Burning down the system, not the world..........

0 views
Skip to first unread message

eVoL

unread,
Dec 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/28/97
to

the earth is being destroyed by fucking shit heads, who don't care about
any body but them self....

we'r just borrowing the earth from our children.....we have no right to
destroy it in any way.
some thing we should burn is the system............burn the U.S.A. and
burn sweden as well :)

burn all meateaterz to death(an eye 4 an eye)
burn all egg, and milk consumers(an eye 4 an eye)
burn all poluters to death (an eye 4 an eye)
burn all machines made for destroying
burn all factories, who produses enviromental waste
burn all McDonalds resturangs
burn the meatíndustri
burn the rasists/nazists/speciesists/fascists
burn the woodindustrie
burn the system

go veg(etari)an or live with the treath of a pain full death
go vegan or live whit the treath of a pain full ecperianse

oh ecuse me 4 my bad spelling


Joseph Hertzlinger

unread,
Dec 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/29/97
to

>the earth is being destroyed by fucking shit heads, who don't care
>about any body but them self....

We cannot tolerate this complacency. The Dirt has survived colliding
continents, volcanoes, earthquakes, comet strikes, asteroid strikes,
heat ages, ice ages, and that nasty toxic waste called oxygen. It can
survive anything we do to it by accident. Destroying the Dirt will
require hard work and deliberate planning.


Eric Bock

unread,
Dec 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/29/97
to

eVoL wrote:
>
> we'r just borrowing the earth from our children.....we have no right to
> destroy it in any way.

Why do the children necessarily have a right to live in it? Can they
really do better?

> some thing we should burn is the system............burn the U.S.A. and
> burn sweden as well :)

That's what nuclear weapons are for ;)

> burn all meateaterz to death(an eye 4 an eye)
> burn all egg, and milk consumers(an eye 4 an eye)
> burn all poluters to death (an eye 4 an eye)

burn all people-burners to death (an eye 4 an eye ;)
burn all organic life to death (constant microscopic cellular warfare!
an eye 4 an eye! :P

<snipping amusing combustion ideas>


Eric Bock
Remove words followed by hyphens in email to reply.

eVoL

unread,
Dec 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/30/97
to


Joseph Hertzlinger wrote:

hm i guess u haven't read so much about it :( one exampel, just Coca Cola
will whit in 40 years used all fosfor on the earth.the rain forest i
dissipering, wich will mean that the coldioxid will be harder to breake
down. The global effect is probaly the cous for that the extrem wheater is
more comon now then before.....an earthquake do not destroy so much of the
enviroment in an long perspective.........but toxic waste does. an vulcano
can create a nuclear winter........and thats nothing to play whit
big comets are very rare, but a hit by a big one would clearly strike out
much of the life we see on ths earth...it would also create a nuclear
winter. destriying dirt is hard.........but destroying life is easy. the
dirt aint the main point.......the living things are


Joseph Hertzlinger

unread,
Dec 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/30/97
to

>Joseph Hertzlinger wrote:
>
>> In <34A6BC57...@earthdome.com> eVoL <eV...@earthdome.com>
>> writes:
>>
>> >the earth is being destroyed by fucking shit heads, who don't care
>> >about any body but them self....
>>
>> We cannot tolerate this complacency. The Dirt has survived colliding
>> continents, volcanoes, earthquakes, comet strikes, asteroid strikes,
>> heat ages, ice ages, and that nasty toxic waste called oxygen. It
>> can survive anything we do to it by accident. Destroying the Dirt
>> will require hard work and deliberate planning.
>
>hm i guess u haven't read so much about it :(

Of course not. In fact, I am completely brain-dead (it is required for
reactionary crackpots). I have somehow managed to miss a substantial
fraction of the news reports and editorials for the past decade. I had
thought I had the books "Famine 1975" and "Population Doomsday 1989"
right next to my desk but they must have been a hallucination. I
thought I was bothering to learn something about the environment when
most environmentalist wackos my age were getting stoned and saying
"nothing is real" but that must have been an illusion.

>one exampel [sic], just Coca Cola will whit [sic] in 40 years used
>[sic] all fosfor [sic] on the earth.

I assume you mean phosphorus. Phosphorus is 0.1% of the Dirt's crust.
I'm not sure of the exact percentage of phosphorus in Coca Cola but I
doubt if it is over 1%. The Dirt's crust is far larger than ten times
the amount of Coca Cola we are likely to drink in the forseeable
future. (The phosphorus can be recycled from sewage in an emergency
anyway.)

>the rain forest i [sic] dissipering [sic], wich [sic] will mean that
>the coldioxid [sic] will be harder to breake [sic] down.

First, extensive rain forests are not a necessary component of the
biosphere. Rain forests were much rarer during the last Ice Age. In the
lowlands it was too cold for rain forests and in the highlands it was
too dry.

Second, when carbon dioxide is broken down, it turns into carbon and
oxygen. If there is no net carbon storage, there is no net carbon
dioxide breakdown. In case you were wondering, rain forests do not
accumulate carbon.

>The global effect is probaly [sic] the cous [sic] for that the extrem
>[sic] wheater [sic] is more comon [sic] now then before.....

Can you cite statistics on that? If you did, could you spell the words
correctly?

>an earthquake do not destroy so much of the enviroment [sic] in an


>long perspective.........but toxic waste does.

Why? The atmosphere is 20% natural toxic waste.

As a general rule, if something is toxic that is because it is
chemically active. If something is chemically active, it will break
down or combine with something else rapidly. The recent nerve gas
attack in Tokyo failed because the nerve gas is chemically unstable
and broke down. Lesser type of toxic waste will break down soon on a
geological time scale. Oxygen will disappear in a few thousand years
if it isn't replaced.

>an vulcano [sic] can create a nuclear winter........and thats [sic]
>nothing to play whit [sic] big comets are very rare, but a hit by a


>big one would clearly strike out much of the life we see on ths

>earth...it would also create a nuclear winter. destriying [sic] dirt


>is hard.........but destroying life is easy.

Life on the Dirt survived those earlier disasters. On the other hand,
destroying life of the Dirt might be a good trial run. (Would boiling
the oceans do?)

>the dirt aint the main point.......the living things are

This newsgroup is alt.destroy.the.earth, not alt.destroy.life.


Cherry A. Summers

unread,
Dec 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/30/97
to

eVoL (eV...@earthdome.com) wrote:
: winter. destriying dirt is hard.........but destroying life is easy. the

: dirt aint the main point.......the living things are
:

No, the point is to destroy the entire planet. Just because it isn't easy
doesn't mean it isn't worth it. True, all of the things you say are a big
problem. If all the people are killed before we can destroy the planet,
then it is highly likely that life will again evolve and our work will be
left unfinished, perhaps forever.

(still looking for those AOL disks... will M$ Nice Try frisbees do?)
--
Olethros of Diamond Gate
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|http://www.vii.com/~olethros/mud.html "The more you tighten your |
|mud.vii.com 4000 grasp, the more star systems |
|206.71.77.71 4000 will slip through your fingers." |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Ignore the pavers and they will go away. Killfile them and you won't see
em even if they don't.

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

RBisno9936

unread,
Jan 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/3/98
to

I agree with most of what you guys say. I say that we, in a nutshell, should
basically get the world to end by encouraging the us to fight china. such a war
would inevitably turn nuclear (I have a post somewhere else on this ng that
explains in a bit more detail). however
A: don't pick on sweden. its nice, idyllic, full of cute girls, and nowhere
near as evil as the united states.

B: let's just settle for destroying everything on the earth through the
aforementioned nuclear apocalypse. once the earth is a drained lifeless rock,
is there really a point in destroying the rest of it?

Vic Flange

unread,
Jan 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/4/98
to

eVoL <eV...@earthdome.com> wrote:

> Joseph Hertzlinger wrote:
> > >the earth is being destroyed by fucking shit heads, who don't care
> > >about any body but them self....
> >
> > We cannot tolerate this complacency. The Dirt has survived colliding
> > continents, volcanoes, earthquakes, comet strikes, asteroid strikes,
> > heat ages, ice ages, and that nasty toxic waste called oxygen. It can
> > survive anything we do to it by accident. Destroying the Dirt will
> > require hard work and deliberate planning.
>
> hm i guess u haven't read so much about it :( one exampel, just Coca Cola
> will whit in 40 years used all fosfor on the earth.the rain forest i
> dissipering, wich will mean that the coldioxid will be harder to breake
> down. The global effect is probaly the cous for that the extrem wheater is
> more comon now then before.....an earthquake do not destroy so much of the
> enviroment in an long perspective.........but toxic waste does. an vulcano
> can create a nuclear winter........and thats nothing to play whit

> big comets are very rare, but a hit by a big one would clearly strike out
> much of the life we see on ths earth...it would also create a nuclear
> winter. destriying dirt is hard.........but destroying life is easy. the
> dirt aint the main point.......the living things are

The fucking English Language is being eroded, too!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Fleshmouth - the place for things you'd rather not know about!
http://www.netmatters.co.uk/users/conway

Darryl Stephen Roy

unread,
Jan 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/6/98
to

In article <19980103091...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, rbisn...@aol.com (RBisno9936) wrote:
>let's just settle for destroying everything on the earth through the
>aforementioned nuclear apocalypse. once the earth is a drained lifeless rock,
>is there really a point in destroying the rest of it?

Though I concur with your call for moderation (see my other post
hereabouts) It's extremely unlikely that even groundburst (for maximum
fallout) discharge of the entire worlds nuclear arsenal would have the
desired impact.

While nuclear winter might sanitize 99.9% of the above ground pests,
there are spores, seeds, and even eggs which are highly resistant to
famine and radiation. Moreover, that "lifeless rock" is a misnomer, as
the very Dirt is teeming with chemosynthetic bacteria that live
kilometers below the surface (as well as near volcanic vents, etc.). It
has been estimated that this unseen life may represent the majority of
the Dirt's biomass. In the aftermath of a thorough nuclear cleansing,
these would be ready to reemerge an begin the whole bloody cycle again.

To truly disinfect the Dirt, we need initiate a process that will
profoundly change the conditions (and even the elemental constitution)
even dozens of kilometers below the surface. I suggest, as in my other
post, we actively pursue a runaway greenhouse effect in emulation of
the sister planet Venus. For this, fossil fuel emmissions will
probably be insufficient: we must liberate carbon dioxide from limestone
deposits in vast furnaces. This, then, is a better use for all that
nuclear material. Eventually, the atmosphere (and the crust itself)
will reach some temperature at which even DNA is unstable. At that
point, we can take a well-deserved rest, secure in the knowledge that we
have done our part for Galactic hygiene.

ers...@hal-pc.org

Nassir James Isaf

unread,
Jan 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/6/98
to

> To truly disinfect the Dirt, we need initiate a process that will
> profoundly change the conditions (and even the elemental constitution)
> even dozens of kilometers below the surface. I suggest, as in my other
> post, we actively pursue a runaway greenhouse effect in emulation of
> the sister planet Venus. For this, fossil fuel emmissions will
> probably be insufficient: we must liberate carbon dioxide from limestone
> deposits in vast furnaces. This, then, is a better use for all that
> nuclear material. Eventually, the atmosphere (and the crust itself)
> will reach some temperature at which even DNA is unstable. At that
> point, we can take a well-deserved rest, secure in the knowledge that we
> have done our part for Galactic hygiene.

Surely however, we ourselves would need a way to survive long enough to
carry out this highly intelligent plan of yours. How do you suggest we do
this? You mention Venus as an example, yet everything ever sent to Venus
was destroyed after only a few short hours due to the high temperature and
pressure. I suggest a slightly reduced approach, scorch the earth and
destroy the atmosphere. Anything left would have a dreadfully hard time
surviving after that. Moreover, the earth would be vunerable to harmful
radiations from the sun and a constant bombardment of asteroids. To achieve
this end, I have enclosed below my master plan. It is in it's orginal
format as I posted it here first several months ago now. Please evaluate.

Friends! I have conceived a master plan! With this plan, I can reduce
the earth to little more that a burnt cinder! Please read on and
evaluate. Please bear in mind I am still an amateur at this destroying
the earth thing, and this is my first big idea.

In the early 1970's, a Bulgarian born physicist by the name of Brown
discovered that through a simple process of electrolysis one could
rearange the molecular structure of water to produce a gas. This gas
was named Brown's Gas. The properties of this gas were amazing. A
single spark would cause it to implode, leaving behind a vacumn. It
burned with a flame at 13,000f, as hot as the surface of the sun
(although only in presence of pure oxygen). And it could be made more
cheaply than oxyacetylene (or similar). You could make 1860 litres of
Brown's gas from just one litre of water, with only 5.47 kilowatts.
The process is 95% efficent. To process involves rearanging the
molecular structure of water, which is HOH, to HHO.

So here it is. On an island in the middle of an ocean, build a single
nuclear reactor. The output of a nuclear reactor on average is 1000
megawatts. It takes 5.47 kilowatts to make 1860 litres of Browns Gas.
There is roughly 80 million billion billion litres of air in the
earths atmosphere. I reckon that 80 million litres of Brown's Gas will
be sufficent, as it is heavier than air and will hug the surface of the
planet. One nuclear reactor will be more than sufficent to produce this
quantity, and the oceans holds more than enough water (you will need
a little over 4 million litres). Once the correct quantity has been
produced, as simple spark will ignite it. The searing heat will burn
everything on the surface away. The gas will implode, causing a vacumn
around the surface. The upper atmosphere will be sucked down, causing
the whole atmosphere to collapse in on itself. All the earth's air will
be blown out into space by the subsequent rebound (one of Newton's
laws, I forget which one). No life will remain, and none will every
again form, as there is no atmophere and the surface is charred and
barren. Thus, the dream is realised.

Yours,
Nassir James Isaf
The Third Column
"There ain't no 'Pocalypse like A-Pocalypse!"
http://come.to/my.apocalypse/

RBisno9936

unread,
Jan 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/7/98
to

Nasif: first, I'll reply to yours. Its cheap, economical, and can be done
simply by converting one or two wealthy people to our cause. however, I have
doubts about this gas. How come I have never heard of these experiments before?
(I am an avid reader of scientific and technical magazines, and of hard to find
fringe technology documents, so I should have heard of it) you'd think that
someone would try to popularize this gas as a fuel method. I can see how it
would make a great explosive though. HHO structure would be very unstable, and
I'm surprised the stuff can even hold itself together in the first place. also,
why should a chemical force be more powerful than a nuclear force? I think
that's supposed to be borderline impossible. I like your plan, and would like
to see it tested, but it seems to good to be true.

Daryl: I like your plan also. However, we must ask ourselves one thing: how
does one maintain the reaction. humans are brutal, ugly, and stupid, but
they're just smart enough to avoid walking off a cliff. global warming takes
too long, leaving the human race time to realize the problem and save itself.
with a nuclear war, the human race has no time, and is too caught up in rage to
notice the cliff. unfortunately, this leaves some left over life that may one
day thrive, again corrupting this filthy planet. what we must do is make sure
that war between the US and china does not come immedately, but that there is
an arms race before it, in which technology will lead nukes to become more
powerful, easier to mass produce, and more widespread (our pawn should give the
tech to iraq secretly) that way, the earth may be have enough and suffieciently
strong nukes to cook it through.

Anyone with other plans please post them


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages