Vietnamese Communism
Dänk 1010011010
the most incredible experience of my life. The country and its people
are not what I expected, and their brand of Communism actually seems
to work for them.
While undemocratic, the Vietnamese Communist Party is more responsive
to public opinion than the major U.S. parties who only represent the
interests of giant global corporations. The VCP tolerates capitalism
because it promotes its own interests, but it regulates it heavily,
and lets capitalism work for the Party rather than letting the Party
work for capitalism as in America.
There is a sense of order here, even in the most remote countryside.
The Vietnamese way of life is simple, but definitely not primitive.
The country is very clean, and the Vietnamese people take great pride
in keeping it neat and orderly. There is no litter on the sidewalks,
no graffiti, no roaches or mice or bugs or dog shit, and I just
noticed that there are no pigeons - and no cats, either.
Whether you agree with the level of social control, you must admit
that it works for these fairly homogeneous people. They are
uncivilized if you define the absence of Wal-Marts and SUVs as
uncivilized, but they manage to live happy and productive lives using
a fraction of the resources and energy as fat lazy Americans.
Vietnamese Communism is successful because it suits the national
character - which is to say that it is unlikely to work elsewhere.
The VCP is a nationalist movement more than anything, and represents
the Vietnamese people's determination to liberate themselves from
Western colonialism.
The Vietnamese people seem determined to modernize their society, and
the VCP represents their way of achieving it. I don't like
authoritarianism, but fat lazy Americans should be aware that it
works, and unless we change our ways quickly we are going to be
outcompeted and our empire will fall and Asia will foreclose on the
United States and evict us.
Bert Hyman
news:6d11d6ab-d6e4-44c9...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com
D�nk 1010011010 <dan...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> The VCP tolerates capitalism because it promotes its own interests,
> but it regulates it heavily, and lets capitalism work for the Party
> rather than letting the Party work for capitalism as in America.
>
I believe that economic model is more appropriately called "fascism."
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Jerry Okamura
belongings, because the odds are pretty high, that if someone can steal it
from you, they will steal it from you.
"D�nk 1010011010" <dan...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d11d6ab-d6e4-44c9...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Beam Me Up Scotty
> D�nk 1010011010 <dan...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm currently visiting the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and it is
>> the most incredible experience of my life. The country and its people
>> are not what I expected, and their brand of Communism actually seems
>> to work for them.
>
> and govt functionaries they 'disappeared' at the end of the war
> and see how quickly YOU 'disappear' in thus wunnerful commie
> republic you've discovered ......
>
The state values the people like I valued the chickens I raised.
--
Dänk 1010011010
dog.com> wrote:
> Mr.B1ack wrote:
Remember that I'm not arguing FOR communism, but just observing how
this particular brand is far more efficient than the U.S. model,
therefore it will outcompete us and drive us out of business.
The U.S. economic model is unsustainable and will soon collapse unless
serious reforms are made. Even our technological progress is
dependent on a steady supply of Asian-born scientists and engineers.
Not only can't Americans design our own rockets anymore, we can't even
scrub our own toilets and we sit around complaining about
'unemployment' while importing foreigners to do the menial tasks we
refuse to do.
robert bowman
> Vietnamese Communism is successful because it suits the national
> character - which is to say that it is unlikely to work elsewhere.
> The VCP is a nationalist movement more than anything, and represents
> the Vietnamese people's determination to liberate themselves from
> Western colonialism.
The term has negative connotations, but call it what you will, national
socialism often works quite well, as opposed to Marx' vision of
international communism.
Poetic Justice
James A. Donald
> this particular brand is far more efficient than the U.S. model,
> therefore it will outcompete us and drive us out of business.
Let us compare with Thailand next door, and Singapore not very far
away.
Obviously Thailand is superior to Vietnam, and Singapore is way
superior to Vietnam.
Dänk 1010011010
Thailand and Singapore are WEALTHIER, but that doesn't mean they are
superior. Their economies require enormous amounts of natural
resources because their people are fat, spoiled, and lazy. We waste
everything, and even the greenest American consumes more food and
energy and disposable products than a dozen or more Vietnamese.
Vietnamese are EFFICIENT. Nothing is wasted, and you will never find
an empty car or scooter, because every trip should include a few
deliveries so as not to waste gas. This is not the result of any
totalitarian Party directive, but simple economics because $3.50/
gallon price they pay for gasoline represents a day's wages.
Americans don't care much about the price, since no matter expensive
they think it is, they never choose to carpool to save money.
And while not trying to reinforce certain stereotypes about Vietnamese
eating habits, but I've noticed that there are no cats and no
pigeons. I saw one cat at a Buddhist temple the other day, and I'm
guessing that he was safe there.
No pigeons, which is strange because I thought the flying shit
machines infested every city on earth. Americans would rather starve
than eat a pigeon, while at the same time cities spend lots of money
on pigeon extermination. A typical American city features a scene of
a homeless person surrounded by big fat pigeons, holding a sign saying
he is hungry and asking for money. There is nothing wrong with eating
pigeons, but Americans have some kind of food taboo, refusing to eat
an animal that was commonly consumed by their ancestors because they
think it is beneath them.
The streets are extremely clean in Vietnam, because unemployed people
are promptly put to work as streetsweepers. This is more efficient
than the American model, in which unemployed people sit around air-
conditioned unemployment offices or sitting at home waiting for their
assistance check to arrive in the mail. Cities pay millions of
dollars for 'efficient' street-sweeping machines, efficient in that
they only require a single operator. But a hundred one-dollar brooms
sweep just as well as a hundred-thousand dollar street-sweeping
machine, and there are thousands of people sitting in the unemployment
office, which is extremely inefficient.
One more thing I noticed is the lack of garbage cans. There are
sweeper crews who pick everything up on a daily basis, but it appears
that the Vietnamese people produce very little refuse. Now that I
think about it, I really can't remember seeing any cardboard boxes; in
Mexico, the streets are knee-deep in cardboard, since Mexicans are now
too reech to be bothered with recycling almost-worthless cardboard
(but not worthless to Vietnamese).
Americans have become fat and lazy and decadent and our Empire will
soon crumble. My friend who lives a fairly good life was complaining
about tough times and how he could only afford baloney sandwiches
until his next paycheck. I jokingly (?) suggested he catch a few
squirrels, and he thought the idea was ludicrous, even though our
pioneer ancestors ate them all the time.
Fred Williams
> In
> news:6d11d6ab-d6e4-44c9...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com
> D�nk 1010011010 <dan...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The VCP tolerates capitalism because it promotes its own interests,
>> but it regulates it heavily, and lets capitalism work for the Party
>> rather than letting the Party work for capitalism as in America.
>>
>
> I believe that economic model is more appropriately called "fascism."
>
If it allows the rich to control the government then it would be, as it is
in America.
--
Regards,
Fred
(remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email)
Bert Hyman
<fr...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
> Bert Hyman wrote:
>
>> In
>> news:6d11d6ab-d6e4-44c9...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com
>> D�nk 1010011010 <dan...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The VCP tolerates capitalism because it promotes its own interests,
>>> but it regulates it heavily, and lets capitalism work for the Party
>>> rather than letting the Party work for capitalism as in America.
>>>
>>
>> I believe that economic model is more appropriately called "fascism."
>>
>
> If it allows the rich to control the government then it would be,
> as it is in America.
The economic model of fascism involves state control of the economy
while maintaining the fiction of private ownership.
Corrupt businessmen "cooperate" with corrupt politicians during the
initial phases of such a scheme, but the businessmen soon find out
that you don't get to cooperate with government thugs who control the
police, courts and military.
Cooperation ends at the muzzle of a gun.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> just Vietnams. After all, no matter how you try to
> paint 'em up pretty, 'govt' is really just the biggest,
> meanest, GANG inside your borders.
>
The trick is that the USA has always had Less government control until
now. Which means that it was less of a problem.
--
*Anarcissie*
> Dänk 1010011010 <dank...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:24:54 -0800 (PST), Dänk 1010011010
>
> >> > Remember that I'm not arguing FOR communism, but just observing how
> >> > this particular brand is far more efficient than the U.S. model,
> >> > therefore it will outcompete us and drive us out of business.
>
> >> Let us compare with Thailand next door, and Singapore not very far
> >> away.
>
> >> Obviously Thailand is superior to Vietnam, and Singapore is way
> >> superior to Vietnam.
>
> >Thailand and Singapore are WEALTHIER, but that doesn't mean they are
> >superior. Their economies require enormous amounts of natural
> >resources because their people are fat, spoiled, and lazy.
>
> everybody is cold, starving and sick - but are supposed
> to feel good about it because *everybody* is living the
> same sucky hyperminimalist lifestyle ........
Everyone in Vietnam is not cold, starving and sick.
Especially, they are not cold. A friend of mine who
worked there a few years ago didn't report any
starvation, either. That doesn't mean people don't
have shitty jobs in Nike factories, of course.
>
> No thanks.
>
> If you want good things, meritocracy is the ticket.
> Be stronger or smarter or more innovative, more
> industrious, more efficient or all of the above and
> you get tangible REWARDS - earn the right to be
> 'fat, spoiled and lazy' as you put it.
I sure wouldn't count on merit to get you anywhere
in any kind of society.
>
> Your following 'waste' theme takes two branches, one
> strong, the other rotten.
>
> What, exactly, *IS* "waste" ? When is something really
> "wasted" as opposed to "used" ? How often do seemingly
> "wasted" resources and/or the desire to get them cheaper
> and easier actually provide the critical mass for
> significant innovation ?
>
> Think about it for awhile and you'll see that the
> odds and ends 'wasted' on those 'fat, spoiled and
> lazy' lifestyles often translate into all sorts of
> useful products - technological, medical, artistic.
>
> "Plenty" also tends to translate into political
> and social liberties too ... which are wont to
> disappear again if that sense of 'plenty' gets
> kind-of thin (note recent backlash against 'Mexicans',
> the rise of the 'health nazis' and the deep gashes
> in civil & privacy rules because we don't think
> there's "plenty" of "security" anymore). In short,
> the "fat, spoiled and lazy" can afford to be
> GENEROUS.
>
> Those are a few twigs on the "rotten" branch.
>
> Now on the good branch of "waste" ... yep, you
> seem to understand that ready resources on this
> rock ARE kind-of limited. All the good iron and
> copper in the USA were mined-out decades ago
> and we're getting by on 2nd/3rd rate ores that
> cost a lot more to refine.
>
> Water & good topsoil are at in increasing premium.
> Pollution due to inefficient manufacture/use/reclaimation
> of goods and materials is a serious problem. The "second
> wave" tech civilizations - China & India especially -
> will NEVER have it so good and easy as the first wave
> (euroamerican) because we used up all the easy-2-get/use
> resources to build OUR nirvana.
>
> In short, there's not enough 'stuff' for six, eight,
> ten, twelve billion people ... not enough to meet even
> bona-fide needs, much less burning desires.
>
> There's about enough for ONE billion people though ...
> which is the level the world population needs to
> build down to within maybe two or three generations.
> "One child per family" is a SANE rule for the next
> 100 years - altbough it's one that would have to be
> enforced literally at gunpoint in many parts of the
> world - leading to wars and the mega-wastage they
> cause.
>
> No 'perfect' all-'round solutions. Not even global
> agreement as to what constitutes "OK" solutions.
>
> But then, in human affairs, who ever said there
> WOULD be ? We're an evolutionary frankenspecies,
> masses of conflicting/contradictory impulses,
> nekked monkeys with just enough IQ to cause some
> *real* trouble - so what makes anyone think we're
> going to be good at creating nice one-size-fits-all
> solutions to much of ANYTHING ? Welcome to the
> human race .... enjoy ........
>
> Ya know what's GOING to happen ? We'll keep doing
> exactly what we HAVE been doing - because it's the
> easiest and most familiar. When some major crisis
> of resources or whatever hits, then we'll punt ...
> wing it. Millions/billions suffer/die ? Oh well ....
> so long as it's not *me* dontchaknow ........
>
> Look at our past and DARE to say it ain't so.
Beam Me Up Scotty
>
Should we thank Obama?
--
James A. Donald
> > > Remember that I'm not arguing FOR communism, but just observing how
> > > this particular brand is far more efficient than the U.S. model,
> > > therefore it will outcompete us and drive us out of business.
James A. Donald:
> > Let us compare with Thailand next door, and Singapore not very far
> > away.
> >
> > Obviously Thailand is superior to Vietnam, and Singapore is way
> > superior to Vietnam.
Dänk 1010011010
> Thailand and Singapore are WEALTHIER,
Also, people in Thailand and Singapore are more free than any ordinary
person in Vietnam
Also, as is typical in national socialist countries, racial minorities
such as Chinese, Montagnards, and Khmer, are subject to near
genocidal, and sometimes genocidal, persecution in Vietnam.
> but that doesn't mean they are
> superior. Their economies require enormous amounts of natural
> resources because their people are fat, spoiled, and lazy. We waste
> everything, and even the greenest American consumes more food and
> energy and disposable products than a dozen or more Vietnamese.
Which is just another way of saying that socialism gives the masses
the poverty they deserve, the poverty that your lot intends to impose
on us at the Copenhagen Global Warming conference.
> And while not trying to reinforce certain stereotypes about Vietnamese
> eating habits, but I've noticed that there are no cats and no
> pigeons.
Exactly so.
> No pigeons, which is strange because I thought the flying shit
> machines infested every city on earth. Americans would rather starve
> than eat a pigeon
Rather, no Americans are starving. Pigeons are flying rats.
Vietnamese are starving, so they eat pigeons, rats, and cats.
If poor Americans existed, our cities also would be free from pigeons.
James A. Donald
<anarc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Everyone in Vietnam is not cold, starving and sick.
> Especially, they are not cold. A friend of mine who
> worked there a few years ago didn't report any
> starvation, either.
Why then no pigeons?
Similarly, cats are redundant, because the people catch and eat the
rats themselves.
In a tropical environment rats are an intolerable problem, unless
solved by a competent and hard working ratter - which ratters are, in
normal countries, cats. Not in Vietnam, however.
James A. Donald
> Ah ... so in the 'perfect' world, the 'perfect' system,
> everybody is cold, starving and sick - but are supposed
> to feel good about it because *everybody* is living the
> same sucky hyperminimalist lifestyle ........
Not everyone. An essential and important part of equality is that
those enforcing all that equality are more equal than others. At
Copenhagen, they are going to make you walk to work so that Al Gore
can fly around in his private jet telling you to use less carbon.
This wonderful utopia of equality has already been accomplished in
Cuba, where the planes do not travel on schedule, but fly like taxis
to suit the caprice of the powerful. Their carbon emissions must be
something wonderful.
robert bowman
> The trick is that the USA has always had Less government control until
> now. Which means that it was less of a problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion
Shay's Rebellion showed the new bosses, who were the same as the old bosses,
that the peasants had to be kept in their place. Segue to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fries's_Rebellion
robert bowman
> Rather, no Americans are starving. Pigeons are flying rats.
Unless, of course, you are dining at Le Cirque and it's referred to as
squab. It isn't every place you can get a $200 fried pigeon.
*Anarcissie*
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 07:54:38 -0800 (PST), "*Anarcissie*"
>
> > Everyone in Vietnam is not cold, starving and sick.
> > Especially, they are not cold. A friend of mine who
> > worked there a few years ago didn't report any
> > starvation, either.
>
> Why then no pigeons?
>
> Similarly, cats are redundant, because the people catch and eat the
> rats themselves.
>
> In a tropical environment rats are an intolerable problem, unless
> solved by a competent and hard working ratter - which ratters are, in
> normal countries, cats. Not in Vietnam, however.
I am just reporting to you folks what someone
who was there told me. She also brought back
a lot of photographs which she took herself, on
her own, with nobody watching her. (She had
some kind of crappy teaching job.) They look
like most of the other pictures I've seen of
Southeast Asia.
Here are some of them:
http://www.artezine.com/issues/20071201/dvc_hanoimorn.html
These focus on art among the folk, because
they're in an arts magazine, rather than people
eating cats -- for that you'll have to go to some
other publication.
Fred Williams
> In news:hf8e47$3me$3...@news.eternal-september.org Fred Williams
> <fr...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>
>> Bert Hyman wrote:
>>
>>> In
>>> news:6d11d6ab-d6e4-44c9...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com
>>> D�nk 1010011010 <dan...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The VCP tolerates capitalism because it promotes its own interests,
>>>> but it regulates it heavily, and lets capitalism work for the Party
>>>> rather than letting the Party work for capitalism as in America.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I believe that economic model is more appropriately called "fascism."
>>>
>>
>> If it allows the rich to control the government then it would be,
>> as it is in America.
>
> The economic model of fascism involves state control of the economy
> while maintaining the fiction of private ownership.
>
> Corrupt businessmen "cooperate" with corrupt politicians during the
> initial phases of such a scheme, but the businessmen soon find out
> that you don't get to cooperate with government thugs who control the
> police, courts and military.
>
> Cooperation ends at the muzzle of a gun.
Corporatism is fascism That's what Mussolini said and he ought to know.
Over time the rich get richer and eventually they have enough power to
control the government. Historically, this usually continues until there is
a revolution when the common people can't take anymore and they feel they
have nothing left to loose. There is a better way, but it's hard to teach
society new tricks.
Bert Hyman
<fr...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
> Bert Hyman wrote:
>
>> In news:hf8e47$3me$3...@news.eternal-september.org Fred Williams
>> <fr...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>>
>>> Bert Hyman wrote:
>>
>> Corrupt businessmen "cooperate" with corrupt politicians during the
>> initial phases of such a scheme, but the businessmen soon find out
>> that you don't get to cooperate with government thugs who control the
>> police, courts and military.
>>
>> Cooperation ends at the muzzle of a gun.
>
> Corporatism is fascism That's what Mussolini said and he ought
> to know.
> Over time the rich get richer and eventually they have enough power to
> control the government. Historically, this usually continues until
> there is a revolution when the common people can't take anymore and
> they feel they have nothing left to loose.
Then why are so many people so determined to establish such a
politically controlled economy in the US and elsewhere?
> There is a better way,
What way is that?
> but it's hard to teach society new tricks.
What method of reeducation do you propose?
*Anarcissie*
> Innews:hfb9mf$rss$4...@news.eternal-september.orgFred Williams
>
>
>
> <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
> > Bert Hyman wrote:
>
> >> Innews:hf8e47$3me$3...@news.eternal-september.orgFred Williams
> >> <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>
> >>> Bert Hyman wrote:
>
> >> Corrupt businessmen "cooperate" with corrupt politicians during the
> >> initial phases of such a scheme, but the businessmen soon find out
> >> that you don't get to cooperate with government thugs who control the
> >> police, courts and military.
>
> >> Cooperation ends at the muzzle of a gun.
>
> > Corporatism is fascism That's what Mussolini said and he ought
> > to know.
> > Over time the rich get richer and eventually they have enough power to
> > control the government. Historically, this usually continues until
> > there is a revolution when the common people can't take anymore and
> > they feel they have nothing left to loose.
>
> Then why are so many people so determined to establish such a
> politically controlled economy in the US and elsewhere?
Establish? It's already controlled by one form of
politics or another. The struggles are about which
group or class is going to have the most power.
Fred Williams
>> There is a better way,
>
> What way is that?
>
Plentiful Money.
>> but it's hard to teach society new tricks.
>
> What method of reeducation do you propose?
>
Community meetings for starters.
Bert Hyman
<fr...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
> Bert Hyman wrote:
>
>>> There is a better way,
>>
>> What way is that?
>>
> Plentiful Money.
The Fed's printing presses are running as fast as they can.
>
>>> but it's hard to teach society new tricks.
>>
>> What method of reeducation do you propose?
>>
> Community meetings for starters.
How do you "teach" at a community meeting?
What do you "teach" at these meetings?
Who holds the meetings?
Who attends?
Beam Me Up Scotty
> Bert Hyman wrote:
>
>>> There is a better way,
>> What way is that?
>>
> Plentiful Money.
>
>>> but it's hard to teach society new tricks.
>> What method of reeducation do you propose?
>>
> Community meetings for starters.
>
SEIU is Obama's secret police.
--
liberal
> Dänk 1010011010 <dank...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> >I'm currently visiting the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and it is
> >the most incredible experience of my life. The country and its people
> >are not what I expected, and their brand of Communism actually seems
> >to work for them.
>
> Now start asking questions about all the people, schoolteachers
> and govt functionaries they 'disappeared' at the end of the war
> and see how quickly YOU 'disappear' in thus wunnerful commie
> republic you've discovered ......
gee, now start explaining why you weren't willing to bleed and die for
those "people, schoolteachers and govt functionaries" before they
"disappeared."
BTW, those very people weren't too interested in fighting and dying
for their freedom either.
Bet you cannot name one significant difference between the commies
running Vietnam and the "capitalists(?)" who ran South Vietnam.
liberal
wrote:
> robert bowman wrote:
> > Dänk 1010011010 wrote:
>
> >> Vietnamese Communism is successful because it suits the national
> >> character - which is to say that it is unlikely to work elsewhere.
> >> The VCP is a nationalist movement more than anything, and represents
> >> the Vietnamese people's determination to liberate themselves from
> >> Western colonialism.
>
> > The term has negative connotations, but call it what you will, national
> > socialism often works quite well, as opposed to Marx' vision of
> > international communism.
>
> It worked well in Cambodia...
Funny how European and South American governments used similar
techniques from time to time. Even, for Native Americans, the US
government.
Unlike you marching morons of the reich, intelligent people understand
neither socialism nor communism is predicated on atrocities.
BTW, didja read what Bernanke said in his Senate hearing? That Social
Security and Medicare must be cut, if not eliminated. Hmmm, 76 million
baby boomers, dying on the roadside. Must be be that capitalistic love
for one's fellow man.
liberal
dog.com> wrote:
> Mr.B1ack wrote:
> > Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
> >> Mr.B1ack wrote:
> >>> Dänk 1010011010 <dank...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> I'm currently visiting the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and it is
> >>>> the most incredible experience of my life. The country and its people
> >>>> are not what I expected, and their brand of Communism actually seems
> >>>> to work for them.
> >>> Now start asking questions about all the people, schoolteachers
> >>> and govt functionaries they 'disappeared' at the end of the war
> >>> and see how quickly YOU 'disappear' in thus wunnerful commie
> >>> republic you've discovered ......
>
> >> The state values the people like I valued the chickens I raised.
>
> > Well, really, that can be said of ALL states ... not
> > just Vietnams. After all, no matter how you try to
> > paint 'em up pretty, 'govt' is really just the biggest,
> > meanest, GANG inside your borders.
>
> The trick is that the USA has always had Less government control until
> now. Which means that it was less of a problem.
> --
Antebellum South. American west and Native Americans. You're a fool.
Fred Williams
> In news:hfbkjc$9v9$3...@news.eternal-september.org Fred Williams
> <fr...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>
>> Bert Hyman wrote:
>>
>>>> There is a better way,
>>>
>>> What way is that?
>>>
>> Plentiful Money.
>
> The Fed's printing presses are running as fast as they can.
>
There's a difference between printing more scarce money and making money
plentiful. Plentiful money system change the game completely.
>>
>>>> but it's hard to teach society new tricks.
>>>
>>> What method of reeducation do you propose?
>>>
>> Community meetings for starters.
>
> How do you "teach" at a community meeting?
>
> What do you "teach" at these meetings?
>
> Who holds the meetings?
>
> Who attends?
>
Is it really so hard for you to figure this out?
Bert Hyman
<fr...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
> Bert Hyman wrote:
>
>> In news:hfbkjc$9v9$3...@news.eternal-september.org Fred Williams
>> <fr...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>>
>>> Bert Hyman wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There is a better way,
>>>>
>>>> What way is that?
>>>>
>>> Plentiful Money.
>>
>> The Fed's printing presses are running as fast as they can.
>>
> There's a difference between printing more scarce money and
> making money plentiful.
Should they be dropping it on the streets from airplanes? Or perhaps it
should come in the mail?
> Plentiful money system change the game completely.
Depending on what "the game" is, I suppose it would.
>
>>>
>>>>> but it's hard to teach society new tricks.
>>>>
>>>> What method of reeducation do you propose?
>>>>
>>> Community meetings for starters.
>>
>> How do you "teach" at a community meeting?
>>
>> What do you "teach" at these meetings?
>>
>> Who holds the meetings?
>>
>> Who attends?
>>
> Is it really so hard for you to figure this out?
Is it really so hard for you to answer?
Dan Clore
Your tinfoil hat is showing.
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Fred Williams
> In news:hfbu45$9t$2...@news.eternal-september.org Fred Williams
> <fr...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>
>> Bert Hyman wrote:
>>
>>> In news:hfbkjc$9v9$3...@news.eternal-september.org Fred Williams
>>> <fr...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bert Hyman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> There is a better way,
>>>>>
>>>>> What way is that?
>>>>>
>>>> Plentiful Money.
>>>
>>> The Fed's printing presses are running as fast as they can.
>>>
>> There's a difference between printing more scarce money and
>> making money plentiful.
>
> Should they be dropping it on the streets from airplanes? Or perhaps it
> should come in the mail?
>
Look up "LETS" That's one example.
Bert Hyman
<fr...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
> Look up "LETS" That's one example.
You want to convert the world to a barter system?
Well, good luck with that.
Fred Williams
> In news:hfcapg$ib9$2...@news.eternal-september.org Fred Williams
> <fr...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>
>> Look up "LETS" That's one example.
>
> You want to convert the world to a barter system?
>
No
> Well, good luck with that.
>
--
James A. Donald
> > solved by a competent and hard working ratter - which ratters are, in
> > normal countries, cats. Not in Vietnam, however.
Mr.B1ack
> As post-commie regimes go, Vietnam doesn't seem all
> so bad.
Quite true - but that is not a very high standard.
James A. Donald
> > Now start asking questions about all the people, schoolteachers
> > and govt functionaries they 'disappeared' at the end of the war
> > and see how quickly YOU 'disappear' in thus wunnerful commie
> > republic you've discovered ......
liberal
> gee, now start explaining why you weren't willing to bleed and die for
> those "people, schoolteachers and govt functionaries" before they
> "disappeared."
>
> BTW, those very people weren't too interested in fighting and dying
> for their freedom either.
Plenty of them did die for their freedom. The problem was that
communist regimes are willing to cheerfully expend conscript cannon
fodder in quantities that other regimes find difficult.
Containment was necessarily and predictably a disastrous failure,
being a defeatist doctrine from the beginning.
For containment to work, we had to win or draw every war, every war of
the enemy's choosing, at a time and place of the enemy's choosing, and
soon as we lost one, the dominoes fell.
The solution, of course, was rollback - to have wars of our choosing,
at places and times of our choosing, more wars than the very poor
Soviet Union could afford.
Fred Williams
> Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>> > Now start asking questions about all the people, schoolteachers
>> > and govt functionaries they 'disappeared' at the end of the war
>> > and see how quickly YOU 'disappear' in thus wunnerful commie
>> > republic you've discovered ......
>
> liberal
>> gee, now start explaining why you weren't willing to bleed and die for
>> those "people, schoolteachers and govt functionaries" before they
>> "disappeared."
>>
>> BTW, those very people weren't too interested in fighting and dying
>> for their freedom either.
>
> Plenty of them did die for their freedom. The problem was that
> communist regimes are willing to cheerfully expend conscript cannon
> fodder in quantities that other regimes find difficult.
>
More of the myth.
> Containment was necessarily and predictably a disastrous failure,
> being a defeatist doctrine from the beginning.
>
Don't forget the "dominoes."
> For containment to work, we had to win or draw every war, every war of
> the enemy's choosing, at a time and place of the enemy's choosing, and
> soon as we lost one, the dominoes fell.
>
The domino theory was that if one nation became communist so would another
and they all would convert. It didn't really happen and Viet-nam was much
better off running it's own affairs than if they had been run by Washington.
> The solution, of course, was rollback - to have wars of our choosing,
> at places and times of our choosing, more wars than the very poor
> Soviet Union could afford.
War is not the solution. It is a symptom of the problem.
Bert Hyman
<fr...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
> Bert Hyman wrote:
>
>> In news:hfcapg$ib9$2...@news.eternal-september.org Fred Williams
>> <fr...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>>
>>> Look up "LETS" That's one example.
>>
>> You want to convert the world to a barter system?
>>
> No
"Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS) also known as LETSystems are
local, non-profit exchange networks in which goods and services can be
traded without the need for printed currency."
Sure sounds like barter to me.
>> Well, good luck with that.
>>
--
*Anarcissie*
> Innews:hfcftd$r83$1...@news.eternal-september.orgFred Williams
>
> <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
> > Bert Hyman wrote:
>
> >> <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>
> >>> Look up "LETS" That's one example.
>
> >> You want to convert the world to a barter system?
>
> > No
>
> "Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS) also known as LETSystems are
> local, non-profit exchange networks in which goods and services can be
> traded without the need for printed currency."
>
> Sure sounds like barter to me.
Hint: 'printed currency' is not identical to 'money'.
Bert Hyman
news:f6e6dc27-b5f0-4af5...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com
"*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Neither are "goods and services."
Besides, the OP wants to "mak[e] money plentiful."
How do you do that with "goods and services?"
Money is the invention that allows trade between people without actually
dragging around "goods" or personally performing "services."
Fred Williams
We change the rules. Along with people's rights to freedom of speech and
association, goes the right to issue money. So everybody has a bank account
and when you buy something from someone you credit their account with the
agreed on price and debit your own account the same amount. There is no
bottom end on accounts and everyone has purchasing power 100 percent of the
time.
The advantages are many, especially if you look at all the shortcomings on
the current "scarce money" system. Plentiful money systems are stable and
don't concentrate wealth in the hands of the few while forcing the many to
starve to death on the streets.
It's implements economic equality to supplement our political equality and
once that's established we'll see what other equalities we may need as well.
When people adjust, we'll have peace and an end to poverty. Not bad side
effects.
James A. Donald
> > For containment to work, we had to win or draw every
> > war, every war of the enemy's choosing, at a time
> > lost one, the dominoes fell.
Fred Williams
> The domino theory was that if one nation became
> communist so would another and they all would convert.
And following the fall of Vietnam: Cambodia, Laos,
Ethiopia and Somalia immediately fell, and the most
savage and dreadful wrath was unleashed upon their
defenseless people. Afghanistan, Grenada, and Nicaragua
fell not very long afterwards, though with less dramatic
and horrifying brutality.
The wave of Soviet advance that followed Russia's
Vietnam victory scared the piss out of everyone.
Fearing more of the same, numerous regimes rushed to
kiss up the Soviet Union. After the fall of Vietnam,
and before Ronald Reagan became president, we saw in the
UN humiliating landslide votes in support of the Soviet
Union, we saw democracy evaporate all over the world, to
be replaced by tyrannies that were desperately trying to
appease the Soviet Union and forestall its mighty wrath.
Had the American people not voted for rollback, it is
likely the whole world would have become communist, some
regions by savage conquest like Cambodia, others by
numerous small semi peaceful changes, like
Czechoslovakia and Nicaragua.
> > The solution, of course, was rollback - to have wars
> > of our choosing, at places and times of our
> > choosing, more wars than the very poor Soviet Union
> > could afford.
> War is not the solution. It is a symptom of the
> problem.
You think war is a solution when you guys are attacking.
You only think it is not a solution when other people
defend themselves.
Fred Williams
> James A. Donald wrote:
>> > For containment to work, we had to win or draw every
>> > war, every war of the enemy's choosing, at a time
>> > and place of the enemy's choosing, for soon as we
>> > lost one, the dominoes fell.
>
> Fred Williams
>> The domino theory was that if one nation became
>> communist so would another and they all would convert.
>
> And following the fall of Vietnam: Cambodia, Laos,
> Ethiopia and Somalia immediately fell, and the most
> savage and dreadful wrath was unleashed upon their
> defenseless people. Afghanistan, Grenada, and Nicaragua
> fell not very long afterwards, though with less dramatic
> and horrifying brutality.
>
These countries would have "fallen" is the U.S. had conquered them.
Instead they were freed.
Dan Clore
Cambodia fell before (South) Vietnam. And the Cambodian regime was not
allied with the Vietnamese "communists", in fact had started warring
with them even before they took power. And it's rather difficult to see
how the other countries listed, aside from Laos, could be "dominoes"
that fell as the result of (South) Vietnam falling. Or perhaps dominoes
work by action-at-a-distance?
James A. Donald
> >> The domino theory was that if one nation became
> >> communist so would another and they all would convert.
James A. Donald:
> > And following the fall of Vietnam: Cambodia, Laos,
> > Ethiopia and Somalia immediately fell, and the most
> > savage and dreadful wrath was unleashed upon their
> > defenseless people. Afghanistan, Grenada, and Nicaragua
> > fell not very long afterwards, though with less dramatic
> > and horrifying brutality.
Fred Williams
> These countries would have "fallen" is the U.S. had conquered them.
> Instead they were freed.
Interesting that their liberators needed to use terror, torture, mass
murder, and artificial famine.
James A. Donald
James A. Donald wrote:
> > > > > For containment to work, we had to win or draw
> > > > > every war, every war of the enemy's choosing,
> > > > > at a time and place of the enemy's choosing,
> > > > > for soon as we lost one, the dominoes fell.
Fred Williams
> > > > The domino theory was that if one nation became
> > > > communist so would another and they all would
> > > > convert.
James A. Donald:
> > > And following the fall of Vietnam: Cambodia, Laos,
> > > Ethiopia and Somalia immediately fell, and the
> > > most savage and dreadful wrath was unleashed upon
> > > their defenseless people. Afghanistan, Grenada,
> > > and Nicaragua fell not very long afterwards,
> > > though with less dramatic and horrifying
> > > brutality.
Dan Clore
> Cambodia fell before (South) Vietnam
Fall of Phnom Penh 1975 April 17
Fall of Saigon 1975 April 30
That both falls were caused by a single cause, a cause
that acted a quite short time previously, is evident
from the closeness of the dates.
That event, that caused the fall of both cities, was a
defeat, and that defeat occurred in Vietnam: the fall of
Ban Me Thuot in 1975 March 10. When Ban Me Thout fell,
everyone who had been paying attention knew what was
coming, just as when the Soviet Union retreated from
Afghanistan, we knew that the wall would fall, and in
due course Moscow itself. After Ban Me Thout, the big
surprise was that the collapse was slower than had been
expected, and did not spread as far as had been
expected. We were unsurprised to see several dominoes
fall, rather, we were surprised, both on the left and on
the right, to see that so many dominos remained
standing. A lot of the left, and some on the right, had
expected to see the dominos fall all the way to
Washington, just as after Afghanistan, a lot on the
right expected to see the dominos fall all the way to
Moscow.
The bandwagon effect of Vietnam was evident in UN votes,
and in the collapse of democracies around the world.
> And the Cambodian regime was not allied with the
> Vietnamese "communists",
Internal documents that have now become public reveal
that at the time Phnom Penh fell, the Khmer Rouge were
still pretending to the Vietnamese to be servile
puppets. Pol Pot was still in full abject grovel mode.
Fred Williams
Vietnam would have been won by the U.S. if there were any significant
support among the Vietnamese people. There wasn't and that's why the U.S.
lost. They also expected the Cuban people to rise up against Castro in the
Bay of Pigs invasion. It didn't happen, because the people love Fidel and
supported their own government. The invading forces were crushed.
In Vietnam, there was the Mai Lai massacre. It wasn't the Viet Cong who
did that. Torture camps and death squads are the tools of U.S. foreign
policy both then and now. Except today it's Afghanistan and Iraq. There
was also the former Yugoslavia, Panama, and the list goes on.
James A. Donald
> Vietnam would have been won by the U.S. if there were
> any significant support among the Vietnamese people.
That the North Vietnamese had to expend so many of their
captives in the war, and had to murder so many South
Vietnamese after victory, demonstrates significant
support. The vast number of people sent to "special
economic zones", the terror, the bloodbath, demonstrate
significant support.
The US lost because communists can and do expend their
subjects without limit, while normal governments have
limits.
Michael Price
> James A. Donald wrote:
>
>
>
> > Fred Williams
> >> >> The domino theory was that if one nation became
> >> >> communist so would another and they all would convert.
>
> > James A. Donald:
> >> > And following the fall of Vietnam: Cambodia, Laos,
> >> > Ethiopia and Somalia immediately fell, and the most
> >> > savage and dreadful wrath was unleashed upon their
> >> > defenseless people. Afghanistan, Grenada, and Nicaragua
> >> > fell not very long afterwards, though with less dramatic
> >> > and horrifying brutality.
>
> > Fred Williams
> >> These countries would have "fallen" is the U.S. had conquered them.
> >> Instead they were freed.
>
> > Interesting that their liberators needed to use terror, torture, mass
> > murder, and artificial famine.
>
> Vietnam would have been won by the U.S. if there were any significant
> support among the Vietnamese people.
If there was no significant support among the Vietnamese people why
did the ARVNs take back most of the territory after Tet?
> There wasn't and that's why the U.S. lost. They also expected the
> Cuban people to rise up against Castro in the
> Bay of Pigs invasion. It didn't happen, because the people love Fidel and
> supported their own government.
No they didn't support the invasion because they didn't love the
former government, they didn't know how likely it was to succeed and
weren't able to effectively combine to avoid destruction. The idea
that because people don't risk their lives to end something that they
love it is ridiculous. Oh and because they had no air or heavy
artillery support, that's also a biggie.
> The invading forces were crushed.
> In Vietnam, there was the Mai Lai massacre. It wasn't the Viet Cong who
> did that.
No but they did plenty of other massacres. Indeed murdering people
for
> Torture camps and death squads are the tools of U.S. foreign
> policy both then and now.
And of the communists foreign policy (and the VC were part of the
foreign policy of socialist countries).
Fred Williams
OR, you're just making things up. You'd think that if there were blood
baths and terror in Vietnam after the war there would have been something
about it in the news, with the U.S. government saying "I told you so." We
wouldn't be hearing about it for the first time thirty some odd years later
from some guy on the internet with a history of spreading lies and
propaganda.
Fred Williams
> On Dec 8, 5:01 pm, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>> They also expected the
>> Cuban people to rise up against Castro in the
>> Bay of Pigs invasion. It didn't happen, because the people love Fidel
>> and supported their own government.
>
> No they didn't support the invasion because they didn't love the
> former government, they didn't know how likely it was to succeed and
> weren't able to effectively combine to avoid destruction. The idea
> that because people don't risk their lives to end something that they
> love it is ridiculous. Oh and because they had no air or heavy
> artillery support, that's also a biggie.
>
Yet that was the U.S. belief at the time when they mounted the effort.
That's why they believed that they would succeed with the Bay of Pigs
invasion. Where Fidel Castro and a handful of others came in a boat and
succeeded. The difference was public support.
Also the Bay of Pigs invasion was backed by United Fruit and the Miami
Mafia. Any government installed by this invasion would be no better than
Batista's, "the former government" you refer to. The Cuban people know
this. Their socialist, grass roots government is by far better than what
they would get if they were run by this band of criminals and corporate
power.
Michael Price
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On Dec 8, 5:01 pm, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
> >> They also expected the
> >> Cuban people to rise up against Castro in the
> >> Bay of Pigs invasion. It didn't happen, because the people love Fidel
> >> and supported their own government.
>
> > No they didn't support the invasion because they didn't love the
> > former government, they didn't know how likely it was to succeed and
> > weren't able to effectively combine to avoid destruction. The idea
> > that because people don't risk their lives to end something that they
> > love it is ridiculous. Oh and because they had no air or heavy
> > artillery support, that's also a biggie.
>
> Yet that was the U.S. belief at the time when they mounted the effort.
> That's why they believed that they would succeed with the Bay of Pigs
> invasion. Where Fidel Castro and a handful of others came in a boat and
> succeeded. The difference was public support.
Much of the public wanted Fidel dead at the time of the Bay of Pigs
because he and Che had been committing mass murder from the time they
could. Fidel succeeded because the New York Times claimed he was a
saint. He never had enough support among "the people" to defeat a
single battalion.
> Also the Bay of Pigs invasion was backed by United Fruit and the Miami
> Mafia. Any government installed by this invasion would be no better than
> Batista's, "the former government" you refer to. The Cuban people know
> this.
Yes, that was kinda my point. The idea they loved the Fidel is
moronic. Fidel was of course another US government install, but you
didn't know that.
> Their socialist, grass roots government is by far better than what
> they would get if they were run by this band of criminals and corporate
> power.
>
Yeah it's real "grass roots" when there hasn't been a political
opposition in forty years. Stop making excuses for murderers.
*Anarcissie*
> On Dec 10, 12:39 am, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Michael Price wrote:
> > > On Dec 8, 5:01 pm, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
> > >> They also expected the
> > >> Cuban people to rise up against Castro in the
> > >> Bay of Pigs invasion. It didn't happen, because the people love Fidel
> > >> and supported their own government.
>
> > > No they didn't support the invasion because they didn't love the
> > > former government, they didn't know how likely it was to succeed and
> > > weren't able to effectively combine to avoid destruction. The idea
> > > that because people don't risk their lives to end something that they
> > > love it is ridiculous. Oh and because they had no air or heavy
> > > artillery support, that's also a biggie.
>
> > Yet that was the U.S. belief at the time when they mounted the effort.
> > That's why they believed that they would succeed with the Bay of Pigs
> > invasion. Where Fidel Castro and a handful of others came in a boat and
> > succeeded. The difference was public support.
>
> Much of the public wanted Fidel dead at the time of the Bay of Pigs
> because he and Che had been committing mass murder from the time they
> could. Fidel succeeded because the New York Times claimed he was a
> saint. He never had enough support among "the people" to defeat a
> single battalion.
The _New_York_Times_ controls Cuba? That's new to me.
Maybe they should sell it -- the proceeds might help with
their financial problems.
James A. Donald
> > The US lost because communists can and do expend
> > their subjects without limit, while normal
> > governments have limits.
Fred Williams
> OR, you're just making things up.
The guerrilla war collapsed during and shortly after the
Tet offensive. After the Tet offensive, it was a
conventional war of conscript cannon fodder, much like
the Korean war, a war in which North Vietnamese
conscripts won despite taking tremendous casualties.
Success in a war of conscript cannon fodder is not an
indicator of popularity, but of regime brutality and
indifference to human life.
liberal
Which explains, I guess, somehow, why the US depended on draftees to
fight in Vietnam.
Fred Williams
> On Dec 10, 12:39 am, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>> Michael Price wrote:
>> > On Dec 8, 5:01 pm, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>> >> They also expected the
>> >> Cuban people to rise up against Castro in the
>> >> Bay of Pigs invasion. It didn't happen, because the people love Fidel
>> >> and supported their own government.
>>
>> > No they didn't support the invasion because they didn't love the
>> > former government, they didn't know how likely it was to succeed and
>> > weren't able to effectively combine to avoid destruction. The idea
>> > that because people don't risk their lives to end something that they
>> > love it is ridiculous. Oh and because they had no air or heavy
>> > artillery support, that's also a biggie.
>>
>> Yet that was the U.S. belief at the time when they mounted the effort.
>> That's why they believed that they would succeed with the Bay of Pigs
>> invasion. Where Fidel Castro and a handful of others came in a boat and
>> succeeded. The difference was public support.
>
> Much of the public wanted Fidel dead at the time of the Bay of Pigs
> because he and Che had been committing mass murder from the time they
> could.
Rubbish. Not supported by the facts.
> Fidel succeeded because the New York Times claimed he was a
> saint. He never had enough support among "the people" to defeat a
> single battalion.
If he had no support among the people, how could he have succeeded
regardless of what a newspaper in New York printed about him. It was the
people who fed him and his revolutionaries and kept his locations secret
from the Batista regime which was backed by the U.S. Mafia. Cubans knew the
connection and that Fidel was fighting for their freedom . They supported
him because of this. They'd have been crazy not to. They still know that
today.
>
>> Also the Bay of Pigs invasion was backed by United Fruit and the Miami
>> Mafia. Any government installed by this invasion would be no better than
>> Batista's, "the former government" you refer to. The Cuban people know
>> this.
>
> Yes, that was kinda my point. The idea they loved the Fidel is
> moronic. Fidel was of course another US government install, but you
> didn't know that.
>
(:-)) They seem to have had a change of heart. Like with Saddam or,...
>>Their socialist, grass roots government is by far better than what
>> they would get if they were run by this band of criminals and corporate
>> power.
>>
> Yeah it's real "grass roots" when there hasn't been a political
> opposition in forty years. Stop making excuses for murderers.
>
War is a euphemism for mass murder. A popular revolution is a violent act
and may very well be murder as well. It at least has a noble purpose, to
free a people. Today there are better ways. If you can organise a violent
revolution, you can probably organise a peaceful, economic take over. I
never advocate violence and I prefer not to practise it, although what I
might do in self defence I don't know. That's another issue.
So it's not good to paint President Castro as a murderer without also
pointing out the mass murders committed by the U.S. in their many wars of
conquest, assassination, and torture, around he world, decade after decade.
The "crimes" of Fidel pale into insignificance, and I may have done the same
as he and Che and others in similar circumstances, although as I grow older
I am much more zen, and so is Fidel if you read his recent writings.
Fred Williams
It can be twisted that way when propaganda is your only aim.
Michael Price
How is that even close to what I said? I merely stated the truth,
that the support of the NYT was more important to Castro's success
than the support
of the Cuban people.
> Maybe they should sell it -- the proceeds might help with
> their financial problems.
>
Nahhh... a bucket without a bottom isn't filled faster with a bigger
hose.
Michael Price
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 12:39 am, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
> >> Michael Price wrote:
> >> > On Dec 8, 5:01 pm, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
> >> >> They also expected the
> >> >> Cuban people to rise up against Castro in the
> >> >> Bay of Pigs invasion. It didn't happen, because the people love Fidel
> >> >> and supported their own government.
>
> >> > No they didn't support the invasion because they didn't love the
> >> > former government, they didn't know how likely it was to succeed and
> >> > weren't able to effectively combine to avoid destruction. The idea
> >> > that because people don't risk their lives to end something that they
> >> > love it is ridiculous. Oh and because they had no air or heavy
> >> > artillery support, that's also a biggie.
>
> >> Yet that was the U.S. belief at the time when they mounted the effort.
> >> That's why they believed that they would succeed with the Bay of Pigs
> >> invasion. Where Fidel Castro and a handful of others came in a boat and
> >> succeeded. The difference was public support.
>
> > Much of the public wanted Fidel dead at the time of the Bay of Pigs
> > because he and Che had been committing mass murder from the time they
> > could.
>
> Rubbish. Not supported by the facts.
Yes liar it is. http://www.therealcuba.com/MurderedbyChe.htm
http://www.sfherald.com/columnists/fontova/the_real_che.html
>
> > Fidel succeeded because the New York Times claimed he was a
> > saint. He never had enough support among "the people" to defeat a
> > single battalion.
>
> If he had no support among the people, how could he have succeeded
> regardless of what a newspaper in New York printed about him. It was the
> people who fed him and his revolutionaries and kept his locations secret
> from the Batista regime
Actually they mostly wanted to kill him. Castro won because the US
government abandoned Batista,
> which was backed by the U.S. Mafia.
Hardly as good as being backed by the State depertment.
> Cubans knew the connection and that Fidel was fighting for their
> freedom.
No they didn't think Fidel was fighting for their freedom. They'd
be crazy to believe that considering that he consistently treated
the peasants like shit.
> They supported him because of this. They'd have been crazy not to.
> They still know that today.
>
Then explain the prison camps.
>
> >> Also the Bay of Pigs invasion was backed by United Fruit and the Miami
> >> Mafia. Any government installed by this invasion would be no better than
> >> Batista's, "the former government" you refer to. The Cuban people know
> >> this.
>
> > Yes, that was kinda my point. The idea they loved the Fidel is
> > moronic. Fidel was of course another US government install, but you
> > didn't know that.
>
> (:-)) They seem to have had a change of heart. Like with Saddam or,...
>
Yeah Fidel = Saddam sounds about right.
> >>Their socialist, grass roots government is by far better than what
> >> they would get if they were run by this band of criminals and corporate
> >> power.
>
> > Yeah it's real "grass roots" when there hasn't been a political
> > opposition in forty years. Stop making excuses for murderers.
>
> War is a euphemism for mass murder.
We're not talking about a firefight, we're talking about a firing
squad.
The deliberate execution of someone because they don't support the
regime.
> A popular revolution is a violent act
> and may very well be murder as well. It at least has a noble purpose, to
> free a people.
And how many opposition papers can these "free" people read?
How many speeches can they make without being detained without
trial? You are an evil liar who makes excuses for murder, plain
murder
without any "noble purpose" other than continuing dictatorship.
> Today there are better ways. If you can organise a violent
> revolution, you can probably organise a peaceful, economic take over. I
> never advocate violence and I prefer not to practise it, although what I
> might do in self defence I don't know. That's another issue.
You cheer on violence, I don't believe for a second you'd don't
prefer
it as a method.
> So it's not good to paint President Castro as a murderer without also
> pointing out the mass murders committed by the U.S. in their many wars of
> conquest, assassination, and torture, around he world, decade after decade.
Fuck you, I'll call a murderer a murderer if I want. You're welcome
to
point out that the Green River Killer killed more than Jack the
Ripper,
I don't see the point.
> The "crimes" of Fidel
Yeah, explain the scare quotes to the widows of his victims.
> pale into insignificance,
Not to the widows.
> and I may have done the same as he and Che and others in
> similar circumstances,
And you'd have enjoyed it.
Fred Williams
> On Dec 11, 9:59 am, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>> Michael Price wrote:
>> > Much of the public wanted Fidel dead at the time of the Bay of Pigs
>> > because he and Che had been committing mass murder from the time they
>> > could.
>>
>> Rubbish. Not supported by the facts.
>
> Yes liar it is. http://www.therealcuba.com/MurderedbyChe.htm
> http://www.sfherald.com/columnists/fontova/the_real_che.html
Rubbish is still rubbish whether it's on Usenet or the web. Quoting
propaganda sites doesn't make it any more true.
>>
>> > Fidel succeeded because the New York Times claimed he was a
>> > saint. He never had enough support among "the people" to defeat a
>> > single battalion.
>>
>> If he had no support among the people, how could he have succeeded
>> regardless of what a newspaper in New York printed about him. It was the
>> people who fed him and his revolutionaries and kept his locations secret
>> from the Batista regime
>
> Actually they mostly wanted to kill him. Castro won because the US
> government abandoned Batista,
>
That's a new one. Still it doesn't hold water because Batista has all the
military forces and Fidel Castro couldn't have taken the country without
massive support from the people, even *with* Che's help. (;-))
*Anarcissie*
So, in effect, you were saying that the NYT had more
control of Cuba than Castro did. I haven't studied Cuban
history in detail, but I find that to be a remarkable idea.
I'm just having trouble imagining how it was implemented.
> > Maybe they should sell it -- the proceeds might help with
> > their financial problems.
>
> Nahhh... a bucket without a bottom isn't filled faster with a bigger
> hose.
Just the reason to sell it. However, if the NYT has so
much power maybe they should experiment with new
management. The same monarch for 40-odd years
and then his relatives doesn't seem like a very
dynamic model, although I guess it corresponds
with the NYT's own management.
James A. Donald
> control of Cuba than Castro did.
The New York Times had more control of which Cubans got arms than
Castro did.
James A. Donald
> On Dec 11, 9:59 am, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
> > If he had no support among the people, how could he have succeeded
> > regardless of what a newspaper in New York printed about him. It was the
> > people who fed him and his revolutionaries and kept his locations secret
> > from the Batista regime
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 03:37:19 -0800 (PST), Michael Price
> Hardly as good as being backed by the State depertment.
Reflecting on events in Cuba, Haiti, and Zimbabwe, the proposition
that all the ills of the world are caused by US imperialism develops a
new and considerably more plausible meaning.
Michael Price
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 9:59 am, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
> >> Michael Price wrote:
> >> > Much of the public wanted Fidel dead at the time of the Bay of Pigs
> >> > because he and Che had been committing mass murder from the time they
> >> > could.
>
> >> Rubbish. Not supported by the facts.
>
> > Yes liar it is. http://www.therealcuba.com/MurderedbyChe.htm
> >http://www.sfherald.com/columnists/fontova/the_real_che.html
>
> Rubbish is still rubbish whether it's on Usenet or the web. Quoting
> propaganda sites doesn't make it any more true.
>
>
> >> > Fidel succeeded because the New York Times claimed he was a
> >> > saint. He never had enough support among "the people" to defeat a
> >> > single battalion.
>
> >> If he had no support among the people, how could he have succeeded
> >> regardless of what a newspaper in New York printed about him. It was the
> >> people who fed him and his revolutionaries and kept his locations secret
> >> from the Batista regime
>
> > Actually they mostly wanted to kill him. Castro won because the US
> > government abandoned Batista,
>
> That's a new one.
Hardly, the US wouldn't even let Batista get guns he paid for.
> Still it doesn't hold water because Batista has all the
> military forces
Which is irrelevant once the State Department sided with Castro.
> and Fidel Castro couldn't have taken the country without
> massive support from the people,
A claim with no evidence, lots of revolutions succeed without
the people loving them.
Fred Williams
> On Dec 12, 12:19 am, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>> Michael Price wrote:
>> > On Dec 11, 9:59 am, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>> >> Michael Price wrote:
>> >> > Much of the public wanted Fidel dead at the time of the Bay of Pigs
>> >> > because he and Che had been committing mass murder from the time
>> >> > they could.
>>
>> >> Rubbish. Not supported by the facts.
>>
>> > Yes liar it is. http://www.therealcuba.com/MurderedbyChe.htm
>> >http://www.sfherald.com/columnists/fontova/the_real_che.html
>>
>> Rubbish is still rubbish whether it's on Usenet or the web. Quoting
>> propaganda sites doesn't make it any more true.
>>
> Nevertheless it is true.
So you think the people liked Batista and the only reason Fidel Castro and
his revolutionaries succeeded was because the U.S. State dept, (or did you
say the New York Times), got behind them.
Your idea of "truth" leaves mush to be desired.
Jarda
> I'm currently visiting the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and it is
> the most incredible experience of my life. The country and its people
> are not what I expected, and their brand of Communism actually seems
> to work for them.
Good news for the Vietnamese. If it is as you say, it can't be so for long.
Some sort of evolutionary adaptation by the regime to survive? Anyway, after
years of concentration camps and uncountable deaths it's a positive change.
>
> While undemocratic, the Vietnamese Communist Party is more responsive
> to public opinion than the major U.S. parties who only represent the
> interests of giant global corporations. The VCP tolerates capitalism
> because it promotes its own interests, but it regulates it heavily,
> and lets capitalism work for the Party rather than letting the Party
> work for capitalism as in America.
The question is, how long it will tolerate it. Castro also allowed some sort
of capitalism at some stage, e.g. vegetable production for sale on the
market. It lasted only until he realized that there are people who actually
manage to make quite good money out of it, which wasn't the original goal.
That was to provide some extra food to the population in a country, which is
chronically unable to provide for the most elementary needs.
>
> There is a sense of order here, even in the most remote countryside.
> The Vietnamese way of life is simple, but definitely not primitive.
> The country is very clean, and the Vietnamese people take great pride
> in keeping it neat and orderly. There is no litter on the sidewalks,
> no graffiti, no roaches or mice or bugs or dog shit, and I just
> noticed that there are no pigeons - and no cats, either.
The kind of order like in Singapore? You forget to close the toilet lid and
you are fined. You spit a chewing gum (chewing gums are even banned, I
think) and go to jail. No dogs, no cats? It's not a sense of order,
certainly the government banned people from having pets. It was like that in
Albania, e.g.
>
> Whether you agree with the level of social control, you must admit
> that it works for these fairly homogeneous people. They are
Homogenous people? You mean homogenized. There are many different tribes
with different traditions over there. I see nothing homogenous in that. They
don't even share the language, leaving aside the official language.
> uncivilized if you define the absence of Wal-Marts and SUVs as
> uncivilized, but they manage to live happy and productive lives using
> a fraction of the resources and energy as fat lazy Americans.
>
> Vietnamese Communism is successful because it suits the national
> character - which is to say that it is unlikely to work elsewhere.
Who says that? Did the Party decide some sort of national character
everybody must fit in to avoid physical liquidation in "reeducation" camps?
> The VCP is a nationalist movement more than anything, and represents
> the Vietnamese people's determination to liberate themselves from
> Western colonialism.
The VCP represents the VCP itself. Everything is done in order to assure
it's survival, exactly like western parties only work for the interest for
their survival at power. Unlike the western parties achieving this goal
essentially through expensive TV shows and other populistic methods, where
they explain all the brain-dead how great they are, VCP is using it's total
control of every aspect of people's lives.
>
> The Vietnamese people seem determined to modernize their society, and
> the VCP represents their way of achieving it. I don't like
> authoritarianism, but fat lazy Americans should be aware that it
> works, and unless we change our ways quickly we are going to be
> outcompeted and our empire will fall and Asia will foreclose on the
> United States and evict us.
You are already outcompeted since very long. The future belongs to China and
India and other Asia's regions. USA and Europe are the past. Due to
outsourcing USA doesn't produce almost anything any more and what is
produced is often unable of competition - e.g. I don't understand people who
still buy American cars. Leaving aside mostly terrible design, the quality
is poor. So now typical production are weapons, for which they probably use
Intel electronics made in Taiwan. Since long USA lives thanks to generous
loans from China - it's necessary to pay for the astronomical weapon budget
somehow. What are you going to pay the loans from? Selling more hamburgers
abroad?
James A. Donald
> So you think the people liked Batista and the
> only reason Fidel Castro and
> his revolutionaries succeeded was because the U.S.
> State dept, (or did you say the New York Times), got
> behind them.
Yes: The real US imperialism.
We recently saw much the same in Haiti, when Aristide
was installed in power at gunpoint, plus we saw a half
assed and unsuccessful effort to make Zelaya president
for life in Honduras. The New York Times and the state
department was 110% behind the Zelaya program, the
elected politicians, including Obama, considerably less
so.
Michael Price
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 12:19 am, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
> >> Michael Price wrote:
> >> > On Dec 11, 9:59 am, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
> >> >> Michael Price wrote:
> >> >> > Much of the public wanted Fidel dead at the time of the Bay of Pigs
> >> >> > because he and Che had been committing mass murder from the time
> >> >> > they could.
>
> >> >> Rubbish. Not supported by the facts.
>
> >> > Yes liar it is. http://www.therealcuba.com/MurderedbyChe.htm
> >> >http://www.sfherald.com/columnists/fontova/the_real_che.html
>
> >> Rubbish is still rubbish whether it's on Usenet or the web. Quoting
> >> propaganda sites doesn't make it any more true.
>
> > Nevertheless it is true.
>
> So you think the people liked Batista
No never said that.
> and the only reason Fidel Castro and
> his revolutionaries succeeded was because the U.S. State dept, (or did you
> say the New York Times),
Both.
> got behind them.
> Your idea of "truth" leaves mush to be desired.
>
Fuck you liar.
Fred Williams
Aristide was *removed* from power at gunpoint,... by the U.S.,... twice.
The more recent time they got the collaboration of Canada and France. They
are setting up for elections under gunpoint now and the Fanmi Lavalas, with
90 percent popularity ratings, is prohibited from fielding candidates.
That's American Democracy in action.
Dom
> I'm currently visiting the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and it is
> the most incredible experience of my life. The country and its people
> are not what I expected, and their brand of Communism actually seems
> to work for them.
On Aug 23, 1997 an episode of "History's Mysteries" on The History
Channel dealt with the OSS mission to the Viet Minh in 1945. There
were extensive interviews with the following OSS officers: Lt. Charles
Fenn, Cap. Raymond Grelecki, and Major Archimedes Patti, the mission
leader. These three participated at the declaration of independence
ceremonies on Sept. 2, 1945 and wanted the US to support the new
government.
Patti showed a letter that he received from Washington stating that:
"We were not to return Indo China to the French under any
circumstance. Period." The program also showed a letter written by Ho
asking the State Department for economic aid, diplomatic relations,
and not to support the French return.
By December 1945, the State Department had decided to support the
French return to Vietnam--a truly enormous blunder.
James A. Donald
Fred Williams
> > > So you think the people liked Batista and the only
> > > reason Fidel Castro and his revolutionaries
> > > succeeded was because the U.S. State dept, (or did
> > > you say the New York Times), got behind them.
James A. Donald:
> > Yes: The real US imperialism.
> >
> > We recently saw much the same in Haiti, when
> > Aristide was installed in power at gunpoint, plus we
> > saw a half assed and unsuccessful effort to make
> > Zelaya president for life in Honduras. The New York
> > Times and the state department was 110% behind the
> > Zelaya program, the elected politicians, including
> > Obama, considerably less so.
Fred Williams
> Aristide was *removed* from power at gunpoint,... by
> the U.S
He was removed by popular revolution - there being no
other way to remove him due to his habit of murdering
his political opponents in horrific ways.
Throughout his entire rule, from beginning to end, he
was surrounded by a praetorian guard of foreign whites.
Throughout his entire rule, from beginning to end, he
murdered critical journalists and opposing politicians
in a public and horrifying fashion.
> ,... twice. The more recent time they got the
> collaboration of Canada and France.
The only foreign troops in Haiti at the time he was
removed the second time were Aristide's personal
pretorians. The city had been under siege by
revolutionaries for some time, Aristide had run out of
black faces to defend the city, and the revolutionaries
were entering, and getting very close to the palace. His
white guards called the US marines to extract them. The
US marines got in to a palace surrounded by an
angry mob and got everyone out, thereby avoiding the
unpleasant and politically embarrassing sight of white
soldiers hanging from the lamp posts.
> They are setting up for elections under gunpoint now
> and the Fanmi Lavalas, with 90 percent popularity
> ratings, is prohibited from fielding candidates.
That would, of course, have nothing to do with the fact
that any candidate opposing Fanmi Lavalas has a
disturbing tendency to wind up being burnt alive after
watching his wife and children brutally murdered. They
had a 90% support back when anyone who did not support
them was apt to die. Since they have been militarily
defeated, their popularity has mysteriously declined,
for reasons you are unable to guess at.
James A. Donald
wrote:
> On Aug 23, 1997 an episode of "History's Mysteries" on The History
> Channel dealt with the OSS mission to the Viet Minh in 1945. There
> were extensive interviews with the following OSS officers: Lt. Charles
> Fenn, Cap. Raymond Grelecki, and Major Archimedes Patti, the mission
> leader. These three participated at the declaration of independence
> ceremonies on Sept. 2, 1945 and wanted the US to support the new
> government.
You seem to have overlooked the fact that Ho Chi Minh had arrived from
Moscow a year earlier after spending a decade behind a desk in the
Kremlin and had the reigns of power handed to him by Chinese troops.
Dom
The following is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh
<<In 1941, Hồ returned to Vietnam to lead the Việt Minh independence
movement. He oversaw many successful military actions against the
Vichy French and Japanese occupation of Vietnam during World War II,
supported closely but clandestinely by the United States Office of
Strategic Services, and also later against the French bid to reoccupy
the country (1946-1954). He was also jailed in China for many months
by Chiang Kai-shek's local authorities. After his release in 1943, he
again returned to Vietnam. He was treated for malaria and dysentery by
American OSS doctors. ...
After the August Revolution (1945) organized by the Việt Minh, Hồ
became Chairman of the Provisional Government (Premier of the
Democratic Republic of Vietnam) and issued a Proclamation of
Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam that borrowed much
from the French and American declarations. Though he convinced Emperor
Bảo Đại to abdicate, his government was not recognized by any country.
He repeatedly petitioned American President Harry Truman for support
for Vietnamese independence, citing the Atlantic Charter, but Truman
never responded.>>
James A. Donald
> > Minh had arrived from Moscow a year earlier after
> > spending a decade behind a desk in the Kremlin and
> > had the reigns of power handed to him by Chinese
> > troops.
Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu>
> The following is at:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh
An encyclopedia that anyone can edit is apt to have the
truth on controversial topics removed with astonishing
speed.
If you check the history of the Soviet Union in
Wikipedia, you will similarly notice that Trotsky does
curiously little, just as Ho Chi Minh's career from 1919
to 1941 is likewise mysteriously missing.
The following is at
<http://books.google.com/books?id=knErjpiKxQoC&pg=PA202>
The man who later called himself Ho Chi Minh
: : enrolled in the Lenin School in October. At
: : that time he was the only Indochinese
: : registered at the school, though the
: : Comintern planned to admit twelve
: : Indochinese students for a short-term course
: : for the 1935-5 term. It does not appear that
: : these places were filled. The school was
: : described at this time as 'the only forge of
: : cadres for the communist international' and
: : was viewed as a training institute for
: : foreign communist leaders.
Michael Price
> > > You seem to have overlooked the fact that Ho Chi
> > > Minh had arrived from Moscow a year earlier after
> > > spending a decade behind a desk in the Kremlin and
> > > had the reigns of power handed to him by Chinese
> > > troops.
>
> Dom <DR...@teikyopost.edu>
>
> > The following is at:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh
>
> An encyclopedia that anyone can edit is apt to have the
> truth on controversial topics removed with astonishing
> speed.
>
> If you check the history of the Soviet Union in
> Wikipedia, you will similarly notice that Trotsky does
> curiously little, just as Ho Chi Minh's career from 1919
> to 1941 is likewise mysteriously missing.
When I checked Ho is detailed throughout that time and
his early massacres included. He seems to have traveled
all around and not spent a whole lot of time in Moscow.
Wikipedia by the way is probably more accurate than
most encyclopedias.
Michael Price
They needed draftees because nobody could explain why any
American would die to save another country. They lost because
the Yanks had limits on how many of their sons they would throw
into a meatgrinder to change the type of dictatorship small brown
men lived under. The North Vietnamese had (proportionally and
even absolutely) a far higher limit.
Fred Williams
> On Dec 10, 8:53 am, liberal <liberalh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 3:48 pm, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > James A. Donald wrote:
>>
>> > > > The US lost because communists can and do expend
>> > > > their subjects without limit, while normal
>> > > > governments have limits.
>>
>> > Fred Williams
>>
>> > > OR, you're just making things up.
>>
>> > The guerrilla war collapsed during and shortly after the
>> > Tet offensive. After the Tet offensive, it was a
>> > conventional war of conscript cannon fodder, much like
>> > the Korean war, a war in which North Vietnamese
>> > conscripts won despite taking tremendous casualties.
>>
>> > Success in a war of conscript cannon fodder is not an
>> > indicator of popularity, but of regime brutality and
>> > indifference to human life.
>>
>> Which explains, I guess, somehow, why the US depended on draftees to
>> fight in Vietnam.
>
> They needed draftees because nobody could explain why any
> American would die to save another country.
They weren't "saving" anything. They were invading and conquering and
trying to turn Viet Nam into another colony like they did with most of Latin
America.
> They lost because
> the Yanks had limits on how many of their sons they would throw
> into a meatgrinder to change the type of dictatorship small brown
> men lived under.
They lost because they had no backing on the people of Vietnam and because
everybody at home knew it was just one giant atrocity being committed in
their names. The peace movement was strong in those days.
> The North Vietnamese had (proportionally and
> even absolutely) a far higher limit.
They had no choice. It was their country.
James A. Donald
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> > An encyclopedia that anyone can edit is apt to have the
> > truth on controversial topics removed with astonishing
> > speed.
Michael Price
> When I checked Ho is detailed throughout that time and
> his early massacres included.
Try inserting in Wikipedia that he was in Moscow being trained as a
future indochinese ruler,
http://books.google.com/books?id=knErjpiKxQoC&pg=PA202 or indeed
almost anything from the book "Ho Chi Minh, the missing years"
Chances are it will be removed in 19 seconds.
Michael Price
> Michael Price wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 8:53 am, liberal <liberalh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 9, 3:48 pm, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> >> > James A. Donald wrote:
>
> >> > > > The US lost because communists can and do expend
> >> > > > their subjects without limit, while normal
> >> > > > governments have limits.
>
> >> > Fred Williams
>
> >> > > OR, you're just making things up.
>
> >> > The guerrilla war collapsed during and shortly after the
> >> > Tet offensive. After the Tet offensive, it was a
> >> > conventional war of conscript cannon fodder, much like
> >> > the Korean war, a war in which North Vietnamese
> >> > conscripts won despite taking tremendous casualties.
>
> >> > Success in a war of conscript cannon fodder is not an
> >> > indicator of popularity, but of regime brutality and
> >> > indifference to human life.
>
> >> Which explains, I guess, somehow, why the US depended on draftees to
> >> fight in Vietnam.
>
> > They needed draftees because nobody could explain why any
> > American would die to save another country.
>
> They weren't "saving" anything.
They were saving thousands of people the effort of jumping on leaky
boats to escape a horrible country. Before the North won this didn't
happen.
> They were invading and conquering and trying to turn Viet Nam into
> another colony like they did with most of Latin America.
>
And yet while the Yanks were there there was little emigration,
certainly nobody was so desperate to get out they jumped on
something I wouldn't cross the harbor in.
> > They lost because
> > the Yanks had limits on how many of their sons they would throw
> > into a meatgrinder to change the type of dictatorship small brown
> > men lived under.
>
> They lost because they had no backing on the people of
> Vietnam
Then why did the ARVNs kick NVA ass in the Tet Offensive?
The backing of the people matters in a guerrilla war, which it
wasn't after Tet.
> and because everybody at home knew it was just one giant
> atrocity being committed in their names.
There is little evidence that the anti-war movement was about
not killing Vietnamese, it was about not killing Americans. Sure
there was some concern about the former, but in American the
war is still remembered as costing 58,000 innocent lives, not
over a million.
> The peace movement was strong in those days.
>
> > The North Vietnamese had (proportionally and
> > even absolutely) a far higher limit.
>
> They had no choice. It was their country.
>
Of course they had a choice, they could simply have accepted
that they weren't going to be able to impose their vicious will south
of the line.
Michael Price
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:02:24 -0800 (PST), <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> > > An encyclopedia that anyone can edit is apt to have the
> > > truth on controversial topics removed with astonishing
> > > speed.
>
> Michael Price
>
> > When I checked Ho is detailed throughout that time and
> > his early massacres included.
>
> Try inserting in Wikipedia that he was in Moscow being trained as a
> almost anything from the book "Ho Chi Minh, the missing years"
>
> Chances are it will be removed in 19 seconds.
Well then you'd better explain why people think that he was almost
anywhere but Moscow for most of that time. Wikipedia is certainly
not a Ho-friendly site, it specifically mentions his betrayal of
comrades
and at least his initial mass murders. It also mentions him being in
Moscow. At the time of his enrollment in the Lenin School. Hard to
see why that is excluded if it's an attempt to cover up communist
misdeeds.
James A. Donald
> > called himself Ho Chi Minh] was in Moscow being
> > trained as a future indochinese
> > ruler,http://books.google.com/books?id=knErjpiKxQoC&
> > pg=PA202or indeed almost anything from the book "Ho
> > Chi Minh, the missing years"
> >
> > Chances are it will be removed in 19 seconds.
Michael Price
> Well then you'd better explain why people think that
> he was almost anywhere but Moscow for most of that
> time.
Because they are knowingly lying, and because anyone who
quotes a source that fails to lie, for example "Ho Chi
Minh, the missing years", will have his edit reverted in
seconds.
Michael Price
Which doesn't explain why they kept in his murders and
betrayals. I don't see why someone would mention that
he lied about having a wife, betrayed a party comrade to
the cops and other things but not that he attended a school.
James A. Donald
> > > Well then you'd better explain why people think that
> > > he was almost anywhere but Moscow for most of that
> > > time.
James A. Donald
> > Because they are knowingly lying, and because anyone who
> > quotes a source that fails to lie, for example "Ho Chi
> > Minh, the missing years", will have his edit reverted in
> > seconds.
Michael Price
> Which doesn't explain why they kept in his murders and
> betrayals.
Same principal as Khruschev's "secret" speech. Stalin and Ho Chi
Minh's murders merely shows a communist leader was bad, the other
shows that communism was a sham, that communist "revolutions" were
astroturfed.
You would not expect the truth about communism from Khruschev merely
because he made a very partial and incomplete admission of a the least
bad of the things the previous leadership had done wrong. Neither
should you expect it from Wikipedia.
Fred Williams
And you're saying this is wrong? How do we know?
Fred Williams
Wikipedia is a battleground for propagandists from all sides. There is
likely very little of the truth there and why anybody would go there or have
any interest in what is written there is a mystery. Lies upon lies and
counter lies, and you and Michael are among the most active. One thing I've
learned from all this is that Ho was probably never in Moscow, but who
cares.
James A. Donald
> >> > Try inserting in Wikipedia that [the man who later
> >> > called himself Ho Chi Minh] was in Moscow being
> >> > trained as a future indochinese
> >> > ruler,http://books.google.com/books?id=knErjpiKxQoC&
> >> > pg=PA202or indeed almost anything from the book "Ho
> >> > Chi Minh, the missing years"
> >> >
> >> > Chances are it will be removed in 19 seconds.
Michael Price
> >> Well then you'd better explain why people think that
> >> he was almost anywhere but Moscow for most of that
> >> time.
James A. Donald:
> > Because they are knowingly lying, and because anyone who
> > quotes a source that fails to lie, for example "Ho Chi
> > Minh, the missing years", will have his edit reverted in
> > seconds.
Fred Williams
> And you're saying this is wrong? How do we know?
Because sources like "Ho Chi Minh, the Missing Years"
report from comintern records that became available in
the fall of the Soviet Union, but any mention of what is
in these Comintern records will be deleted from
Wikipedia in 19 seconds.
James A. Donald
> > Same principal as Khruschev's "secret" speech.
> > Stalin and Ho Chi Minh's murders merely shows a
> > communist leader was bad, the other shows that
> > communism was a sham, that communist "revolutions"
> > were astroturfed.
> >
> > You would not expect the truth about communism from
> > Khruschev merely because he made a very partial and
> > incomplete admission of a the least bad of the
> > things the previous leadership had done wrong.
> > Neither should you expect it from Wikipedia.
Fred Williams
> Wikipedia is a battleground for propagandists from all
> sides.
Wikipedia rules favor lies over truth, scientific
"consensus" over actual science, and conformity over
evidence.
If you quote the evidence, that constitutes "original
research". So one must quote the consensus of the
tribe. On any topic that is inherently controversial,
any purported consensus is usually the result of
conspiracy.
Observe the climategate files for this principle in
operation. On any such topic, the side shouting
"consensus" are furtively manufacturing this supposed
consensus behind closed doors, as we saw in the files.
For yet another example of this, consider racial
equality:
The scientific supporter of affirmative action points to
Gould: "See, science proves that races are equal in
mean and distribution. The scientific consensus tells
us so. Further it has been proven that there are no
such things as human races."
The racist, however, does not tell us that "races are
unequal because Darwin tells us so". Instead, he looks
up Darwin, reads the evidence and arguments, and uses
that evidence and those arguments himself, without
mentioning that he is stealing from the great, without
mentioning Darwin, science, scientists, or scientific
consensus
Thus there is no scientific racism, only "scientific"
anti racism - because Darwin actually has evidence and
arguments that human races are unequal, and Gould does
not have evidence or arguments that they are equal.
If someone invokes a scientist, or the "scientific
consensus", as evidence on a controversial subject, he
does so because the actual evidence is against the
"scientific consensus".
And thus, whenever the consensus is invoked on a
political topic, it is always wrong, 100% of the time.
Because there is such a thing as scientific anti racism,
you automatically know that it false, that *any*
"scientific" political position is false, for if it
really was scientific, they would not be invoking the
authority of "science", but rather the authority of the
evidence and arguments collected and organized by
science.
If someone invokes the "consensus", they have not got
the evidence, so it is always the side that is in the
wrong that fabricates a phony "consensus". And so on
any controversial topic, it is always the side that is
in the wrong that wins in Wikipedia.
Fred Williams
You mean after the American propagandists got in there and changed
everything to suit themselves?!
> but any mention of what is
> in these Comintern records will be deleted from
> Wikipedia in 19 seconds.
Who cares? You can't trust anything written in there anyway.
Fred Williams
> James A. Donald
>> > Same principal as Khruschev's "secret" speech.
>> > Stalin and Ho Chi Minh's murders merely shows a
>> > communist leader was bad, the other shows that
>> > communism was a sham, that communist "revolutions"
>> > were astroturfed.
>> >
>> > You would not expect the truth about communism from
>> > Khruschev merely because he made a very partial and
>> > incomplete admission of a the least bad of the
>> > things the previous leadership had done wrong.
>> > Neither should you expect it from Wikipedia.
>
> Fred Williams
>> Wikipedia is a battleground for propagandists from all
>> sides.
>
> Wikipedia rules favor lies over truth, scientific
> "consensus" over actual science, and conformity over
> evidence.
>
It's open to just about everybody and there's very little accountability.
Governments that have large propaganda budgets, (like Washington), will have
people assigned to continually put up lies and other will try to take them
down and replace it with truth, or their own version of lies.. It's a waste
of time.
> If you quote the evidence, that constitutes "original
> research". So one must quote the consensus of the
> tribe. On any topic that is inherently controversial,
> any purported consensus is usually the result of
> conspiracy.
>
"Follow the Money!" There are conspiracies to promote truth and
conspiracies to acquire wealth and power. The rule of thumb is not to
listen to the wealth and power group and seek out the truth tellers, the
people who stand to gain only a world where we are equal and free. Their
voices aren't as loud but they are also not the ones dropping bombs or
burning huge amounts of oil and coal. They are the poor people and the
marginalized. They are the downtrodden and the wage slaves. They know the
truth
Anyone who opposed U.S. Hegemony in Vietnam was a hero to the Vietnamese
people. If he got training in Russia, great. That's a feather in the cap
for Russia for caring. Maybe Ho stopped by China too. Fine. Are any of
these countries running sweatshops to make running shoes that they can sell
to a consumer market at 1200 percent markup? Are any of these countries
invading nation after nation to steal their oil and killing millions of
people in the process> Do any of these countries run torture camps all
around the world and refuse to accept world court authority over their
actions?
The major threat to world peace and truth is the U.S.A. The major threat
to the environments is the U.S.A. The major threat to common decency and
the ability of peoples the world over to reach out to one another in
siblinghood, is the U.S.A.
> Observe the climategate files for this principle in
> operation. On any such topic, the side shouting
> "consensus" are furtively manufacturing this supposed
> consensus behind closed doors, as we saw in the files.
>
But in time the oil companies will fail and they'll be replaced with solar
power companies and wind power companies. Mother nature will have the last
word, and she doesn't listen to propaganda.
> For yet another example of this, consider racial
> equality:
>
Indeed I often do.
> The scientific supporter of affirmative action points to
> Gould: "See, science proves that races are equal in
> mean and distribution. The scientific consensus tells
> us so. Further it has been proven that there are no
> such things as human races."
>
Some people will tell you that it has been proven that chickens have lips
too.
> The racist, however, does not tell us that "races are
> unequal because Darwin tells us so". Instead, he looks
> up Darwin, reads the evidence and arguments, and uses
> that evidence and those arguments himself, without
> mentioning that he is stealing from the great, without
> mentioning Darwin, science, scientists, or scientific
> consensus
>
It's hard to tell here whether your in favour of racism or not. I would
assume that you are claiming not to be a racist while trying to sneak racist
philosophy in under the carpet. The bottom line on racism that there are
races and they have blended somewhat into one another and when it comes to
human rights they all have the same regardless of which race they belong to.
Every person out there deserves our respect regardless of which race they
belong to. This is fundamental. Children all over the world know this.
> Thus there is no scientific racism, only "scientific"
> anti racism - because Darwin actually has evidence and
> arguments that human races are unequal, and Gould does
> not have evidence or arguments that they are equal.
>
Doesn't this contradict itself? I don't recall Darwin being a racist, and
neither is Gould whom I've read a little. Iassume you'retalking about Gould
the biologist and not Gould the pianist who was also not a racist and I've
also read.
> If someone invokes a scientist, or the "scientific
> consensus", as evidence on a controversial subject, he
> does so because the actual evidence is against the
> "scientific consensus".
>
Now that *is* self contradictory.
> And thus, whenever the consensus is invoked on a
> political topic, it is always wrong, 100% of the time.
>
Not with global warming, for instance.
> Because there is such a thing as scientific anti racism,
> you automatically know that it false, that *any*
> "scientific" political position is false, for if it
> really was scientific, they would not be invoking the
> authority of "science", but rather the authority of the
> evidence and arguments collected and organized by
> science.
>
Same thing.
You'd be much better off arguing that science is amoral. And since we want
some degree of morality in our politics, then "science" can have nothing to
say about it. Well, of course "nothing" may be a bit drastic. Science can
tell us whet is and what will be, it cannot tell us what we want out of the
whole thing. Science can never tell us what "justice" is, for instance.
> If someone invokes the "consensus", they have not got
> the evidence, so it is always the side that is in the
> wrong that fabricates a phony "consensus". And so on
> any controversial topic, it is always the side that is
> in the wrong that wins in Wikipedia.
What a weird, twisted world you live in. Whenever scientists discover a
truth is has to be reproducible and so scientists the world over can agree
on it. That forms a consensus. By your reasoning, all scientific truths
would be false and never represented on Wikipedia!
I agree that Wikipedia can be full of crap, because so many crap dispensers
have access to it. Consensus too can be untrustworthy in a world where our
opinions and information is controlled by a few people who have a vested
interest in keeping us ignorant working harder all the time to give them
more power.
Truth can best be found by considering people's motives and looking at what
sort of a world we are creating by our actions and/or their advice. We must
know the tree by the fruit which it bears and follow the course that brings
us to the best future for ourselves as people and as living beings on this
Earth, or wherever we may go from here.
James A. Donald
> > If you quote the evidence, that constitutes "original
> > research". So one must quote the consensus of the
> > tribe. On any topic that is inherently controversial,
> > any purported consensus is usually the result of
> > conspiracy.
Fred Williams
> "Follow the Money!" There are conspiracies to promote truth and
> conspiracies to acquire wealth and power.
Which conspiracy is apparent in every controversial area - for example
the Climategate files.
In the case of socialism, you lot want to rule. That is money and
power.
> Anyone who opposed U.S. Hegemony in Vietnam was a hero to the Vietnamese
> people.
You mistake the Vietnamese people for a handful of murderous tyrants.
> > The racist, however, does not tell us that "races are
> > unequal because Darwin tells us so". Instead, he looks
> > up Darwin, reads the evidence and arguments, and uses
> > that evidence and those arguments himself, without
> > mentioning that he is stealing from the great, without
> > mentioning Darwin, science, scientists, or scientific
> > consensus
> >
> > Thus there is no scientific racism, only "scientific"
> > anti racism - because Darwin actually has evidence and
> > arguments that human races are unequal, and Gould does
> > not have evidence or arguments that they are equal.
> >
> Doesn't this contradict itself? I don't recall Darwin being a racist, and
> neither is Gould whom I've read a little.
Depend on what you define as "racism". The question in dispute is
whether races are unequal in mean and distribution by nature rather
than environment. By which standard, Darwin most certainly is a
"racist", for the facts prove that "racism" is true, while the
consensus "proves" that "racism" is false.
> > If someone invokes a scientist, or the "scientific
> > consensus", as evidence on a controversial subject, he
> > does so because the actual evidence is against the
> > "scientific consensus".
> Now that *is* self contradictory.
Science does not work by consensus. Consensus is for synods, not
scientists. If someone invokes consensus, is a pseudo scientist.
> > Because there is such a thing as scientific anti racism,
> > you automatically know that it false, that *any*
> > "scientific" political position is false, for if it
> > really was scientific, they would not be invoking the
> > authority of "science", but rather the authority of the
> > evidence and arguments collected and organized by
> > science.
> Same thing.
If the "consensus" was evidence and arguments, they would not be
destroying information in order to prevent freedom of information
requests.
When evidence and arguments points in the same way as the consensus,
no one invokes the consensus, they invoke the evidence and arguments.
You will never hear Dawkins say "consensus". If you hear the word
"consensus", you know the evidence and arguments point in the opposite
direction.
> > If someone invokes the "consensus", they have not got
> > the evidence, so it is always the side that is in the
> > wrong that fabricates a phony "consensus". And so on
> > any controversial topic, it is always the side that is
> > in the wrong that wins in Wikipedia.
> What a weird, twisted world you live in. Whenever scientists discover a
> truth is has to be reproducible and so scientists the world over can agree
> on it.
But, as we saw in the Climategate files, anthropogenic warming is not
reproducible.
If one endorses evidence of anthropogenic global warming, the evidence
one is endorsing is the findings of the IPCC. And one of the major
findings of the IPCC is Phil Jones surface temperature data. So if one
endorses evidence of anthropogenic global warming, one endorses the
surface temperature data – which we now know came out of Tim
Mitchell’s arse.
Thousands of scientists endorsed the IPCC publications. They might
say, “I trust Phil Jones, I can’t imagine he would lie.” If someone
says that, he’s not speaking as a scientist, he is speaking as an
outsider who is taking someone else’s word for it. But what they’re
doing is claiming to speak as scientists, pretending to have examined
the evidence, when the Climategate files reveal they have not, that
they could not have, for Phil Jones has no evidence for them to
examine - his surface temperature data comes from a grad student who
was under pressure to produce scary looking warming, and no one ever
seems to have asked Tim how he produced such scary looking warming,
nor did Tim ever record how he produced such scary looking warming.
So each of them is guilty of fraud, each of them should be in jail.
Phil Jones surface temperatures are irreproducible. The implicit
claim that they are reproducible is a lie. If one lie, then all is
lies.
That he was able to getaway with this lie for so long shows that no
one in climate science is interested in evidence or reproducibility -
and the climategate files reveal that those who are interested in
evidence or reproducibility are likely lose their jobs.
Dan Clore
> On Dec 17, 12:28 pm, James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:02:24 -0800 (PST), <nini_...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> An encyclopedia that anyone can edit is apt to have the truth
>>>> on controversial topics removed with astonishing speed.
>>
>>> massacres included.
>> Try inserting in Wikipedia that he was in Moscow being trained as a
>> future indochinese
>> ruler,http://books.google.com/books?id=knErjpiKxQoC&pg=PA202or
>> indeed almost anything from the book "Ho Chi Minh, the missing
>> years"
>>
>> Chances are it will be removed in 19 seconds.
>
> Well then you'd better explain why people think that he was almost
> anywhere but Moscow for most of that time. Wikipedia is certainly
> not a Ho-friendly site, it specifically mentions his betrayal of
> comrades and at least his initial mass murders. It also mentions him
> being in Moscow. At the time of his enrollment in the Lenin School.
> Hard to see why that is excluded if it's an attempt to cover up
> communist misdeeds.
In any case, anyone is free to edit Wikipedia, unless they get banned
for misbehavior. So JAD can certainly go and add the information he
claims to have proving that Ho spent the entire period 1919-1941 in
Moscow. He claims to have a scholarly source proving this, so it is not
original research. He should note that as Ho is considered a
controversial subject, he should go to the article's discussion page to
suggest any alterations he would like to make before making them.
I suspect that JAD's suggested alterations will not be approved, since
his conspiracy theory that the only reason that anyone dispute's his
claims is that "they are knowingly lying", which is proven by the fact
that they dispute his claims, generally makes it impossible for him to
make a non-circular argument.
In any case, there seems to be a lot of historical records showing that
Ho was in places other than Moscow for a substantial amount of the
period 1919-1941, for example the years in a British prison in Hong
Kong. I doubt the Brits fabricated the records of his stay in order to
hide Ho's deskwork in Moscow.
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"