Current propaganda lies: re. breastfeeding, vaccination, millennium
banana
Britain.
1) BREASTFEEDING. Much propaganda in Britain at the moment about how
breastfeeding babies risks causing cancer, because breastmilk supposedly
contains all sorts of nasties. Can you believe this nonsense???!!!
Thanks BBC! Thanks ITV! Thanks to the Guardian and thanks to the
Government! Thanks to the scientists! Thanks to the doctors! Of course,
anyone who can think for themselves can see that the entire campaign is
based on the most disgusting and inhuman and money-grabbing lies.
The organisation quoted as the origin of this lie is the WORLD WIDE FUND
FOR NATURE. Yes folks this is the WORLD WILDLIFE FUND under a different
name. This is the organisation run by among others Princes Philip and
Bernhard, that has reasonably been seen as a front for interests that
are behind Bilderberg. And yes, surprise, surprise, it's financially
involved with corporate mass baby-killers Nestle.
These guys make billions of bucks out of Auschwitzing millions of kids
in Africa and elsewhere. Some would say these scum should be hung with
piano wire. Although for my part I would prefer concentrating on all the
constructive things that can be achieved once they have been overthrown;
once humanity escapes from all the muck it's in; once our species begins
to flourish without such inhumanity as this even being possible; once
they vanish into distant history along with the Nazi Party and My Lai.
2) THIS YEAR'S MASS VACCINATION CAMPAIGN. The authorities in Britain are
planning to vaccinate millions of children against meningitis, and
running-dog senior medical officers have been queuing up in the media to
emphasise how meningitis is everybody's worst nightmare, and how doing
exactly what you're told and succumbing to vaccination is the way to
save babies, stop death, and defend motherhood and apple pie. The
vaccines have only just been 'trialled'. (Of course, the trial results
are controlled by the corporations concerned, in league with government
officials - as is ALWAYS the case). However the date for mass
vaccination is being brought forward, and the government intends to buy
up the entire product of three supposedly 'separate' companies, simply
in order to vaccinate millions 'as quickly as possible'.
I have a fear here.
I fear that during a 'crisis' allegedly brought by the 'millennium bug'
- which, folks, the British armed forces have prepared for in relation
to the period September 1999-February 2000 - harmful vaccination such as
this will be compulsory.
For example, a stamp could be put on people's ID cards when they
received the vaccine. No stamp, no food.
(If that happens, remember, you read it here first! :-) )
--
banana
Trevjon
<banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> writes:
>I fear that during a 'crisis' allegedly brought by the 'millennium bug'
>- which, folks, the British armed forces have prepared for in relation
>to the period September 1999-February 2000 - harmful vaccination such as
>this will be compulsory.
>
>For example, a stamp could be put on people's ID cards when they
>received the vaccine. No stamp, no food.
>
>(If that happens, remember, you read it here first! :-) )
>--
>banana
Yes everybody please remember where you first heard this absolute nonsense.
In 6 months time I will repost Bananas original post, so we can all have a
jolly good laugh.
Trevjon.
Steve Reed
>Britain.
>
>1) BREASTFEEDING. Much propaganda in Britain at the moment about how
>breastfeeding babies risks causing cancer, because breastmilk supposedly
>contains all sorts of nasties. Can you believe this nonsense???!!!
>
>2) THIS YEAR'S MASS VACCINATION CAMPAIGN. The authorities in Britain are
>planning to vaccinate millions of children against meningitis,
> The
>vaccines have only just been 'trialled'. (Of course, the trial results
>are controlled by the corporations concerned, in league with government
>officials - as is ALWAYS the case).
Well worth noting - how many meaningless scares have we been subjected
to in recent years, as part of the commercial gang-wars going on in
semi-secret all around us!
Just a word about "The Millennium": the new millennium begins on 1.1.01
- not on 1.1.00! The first of January 2000 is the first day of the last
year of the OLD millennium - and when everyone's finished stimulating
the economy with spurious "end of millennium" celebrations, on 31.12.99,
this very simple fact will be revealed. As my friend says - remember
that you heard it here first (if you did) :-)
--
Steve Reed
tony
Steve Reed wrote in message <8HR2fWAa...@lastings.softnet.co.uk>...
Andrew Steven Reed, if you persist in being so anal about the millennium the
authorities will have no choice but to staple you by the hood of your nylon
easy clean anorak to the roof of the Millennium Dome as an example to all
other non believers.
Steve Reed
opcatz.freeserve.co.uk> writes
You're referring to that discredited Freudian claptrap about "stages of
perceptual development" I suppose. But the first millennium began in
the year one (1) - not the year zero (there was no year zero) and the
first century ended at the end of year 100. Similarly with every
century - and every millennium. If you wish to pretend that you are
celebrating the end of the millennium, next Dec 31st, when, in fact, you
are celebrating the end of the penultimate year of the millennium,
that's your affair; but why should you? Are you selling millennium
souvenirs or something?
--
Steve Reed
Trevjon
<ho...@lastings.softnet.co.uk> writes:
>I've never seen "anal" used to mean "truthful" or "accurate" before.
>You're referring to that discredited Freudian claptrap about "stages of
>perceptual development" I suppose. But the first millennium began in
>the year one (1) - not the year zero (there was no year zero) and the
>first century ended at the end of year 100. Similarly with every
>century - and every millennium. If you wish to pretend that you are
>celebrating the end of the millennium, next Dec 31st, when, in fact, you
>are celebrating the end of the penultimate year of the millennium,
>that's your affair; but why should you? Are you selling millennium
>souvenirs or something?
>--
And surely you must also factor in the "missing 10 days" when the Gregorian
calendar was adopted (in 17 hundred and something in england-I forget the
exact date). You must also remember that it is most probable that Jesus was
actually born in 6 BC (although some say as late as 4 AD). So where does that
leave us.
Technically you are correct, but bearing in mind the above, I think that the
appointed date of 1.1.2000 is merely symbolic, and shows far more symbolism
(and neatness) than 1.1.2001.
Trevjon.
tony
Steve Reed wrote in message ...
Then you should get out a little more in the evenings. You well know that
"anal" is usually associated with the obsessive attention to those silly
little details that most of us cant be bothered with because it doesn't
matter.
>You're referring to that discredited Freudian claptrap about "stages of
>perceptual development" I suppose.
You assume too much Andrew Steven Reed. But, (ROFL) that aside, you then
contune in anal fashion VVVVV
>But the first millennium began in
>the year one (1) - not the year zero (there was no year zero) and the
>first century ended at the end of year 100. Similarly with every
>century - and every millennium. If you wish to pretend that you are
>celebrating the end of the millennium, next Dec 31st, when, in fact, you
>are celebrating the end of the penultimate year of the millennium,
>that's your affair; but why should you? Are you selling millennium
>souvenirs or something?
Not at all. It's extremely likely that I shall be "celebrating" the
millennium in a quiet villa far away from the commercial world with a few
well chosen friends who like me, couldn't really give a toss, other than for
the money that it generates through the wide eyed populace. I might even go
to bed early.
Will you be giving away your hard earned to the Government? Or perhaps
Andrew Steven Reed will have to work?
Steve Reed
<tre...@aol.comnospam> writes
>In article <zhpVWcA8...@lastings.softnet.co.uk>, Steve Reed
><ho...@lastings.softnet.co.uk> writes:
>
>>the year one (1) - not the year zero (there was no year zero) and the
>>first century ended at the end of year 100. Similarly with every
>>century - and every millennium. If you wish to pretend that you are
>>celebrating the end of the millennium, next Dec 31st, when, in fact, you
>>are celebrating the end of the penultimate year of the millennium,
>>that's your affair; but why should you? Are you selling millennium
>>souvenirs or something?
>
>And surely you must also factor in the "missing 10 days" when the Gregorian
>calendar was adopted (in 17 hundred and something in england-I forget the
>exact date). You must also remember that it is most probable that Jesus was
>actually born in 6 BC (although some say as late as 4 AD). So where does that
>leave us.
>
>Technically you are correct, but bearing in mind the above, I think that the
>appointed date of 1.1.2000 is merely symbolic, and shows far more symbolism
>(and neatness) than 1.1.2001.
>
>
>
>
>Trevjon.
Everything you say is true, except the last bit - of course the thing is
meaninglessly arbitrary - but that is all the more reason for clinging
to what shred of meaning remains - you might as well say 9.9.99 is a
jolly striking date - let's all go potty on the evening of September the
8th! No - the millennium ends at the end of NEXT year (insofar as it
ends anywhere at all) and this WILL be recalled as soon as you've spent
your savings on a flight to Tonga - or wherever it is that the sun is
supposed to come up first over that other entirely arbitrary boundary,
the international date-line. That way you can be persuaded to take out
a loan to repeat the entire foolish procedure - and you will won't you!
I shall be going to Torquay (Devon, England) to see a REAL event, at 11
am, on August 11th - the eclipse of the sun from within the zone of
totality - that evening, I shall be outside the Princess Theatre (near
Princess Gardens) at 6.30, clutching a copy of WKD? So if you fancy a
few jars or a punch up or both, come on down (this includes everybody,
BTW)
--
Steve Reed
Steve Reed
>
>"anal" is usually associated with the obsessive attention to those silly
>little details that most of us cant be bothered with because it doesn't
>matter.
>
>
redistributed as a result of reaching this illusory time-boundary? It'll
be the biggest bonanza since WWII! Especially since we're going to be
persuaded to hold it twice!
>>You're referring to that discredited Freudian claptrap about "stages of
>>perceptual development" I suppose.
>
>You assume too much Andrew Steven Reed. But, (ROFL) that aside, you then
>contune in anal fashion VVVVV
>
>
What do you mean then, you twerp - and what the hell is "contune"? :-)
>
>>But the first millennium began in
>>the year one (1) - not the year zero (there was no year zero) and the
>>first century ended at the end of year 100. Similarly with every
>>century - and every millennium. If you wish to pretend that you are
>>celebrating the end of the millennium, next Dec 31st, when, in fact, you
>>are celebrating the end of the penultimate year of the millennium,
>>that's your affair; but why should you? Are you selling millennium
>>souvenirs or something?
>
>
>Not at all. It's extremely likely that I shall be "celebrating" the
>millennium in a quiet villa far away from the commercial world with a few
>well chosen friends who like me, couldn't really give a toss, other than for
>the money that it generates through the wide eyed populace. I might even go
>to bed early.
>
I thought so!
>Will you be giving away your hard earned to the Government? Or perhaps
>Andrew Steven Reed will have to work?
>
>
My wide-eyed employers have offered me an EXTRA £250 to work that night
- so I'm not complaining for myself. It's the dumbing down of the
public, I hate!
>
>
--
Steve Reed
Trevjon
<ho...@lastings.softnet.co.uk> writes:
Sorry, but I will be working-at Falmouth-which is exactly on the centre line of
the eclipse-we are doing a study of electromagnetic waveforms and the affect of
solar radiation. And if it is cloudy we will bundle all the equipment into an
RAF Hercules and observe from above. I would try and get a bit further west if
I were you, as Torquay is right on the edge of the line of totality. I drew
the short straw with Falmouth, as some of my colleagues are travelling to Iran
and India. At least I might manage to get a bit of surfing in though, which I
doubt they will in the middle of Iran.
Trevjon.
Steve Reed
<tre...@aol.comnospam> writes
How interesting! I plan a rather more relaxing day, contemplating the
crescentic dappling under the tress, the onrush of the shadow on the
ground (as seen only from the edge of totality) and the simmering
coppery hues on the horizon. They say that the birds sing as darkness
falls. If anyone turns up at the Princess Theatre, we might have an
interesting evening as well (punch-ups by special request only) :-)
--
Steve Reed
char...@my-deja.com
Andrew Steven Reed <ar...@lastings.softnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Just a word about "The Millennium": the new millennium begins on
1.1.01
> - not on 1.1.00! The first of January 2000 is the first day of the
last
> year of the OLD millennium - and when everyone's finished stimulating
> the economy with spurious "end of millennium" celebrations, on
31.12.99,
There are two ways of describing time periods eras (both are acceptable
in the academic, scientific and publishing worlds):
Ordinal descriptives (20th Century, 3rd Millennium) of eras/time
periods are based on a counting sequence (i.e. for there
to be a 3rd something there must have been a 1st and 2nd one) and run
from a 1 year to a 0 year (1901 - 2000, 2001 - 3000).
Cardinal descriptives (the 90s, the 1700s, the 2000s) of eras/time
periods are based NOT based on a counting sequence and
run from a 0 year to a 9 year (1990 - 1999, 1700 - 1799, 2000 - 2999).
Just as it was not incorrect to celebrate the start the start of the
new decade (the 90s) on 1/1/1990, neither is it
incorrect to celebrate the start of the 2000s millennium on 1/1/2000.
Although YOU may only use the words 'the millennium' to refer to the
Third Millennium and never use it to refer to 'the 2000s millennium'
many, many people do, and just because you don't that, in and of
itself, does not mean other people are incorrect to do so.
Did you think people were wrong to celebrate the start of the new
decade (the 90s) on 1/1/1990? How is this different from celebrating
the start of the new millennium (the 2000s) on 1/1/2000?
> this very simple fact will be revealed. As my friend says - remember
> that you heard it here first (if you did) :-)
You're right when you say it's a "simple" fact, but if you want to be
remembered for being simple, be my guest.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
tony
Steve Reed <ho...@lastings.softnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c9YeBgAG...@lastings.softnet.co.uk...
1.1.01
> >>>>- not on 1.1.00! The first of January 2000 is the first day of the
last
> >>>>year of the OLD millennium - and when everyone's finished stimulating
> >>>>the economy with spurious "end of millennium" celebrations, on
31.12.99,
> >>>>that you heard it here first (if you did) :-)
> >>>>Steve Reed
> >>>
> >>>Andrew Steven Reed, if you persist in being so anal about the
millennium
> >the
> >>>authorities will have no choice but to staple you by the hood of your
> >nylon
> >>>easy clean anorak to the roof of the Millennium Dome as an example to
all
> >>>other non believers.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>I've never seen "anal" used to mean "truthful" or "accurate" before.
> >
> >Then you should get out a little more in the evenings. You well know that
> >"anal" is usually associated with the obsessive attention to those silly
> >little details that most of us cant be bothered with because it doesn't
> >matter.
> >
> >
> DOESN'T MATTER!? Have you no idea how much dosh is going to be
> redistributed as a result of reaching this illusory time-boundary? It'll
> be the biggest bonanza since WWII! Especially since we're going to be
> persuaded to hold it twice!
>
> >>You're referring to that discredited Freudian claptrap about "stages of
> >>perceptual development" I suppose.
> >
> >You assume too much Andrew Steven Reed. But, (ROFL) that aside, you then
> >contune in anal fashion VVVVV
> >
> >
> What do you mean then, you twerp - and what the hell is "contune"? :-)
Oh dear. Do you really have to get your knickers in a twist about a simple
typo? You know full well that it should read "continue".
How anal of you to be so picky. Quad erat demunstrandum baby.
> >>But the first millennium began in
> >>the year one (1) - not the year zero (there was no year zero) and the
> >>first century ended at the end of year 100. Similarly with every
> >>century - and every millennium. If you wish to pretend that you are
> >>celebrating the end of the millennium, next Dec 31st, when, in fact, you
> >>are celebrating the end of the penultimate year of the millennium,
> >>that's your affair; but why should you? Are you selling millennium
> >>souvenirs or something?
> >
> >
> >Not at all. It's extremely likely that I shall be "celebrating" the
> >millennium in a quiet villa far away from the commercial world with a few
> >well chosen friends who like me, couldn't really give a toss, other than
for
> >the money that it generates through the wide eyed populace. I might even
go
> >to bed early.
> >
>
> I thought so!
What exactly did you think?
> >Will you be giving away your hard earned to the Government? Or perhaps
> >Andrew Steven Reed will have to work?
> >
> >
> My wide-eyed employers have offered me an EXTRA £250 to work that night
> - so I'm not complaining for myself. It's the dumbing down of the
> public, I hate!
WOW £250? I must apply for the job. Actually though, I agree with you 100%
here about dumbing down. It worries me immensely, BUT maybe it has always
been that way, and we just see it in its current context.
Gary Stone
I shall be in Devon too, in Woodbury, which is not too far from where you
will be, I leave next Sunday.
I will e you my mobile number and if we can get together, that would be
nice.
Gethryn
Steve Reed
opcatz.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>WOW Ł250? I must apply for the job. Actually though, I agree with you 100%
>here about dumbing down. It worries me immensely, BUT maybe it has always
>been that way, and we just see it in its current context.
>
>
the opposite of dumbing down) I must say I consider that crass. Your
other remarks were uncalled-for, to put it politely.
I think that elites always face the dilemma posed by a need to balance
the general economic advantages of an intelligent, inventive workforce
against the danger that such a workforce may succeed in challenging
their authority. This problem is particularly acute in the current
context, where the fine tuning of this balance is crucial in the
competition between elites.
At one extreme, an elite such as the Saudi RF stays afloat, with foreign
know-how, on its oil-reserves; at the other, a western European nation,
which lives by its wits, can field tens of thousands of youthful
demonstrators, protesting against third-world debt.
Any sign of intelligent protest, in Saudi Arabia, against poor social
conditions, can be dealt with crudely. Western elites have to take a
more subtle, defamatory approach - using the media to emphasise the more
boisterous aspects of demonstrations and to play down consideration of
their conscientious motivation.
I was particularly appalled to hear yesterday (following, as it
happened, my suggestion that any ACPD contributors, who are in the
region, meet at 6.30, near the Princess Theatre, Torquay, a week on
Wednesday) that "hordes of violent anarchists, fresh from their
vandalistic rampage through the City of London, are planning to converge
on the zone of eclipse-totality in order to disrupt [for some reason]
any peaceful celebrations which may be going on there".
I saw several calls, in the NG's, to attend the anti-third-world-debt
protest (a worthy and meaningful intitiative) but the only
announcements, I have seen, of a projected meaningless and counter-
productive disruption of people's holidays by "anarchists", have been in
the "mainstream" media! I now regret my little joke, with Trevjon,
about punch-ups. I think we are seeing another scare of the "Combat
18"/"White Wolves" variety, and that the media are actually trying to
initiate a disgusting and idiotic riot. I don't think there's any
substance in these reports and, if they're intended as self-fulfilling
prophecies, then I believe they will fail.
Anyone seen any incitements-to-riot-in-the-zone-of-totality, besides
those carried on the BBC and in the tabloids?
--
Steve Reed
tony
> In article <7nua25$4sh$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, tony <REMOVEMEFIRSTmail@t
> opcatz.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> >WOW Ł250? I must apply for the job. Actually though, I agree with you
100%
> >here about dumbing down. It worries me immensely, BUT maybe it has always
> >been that way, and we just see it in its current context.
> >
> >
Liar. I do no such thing as to boast of my wealth.
> In the interests of "clueing up" (if that is
> the opposite of dumbing down) I must say I consider that crass. Your
> other remarks were uncalled-for, to put it politely.
Pray enlighten this NG which remarks of mine you consider crass and uncalled
for then Andrew Steven Reed.
I have for sometime now kept your personal status to myself. Do you not
recall all those things that you told me when you called my office and I
returned your call after you had been given my number? (a very basic
research project incidentally). You were sooo nice over the phone that I
extended an olive branch to you. Your reaction though was to kick me in the
teeth for trying, so you wrote the rules for this game my little friend.
However, you are now so cocky (or disturbed) that you seem to persist in
pushing me. Be careful, you never know when you might just do it one day. I
shall however, endeavour to remain measured in all my responses to you!
You used to provide a little mental sport, but you've become the grouse
fattened on its own idleness. You fly oh so low, so roll on the glorious
season - not long now.
Just to prove the point, you then seem to attempt to divert the NG's
attention from the simple fact that you have nothing to say with the
following pointless little diatribe....
Steve Reed
<gary....@cwcom.net> writes
to ring. I trust you will leave your bike chain and flick-knife at home
:-))
--
Steve Reed
Steve Reed
>In article <8HR2fWAa...@lastings.softnet.co.uk>,
> Andrew Steven Reed <ar...@lastings.softnet.co.uk> wrote:
>1.1.01
>> - not on 1.1.00! The first of January 2000 is the first day of the
>last
>> year of the OLD millennium - and when everyone's finished stimulating
>> the economy with spurious "end of millennium" celebrations, on
>31.12.99,
>
>
>in the academic, scientific and publishing worlds):
>
>Ordinal descriptives (20th Century, 3rd Millennium) of eras/time
>periods are based on a counting sequence (i.e. for there
>to be a 3rd something there must have been a 1st and 2nd one) and run
>from a 1 year to a 0 year (1901 - 2000, 2001 - 3000).
>
>Cardinal descriptives (the 90s, the 1700s, the 2000s) of eras/time
>periods are based NOT based on a counting sequence and
>run from a 0 year to a 9 year (1990 - 1999, 1700 - 1799, 2000 - 2999).
>
>Just as it was not incorrect to celebrate the start the start of the
>new decade (the 90s) on 1/1/1990, neither is it
>incorrect to celebrate the start of the 2000s millennium on 1/1/2000.
>
the start of the twenty-hundreds - yes, I can see that!
>Although YOU may only use the words 'the millennium' to refer to the
>Third Millennium and never use it to refer to 'the 2000s millennium'
>many, many people do, and just because you don't that, in and of
>itself, does not mean other people are incorrect to do so.
>
millennium, in ANY usage, is a thousand years and the second thousand
years of our dating system ends on 31st December 2000. The Archbishop
of Canterbury mentioned this, on the BBC, about two years ago (I'd never
thought of it, myself, before then) Since then - not a whisper! I
wonder why! From a Christian point of view, 25th December 2000 will be
Jesus' 2000th birthday - that's the original basis of the whole thing!
>Did you think people were wrong to celebrate the start of the new
>decade (the 90s) on 1/1/1990? How is this different from celebrating
>the start of the new millennium (the 2000s) on 1/1/2000?
>
OK, people do celebrate new decades and we do refer to the nineteen-
thirties and the 'eighties and the 'nineties, but this does not alter
the fact that the century ends when the full hundred is counted, and the
millennium ends when the full thousand is counted - down to the LAST day
of the LAST year of that hundred or that thousand. Thinking that the
new millennium starts on 1.1.2000 is a simple error, which the media
have encouraged for various reasons. At the end of this year, you can
celebrate the start of a new decade and you can celebrate the start of
the "twenty-hundreds", if you like, but if you want to mark THE
MILLENNIUM, you'll have to wait until the end of next year.
>
>> this very simple fact will be revealed. As my friend says - remember
>> that you heard it here first (if you did) :-)
>
>You're right when you say it's a "simple" fact, but if you want to be
>remembered for being simple, be my guest.
>
>
This is a horribly disjointed statement. Because someone knows a simple
fact, that someone may wish to be remembered for being simple? What
nonsense! But I would take issue with you about simplicity - it is not
to be despised (as you imply) Cunning lies are despicable, the plain
(or simple) truth is not. That's why most of the contributors to this
NG are interested in discovering and preserving the latter!
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
--
Steve Reed
Gary Stone
worry about bike chains and flick knives, I'll have the grandkids with me
and two black Labrador's, the chains will be around their necks, they are
quite a handful. No need to worry, haven't bumped anyone off yet, I'll e
that phone number to you later and a time, I am so looking forward to this
holiday, need it bad.
Geths
Trevjon
>How anal of you to be so picky. Quad erat demunstrandum baby.
>
Surely this is just baiting him Tony??
It now my turn to be anal, as it should be Quod erat demonstrandum
Trevjon.
tony
message
news:19990802191633...@ngol07.aol
.com...
> In article
<7nua25$4sh$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, "tony"
> <REMOVEME...@topcatz.freeserve.co.uk>
writes:
>
demunstrandum baby.
> >
>
Me TJ? Surely not !
> It now my turn to be anal, as it should be
Quod erat demonstrandum
>
>
> Trevjon.
Vero? Hercle, me ineptum!
Steve Reed
bloodthirsty Rottweilers comes from! There's always a grain of truth
:-) Standing by for info.
--
Steve Reed
Steve Reed
opcatz.freeserve.co.uk> writes>news:dkJOXAAH...@lastings.softnet.co.uk...
>> In article <7nua25$4sh$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, tony <REMOVEMEFIRSTmail@t
>> opcatz.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>> >WOW Ł250? I must apply for the job. Actually though, I agree with you
>100%
>> >here about dumbing down. It worries me immensely, BUT maybe it has always
>> >been that way, and we just see it in its current context.
>> >
>> >
>
>Liar. I do no such thing as to boast of my wealth.
>
>
>> In the interests of "clueing up" (if that is
>> the opposite of dumbing down) I must say I consider that crass. Your
>> other remarks were uncalled-for, to put it politely.
>
>Pray enlighten this NG which remarks of mine you consider crass and uncalled
>for then Andrew Steven Reed.
>
>I have for sometime now kept your personal status to myself. Do you not
>recall all those things that you told me when you called my office and I
>returned your call after you had been given my number? (a very basic
>research project incidentally). You were sooo nice over the phone that I
>extended an olive branch to you. Your reaction though was to kick me in the
>teeth for trying, so you wrote the rules for this game my little friend.
>
>However, you are now so cocky (or disturbed) that you seem to persist in
>pushing me. Be careful, you never know when you might just do it one day. I
>shall however, endeavour to remain measured in all my responses to you!
>
>You used to provide a little mental sport, but you've become the grouse
>fattened on its own idleness. You fly oh so low, so roll on the glorious
>season - not long now.
>
>Just to prove the point, you then seem to attempt to divert the NG's
>attention from the simple fact that you have nothing to say with the
>following pointless little diatribe....
This is a fine example of a post by a long-term accident-apologist.
Please note it well!
Please note too the complete lack of discussion.
--
Steve Reed
Steve Reed
<tre...@aol.comnospam> writes
>
>>How anal of you to be so picky. Quad erat demunstrandum baby.
>>
>
>
>
>
>Trevjon.
"The superior man is inexhaustible in his will to teach" (I Ching, trans
Wilhelm) I'm impressed. Copenhagen! 'Course it was. Thanks again.
--
Steve Reed
char...@my-deja.com
Do you not understand this difference between ordinal descriptives and
cardinal descriptives? I can explain it again if you like.
> Thinking that the
> new millennium starts on 1.1.2000 is a simple error, which the media
> have encouraged for various reasons.
Celebrating the start of the Third Millennium on 1/1/2000 is an error;
celebrating the start of the 2000s is not.
> At the end of this year, you can
> celebrate the start of a new decade and you can celebrate the start of
> the "twenty-hundreds",
Although you are not necessarily incorrect to call it the "twenty-
hundreds" the more common usage is to refer to it as 'the 2000s'.
> if you like, but if you want to mark THE
> MILLENNIUM, you'll have to wait until the end of next year.
So you are claiming that the words 'the millennium' are only allowed to
be used to refer to the Third Millennium and not allowed to be used to
refer to 'the 2000s'. I guess I missed it - what is the reason for this
again?
> >
> >> this very simple fact will be revealed. As my friend says -
remember
> >> that you heard it here first (if you did) :-)
> >
> >You're right when you say it's a "simple" fact, but if you want to be
> >remembered for being simple, be my guest.
> >
> >
> This is a horribly disjointed statement. Because someone knows a
simple
> fact, that someone may wish to be remembered for being simple? What
> nonsense!
I was trying to make the point that you are over simplifying. That you
say "the Third Millennium starts on 1/1/2001" and ignore the existence
of 'the 2000s'.
> But I would take issue with you about simplicity - it is not
> to be despised (as you imply)
But there is always a danger of oversimplifying that must be watched
out for.
> Cunning lies are despicable, the plain
> (or simple) truth is not. That's why most of the contributors to this
> NG are interested in discovering and preserving the latter!
Again, I guess I missed it - exactly what was a lie? And please be
specific.
Steve Reed
I fear, Madam, that it is you who do not understand - entering the
(ordinally speaking) thousandth year of a millennium, or (describing the
situation in cardinal terms) entering year one thousand of a millennium,
is, however you describe it, NOT entering a new millennium, but entering
the last year of an old one!
>> Thinking that the
>> new millennium starts on 1.1.2000 is a simple error, which the media
>> have encouraged for various reasons.
>
>Celebrating the start of the Third Millennium on 1/1/2000 is an error;
>celebrating the start of the 2000s is not.
>
>> At the end of this year, you can
>> celebrate the start of a new decade and you can celebrate the start of
>> the "twenty-hundreds",
>
>Although you are not necessarily incorrect to call it the "twenty-
>hundreds" the more common usage is to refer to it as 'the 2000s'.
>
>> if you like, but if you want to mark THE
>> MILLENNIUM, you'll have to wait until the end of next year.
>
>So you are claiming that the words 'the millennium' are only allowed to
>be used to refer to the Third Millennium and not allowed to be used to
>refer to 'the 2000s'. I guess I missed it - what is the reason for this
>again?
>
OK!
A millennium is a thousand years. At the end of this year (1999) we
will have had 999 years of the current millennium. At the end of next
year, we will have had the full 1000. THEN, on 1.1.01, the new
millennium will begin.
>> >
>> >> this very simple fact will be revealed. As my friend says -
>remember
>> >> that you heard it here first (if you did) :-)
>> >
>> >You're right when you say it's a "simple" fact, but if you want to be
>> >remembered for being simple, be my guest.
>> >
>> >
>> This is a horribly disjointed statement. Because someone knows a
>simple
>> fact, that someone may wish to be remembered for being simple? What
>> nonsense!
>
>I was trying to make the point that you are over simplifying. That you
>say "the Third Millennium starts on 1/1/2001" and ignore the existence
>of 'the 2000s'.
>
I'm not ignoring the 2000's. I started these notes on the subject
precisely in order to point out that the start of the 2000's is not the
start of the new millennium. Why is 1.1.00 not the start, you say?
Because, at the point, the old millennium still has one year to run!
That's why! You see, you get into insoluble problems with your 1000's,
2000's etc, because although there are 1000 years in your 1000's (START
of 1000ad to START of 2000ad) there are only 999 years in your first
millennium (START of year 1 to START of year 1000)! In order to make
this work, you would have to include the year 1bc in the first
millennium ad, which is nonsense!
>> But I would take issue with you about simplicity - it is not
>> to be despised (as you imply)
>
>But there is always a danger of oversimplifying that must be watched
>out for.
>
PRECISELY!
>> Cunning lies are despicable, the plain
>> (or simple) truth is not. That's why most of the contributors to this
>> NG are interested in discovering and preserving the latter!
>
>Again, I guess I missed it - exactly what was a lie? And please be
>specific.
>
>I think that the media hype concerning the start of the 2000's is a
lie! The lie is that the start of the 2000's is the start of THE new
millennium (of course it's the start of A new millennium, but then, any
moment of any year you choose CAN be the start of A new millennium, if
you wish!) and I believe that this lie has been propagated for two
reasons - firstly, it will generate enormous profits for the rich, and
secondly it makes nonsense of the dating system which is based on
Christian tradition. Neither of these purposes is in any way worthy,
IMO. and I would urge you to oppose the media hype about the "2000's",
for that reason. Thank you.
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
--
Steve Reed
char...@my-deja.com
Andrew Steven Reed <ar...@lastings.softnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I fear, Madam, that it is you who do not understand - entering the
> (ordinally speaking) thousandth year of a millennium, or (describing
the
> situation in cardinal terms) entering year one thousand of a
millennium,
> is, however you describe it, NOT entering a new millennium, but
entering
> the last year of an old one!
2000 is both the last year of a millennium AND the first year of a new
one.
2000 = last year of the 2nd Millennium; 2001 = first year of the 3rd
Millennim
AND
1999 = last year of the 1000s millennium; 2000 = first year of the
2000s millennium
These facts are not mutually exclusive and can peacefully coexist.
There are two ways of describing time periods/eras (both are acceptable
in the academic, scientific and publishing worlds):
Ordinal descriptives (20th Century, 3rd Millennium) of eras/time
periods are based on a counting sequence (i.e. for there
to be a 3rd something there must have been a 1st and 2nd one) and run
from a 1 year to a 0 year (1901 - 2000, 2001 - 3000).
Cardinal descriptives (the 90s, the 1700s, the 2000s) of eras/time
periods are based NOT based on a counting sequence and
run from a 0 year to a 9 year (1990 - 1999, 1700 - 1799, 2000 - 2999).
Maybe I missed it, but I can't see what part of this conflicts with
what you've said.
> OK!
> A millennium is a thousand years. At the end of this year (1999) we
> will have had 999 years of the current millennium. At the end of next
> year, we will have had the full 1000. THEN, on 1.1.01, the new
> millennium will begin.
Right. Except that the current millennium is both the 2nd Millennium
AND the 1000s.
Thus, if one uses your statements to refer to the cardinal eras instead
of the ordinal ones:
A millennium is 1000 years. At the end of last year (1998) we had 999
years of the current millennium (the 1000s). At the end of this year,
will have had the full 1000. THEN, on 1.1.00, the new millennuim (the
2000s) will begin.
And please don't take this as a refutation of what you said; BOTH are
true.
> I'm not ignoring the 2000's. I started these notes on the subject
> precisely in order to point out that the start of the 2000's is not
the
> start of the new millennium. Why is 1.1.00 not the start, you say?
> Because, at the point, the old millennium still has one year to run!
> That's why! You see, you get into insoluble problems with your
1000's,
> 2000's etc, because although there are 1000 years in your 1000's
(START
> of 1000ad to START of 2000ad) there are only 999 years in your first
> millennium (START of year 1 to START of year 1000)! In order to make
> this work, you would have to include the year 1bc in the first
> millennium ad, which is nonsense!
But, unlike ordinal eras, cardinal eras are NOT based on a counting
sequence. Your statement "you would have to include the year 1bc in the
first millennium ad" is mixing up cardinal and ordinal descriptives
(first = ordinal).
In fact, if the powers-that-be decided, for whatever reason, to start
the AD part of the calendar with the year 501 (3 BC, 2 BC, 1 BC, 501
AD, 502 AD, 503 AD, etc.) the years 2000 - 2999 would STILL constitute
a 2000s millennium. Whether or not there is a year zero doesn't affect
this fact at all. All that means is that there is no '0000s' millennium
as there are only 999 years with a 0 in the millennial digit. 1000 -
1999 STILL constitutes a 1000s millennium, 2000 - 2999 STILL
constitutes a 2000s millennium, 3000 - 3999 STILL constitutes a 3000s
millennium and so on.
Would you also say that for 1990 - 1999 doesn't constitute a decade
because, for this to be true, the first decade would have to include
1bc?
> I think that the media hype concerning the start of the 2000's is a
> lie! The lie is that the start of the 2000's is the start of THE new
> millennium
Although YOU may only use the words 'the millennium' to refer to the
Third Millennium and never use it to refer to 'the 2000s', that does
not mean other people are incorrect to do so.
Did you think people were wrong to celebrate the start of THE new
decade (the 90s) on 1/1/1990? How is this different from celebrating
the start of the new millennium (the 2000s) on 1/1/2000?
> (of course it's the start of A new millennium, but then, any
> moment of any year you choose CAN be the start of A new millennium, if
> you wish!)
So are you saying that the 2000s is no more significant than a randomly
chosen 1000 year period? That the 1900s is no more significant than a
randomly chosen 100 year period? That the 90s in no more significant
that a randomly chosen 10 year period?
> and I believe that this lie has been propagated for two
> reasons - firstly, it will generate enormous profits for the rich, and
First of all, media hype has absolutely nothing to do with the fact the
1/1/2000 marks the change from the 1000s era to the 2000s era.
Secondly, I think it is quite possible to celebrate this change of eras
without "generat[ing] enormous profits for the rich."
> secondly it makes nonsense of the dating system which is based on
> Christian tradition.
How does recognizing that the calendar can be divided up into both
ordinally described eras and cardinally described eras make nonsense of
the dating system?
> Neither of these purposes is in any way worthy,
> IMO. and I would urge you to oppose the media hype about the "2000's",
> for that reason. Thank you.
But media hype about the Third Millennium is ok?
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '11:55:36' on 'Sat, 7 Aug
1999', char...@my-deja.com writes:
>In article <IYcLIRAd...@lastings.softnet.co.uk>,
<snip>
>Did you think people were wrong to celebrate the start of THE new
>decade (the 90s) on 1/1/1990? How is this different from celebrating
>the start of the new millennium (the 2000s) on 1/1/2000?
Excuse my saying LOL, but this is a classic Usenet conversation! I hope
nobody starts threatening to sue each other :-) (only joking!)
Anyway, I once knew somebody born in 1960 who insisted that meant he was
born in the 1950s.
I prefer a different meaning of millennium, one not related to existing
calendars or cardinality or ordinality - a meaning related to real
struggles - the meaning of a coming age of plenty and joy and life and
community and bonheur...after the chickens have come home to the
proverbial roost.
Maybe we'll have to start saying 'chiliastic' to denote those ideas now?
A former member of the Situationist International, Timothy Clark IIRC,
said a few years ago that he would be pleased if his prose had only a
small part of the chiliastic style of Guy Debord's.
Millennium? Pah! Let's celebrate the chiliad!
--
banana (off to search the Web for sites including both 'millenni*' and
'chilia*')
Steve Reed
>In article <IYcLIRAd...@lastings.softnet.co.uk>,
> Andrew Steven Reed <ar...@lastings.softnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I fear, Madam, that it is you who do not understand - entering the
>> (ordinally speaking) thousandth year of a millennium, or (describing
>the
>> situation in cardinal terms) entering year one thousand of a
>millennium,
>> is, however you describe it, NOT entering a new millennium, but
>entering
>> the last year of an old one!
>
>2000 is both the last year of a millennium AND the first year of a new
>one.
Of course, the beginning of ANY year is the start of A new millennium!
The millennium beginning at midnight on 1.1.1949 for example, runs until
midnight on 31.12.2950. Indeed millennia can start on any day of any
year, and at any time of any day. There's one starting at this very
second, in fact; but neither you nor I is going to pop the champagne,
because this second in time has no particular significance in our dating
system. Neither does midnight on 31.12.99, because it does not end THE
MILLENNIUM which is counted from the traditional date of the birth of
Christ, and which ends one year later.
Yes "2000" is a dramatic-looking number. So is 9.9.99 or 11.11.11;
indeed, you might just as well start counting new millennia from those
dates, for all the meaning there is in starting a millennium from
1.1.00!
>
>2000 = last year of the 2nd Millennium; 2001 = first year of the 3rd
>Millennim
>
>AND
>
>1999 = last year of the 1000s millennium; 2000 = first year of the
>2000s millennium
>
>These facts are not mutually exclusive and can peacefully coexist.
>
I think this is a clever, but desperate, attempt to rationalise the
violence which is being done to the truth of the matter. The third
millennium of the Christian era begins at the end of next year, but
everyone is being encouraged to believe that it begins at the end of
this year. Celebrate the start of the 2000's by all means, but do not
say that we are starting THE millennium! It will be a new year, the end
of the 'nineties and - yes - the first of the "2000's" (if you give a
hoot about that) but it is no more the start of the third millennium
than any other date or time whatever, excepting the first tick of
1.1.2001!
--
Steve Reed
char...@my-deja.com
Andrew Steven Reed <ar...@lastings.softnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Of course, the beginning of ANY year is the start of A new millennium!
> The millennium beginning at midnight on 1.1.1949 for example, runs
until
> midnight on 31.12.2950. Indeed millennia can start on any day of any
> year, and at any time of any day. There's one starting at this very
> second, in fact; but neither you nor I is going to pop the champagne,
> because this second in time has no particular significance in our
dating
> system.
What you say is true, but it looks like you are saying that the 2000s
millennium is essentially the equivalent of a randomly chosen 1000 year
period. So what is the name of the millennium that started at the
second you chose that a reasonably intelligent person would recognize
the time period without further explanation?
If one says 'the 2000s' or '1900s' people know exactly what era you are
talking about. The same isn't true of randomly chosen 1000 year or 100
year periods.
> Neither does midnight on 31.12.99, because it does not end THE
> MILLENNIUM which is counted from the traditional date of the birth of
> Christ, and which ends one year later.
>
> Yes "2000" is a dramatic-looking number. So is 9.9.99 or 11.11.11;
> indeed, you might just as well start counting new millennia from those
> dates, for all the meaning there is in starting a millennium from
> 1.1.00!
But it is more than just a dramatic looking number. Dividing the
calendar into cardinally described eras (e.g. the 1700s) is an
acceptable and common practice in the academic, scientific and
publishing worlds. The celebration isn't because 2000 is a "dramatic-
looking" number, it is because 1/1/2000 marks the change from the 1000s
era to the 2000s era.
>
> >
> >2000 = last year of the 2nd Millennium; 2001 = first year of the 3rd
> >Millennim
> >
> >AND
> >
> >1999 = last year of the 1000s millennium; 2000 = first year of the
> >2000s millennium
> >
> >These facts are not mutually exclusive and can peacefully coexist.
> >
> I think this is a clever, but desperate, attempt to rationalise the
> violence which is being done to the truth of the matter.
Truth of the matter? 2000 - 2999 = the 2000s = 1000 years = millennium.
What is untrue about that?
> The third
> millennium of the Christian era begins at the end of next year, but
> everyone is being encouraged to believe that it begins at the end of
> this year.
Cite, please! I haven't seen anyone being encourage to celebrate the
start of the Third Millennium on 1/1/2000. Where are you seeing this?
> Celebrate the start of the 2000's by all means, but do not
> say that we are starting THE millennium!
Whether it is THE millennium or not depends on the context in which it
is used.
For example, if someone hears 'the president', in no other context, it
would not be unreasonable to assume that one is referring to the
President of the United States (when in America anyway). By the same
token, I don't fault you for assuming the Third Millennium if there is
no other information to go on (e.g. the context in which it is used).
But just as if your company's newsletter mentioned that 'the president'
would be speaking at a company meaning you would assume, by the
context, that it is the president of the company being referred to and
not the President of the United states, the statement's "I'm going to
be celebrating the start of the new millennium on 1/1/2000" context
should lead a reasonably intelligent person like yourself to believe it
is NOT the Third Millennium being referred to but the 2000s.
The meaning of *the* can only be determined by context!
Another example, although 'the year' is usually, with no other context,
interpreted to mean 'the calendar year. But it doesn't have to.
In one AP story about the Columbine students returning to class there
were these two statements:
The Principal of the school was quoted as saying, "Last year, you made
me make a promise that I would not allow anyone or anything to take our
school."
And a school spokesperson said, "officials ... wanted to focus on the
students and the year ahead, rather than the tragedy."
While 'the year' can be assumed to mean outside of any context, I doubt
you think the principle is talking about 1998 or the spokesperson 2000.
In spite of the fact that 'the year' usually can be interpreted as
meaning the calendar year, you are able, from the context, to determine
that they are referring to school years and not calendar years.
You should also, by the context, be able to determine when I say "I am
celebrating the start of the millennium on 1/1/2000" that I am
referring to the 2000s and not the Third Millennium. Although YOU may
restrict YOUR usage of the words 'the millennium' to refer to the Third
Millennium and never use them to refer to the 2000s, that does not mean
other people are wrong to do so.
> It will be a new year, the end
> of the 'nineties and - yes - the first of the "2000's" (if you give a
> hoot about that)
Just as I celebrated the change from the 80s era to the 90s era on
1/1/1990, I will celebrate the change from the 1000s era to the 2000s
era on 1/1/2000. It's a new millennium! Party!
> but it is no more the start of the third millennium
> than any other date or time whatever, excepting the first tick of
> 1.1.2001!
Something I've agreed with all along.
But, somehow, I think that on 1/1/2001 I'll be celebrating the start of
the 21st Century more than the Third Millennium; somehow it just seems
cooler.
roy andrew crabtree
zero; as such the enumeration systems used for years (in the Western
European Judaeo Christian tradition{calling it BCE/CE really does not change
it from BC/AD), and ignoring minor points such as leap year, leap second,
and the Gregorian/Julian shift of October, 17?? (look it up), and completely
ignoring the 10 or so other systems which do NOT use a decimal radix to
enumerate years), you really DO have a problem starting a millennium on a
year ending with the digit "0" (zero).
Of course, if you wish to start a sane movement that cuts a year of the
CURRENT millennium, so that we DO in the future enumerate properly into the
future (2000-2999), I am all for it; but then I am a computer geek, not a
historian ...
perhaps you might actually acknowledge the point ASR has made and move on to
being a bit more
sanguine topic.
If you want hype and emotionalism as an argument of merit for "new
millennium" (albeit the hype and emotionalism is actually on "end of the
millennium", NOT beginning), you may want to review a seminal work called
"Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds", Scribner &
Sons, author I do not recall, ca. 1841, still published at least in
paperback.
It has a marvelous section on annular uprisings of emotionalisms.
Cheers. Happy New Millennium, in about 66 weeks or so (... according to the
Julian calendar ...
70 or so according to the Gregorian calendar ...).
Hmmmm.... 1999, drop the one, invert, number of the beast! (wow,
meaningful).
char...@my-deja.com wrote:
--
Roy A. Crabtree
3212-7 Stone's Throw Lane
Durham, NC 27713-5215
919-361-2158 home/office/voice/mail/data/autoEfax/adsl
919-696-1805 cell/voicemail
roy_cr...@hotmail.com Email
rac...@gte.net Email
Steve Reed
HIS.borve.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <7oh6rn$sel$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, posted to
>alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '11:55:36' on 'Sat, 7 Aug
>
>>In article <IYcLIRAd...@lastings.softnet.co.uk>,
><snip>
>
>>Did you think people were wrong to celebrate the start of THE new
>>decade (the 90s) on 1/1/1990? How is this different from celebrating
>>the start of the new millennium (the 2000s) on 1/1/2000?
>
>nobody starts threatening to sue each other :-) (only joking!)
Still, that is a thought... hmmm...trade descriptions act, paragraph,
um, yes - here we are - "offering goods, facilities or services which do
not fulfil the function the customer can reasonably expect them to be
capable of fulfilling". "Millennium souvenir objets" which only
commemorate the first day of the last year of the second millennium;
"millennium holidays" which end months before the third millennium
starts; "millennium kissograms" on the wrong date - I could really clean
up here!
Come on then! Offer me a seat (at the going rate, of course) in the
"millennium dome" for the "millennium celebrations", if you dare! You
will be hearing from my solicitors Sir!
>
>Anyway, I once knew somebody born in 1960 who insisted that meant he was
>born in the 1950s.
>
Well, "the 'fifties" is flexible - it's a style, a flavour, associated
with a rough period of about ten years. I know 'fifties people who were
born well into the 'sixties - no disrespect to the poor dears! Israel
Shahak points out that the mediaeval period of the Jewish diaspora did
not end, in the Yemen, until this century! That's what the 'nineties, or
the 1900's, are like - a convenient tag for an impression of a culture -
they are not chronological exactitudes; and that's why Charkane's,
IMO!(mustn't libel the lady - you never know!) chicanery is possible.
>I prefer a different meaning of millennium, one not related to existing
>calendars or cardinality or ordinality - a meaning related to real
>struggles - the meaning of a coming age of plenty and joy and life and
>community and bonheur...after the chickens have come home to the
>proverbial roost.
>
Oh yes, in the sense of "epoch-making" - I'm with you there - Armistice
Day! VE Day! The Prague Spring! Berliner Mauerfalltag! Historic days
of rejoicing (for some) but all succeeded, unfortunately, before long,
by the return of the old ghastliness in a new form. Perhaps you can
think of some better, or more, millennial days?
>Maybe we'll have to start saying 'chiliastic' to denote those ideas now?
>
Say it in Greek instead of Latin? (Don't tell me you didn't use the
thesaurus!!!) Why should we - or why shouldn't we - what does it matter?
At the end of NEXT year, we can celebrate (if we wish) two thousand
years in which European Christian culture has arisen and, ultimately,
led the world to its current level of civilisation. If you don't wish to
celebrate that (and I can quite understand that many will not wish to)
then there will be nothing (as far as I am aware) to celebrate at the
end of next year. There is certainly nothing particularly millennial
(i.e. "chiliastic") to celebrate about the end of this year, unless you
wish to celebrate 1999 years of Christian culture!
>A former member of the Situationist International, Timothy Clark IIRC,
>said a few years ago that he would be pleased if his prose had only a
>small part of the chiliastic style of Guy Debord's.
>
>Millennium? Pah! Let's celebrate the chiliad!
Love to! But if we are going to do that, in the sense you mean, then we
need a chiliastic event to celebrate. How about the unmasking of the
assassins who struck in Dealey Plaza, in Kings of Israel Square and
beneath the Pont de L'Alma?
--
Steve Reed
roy andrew crabtree
chiliastic, ecclesiastic, ecdysiastic, and silly assed schtick being so close
together; or maybe (think of an Italian accent ala Buckaroo Banzai) alla us'
monkey brains are wired De same' way' ... sigh, I am in a foul mood ...
With apologies to ASR and ba.na.na
Steve Reed wrote:
> In article <iroxjDA4...@borve.demon.co.uk>, banana <banana@REMOVE_T
> HIS.borve.demon.co.uk> writes
> >In article <7oh6rn$sel$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, posted to
> >alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '11:55:36' on 'Sat, 7 Aug
> >1999', char...@my-deja.com writes:
> >
> >>In article <IYcLIRAd...@lastings.softnet.co.uk>,
> ><snip>
> >
> >>Did you think people were wrong to celebrate the start of THE new
> >>decade (the 90s) on 1/1/1990? How is this different from celebrating
> >>the start of the new millennium (the 2000s) on 1/1/2000?
> >
--
char...@my-deja.com
roy andrew crabtree <rac...@gte.net> wrote:
> The main problem with using ordinals and cardinals, is that there is
NO year
> zero; as such the enumeration systems used for years (in the Western
> European Judaeo Christian tradition{calling it BCE/CE really does not
change
> it from BC/AD), and ignoring minor points such as leap year, leap
second,
> and the Gregorian/Julian shift of October, 17?? (look it up), and
completely
> ignoring the 10 or so other systems which do NOT use a decimal radix
to
> enumerate years), you really DO have a problem starting a millennium
on a
> year ending with the digit "0" (zero).
That has nothing to do with the fact that the 2000s = 2000 - 2999 =
1000 years = millennium. Cardinal descriptives do not require a
preceding unbroken sequence like ordinal descriptives (e.g. Third
Millennium).
As I've said before, even if the powers-that-be decided to start the AD
period with 501 AD (3 BC, 2 BC, 1 BC, 501 AD, 502 AD, 503 AD, etc.),
the period from 2000 - 2999 would still be considered a 2000s
millennium.
Same goes for the Gregorian/Julian shift.
>
> Of course, if you wish to start a sane movement that cuts a year of
the
> CURRENT millennium, so that we DO in the future enumerate properly
into the
> future (2000-2999), I am all for it; but then I am a computer geek,
not a
> historian ...
That would only be necessary to get the ordinal eras lined up. It is
not necessary for the cardinal ones (e.g. 1700s, 1990s, 2000s).
>
> perhaps you might actually acknowledge the point ASR has made and
move on to
> being a bit more
> sanguine topic.
>
> If you want hype and emotionalism as an argument of merit for "new
> millennium" (albeit the hype and emotionalism is actually on "end of
the
> millennium", NOT beginning), you may want to review a seminal work
called
> "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds", Scribner
&
> Sons, author I do not recall, ca. 1841, still published at least in
> paperback.
One of my favorite books, but only marginally applicable.
>
> It has a marvelous section on annular uprisings of emotionalisms.
>
> Cheers. Happy New Millennium, in about 66 weeks or so (... according
to the
> Julian calendar ...
> 70 or so according to the Gregorian calendar ...).
If you define New Millennium as the Third Millennium. On 1/1/2000,
people will be able to say "Happy new millennium" to celebrate the
start of the 2000s and not be wrong.
Steve Reed
>In article <L+jrxmAz...@lastings.softnet.co.uk>,
> Andrew Steven Reed <ar...@lastings.softnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Of course, the beginning of ANY year is the start of A new millennium!
>> The millennium beginning at midnight on 1.1.1949 for example, runs
>until
>> midnight on 31.12.2950. Indeed millennia can start on any day of any
>> year, and at any time of any day. There's one starting at this very
>> second, in fact; but neither you nor I is going to pop the champagne,
>> because this second in time has no particular significance in our
>dating
>> system.
>
>What you say is true, but it looks like you are saying that the 2000s
>millennium is essentially the equivalent of a randomly chosen 1000 year
>period.
Yes, that's it!
>So what is the name of the millennium that started at the
>second you chose that a reasonably intelligent person would recognize
>the time period without further explanation?
>
If it has to have a description (and I don't concede that any is
necessary to it's identity as A millennium) I could simply state the
moment, according to our dating system, on which it began. It could be
the millennium commencing 20 00 hrs 4.6.38. Is that clear enough for
you?
>If one says 'the 2000s' or '1900s' people know exactly what era you are
>talking about. The same isn't true of randomly chosen 1000 year or 100
>year periods.
>
Quite untrue - as I've just demonstrated.
>> Neither does midnight on 31.12.99, because it does not end THE
>> MILLENNIUM which is counted from the traditional date of the birth of
>> Christ, and which ends one year later.
>>
>> Yes "2000" is a dramatic-looking number. So is 9.9.99 or 11.11.11;
>> indeed, you might just as well start counting new millennia from those
>> dates, for all the meaning there is in starting a millennium from
>> 1.1.00!
>
>But it is more than just a dramatic looking number. Dividing the
>calendar into cardinally described eras (e.g. the 1700s) is an
>acceptable and common practice in the academic, scientific and
>publishing worlds. The celebration isn't because 2000 is a "dramatic-
>looking" number, it is because 1/1/2000 marks the change from the 1000s
>era to the 2000s era.
>
But no-one does speak of the "1000s era" or the "2000s" era - I've never
heard either expression before in my life! This is because the "1900s"
and the "1800s" etc. are only used as a convenient reference for PAST
centuries, mainly by people who lack the mental agility to recall that
they refer, respectively, to the 20th and 19th centuries - people who
fail to grasp, indeed, that the 1900s are NOT the 20th century, but the
last year of the 19th followed by the first 99 of the 20th, and so on.
Now, if you wish to jump up and down and shout, "hooray, hooray we've
started the '2000s'", that is, of course, your affair, but you are only
starting a period which is defined either by ignorance of the dating
system or a cynical attempt to subvert it.
>>
>> >
>> >2000 = last year of the 2nd Millennium; 2001 = first year of the 3rd
>> >Millennim
>> >
>> >AND
>> >
>> >1999 = last year of the 1000s millennium; 2000 = first year of the
>> >2000s millennium
>> >
>> >These facts are not mutually exclusive and can peacefully coexist.
>> >
>> I think this is a clever, but desperate, attempt to rationalise the
>> violence which is being done to the truth of the matter.
>
>Truth of the matter? 2000 - 2999 = the 2000s = 1000 years = millennium.
>
>What is untrue about that?
>
You know damn well what's untrue about it - it leaves the first
millennium with only 999 years!
>> The third
>> millennium of the Christian era begins at the end of next year, but
>> everyone is being encouraged to believe that it begins at the end of
>> this year.
>
>Cite, please! I haven't seen anyone being encourage to celebrate the
>start of the Third Millennium on 1/1/2000. Where are you seeing this?
>
As you well know, the process is more invidious than that: reference is
made to "the new millennium", as though your "2000s" were THE new
millennium, when they are nothing of the kind. The "2000s" are A new
millennium, based on a childish fascination with the appearance of the
number. Besides, I've never heard of them. Nobody ever talks about the
"2000s millennium". What a load of rubbish!
>> Celebrate the start of the 2000's by all means, but do not
>> say that we are starting THE millennium!
>
>Whether it is THE millennium or not depends on the context in which it
>is used.
>
No it doesn't. THE millennium ends on 31.12.00. Wriggle as you may.
Invent catchy names for millennia of your own devising as much as you
like, you won't have clocked up 2000 years from the traditional date of
the birth of Christ until then!
>For example, if someone hears 'the president', in no other context, it
>would not be unreasonable to assume that one is referring to the
>President of the United States (when in America anyway). By the same
>token, I don't fault you for assuming the Third Millennium if there is
>no other information to go on (e.g. the context in which it is used).
>
>But just as if your company's newsletter mentioned that 'the president'
>would be speaking at a company meaning you would assume, by the
>context, that it is the president of the company being referred to and
>not the President of the United states, the statement's "I'm going to
>be celebrating the start of the new millennium on 1/1/2000" context
>should lead a reasonably intelligent person like yourself to believe it
>is NOT the Third Millennium being referred to but the 2000s.
>
This is the crux of the matter! The exact reverse is true - you go and
tell everyone that it's only the "2000s millennium" (of which no-one has
ever heard) that they're supposed to be celebrating. They'll be very
surprised! They think the millennium referred to is that initiated by
the end of 2000 years from the traditional birth of Christ - if they
think about it at all - but they're not being encouraged to think about
it. In fact, they're being encouraged NOT to think at all!
>The meaning of *the* can only be determined by context!
>
No, the definite article denotes uniqueness - in any context!
>Another example, although 'the year' is usually, with no other context,
>interpreted to mean 'the calendar year. But it doesn't have to.
>
Yes it does. You can otherwise qualify it, but, on its own, that's
precisely what it means.
>In one AP story about the Columbine students returning to class there
>were these two statements:
>
>The Principal of the school was quoted as saying, "Last year, you made
>me make a promise that I would not allow anyone or anything to take our
>school."
>
>And a school spokesperson said, "officials ... wanted to focus on the
>students and the year ahead, rather than the tragedy."
>
>While 'the year' can be assumed to mean outside of any context, I doubt
>you think the principle is talking about 1998 or the spokesperson 2000.
>In spite of the fact that 'the year' usually can be interpreted as
>meaning the calendar year, you are able, from the context, to determine
>that they are referring to school years and not calendar years.
>
The academic year is one calendar year in length. What you say here is
irrelevant. If you said that you were on Mars, then referring to "the
year" would mean a different period of time. But we're not on Mars.
>You should also, by the context, be able to determine when I say "I am
>celebrating the start of the millennium on 1/1/2000" that I am
>referring to the 2000s and not the Third Millennium. Although YOU may
>restrict YOUR usage of the words 'the millennium' to refer to the Third
>Millennium and never use them to refer to the 2000s, that does not mean
>other people are wrong to do so.
>
They don't. No-one refers to "the 2000s millennium". It's a stilted
and silly-sounding phrase, which you have invented in order to
rationalise going along with the scam which is being pulled here.
>> It will be a new year, the end
>> of the 'nineties and - yes - the first of the "2000's" (if you give a
>> hoot about that)
>
>Just as I celebrated the change from the 80s era to the 90s era on
>1/1/1990, I will celebrate the change from the 1000s era to the 2000s
>era on 1/1/2000. It's a new millennium! Party!
>
Self-deception and an insult to history!
>> but it is no more the start of the third millennium
>> than any other date or time whatever, excepting the first tick of
>> 1.1.2001!
>
>Something I've agreed with all along.
>
>But, somehow, I think that on 1/1/2001 I'll be celebrating the start of
>the 21st Century more than the Third Millennium; somehow it just seems
>cooler.
>
>You're happy to lose your cool for the start of the "2000s millennium"
(big deal that is!) But if you see some value in contemplating the
start of the 21st century, on 1.1.2001, then I have no argument with you
at all! :-)
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
--
Steve Reed
char...@my-deja.com
Andrew Steven Reed <ar...@lastings.softnet.co.uk> wrote:
[I've clipped some stuff to shorten this but made an honest effort to
keep the relevant points. Any omission is not an attempt to skirt an
issue. If something is missing that you think belongs, feel free to add
it back in]
> >What you say is true, but it looks like you are saying that the 2000s
> >millennium is essentially the equivalent of a randomly chosen 1000
year
> >period.
>
> Yes, that's it!
But what it boils down to is no time period holds any particular
significance other than what people give to it. So while it may be
valid for you to say 'the 2000s' holds no more significance than a
randomly chosen 1000 year period, that could also be said about the
Third Millennium. They only hold what significance that people give
them.
>
> >So what is the name of the millennium that started at the
> >second you chose that a reasonably intelligent person would recognize
> >the time period without further explanation?
> >
> If it has to have a description (and I don't concede that any is
> necessary to it's identity as A millennium) I could simply state the
> moment, according to our dating system, on which it began. It could
be
> the millennium commencing 20 00 hrs 4.6.38. Is that clear enough for
> you?
The point about the name is that it is more than just a random thousand
year period; it is an clearly demarcated era that people recognize
without having to have it defined for them. The fact that people
recognize it by its name just illustrates this. While you may name your
millennium 'The Thousand Year Period That Begins On 20 00 Hrs 4.6.38',
unlike 'the 2000s' it is NOT an era recognized by reasonably
intelligent people; and, in fact, REQUIRES that its very definition be
part of its name for people to have any chance of knowing what you are
talking about at all.
> But no-one does speak of the "1000s era" or the "2000s" era - I've
never
> heard either expression before in my life!
By the same token, I've never heard anyone say "The Second Millennium
Era" or "The Third Millennium Era." Having 'era' in its name is not
necessary for it to be one.
> This is because the "1900s"
> and the "1800s" etc. are only used as a convenient reference for PAST
> centuries,
Not necessarily only past ones. Although I don't have a handy example
for centuries, I can point you to some examples for decades (e.g. a
1989 article 'Top Stock Picks For The 90s' in which, in the body of the
article, they refer to 'the 90s' as a decade. I can dig up dozens of
similiar cites).
> mainly by people who lack the mental agility to recall that
> they refer, respectively, to the 20th and 19th centuries - people who
> fail to grasp, indeed, that the 1900s are NOT the 20th century, but
the
> last year of the 19th followed by the first 99 of the 20th, and so on.
Hmmm. I'm having a hard time following your logic. As you point out
'the 1900s' is not the same thing as 'the 20th Century' so why do think
that when people use the term they ARE referring to the 20th Century?
Would you also say that when people refer to the decade 'the 50s' they
actually mean the 196th Decade or the 6th Decade of the 20th Century?
>
> Now, if you wish to jump up and down and shout, "hooray, hooray we've
> started the '2000s'", that is, of course, your affair, but you are
only
> starting a period which is defined either by ignorance of the dating
> system or a cynical attempt to subvert it.
I'm not sure why you only recognize ordinal divisions of the calendar
and think that if people recognize cardinally described ones that that
somehow subverts the dating system. BOTH are acceptable ways of
dividing up the calendar into eras. It is not an either/or situation as
you seem to imply.
In fact, when I look at the Mirriam Webster Collegiate dictionary on my
desk, I see a defintion for 'fifties' that reads, in part: "... 2. The
numbers 50 to 59; specif the years 50 to 59 in a lifetime or century."
While YOU may think because ordinally described eras exist that means
cardinally described ones aren't valid, most of the academic,
publishing and scientific worlds disagree.
> >
> >Truth of the matter? 2000 - 2999 = the 2000s = 1000 years =
millennium.
> >
> >What is untrue about that?
> >
> You know damn well what's untrue about it - it leaves the first
> millennium with only 999 years!
The "first millennium" is part of the ordinal series. It has absolutely
nothing to do with the cardinal 'the 2000s.'
You are trying to apply the rules for ordinal time periods to a
cardinal one and it, plain and simply, doesn't work that way.
Ordinal time periods require an unbroken sequence (i.e. for there to be
a third something there MUST have been have been a first and second
one).
Cardinal time periods do NOT require a complete series. If the powers-
that-be decided, for whatever reason, to start the AD calendar with the
year 501 (3 BC, 2 BC, 1 BC, 501 AD, 502 AD, 503 AD, etc.), the period
from 2000 - 2999 would STILL comprise a '2000s millennium.' It matters
not one whit what years exist before or after this period. As long as
all thousand years between 2000 - 2999 are there, it comprises a '2000s
millennium.'
Again, cardinals are not based on a series like ordinals are.
[clipped a bunch of stuff that proposed that the Third Millennium is
*the* millennium and the 2000s can be referred to as 'a millennium' but
not 'the millennium' because the heart of the debate is this part:]
> >The meaning of *the* can only be determined by context!
> >
> No, the definite article denotes uniqueness - in any context!
No, it doesn't. I can refer to my car as 'the car' (as in "I left it in
the car."). I don't own the only car in the world. There is not only
one car that can be referred to as 'the car' and all other cars are
just 'a car.' The uniqueness denoted only means unique in this context;
not "in any context" as you claim.
And that's EXACTLY my point: although 'the year', absent of any context
can be assumed to refer to the calendar year (to be even more specific:
Earth's calendar year), but, can be used to refer to other types years
in the right context. As you say, if one is on Mars (a different
context) the meaning could be different.
So now you've made conflicting statements. On the one hand you say "the
definite article denotes uniqueness - in any context!". On the other
hand you say in a different context (i.e. Mars) it can mean something
different.
Which one is what you really mean?
>
> >You should also, by the context, be able to determine when I say "I
am
> >celebrating the start of the millennium on 1/1/2000" that I am
> >referring to the 2000s and not the Third Millennium. Although YOU may
> >restrict YOUR usage of the words 'the millennium' to refer to the
Third
> >Millennium and never use them to refer to the 2000s, that does not
mean
> >other people are wrong to do so.
> >
> They don't. No-one refers to "the 2000s millennium". It's a stilted
> and silly-sounding phrase, which you have invented in order to
> rationalise going along with the scam which is being pulled here.
Well, I'll admit I haven't really heard the *exact* phrase 'the 2000s
millennium' used much, but I have heard 'the 2000s' referred to as a
millennium. Whether you have or have not has nothing to do with the
validity of it.
> >Just as I celebrated the change from the 80s era to the 90s era on
> >1/1/1990, I will celebrate the change from the 1000s era to the 2000s
> >era on 1/1/2000. It's a new millennium! Party!
> >
> Self-deception and an insult to history!
What are you saying? That people that celebrated the start of 'the 90s'
on 1/1/1990 are self-deluded and perpetrating an insult to history?
Steve Reed
>In article <dCEuOXBp...@lastings.softnet.co.uk>,
> Andrew Steven Reed <ar...@lastings.softnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[I've clipped some stuff to shorten this but made an honest effort to
>keep the relevant points. Any omission is not an attempt to skirt an
>issue. If something is missing that you think belongs, feel free to add
>it back in]
>> This is because the "1900s"
>> and the "1800s" etc. are only used as a convenient reference for PAST
>> centuries,
>
>Not necessarily only past ones. Although I don't have a handy example
>for centuries, I can point you to some examples for decades (e.g. a
>1989 article 'Top Stock Picks For The 90s' in which, in the body of the
>article, they refer to 'the 90s' as a decade. I can dig up dozens of
>similiar cites).
>
>> mainly by people who lack the mental agility to recall that
>> they refer, respectively, to the 20th and 19th centuries - people who
>> fail to grasp, indeed, that the 1900s are NOT the 20th century, but
>the
>> last year of the 19th followed by the first 99 of the 20th, and so on.
>
>Hmmm. I'm having a hard time following your logic. As you point out
>'the 1900s' is not the same thing as 'the 20th Century' so why do think
>that when people use the term they ARE referring to the 20th Century?
I've just explained that above.
>Would you also say that when people refer to the decade 'the 50s' they
>actually mean the 196th Decade or the 6th Decade of the 20th Century?
>
Droll!
>>
>> Now, if you wish to jump up and down and shout, "hooray, hooray we've
>> started the '2000s'", that is, of course, your affair, but you are
>only
>> starting a period which is defined either by ignorance of the dating
>> system or a cynical attempt to subvert it.
>
>I'm not sure why you only recognize ordinal divisions of the calendar
>and think that if people recognize cardinally described ones that that
>somehow subverts the dating system. BOTH are acceptable ways of
>dividing up the calendar into eras. It is not an either/or situation as
>you seem to imply.
>
>In fact, when I look at the Mirriam Webster Collegiate dictionary on my
>desk, I see a defintion for 'fifties' that reads, in part: "... 2. The
>numbers 50 to 59; specif the years 50 to 59 in a lifetime or century."
>While YOU may think because ordinally described eras exist that means
>cardinally described ones aren't valid, most of the academic,
>publishing and scientific worlds disagree.
>
>
I've never disputed that the 50's etc are used as loose descriptions of
decades - or that the 1900's and so on are used as loose descriptions of
centuries; but I have never heard anyone speak of the 1000's millennium
or the 2000's millennium. I'm sorry to have to say that you have made
them up. Okay so your "2000's millennium" begins at the end of this
year, fine! But millennia are either first, second or third etc (bc or
ad) and the second millennium ends at the END of next year.
>> >
>> >Truth of the matter? 2000 - 2999 = the 2000s = 1000 years =
>millennium.
>> >
>> >What is untrue about that?
>> >
>> You know damn well what's untrue about it - it leaves the first
>> millennium with only 999 years!
>
>The "first millennium" is part of the ordinal series. It has absolutely
>nothing to do with the cardinal 'the 2000s.'
>
>You are trying to apply the rules for ordinal time periods to a
>cardinal one and it, plain and simply, doesn't work that way.
>
Damn right it doesn't; because it's calendrical nonsense.
>> They don't. No-one refers to "the 2000s millennium". It's a stilted
>> and silly-sounding phrase, which you have invented in order to
>> rationalise going along with the scam which is being pulled here.
>
>Well, I'll admit I haven't really heard the *exact* phrase 'the 2000s
>millennium' used much, but I have heard 'the 2000s' referred to as a
>millennium. Whether you have or have not has nothing to do with the
>validity of it.
>
>
>> >Just as I celebrated the change from the 80s era to the 90s era on
>> >1/1/1990, I will celebrate the change from the 1000s era to the 2000s
>> >era on 1/1/2000. It's a new millennium! Party!
>> >
>> Self-deception and an insult to history!
>
>What are you saying? That people that celebrated the start of 'the 90s'
>on 1/1/1990 are self-deluded and perpetrating an insult to history?
As you well know, that is not what I'm saying.
--
Steve Reed
Steve Reed
> Andrew Steven Reed <ar...@lastings.softnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[I've clipped some stuff to shorten this but made an honest effort to
>keep the relevant points. Any omission is not an attempt to skirt an
>issue. If something is missing that you think belongs, feel free to add
>it back in]
>
>> >What you say is true, but it looks like you are saying that the 2000s
>> >millennium is essentially the equivalent of a randomly chosen 1000
>year
>> >period.
>>
>> Yes, that's it!
>
>But what it boils down to is no time period holds any particular
>significance other than what people give to it. So while it may be
>valid for you to say 'the 2000s' holds no more significance than a
>randomly chosen 1000 year period, that could also be said about the
>Third Millennium. They only hold what significance that people give
>them.
Absolutely true; but if you DO consider that the start of the third
millennium is of any significance, you'll have to wait until the start
of the 21st century to celebrate it. I.E. the end of NEXT year.
--
Steve Reed
char...@my-deja.com
Andrew Steven Reed <ar...@lastings.softnet.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> >Would you also say that when people refer to the decade 'the 50s'
they
> >actually mean the 196th Decade or the 6th Decade of the 20th Century?
> >
> Droll!
Is that a yes or a no?
> >In fact, when I look at the Mirriam Webster Collegiate dictionary on
my
> >desk, I see a defintion for 'fifties' that reads, in part: "... 2.
The
> >numbers 50 to 59; specif the years 50 to 59 in a lifetime or
century."
> >
> I've never disputed that the 50's etc are used as loose descriptions
of
> decades - or that the 1900's and so on are used as loose descriptions
of
> centuries;
Loose definition?!?!? The dictionary is defining very precisely! I
can't see how you come to the conclusion that that exact definition has
any looseness to it at all!
> but I have never heard anyone speak of the 1000's millennium
> or the 2000's millennium. I'm sorry to have to say that you have made
> them up.
If YOU haven't heard of them, that means *I* made them up?!? Sorry that
you aren't very well read but I can probably come up with dozens of
terms that you haven't heard of, does that mean I made them up too?
> Okay so your "2000's millennium" begins at the end of this
> year, fine! But millennia are either first, second or third etc (bc
or
> ad) and the second millennium ends at the END of next year.
Every dictionary I've looked at defines millennium as a 1000 year
period. But according to you, only ordinally described time periods
qualify. Somehow cardinally described time periods are 1000-year-
periods-but-not-millennia, according to you. I though maybe I should
buy some new dictionaries, but, unfortunately, that won't do me any
good because I can't find one that that would be Andrew Steve Reed
approved as none of them limit the use of the terms 'millennia' or
'millennium' the way you are trying to.
> >> >Just as I celebrated the change from the 80s era to the 90s era on
> >> >1/1/1990, I will celebrate the change from the 1000s era to the
2000s
> >> >era on 1/1/2000. It's a new millennium! Party!
> >> >
> >> Self-deception and an insult to history!
> >
> >What are you saying? That people that celebrated the start of 'the
90s'
> >on 1/1/1990 are self-deluded and perpetrating an insult to history?
>
> As you well know, that is not what I'm saying.
Then explain yourself: why is it ok to celebrate the start of the
decade of the 90s on 1/1/1990 but not ok (according to you) to
celebrate the start of the 2000s millennium on 1/1/2000? What's the
difference?
char...@my-deja.com
Andrew Steven Reed <ar...@lastings.softnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >But what it boils down to is no time period holds any particular
> >significance other than what people give to it. So while it may be
> >valid for you to say 'the 2000s' holds no more significance than a
> >randomly chosen 1000 year period, that could also be said about the
> >Third Millennium. They only hold what significance that people give
> >them.
>
> millennium is of any significance, you'll have to wait until the start
> of the 21st century to celebrate it. I.E. the end of NEXT year.
Something that I stated in my very first post and haven't wavered from
since.
Steve Reed
>In article <lGGgvHBV...@lastings.softnet.co.uk>,
> Andrew Steven Reed <ar...@lastings.softnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> >But what it boils down to is no time period holds any particular
>> >significance other than what people give to it. So while it may be
>> >valid for you to say 'the 2000s' holds no more significance than a
>> >randomly chosen 1000 year period, that could also be said about the
>> >Third Millennium. They only hold what significance that people give
>> >them.
>>
>> millennium is of any significance, you'll have to wait until the start
>> of the 21st century to celebrate it. I.E. the end of NEXT year.
>
>Something that I stated in my very first post and haven't wavered from
>since.
>
--
Steve Reed
Trevjon
>
>In article <6KgnrJAj...@borve.demon.co.uk>, banana
><banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>I fear that during a 'crisis' allegedly brought by the 'millennium bug'
>>- which, folks, the British armed forces have prepared for in relation
>>to the period September 1999-February 2000 - harmful vaccination such as
>>this will be compulsory.
>>
>>For example, a stamp could be put on people's ID cards when they
>>received the vaccine. No stamp, no food.
>>
>>(If that happens, remember, you read it here first! :-) )
>>--
>>banana
>
>Yes everybody please remember where you first heard this absolute nonsense.
>
>In 6 months time I will repost Bananas original post, so we can all have a
>jolly good laugh.
>
>
>Trevjon.
>
>
>
As promised, here is bananas original post. It may be early days, but so far
none of the calamities predicted on this NG (and elsewhere) have materialised.
Just what world do people such as banana live in, because it is definately not
the same one in which I reside!!
Trevjon.
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '16:02:42' on 'Sat, 1 Jan
Thanks to Trevjon for this! (Although please note that I couched what I
was saying, with regard to the millennium, in terms of a fear rather
than a prediction. My overall take is thoroughly correct. To be quite
frank I don't think TJ has got an overall take, on the nature of this
society and the nature of its development, so it is not as if one can
compare like with like. To understand the nature of this society one has
to be involved in struggle against it... The 'apotheosis' of collective
class consciousness would mean its overthrow... 'The working class is
revolutionary or it is nothing').
Short humorous comments can often be obfuscatory. TJ is living in the
same world that I am living in. We are both living in the world that is
lived in by very large corporations, one of which is British Telecom.
This particular multinational corporation has a futurology department,
and Ian Pearson of that department had an article in the Guardian on 30
Dec 1999. In it he states:
>In a few decades, cheap chips and easy networking will mean everything
>that should be connected will be [...]
>In fact [...] we will just take it for granted that technology can hear
>us and knows what we are talking about [...]
>[...] [R]elating to machines will be more pleasant than dealing with
>other humans.
>We have to hope that [intelligent machines] will want this pleasant
>relationship to continue because the least feasible part of the
>Terminator scenario is that the people win. As a precaution, we will
>have to make transparent links from our machines to the human brain,
>with full thought recognition by the first half of the century.
>When anyone decides to use a technology, the rest of us have no choice
>but to follow.
Does TJ shudder at that? Or maybe Pearson is talking crap? Or is anyone
who mentions the article a loony or a space cadet? Perhaps he would
concentrate too much on the author's references to popular sci-fi, in
order to suppose that he wrote his article tongue in cheek? Maybe BT's
entire futurology department is a hoax? (In fact, the references to
sci-fi and the way that they are made are illustrative of serious
decisions, by rather sober men and women in suits sitting around tables,
regarding how to fine-tune opinion to be supportive of the developments
they want. I am posting the article separately.
The truth is, although the ongoing technological revolution (gene tech
being understandable in terms of infotech) represents a new departure
(which I would theorise in terms of a new form of real subsumption of
labour-power by capital - I don't know TJ would theorise it, I guess as
a combination of 'what must be' with 'what only a loony would say') it
is also in a sense a development of what happened last century.
What we have is the scientists coming out in their white coats telling
us that what is planned - what *they* are helping plan - is inevitable,
it's 'the applicance of science', oh, and by the way it's all in the
public good. In particular it helps health and public safety. Last I
heard, Esther Rantzen was being considered as somebody to wheel on to
sell biotech to TV watchers. (For those who don't know, she is a
nicey-nicey TV entertainer, with very large audience ratings). Please
don't tell me there isn't a top rung in the technological cycle, that of
strategy. The people who control the world are intelligent, they are
also mad. We can think of their intelligence/sickness as a distillation
or purification of the category of control over other people - a sort of
purified anti-humanity, or evil, which has risen up within humanity,
which needs humanity to feed off, but which humanity must do away with.
(See the vampire references in Marx).
In some pre-school centres, one third of the children are on
antiobiotics at any one time (repeat: at any one time). Are they not
obvious, the divisions in society, the pervasive false consciousness in
society, the idiotisation? Does TJ think all of this 'just happens',
that it is only discussable by sane people in bits and pieces, as if
this society - and the direction in which it is moving - is an elephant
and when trying to understand anything at all we are congenitally bound
head and foot, blindfolded, and gagged - and one who would criticise the
whole - or even try to, or seek to - is a loony or a terrorist? I mean,
what kind of take on society is this? Does he really not see how the
power of the big corporations slots in with the power of the State and
the use of the media, with the discouragement 'everywhere where modern
means of communication prevail' of seeing things as they really are,
seeing the nature of this society, and why the big developments that
happen, happen?
In the last century more than ever before, via the media, people had the
view forced on them that the rulers' wishes, the rulers' interests, the
rulers' very f*cking nature, were in keeping with the public good.
Nowhere are people encouraged in the media to see their rulers for the
bloodsucking murdering evil scum that they are. What satire there is, is
of the nature of a safety-valve. Of course, most working class people
know the rulers are just as I have described them, but out loud, to
people one doesn't know already, this view rarely gets expressed. What
is on the television exercises practically a monopoly over much of what
discourse there is. (I do agree with those who chose the word
'television' as the word for the last century). Some of us are working
to erode that state of affairs.
A lot of the false consciousness - see most of the 'millennium' stuff -
is about getting poor people to follow the doings of their social
'superiors' - decision celebrities and consumption celebrities as Guy
Debord calls them in his great book of 1967 - just like the idealised
peasants in many story books 'love' their kings and queens. Under
feudalism the rulers had an ideology of presenting their own whims and
interests as expressing the essential needs of society, or even the
essential relationship between humanity and nature ('the king and the
land are one'). That was disgusting but much of it was only for their
own benefit or those who came to their palaces. Most people in a
'kingdom' probably didn't know who the king was, they didn't go more
than a few miles from where they were born. it was only in the last
century that the means were at hand to spread a corresponding false
consciousness among the broad population. There is an enormous amount of
social deference: to drug-pushing physicians, to those pieces of sh*t
who tell the news on the television - take a look at their ugly mugs in
the newspapers, how they strain every muscle to represent sincerity - to
all one's social 'superiors'. The media spectacle arose at the same time
as the second industrial revolution (involving increases in the
productivity and intensity of labour which led to a deal based on
consumerism in many parts of the world). Now we're in the early stages
of the third.
Has TJ noticed how the routine tracking of *all* mobile phones, which
most people would not have believed happened until 1998 (I have
references to the court case in Switzerland which led to the first
admissions in the mainstream press) is now common knowledge? Would he
have accused people who spoke of such tracking before it got into the
press of being loonies? Did he read the speech by a top international
linguist in which he states that in his view it is inevitable that in
500 years time children will have a knowledge of English at birth and
quite possibly at conception? 'Inevitable' - the 'appliance of science'.
Oh yeah. Are those who spoke of genetic control prior to this article
loonies too?
BTW one thing that happened in the last few months of the last century
was the publicised aerial spraying of New York city, supposedly in the
fight against the spread of a nasty virus. The Sunday Times reported
that the CIA 'feared' the virus was a biological weapon. The testing of
LSD etc. on unwitting victims in the 1950s and 1960s is now common
knowledge.
Finally, I don't care whether people see the millennium ending at the
end of 1999 or the end of 2000, but it is remarkable how the period of a
millennium, which is meaningless to most people on a personal level, has
all but crowded out the period of a century, which is meaningful - or if
it isn't, it should be - to most people. I had grandparents who were
alive in 1900. A lady I met today had parents who were alive in 1900 (I
think, anyway). A distant member of my family who is still alive was
born in 1901. But oh no, rather than thinking about what our ancestors
were doing in 1900, or what our parents or grandparents told us about
1900 - e.g. living without electricity and cars - rather than discussing
with people close to us what the 20th century was all about - we are
supposed to watch some billionaire tosser who calls herself the 'queen'
prance about in a billion-pound dome, surrounded by political and
religious celebrities who symbolise the power of our 'superiors', served
by officially sanctioned nationalistic entertainers, and do as our
bosses tell us and get drunk as newts because they've allowed us to.
--
banana
Tre...@aol.com
banana@remove_this.borve.demon.co.uk writes:
<< Thanks to Trevjon for this! >>
< Snip (what seems like) hundreds of lines of irrelevant crap!
I sure touched a nerve with you there didn't I Neil.
Although the following outpouring leaves me a little confused, as, by the
technological nature of how they work, all mobile phone calls must be
"tracked" (in the industry we prefer the word "routed"), or the bloody things
wouldn't work!
"Has TJ noticed how the routine tracking of *all* mobile phones, which
most people would not have believed happened until 1998 (I have references to
the court case in Switzerland which led to the first
admissions in the mainstream press) "
This shows you have a complete mis-understanding of the way mobile 'phones
work, but instead of doing some quite rudimetary research into the subject,
YOU decide that the whole thing is some sort of sinister plot. That is the
difference between our two worlds.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bernhard Boer
<Tre...@aol.com> schreef in berichtnieuws 0.4492f06...@aol.com...
> In a message dated 01/01/00 22:50:34 GMT Standard Time,
> banana@remove_this.borve.demon.co.uk writes:
>
> << Thanks to Trevjon for this! >>
>
> < Snip (what seems like) hundreds of lines of irrelevant crap!
>
> I sure touched a nerve with you there didn't I Neil.
Sorry, but who is Neil? Is Neil banana's real name or is it a colloquial
expression?
Bernhard
Tre...@aol.com
writes:
<< Sorry, but who is Neil? Is Neil banana's real name or is it a colloquial
expression? >>
Banana's real name is Neil Fernandez.
Trevjon
>to erode that state of affairs.
Working? How, by posting to newsgroups? Or are you making bombs in your
cellar?
Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and stand for election, on
your own nominated platform.
Would you get elected?-well, we all know the answer to that one.
The only reason YOU want a so-called revolution, is so you can replace the
"ruling class" with a ruling class of your own, comprising of looonies with
similar thoughts as yourself (if you can find enough to form a cabinet)
If enough people agreed with you, then we wouldn't need a revolution, as you
would get enough backing on your own merits. In reality, of course, you remain
a tiny little minority, so small that you are only just visable to the naked
eye, and have to satisfy your ego by publishing long boring meaningless drivel,
that few people read anyway.
You remind me of the comedy character "Citizen Smith", from the 1970's tv
programme of the same name, or those strange people who used to sell "Socialist
Worker" when it was bloody obvious that non of them had done a days work in
their life, and, whats more, were probably incapable of doing so!
Never mind, at least you give lots of people a jolly good laugh!
Trevjon.
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '21:35:58' on 'Mon, 3 Jan
2000', Trevjon <tre...@aol.comnospam> writes:
>>Some of us are working
>>to erode that state of affairs.
>
>Working? How, by posting to newsgroups? Or are you making bombs in your
>cellar?
No Trevjon *you* are the one who works in the weapons industry.
Whatever I'm doing, you personally seem to find it important enough to
take time to oppose it.
>Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and stand for election, on
>your own nominated platform.
Duh! Why does someone who's anti-prison not try to be the governor?
>The only reason YOU want a so-called revolution, is so you can replace the
>"ruling class" with a ruling class of your own,
Indeed, with the anti-statist dictatorship of the proletariat, which by
definition disappears at its moment of victory. By definition.
>comprising of looonies with
>similar thoughts as yourself (if you can find enough to form a cabinet)
'Form a cabinet'? Duh!
>If enough people agreed with you, then we wouldn't need a revolution, as you
>would get enough backing on your own merits. In reality, of course, you remain
>a tiny little minority, so small that you are only just visable to the naked
>eye, and have to satisfy your ego by publishing long boring meaningless drivel,
>that few people read anyway.
OK you weren't up to discussing the futurological pronouncements from
one of Britain's and the world's largest corporations; or the overall
direction in which this ongoing technological revolution is moving.
You'd rather insult little old me. I couldn't give a sh*t about a battle
between egos.
Anyway, what's going on, the class struggle, is not fundamentally a
battle of ideas or a battle between dickheads with their electoral
platforms, seeking to 'represent' people. If you *had* read and properly
digested my 'drivel' you'd know what I think about representation.
>You remind me of the comedy character "Citizen Smith", from the 1970's tv
>programme of the same name, or those strange people who used to sell "Socialist
>Worker" when it was bloody obvious that non of them had done a days work in
>their life, and, whats more, were probably incapable of doing so!
>
>Never mind, at least you give lots of people a jolly good laugh!
If you think my ideas or activities are close to those of the 'Socialist
Workers' Party' you really are not trying hard enough. Ditto if you're
attempting to employ the amalgam method.
Maybe let the boys and girls in Special Branch and Thames House study
stuff like that, get out their Debord, their Negri, their Pannekoek,
while you keep to the circuit boards?
--
banana
Trevjon
>>>to erode that state of affairs.
>>
>>Working? How, by posting to newsgroups? Or are you making bombs in your
>>cellar?
>
>No Trevjon *you* are the one who works in the weapons industry.
>
>Whatever I'm doing, you personally seem to find it important enough to
>take time to oppose it.
Sure I oppose it-what have I to gain by having a loony in charge of
everything-no matter how you dress it up by calling it strange things like
"anti statist dictatorship", or whatever nonsense. No matter what faults the
present system has - and god knows it has plenty-until someone comes up with a
practical solution that works better I prefer to keep the present one that
works on some levels.
>
>>Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and stand for election, on
>>your own nominated platform.
>
>Duh! Why does someone who's anti-prison not try to be the governor?
So, you say you aren't making bombs, but are not prepared to stand up for
election, then just how are you going to get into power with your system? You
are talking complete nonsense and are just using the excuse that you don't
believe in the system, whereas, in reality, you just know that not enough
people will support you to change the system. All revolutionaries soon learn
that the easiest way to fight the system is from within. So please explain to
me how you intend to make your dreams become reality?
>
>>The only reason YOU want a so-called revolution, is so you can replace the
>>"ruling class" with a ruling class of your own,
>
>Indeed, with the anti-statist dictatorship of the proletariat, which by
>definition disappears at its moment of victory. By definition.
To be replaced by what? Someone has to make the everyday decisions.
Do you honestly believe you could win the popular "vote" (for want of a better
description) to introduce this system, and , if not, then how would you subdue
all the people who were against you?
>
>>comprising of looonies with
>>similar thoughts as yourself (if you can find enough to form a cabinet)
>
>'Form a cabinet'? Duh!
I was using this as a form of words only. How would you envisage the discision
making process necessary to run an "area of land" (as oppossed to a state), in
order so that it may integrate itself into the exsisting global system of
economics, so that we all may eat.
>
>>If enough people agreed with you, then we wouldn't need a revolution, as you
>>would get enough backing on your own merits. In reality, of course, you
>remain
>>a tiny little minority, so small that you are only just visable to the naked
>>eye, and have to satisfy your ego by publishing long boring meaningless
>drivel,
>>that few people read anyway.
>
>OK you weren't up to discussing the futurological pronouncements from
>one of Britain's and the world's largest corporations; or the overall
>direction in which this ongoing technological revolution is moving.
I found very little to discuss. You see everything as being sinister and
government controlled, and I don't. End of discussion.
>You'd rather insult little old me. I couldn't give a sh*t about a battle
>between egos.
>
>Anyway, what's going on, the class struggle, is not fundamentally a
>battle of ideas or a battle between dickheads with their electoral
>platforms, seeking to 'represent' people. If you *had* read and properly
>digested my 'drivel' you'd know what I think about representation.
>
>>You remind me of the comedy character "Citizen Smith", from the 1970's tv
>>programme of the same name, or those strange people who used to sell
>"Socialist
>>Worker" when it was bloody obvious that non of them had done a days work in
>>their life, and, whats more, were probably incapable of doing so!
>>
>>Never mind, at least you give lots of people a jolly good laugh!
>
>If you think my ideas or activities are close to those of the 'Socialist
>Workers' Party' you really are not trying hard enough. Ditto if you're
>attempting to employ the amalgam method.
>
>Maybe let the boys and girls in Special Branch and Thames House study
>stuff like that, get out their Debord, their Negri, their Pannekoek,
>while you keep to the circuit boards?
>--
I don't really give a toss what the boys in special branch read, and I don't
even know who is based at Thames House. Yes, I will keep to my circuit boards.
Wouldn't it be ironic if one of your domestic appliances contained one of my
designs!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Trevjon.
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '13:34:52' on 'Tue, 4 Jan
2000', Trevjon <tre...@aol.comnospam> writes:
>>>>Some of us are working
>>>>to erode that state of affairs.
>>>
>>>Working? How, by posting to newsgroups? Or are you making bombs in your
>>>cellar?
>>
>>No Trevjon *you* are the one who works in the weapons industry.
>>
>>Whatever I'm doing, you personally seem to find it important enough to
>>take time to oppose it.
>
>Sure I oppose it-
Yes, no dispute about that. Clearly you find it important enough to
spend time and effort opposing too, which was my point. Saving people
from it, eh?
>what have I to gain by having a loony in charge of
>everything-no matter how you dress it up by calling it strange things like
>"anti statist dictatorship", or whatever nonsense. No matter what faults the
>present system has - and god knows it has plenty-until someone comes up with a
>practical solution that works better I prefer to keep the present one that
>works on some levels.
I don't think you have considered communism, otherwise you wouldn't say
that 'anti-statist dictatorship of the proletariat' is 'nonsense', i.e.
that it means nothing, just as 'aq2340589_)*&H=sdfhyic' means nothing.
Nor do I think you have spent much time considering what the nature of
this present society actually is.
<snip>
>So, you say you aren't making bombs,
No, as I said, it's *you* who are in the weapons industry.
>but are not prepared to stand up for
>election, then just how are you going to get into power with your system?
Duh! You think it's about me being 'in charge'?!
>You
>are talking complete nonsense
Do you know what 'nonsense' means?
Back to basics: the statements 'this society is founded on exploitation'
and 'a society is possible that is not founded on exploitation' aren't
nonsense. They both happen to be true. You could argue that one or both
of these statements was false if you wanted to, but clearly you don't
want to do that because you wouldn't have a case. But you can't argue -
although of course you can make the *assertion*, spiced up with personal
abuse in the hope that people don't notice it's not an argument - that
they are 'nonsense', i.e. meaningless. Any honest person could see that
they are very meaningful.
>and are just using the excuse that you don't
>believe in the system, whereas, in reality, you just know that not enough
>people will support you to change the system.
I don't think like that at all. I think there is a necessary struggle
between classes, I think that's what makes the classes, I don't have any
Leninist conception (which actually comes from Chernyshevsky and, looked
at in context, the bourgeois revolutions) of 'injecting' consciousness
into people or ringing a bell to 'wake them up'. That's not where I'm
coming from AT ALL. I reject partyism, representation, substitutionism,
etc. I know it's unfashionable but I think 'history' is an important
category, and that yes we are living in historical times, or more
accurately pre-historical times.
>All revolutionaries soon learn
>that the easiest way to fight the system is from within.
Yawn. This is self-contradictory and clearly false. If you want to apply
the category of meaninglessness to a statement, this would be a much
better candidate. Have you got colleagues in the defence sector who
smoked some dope back at Woodstock or something?
>So please explain to
>me how you intend to make your dreams become reality?
That is not a bad question, but I am fed up, Trevjon, as I do not think
that (most of the time) you contribute here in good faith, and what is
more I think that's obvious to most people who *do* contribute, or lurk,
in good faith. So there is little point, from my point of view, in
continuing.
>>>The only reason YOU want a so-called revolution, is so you can replace the
>>>"ruling class" with a ruling class of your own,
>>
>>Indeed, with the anti-statist dictatorship of the proletariat, which by
>>definition disappears at its moment of victory. By definition.
>
>To be replaced by what? Someone has to make the everyday decisions.
I'm sorry but if you are interested in this, you should work out your
concepts better. How decisions are made comes on top of the relationship
between discussion and decision, which comes on top of the forms of
social reproduction and the forms of organisation of activity, and on
top of the existence or non-existence of alienation, exploitation, or
community.
>Do you honestly believe you could win the popular "vote" (for want of a better
>description) to introduce this system,
That's like asking do I think I could win a landmine contract with the
Ministry of Defence. I realise that you are accepting that the word
'vote' is inaccurate, but I would say that it just will not do at all. I
would imbue the term 'anti-Statist' with a great deal of meaning. It's
appropriate that I should insist on this, since it's my ideas we seem to
be focusing on. In short I do not stand where you think I stand, and you
are in the wrong ballpark.
>and , if not, then how would you subdue
>all the people who were against you?
I am not presenting any electoral or party manifesto - I mean please, is
that so difficult to realise?
>>'Form a cabinet'? Duh!
>
>I was using this as a form of words only. How would you envisage the discision
>making process necessary to run an "area of land" (as oppossed to a state), in
>order so that it may integrate itself into the exsisting global system of
>economics, so that we all may eat.
I have discussed the category of 'economy' in previous posts. It means
socially enforced scarcity. There wouldn't be any. There are no special
'technical' problems involved in keeping a society based on humanity,
where everything 'belongs' to everyone, on the 'tracks'. Why should
there be? Why on earth should it have a tendency to fall off? On the
contrary it would have a tendency to self-correct, it would express real
individuality and real community and real humanity.
<snip>
>>OK you weren't up to discussing the futurological pronouncements from
>>one of Britain's and the world's largest corporations; or the overall
>>direction in which this ongoing technological revolution is moving.
>
>I found very little to discuss. You see everything as being sinister and
>government controlled, and I don't. End of discussion.
That is easy for you to say, but basically I raised a British Telecom
document for discussion, a document which provides a window on how this
very large corporation's futurologists see the future, and your response
was in effect 'no comment, banana's a loony conspiracist'.
<snip>
>I don't really give a toss what the boys in special branch read,
OK. Maybe I don't either! :-)
>and I don't
>even know who is based at Thames House.
Really? :-) It's the MI5 headquarters, on Millbank in London SW1. They
have a website at <http://www.mi5.gov.uk/>.
Money was spent on doing up the building before they moved in but
nothing like the amount spent on 6's new building across the river.
(WARNING TO ANYONE WHO VISITS THE MI5 WEBSITE: THEY WILL KEEP A LOG OF
WHERE YOU HAVE SURFED IN FROM, WHERE YOU SURF OUT TO, YOUR IP NO., OTHER
INFO CAN BE GOT FROM GCHQ. THE SITE IS NOT ESPECIALLY INTERESTING, IT'S
JUST A LOAD OF PAP REALLY. YOU MAY NOT CARE ABOUT BEING LOGGED, BUT IF
YOU DO, DON'T VISIT).
>Yes, I will keep to my circuit boards.
>Wouldn't it be ironic if one of your domestic appliances contained one of my
>designs!
Yikes!
Not ironic if one realises that the commodity brings together the
categories of use value and exchange value; the latter dominates, the
former is subdued but does not disappear.
--
banana
Alvin H. White
>I have discussed the category of 'economy' in previous posts. It means
>socially enforced scarcity. There wouldn't be any. There are no special
>'technical' problems involved in keeping a society based on humanity,
>where everything 'belongs' to everyone, on the 'tracks'. Why should
>there be? Why on earth should it have a tendency to fall off? On the
>contrary it would have a tendency to self-correct, it would express real
>individuality and real community and real humanity.
To recapitulate I think it is it seems you are saying that the
definition of the word or concept "economy" means "socially enforced
scarcity." Thinking back a bit Steve recently mentioned consideration
of problems of "distribution." As I understand that then it is toward
some ideas that one of the problems is not that some of the resource
needed to alleviate a problem is not there, if one takes the "there"
to refer to "the world", but that the resource "is not there" when the
"there" is taken as the point on the world where the problem is.
In other words, if, yes, the food is on the other side of the planet
from the person who is hungry. OK, it belongs to everyone so it
belongs to the person, but it is not close enough so that the
person can use it to solve their problem.
So that sounds to me able to be discussed using the words
"scarcity" and "economy" but more physical scarcity rather than
knowledge aforethough socially enforced scarcity. At least unless one
posited that parts of society would/should rise up and transport the
product of their own free will.
In your vision of towards a description of an ideal social structure
what forces would transport the food to the hungry? Even assuming
that the person in need "owned it" just did not have it to hand, or
mouth, as the case may be?
<a href="http://members.home.com/godsbrain">G.O.D.S.B.R.A.I.N.</a><br>
Tre...@aol.com
writes:
<< >So please explain to
>me how you intend to make your dreams become reality?
That is not a bad question, but I am fed up, Trevjon, as I do not think
that (most of the time) you contribute here in good faith, and what is
more I think that's obvious to most people who *do* contribute, or lurk,
in good faith. So there is little point, from my point of view, in
continuing.
>>
What a complete and utter cop-out!
Not fed up enough, however, to carry on and argue on other points, later on
in the post. You are a phoney, and a theorist. Your big ideas about how to
improve society are all just intellectuall clap-trap, with no real way of
ever getting them accepted, and therefore change society. This was THE most
important question of the post, and you chose to completely and utterly "cop
out".
Now, we must answer the question as to why did you cop out?
The obvious answer is that all your ideas and theories are just that, and
stand no chance of ever becoming reality. You yourself must realise this,
and therefore cannot answer the question.
Trevjon
>>me how you intend to make your dreams become reality?
>
>That is not a bad question, but I am fed up, Trevjon, as I do not think
>that (most of the time) you contribute here in good faith, and what is
>more I think that's obvious to most people who *do* contribute, or lurk,
>in good faith. So there is little point, from my point of view, in
>continuing.
>
What a complete and utter cop-out!
Not fed up enough, however, to carry on and argue on other points, later on in
the post. You are a phoney, and a theorist. Your big ideas about how to
improve society are all just intellectuall clap-trap, with no real way of ever
getting them accepted, and therefore change society. This was THE most
important question of the post, and you chose to completely and utterly "cop
out".
Now, we must answer the question as to why did you cop out?
The obvious answer is that all your ideas and theories are just that, and stand
no chance of ever becoming reality. You yourself must realise this, and
therefore cannot answer the question.
Trevjon.
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '18:15:01' on 'Tue, 4 Jan
2000', Alvin H. White <GODS...@HOME.COM> writes:
></html>
>On Tue, 4 Jan 2000 17:16:11 +0000, banana
><banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I have discussed the category of 'economy' in previous posts. It means
>>socially enforced scarcity. There wouldn't be any. There are no special
>>'technical' problems involved in keeping a society based on humanity,
>>where everything 'belongs' to everyone, on the 'tracks'. Why should
>>there be? Why on earth should it have a tendency to fall off? On the
>>contrary it would have a tendency to self-correct, it would express real
>>individuality and real community and real humanity.
>
>To recapitulate I think it is it seems you are saying that the
>definition of the word or concept "economy" means "socially enforced
>scarcity." Thinking back a bit Steve recently mentioned consideration
>of problems of "distribution." As I understand that then it is toward
>some ideas that one of the problems is not that some of the resource
>needed to alleviate a problem is not there, if one takes the "there"
>to refer to "the world", but that the resource "is not there" when the
>"there" is taken as the point on the world where the problem is.
>
>In other words, if, yes, the food is on the other side of the planet
>from the person who is hungry. OK, it belongs to everyone so it
>belongs to the person, but it is not close enough so that the
>person can use it to solve their problem.
>
>So that sounds to me able to be discussed using the words
>"scarcity" and "economy" but more physical scarcity rather than
>knowledge aforethough socially enforced scarcity. At least unless one
>posited that parts of society would/should rise up and transport the
>product of their own free will.
>
>In your vision of towards a description of an ideal social structure
>what forces would transport the food to the hungry? Even assuming
>that the person in need "owned it" just did not have it to hand, or
>mouth, as the case may be?
One could conceive of localised shortages but I can't see a real problem
because people would pull together, maybe all eat a little less in that
area, while people outside the area got it together to transport more
food to them. Not that I believe there would be a clearly-defined 'this
area' and 'that area', there wouldn't be any borders or anything like
that. People would help each other, and combine to do so, out of their
own free will, it makes us more human to do so.
--
banana
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '11:16:33' on 'Wed, 5 Jan
2000', Trevjon <tre...@aol.comnospam> writes:
<snip>
>You are a phoney, and a theorist.
I'll leave it for you, what you are, with your rockmusicologist trivia,
your liberal admission that some things are seriously wrong in this
society, and your concept of 'fighting the system from within' - I bet
you've even bought the 'Big Issue' on occasion, as you design circuit
boards for the military-industrial complex, covered by the Official
Secrets Act, circuit-boards which help murder and maim and dispossess
people in the interests of the rulers the world over. I don't doubt that
you are a practical guy, your activity on this newsgroup is very
practical. So is mine.
--
banana
Trevjon
<banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>You are a phoney, and a theorist.
>
>I'll leave it for you, what you are, with your rockmusicologist trivia,
>your liberal admission that some things are seriously wrong in this
>society, and your concept of 'fighting the system from within' - I bet
>you've even bought the 'Big Issue' on occasion, as you design circuit
>boards for the military-industrial complex, covered by the Official
>Secrets Act, circuit-boards which help murder and maim and dispossess
>people in the interests of the rulers the world over. I don't doubt that
>you are a practical guy, your activity on this newsgroup is very
>practical. So is mine.
So, you are not "fed up" enough to totally ignore my reply, but obviously too
fed up to answer the burning question that I am sure the world is waiting to
hear.
In case there has been some misunderstanding, I will repeat the question:-
"How do you envisage getting your dreams to become reality?".
This is surely the fundamental question (and surely your goal) otherwise you
are, by definition, a theorist.
It is obvious to me (and probably many, many others) that your ideas would have
virtually no popular support. So just how would your system work, and how would
you deal with people who opposed you?
Trevjon.
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '08:53:51' on 'Thu, 6 Jan
2000', Trevjon <tre...@aol.comnospam> writes:
<snip>
>So just how would your system work,
This the age-old bourgeois question. A society based on humanity, where
people didn't need or want private property or hierarchy, where there
were no bosses, would have no problem 'working' whatsoever.
>and how would
>you deal with people who opposed you?
Another silly question. The above sort of society would realise the
nature of humanity. It is *capitalism* which creates and exploits its
own opposition. Yes the capitalist rulers will put up a fight to resist
human liberation, we know that, they do it now, they've got a stockpile
of weapons unprecedented in human (pre)history, and they are using many
of them already. (And yet *still* the scumsuckers cannot get total
control. Maybe ask yourself why that is?) Billions of people get their
faces ground into the sh*t as a result. You're asking 'how would *not*
having the faces of the vast majority ground into the shit actually
*work*?' Pah! If you had been eating sh*t all your life you wouldn't ask
that. You want a politician's manifesto, don't you? You may as well rail
against a zebra for not being a horse!
If you ask a bourgeois question you get a bourgeois answer. Communism
results from the age-old tendency of exploited humans to want to
liberate themselves, it is the realisation of the movement of NEED. If
you don't think capitalism is based on exploitation you won't understand
that there is such a movement. The movement is all around. Essentially
it is not a matter of 'how to run things'. Free people would be able to
distribute and grow food, and get rid of their rubbish [US: garbage],
there's no problem. They'd be able to go to Mars if they wanted. Think
community, respect for other people, will-power, the individual
expressing their species-being, the species realising itself dynamically
through the expression of true individuals. Community would not conflict
antagonistically with individuality. There's an illusion that there is
such a conflict today of course, because capitalism fights both real
community and real individuality, and presents a false community as a
figleaf for the viciously imposed interests of the tiny ruling class,
and a false individuality largely amounting to the category of the 'good
worker consumer'. It is sick.
Funnily enough the excuse States use for their stockpiling enormous
amounts of weapons is to protect the exploited from other States and
often from other exploited people. You sell yourself to the
military-industrial complex, old chap, you may think this is the natural
state of affairs, you may do better to ask what *that's* all about, what
the nature of *capitalism* is, for the time being.
There ain't no big problem raised when individuals come together as a
community. No alienation. It is *anti*-political and *anti*-State. And
the movement is *anti*-political *now*. (Agnes Heller, who also wrote
some rubbish unfortunately, wrote a truly excellent book on need BTW).
I guess you still think I dream of being the prime minister, like some
sort of Citizen Wolfie Smith.
BTW yes I am a theorist or theoretician, I have never denied being one,
theory is a practical affair.
--
banana
Trevjon
<banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In article <20000106035351...@nso-ck.aol.com>, posted to
>alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '08:53:51' on 'Thu, 6 Jan
>2000', Trevjon <tre...@aol.comnospam> writes:
>
><snip>
>
>>So just how would your system work,
>
>This the age-old bourgeois question. A society based on humanity, where
>people didn't need or want private property or hierarchy, where there
>were no bosses, would have no problem 'working' whatsoever.
Complete nonsense. Your system would only work if 100% of the population
wanted it to, and we all know that is an impossibility. What if someone
WANTED to own property, or wanted to be "the boss" (or whatever else your
system outlaws), or wanted to be "bourgeois". How would your system cope with
what people WANTED, not what YOU wanted them to have.
You have also misunderstood the question (or avoided it, more like) as I wish
to know in what PRACTICAL way you would get your system accepted, because,
first of all, you need to remove, or dismantle , the present system, and then
get THE PEOPLE to accept your system in its place. Just how do you think this
can be acheived?
You still haven't
>
>>and how would
>>you deal with people who opposed you?
>
>Another silly question. The above sort of society would realise the
>nature of humanity.
Not a silly question at all, but a fairly fundamental one. As an example, I do
not like the idea of your system, and therefore would oppose its adoption. How
would your system cope with me, if I was an unwilling participant. Why do you
think I would have a sudden complete change of attitude and suddenly "realise
the nature of humanity".
It is *capitalism* which creates and exploits its
>own opposition. Yes the capitalist rulers will put up a fight to resist
>human liberation, we know that, they do it now, they've got a stockpile
>of weapons unprecedented in human (pre)history, and they are using many
>of them already. (And yet *still* the scumsuckers cannot get total
>control. Maybe ask yourself why that is?) Billions of people get their
>faces ground into the sh*t as a result. You're asking 'how would *not*
>having the faces of the vast majority ground into the shit actually
>*work*?' Pah! If you had been eating sh*t all your life you wouldn't ask
>that.
But I haven't been eating Sh*t all my life have I. If you can't even explain
the basics of your system to someone like me (ie, with a reasonable degree, no
pun intended, of intelligence) then how do you expect to get your ideas
accepted. Or, are you saying that we are much too thick to actually
understand what you are saying, or are you just not very good at explaining!
You want a politician's manifesto, don't you? You may as well rail
>against a zebra for not being a horse!
But, if you system is a political system, then (at some stage at least) you
must "take it to the people" for their acceptance. Without producing a
"manifesto" (for want of a better word), then how would you communicate your
ideas?
>
>If you ask a bourgeois question you get a bourgeois answer. Communism
>results from the age-old tendency of exploited humans to want to
>liberate themselves,
And communism worked really well didn't it!!
it is the realisation of the movement of NEED. If
>you don't think capitalism is based on exploitation you won't understand
>that there is such a movement. The movement is all around. Essentially
>it is not a matter of 'how to run things'. Free people would be able to
>distribute and grow food
Right. Down to "nuts and bolts". What if I don't want to be a farmer. I
would sooner pay someone to be a farmer for me. I would really HATE to be a
farmer. What if I wanted to be a singer, a poet, or an artist, or even a
political theorist, and therefore not be in a position to "grow food". How
would your system support me?
, and get rid of their rubbish [US: garbage],
>there's no problem. They'd be able to go to Mars if they wanted. Think
>community, respect for other people, will-power, the individual
>expressing their species-being, the species realising itself dynamically
>through the expression of true individuals. Community would not conflict
>antagonistically with individuality. There's an illusion that there is
>such a conflict today of course, because capitalism fights both real
>community and real individuality, and presents a false community as a
>figleaf for the viciously imposed interests of the tiny ruling class,
>and a false individuality largely amounting to the category of the 'good
>worker consumer'. It is sick.
Complete crap. What I believe a vast majority of "ordinary people" want from
life is fairly mundane things like enough to eat, a warm home, a family, and be
free enough to persue their chosen leisure activities without too much
hindrance or interference, whether it be taking the kids to the park, going to
the football match, or Foxhunting and polo, if thats what they want. Your
system assumes that there is something wrong in this, and asserts that every
home owner is a "capitalist". This is blatantly untrue, and all these
homeowners (or bourgeoisie-whatever you want to call them) would be worse off
under your system.
In simplistic terms I see merit in your system, where global food production
and distribution could ease the world hunger situation. It remains simplistic
however, as I don't see how suddenly, after thousands of years, every one would
magically develop some sort of philosophical "humanity" persona and all live in
utopian bliss. There will always be (in all forms of society, not just
capitalists) people who cheat and lie and commit violence as a means to an end.
Without a magic wand, how would your system cope with this situation?
>
>Funnily enough the excuse States use for their stockpiling enormous
>amounts of weapons is to protect the exploited from other States and
>often from other exploited people. You sell yourself to the
>military-industrial complex, old chap, you may think this is the natural
>state of affairs, you may do better to ask what *that's* all about, what
>the nature of *capitalism* is, for the time being.
I know full well what "the nature of capitalism" is. I know the system ain't
perfect, and has many faults. But, I haven't yet seen a better system to take
its place. Not one that could actually work, anyway. You also see me as some
sort of arms mogul, and it is true that I have worked in the defence industry,
albeit only for less than a quarter of my working life. I could tell you some
wonderful stories (that even you would approve of) about defence budgets, and
what it ACTUALLY gets spent on sometimes.
>
>There ain't no big problem raised when individuals come together as a
>community. No alienation. It is *anti*-political and *anti*-State. And
>the movement is *anti*-political *now*. (Agnes Heller, who also wrote
>some rubbish unfortunately, wrote a truly excellent book on need BTW).
As I said above, in ALL societies there is an element of "crime" (bad word, but
you know what I mean).
>
>I guess you still think I dream of being the prime minister, like some
>sort of Citizen Wolfie Smith.
>
>BTW yes I am a theorist or theoretician, I have never denied being one,
>theory is a practical affair.
I prefer to call you a dreamer, because until you can find some way of getting
them to be practical and workable that is what they will remain. You need your
ideas to be "production engineered". Some of your ideas will only work if
starting with a "clean sheet of paper", which , alas, we are not. What I wish
to know is how you envisage erasing what is already on the sheet so your ideas
can be adapted.
You are probably an idealist also. This is sometimes a negative factor in any
theory, as I have often seen in a totally different sphere, where a designer
will come up with a theoretical design for some gizmo, but cannot understand
that it cannot be produced in any practical way without compromise or
alteration. As it is their "baby" they will argue from the idealist
standpoint, so that in the end, none of their idea gets produced, as oppossed
to part of it being put into production.
>--
>
>
>
>
Trevjon.
banana
alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '16:19:59' on 'Thu, 6 Jan
2000', Trevjon <tre...@aol.comnospam> writes:
>In article <JwQLlFAD...@borve.demon.co.uk>, banana
><banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>In article <20000106035351...@nso-ck.aol.com>, posted to
>>alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '08:53:51' on 'Thu, 6 Jan
>>2000', Trevjon <tre...@aol.comnospam> writes:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>So just how would your system work,
>>
>>This the age-old bourgeois question. A society based on humanity, where
>>people didn't need or want private property or hierarchy, where there
>>were no bosses, would have no problem 'working' whatsoever.
>
>Complete nonsense. Your system would only work if 100% of the population
>wanted it to, and we all know that is an impossibility. What if someone
>WANTED to own property, or wanted to be "the boss" (or whatever else your
>system outlaws), or wanted to be "bourgeois". How would your system cope with
>what people WANTED, not what YOU wanted them to have.
>
>You have also misunderstood the question (or avoided it, more like) as I wish
>to know in what PRACTICAL way you would get your system accepted, because,
>first of all, you need to remove, or dismantle , the present system, and then
>get THE PEOPLE to accept your system in its place. Just how do you think this
>can be acheived?
It is not a matter of one party competing with other parties to get
their 'system' 'accepted' by 'the people'. Why can't you realise that?
That may be what *you* want to be my approach, but it is *not* my
approach.
As to how to get rid of capitalism - class war, that's how. Worldwide
class war. I should have thought that was obvious.
>You still haven't
>>
>>>and how would
>>>you deal with people who opposed you?
>>
>>Another silly question. The above sort of society would realise the
>>nature of humanity.
>
>Not a silly question at all, but a fairly fundamental one.
Well I've said in some detail what I think of it.
>As an example, I do
>not like the idea of your system, and therefore would oppose its adoption. How
>would your system cope with me, if I was an unwilling participant. Why do you
>think I would have a sudden complete change of attitude and suddenly "realise
>the nature of humanity".
Don't you realise that in making a revolution people wise up? Of course
some will stand in the way, some will defend the murdering pharaonic
scum, some will even be the murdering pharaonic scum. Don't worry, the
revolution will know how to deal with them.
>It is *capitalism* which creates and exploits its
>>own opposition. Yes the capitalist rulers will put up a fight to resist
>>human liberation, we know that, they do it now, they've got a stockpile
>>of weapons unprecedented in human (pre)history, and they are using many
>>of them already. (And yet *still* the scumsuckers cannot get total
>>control. Maybe ask yourself why that is?) Billions of people get their
>>faces ground into the sh*t as a result. You're asking 'how would *not*
>>having the faces of the vast majority ground into the shit actually
>>*work*?' Pah! If you had been eating sh*t all your life you wouldn't ask
>>that.
>
>But I haven't been eating Sh*t all my life have I.
No!
<snip>
>how do you expect to get your ideas
>accepted.
You keep on asking this, and clearly you are not satisfied with my
answer.
>You want a politician's manifesto, don't you? You may as well rail
>>against a zebra for not being a horse!
>
>But, if you system is a political system,
It isn't. It definitely isn't. Not even sure it is a 'system' for that
matter.
>then (at some stage at least) you
>must "take it to the people" for their acceptance. Without producing a
>"manifesto" (for want of a better word), then how would you communicate
>your
>ideas?
Look Trevjon you are repeating what is based on a mistaken view of where
I'm coming from.
>>If you ask a bourgeois question you get a bourgeois answer. Communism
>>results from the age-old tendency of exploited humans to want to
>>liberate themselves,
>
>And communism worked really well didn't it!!
It was not tried. What revolutionary movement there was in, say, Russia,
was smashed by the Bolsheviks and their supporters.
> it is the realisation of the movement of NEED. If
>>you don't think capitalism is based on exploitation you won't understand
>>that there is such a movement. The movement is all around. Essentially
>>it is not a matter of 'how to run things'. Free people would be able to
>>distribute and grow food
>
>Right. Down to "nuts and bolts". What if I don't want to be a farmer. I
>would sooner pay someone to be a farmer for me. I would really HATE to be a
>farmer. What if I wanted to be a singer, a poet, or an artist, or even a
>political theorist, and therefore not be in a position to "grow food". How
>would your system support me?
You couldn't pay anyone because people would respect humanity enough to
do without money, money would be like a big pile of sh*t, a big
torture-chamber, in the dark distant past that people would have largely
forgotten about. If you preferred to express your humanity by other
forms of creative activity than farming, that would be damn fine. Just
like everyone else you would take whatever food you needed. If you liked
making model elephants for example then yeah, people would enjoy looking
at them or taking them, and you'd enjoy talking about them or giving
them, or showing them to people, or showing people how you made them.
There wouldn't be any jobs, no-one would be a this or a that, one could
criticise in the morning and grow vegetables in the evening without
being a critic or a farmer, I am alluding of course to some of the
little that Marx wrote on this subject. Of course, if you didn't want to
muck in and do your share of unpleasant work, such as cleaning the
sewers and the toilets, hopefully the people around you would aid your
education and show you somehow that individuality and community were no
longer alienated, you would become MORE a part of the community the more
you expressed your individuality, and you would become MORE of an
individual the more you were a part of the community. They certainly
wouldn't stop your access to whatever food you needed. Maybe if you went
crazy and torched a food store, of course, they might express themselves
forcefully. Would you be likely to? Unpleasant tasks would be a problem
for the community, there would not be on the one hand, sewage engineers
and on the other hand guys who designed circuit boards. If you wanted to
design circuit boards, design circuit boards, although of course weapons
would no longer be needed, so no-one would have any use for
circuit-boards that could only be used in weaponry. Or on the other hand
maybe you'd be fed up with designing circuit boards. The world would be
everyone's oyster! Try your hand at stone-polishing or anything that
took your fancy! It is human to *develop*, people would develop through
learning and doing, they would *want* to share their development with
other people. It's not a matter of you do this if I do that, society
would NOT be based on exchange. You seem to be assuming the continuation
of major features of THIS society and then 'proving' that a different
society couldn't work.
>Complete crap. What I believe a vast majority of "ordinary people" want from
>life is fairly mundane things like enough to eat, a warm home, a family, and be
>free enough to persue their chosen leisure activities without too much
>hindrance or interference, whether it be taking the kids to the park, going to
>the football match, or Foxhunting and polo, if thats what they want. Your
>system assumes that there is something wrong in this,
Maybe spend some time thinking about the nature of this present society?
>and asserts that every
>home owner is a "capitalist". This is blatantly untrue,
I agree. I have never said that every home owner is a capitalist, it
would be a silly thing to say.
>and all these
>homeowners (or bourgeoisie-whatever you want to call them) would be worse off
>under your system.
In communism everyone would 'own' everything.
>In simplistic terms I see merit in your system, where global food production
>and distribution could ease the world hunger situation. It remains simplistic
>however, as I don't see how suddenly, after thousands of years, every one would
>magically develop some sort of philosophical "humanity" persona and all live in
>utopian bliss. There will always be (in all forms of society, not just
>capitalists) people who cheat and lie and commit violence as a means to an end.
> Without a magic wand, how would your system cope with this situation?
I do accept that occasionally there might be people who act in an
anti-social way. The people around them or affected by their activity
would sort them out.
<snip>
>I know full well what "the nature of capitalism" is.
Well I'm sorry but I don't think you do. It is a society based on
capital, the self-expansion of value, which entails generalised
competition and the extraction of the surplus in the form of surplus
value, the product of wage-labour; and to grow, capital must alternately
take the form of money and commodity, money and commodity. Money and
commodity and then more money. Wage-labour means human creative power
becomes a commodity, sold to the controllers of the means of production
in return for what workers need to survive. Workers are forced to do
this because the means of production have been stolen from them. That
doesn't say much about the dynamic but it says a lot about the nature of
capitalism, which is fundamentally a class society. You, I guess, would
say this is all intellectual claptrap. Whether this means that you think
it's untrue, I don't know. Do you? (Nor do I know whether or not you
would be willing to deny that there is a ruling class. Would you? If you
accept that there is a ruling class, please tell me, why do you consider
its rule to be necessary for the good of humanity?) Yet you say you know
what the nature of capitalism is (put in inverted commas for some
reason), although without saying what it is. I don't know what you think
its nature is. I think if we scratch away at your views, what will be
laid bare is that really you don't think it meaningful to discuss the
nature of capitalism, because the only real and solvable problems are
ones that can be addressed whilst assuming that the present system - the
dictatorship of the capitalist ruling class - continues.
>I know the system ain't
>perfect, and has many faults.
Yes I realise you are saying this.
>But, I haven't yet seen a better system to take
>its place.
Nor have I. I know that such a society (can we say 'society' rather than
'system'?) can, though.
>Not one that could actually work, anyway. You also see me as some
>sort of arms mogul, and it is true that I have worked in the defence industry,
>albeit only for less than a quarter of my working life. I could tell you some
>wonderful stories (that even you would approve of) about defence budgets, and
>what it ACTUALLY gets spent on sometimes.
:-)
>As I said above, in ALL societies there is an element of "crime" (bad word, but
>you know what I mean).
Our lexicons vary considerably, but I accept that there will be
occasional anti-social acts, I don't think that they will endanger a
society based on humanity, I think a society based on humanity will be
able to deal with them.
Of course, the exploiters and their State present themselves as being
present in 'all our interests'. What I would like to see is a *real*
human society, where there *is* a real community, which I don't think
exists at present, in this world where exchange and money and
exploitation and wage-labour prevail. The 'community' presented by the
rulers is muck, it is whatever's in *their* interests. In the UK or US
just as in the USSR.
<snip>
>>BTW yes I am a theorist or theoretician, I have never denied being one,
>>theory is a practical affair.
>
>
>I prefer to call you a dreamer,
I'm that too.
>because until you can find some way of getting
>them to be practical and workable that is what they will remain. You need your
>ideas to be "production engineered".
Not sure what that means.
>Some of your ideas will only work if
>starting with a "clean sheet of paper", which , alas, we are not.
You see, you say 'alas', you are accepting - as anyone with a modicum of
decency must - that a free society would be a better one than this one.
>What I wish
>to know is how you envisage erasing what is already on the sheet so your ideas
>can be adapted.
That is a big question. I don't think I have yet got you to realise that
I am not a partyist or a Bolshevik and do not have a 'statist' view of
revolutionary transition, but...
Consider that capitalism created the proletariat. It must continually
recreate it. In asserting their needs, proletarians oppose capital.
There is necessarily antagonistic opposition. Between two *poles*. What
must happen is the increasing force of one side in that struggle, the
force of the only side that can destroy the relationship, that can win a
permanent victory and in doing so, no more antagonistic relationship, no
more capital, no more proletariat. Becoming a revolutionary
class-for-itself, the proletariat abolishes classes.
>You are probably an idealist also
No, I am not an idealist. An idealist would say that the key factor is
the development of ideas, or in its Kautskyist/Leninist form the
'injection' of consciousness by the intellectuals. I am deeply opposed
to that view. I keep dropping in references to Autonomist Marxism, some
of the work by Antonio ('Toni') Negri is very useful IMO. Guy Debord and
Anton Pannekoek too. Catalogues of the British Libary and the Library of
Congress are both online if you or anyone reading this is interested.
>This is sometimes a negative factor in any
>theory, as I have often seen in a totally different sphere, where a
>designer will come up with a theoretical design for some gizmo, but
>cannot understand
>that it cannot be produced in any practical way without compromise or
>alteration. As it is their "baby" they will argue from the idealist
>standpoint, so that in the end, none of their idea gets produced, as
>oppossed
>to part of it being put into production.
I think you are saying something here that is considered and useful and
the fruit of knowledge, but I don't think it applies to myself or to the
approach of those who see things the same way or roughly the same way -
except on the level that clearly one should always keep one's feet on
the ground. Nor do I think social change is a matter of engineering. The
opposition to capitalism is not conjured up, or designed/drawn up, or
introduced by theorists. Nor is the functioning of a free society. That
is an important point. Of course, the opposition is not the same as the
radicalisation of the opposition, but the same still applies.
Consciousness develops with practice, and what is indispensable is a
build-up of will-power.
--
banana