IS augmented by the existence of churches. Again, I experience what I
can of God, I keep it personal, but the recognition that others may have to
be lead into acceptance is always present.
I would make an exception in your case since I am sure you consider God to
be "the opiate of the people." Is the real thing any better--or do you
manage with just the optimism that someday the whole world will turn into
some manic fire next-time, (viz. James Baldwin--an American author).
> |> |Please don't give me that tired old saw about wage slavery. It is
> not
> |> |slavery. The "wage slave" is free to walk away from the job at any
> |> |time, and no one owes anyone a living for free.
> |Not in an efficient and perfect market. Highest and best use of
> personnel
> |shall obtain at all times. The market shall rule?? Of course, the
> market has
> |no brain; or does it?
> |
> wot? are you implying thet the forces behind Us market imperialism are
> conciously fukin' us over? - well if you ae I may descend from my soap
> box and discuss this with yo. However, your'e not so f*ck off fascist.
I am a gentleman, so I won't respond to this. No need to--God is my shield.
..In the natural state, no one owes anyone else a damned thing
> except
> |the right to get out of my way.
> |
> YOU ARE BOARING ME - I can work - no problems go into the forrest and
> pick some nuts or leaves (I'm a vegan) - but society prohibits me from
> doing that - (I had to work in a forrest to get access to that way of
> living) there is no fuckin' forrest left it's all eaten up by big
> macows- So you'r Gates are society and I don't give a toss about his
> lobbying - he sure as hell ain't got no intrest in my rights. And if you
> want me to get out of your way - you better ask nicely - I'm not called
> BIG ONE for nothing.
Oh, I'm a male--not interested in the size of your penis.
...
> |His anti-Royal, anti-Majesty seems to think that speaking Russian is
> better
> |than speaking English if push comes to shove.
>
> The only force shoving is you yanks - Russian is a beautifull language -
> but English has more words and is my native tongue.
American is my native tongue. Although I speak some Yiddish, some German,
and a little French.
I think English is a beautiful language--my favorite is Esperanto, for
obvious reasons.
> |> I'm not referring to a specific incident - but if you're sences are
> so
> |> deadened by constant exposure to the same bigotry that you fail to
> even
> |> see it - I would hope that you give yourself a good shake.
> |The Shakers died out because of lack of sexual contact. Another ..ism
> bites
> |the dust--so much the better.
> |
> go away idiot
>
> |> 'I'M still SPARTICUS and Rome ain't coming close'
And still John Wayne--give me some space, but don't take away my security.
Alan
Alan R.
Al Montestruc <monte...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:89ml5p$5b5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Constantinople
<89ml5p$5b5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>>that you fail to even
>> see it - I would hope that you give yourself a good shake.
>>
>> 'I'M SPARTICUS'
>
>Sparticus was a hero. You are not. Sparticus had every moral
>right to kill those who would steal his freedom and life. You
>have no moral right to take from people just because they have
>more than you.
That was Spartacus, not Sparticus. Maybe this other fellow has
invented some fictional character named "Sparticus".
BIG 0NE
ONE FOR TWO REASONS:~
!~i'M PISSED AND i'M LEAVING MY CAPS LOCK ON COZ i THINK IT'S FUNNY~
2 YOU'RE FOOL OF SHIT AND MY TIME IS MORE IMPORTANT~~ OK
'I'm sparticus'
MAYBE WHEN i WAKE UP I'LL HAVE SOMETHING MORE CALM TO SAY BUT i'M SURE
THERE MUST BE SOMEONE ELSE OUT THERE WHO WANTS A GO AT YOU
Alan R. wrote in message ...
|
BIG 0NE
UNTHINKING CHILD OF A TROLL
Alan R. wrote in message ...
BIG 0NE
GO BACK TO ALT.SUCK.BIGBROTHER'S.COCK ~ COZ THAT IS WHERE YOU BELONG ~ i
KNOW ANARCHY IS A SUBJECTIVE SUBJECT BUT YOU DON'T COME CLOSE
'i'M SPARTICUS'
Al Montestruc wrote in message <89ml5p$5b5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Al Montestruc
"BIG 0NE" <tr...@NOSPAMIAMAVEGANANDDONOTEATTINNEDFOODSukonline.co.uk>
wrote:
> sHUT UP YOU TROLL
Ohhooo make me "BIG ONE" you facist wannabe toad.
> GO BACK TO ALT.SUCK.BIGBROTHER'S.COCK ~ COZ THAT IS WHERE YOU BELONG
~ i
> KNOW ANARCHY IS A SUBJECTIVE SUBJECT BUT YOU DON'T COME CLOSE
>
> 'i'M SPARTICUS'
Not even in your dreams do you come close to being Sparticus