Discordians Beware Work Virus
St. Alicia Erisdaughter
--
Remember me is all I ask...
But should remembering prove a task..
~* Forget Me*~
"St. Alicia Erisdaughter" <ver...@nemi.com> wrote in message
news:xkPV6.110611$Be4.34...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
>
>
> Discordians beware!!
>
> Work Virus
>
>
> The Work Virus This is serious ... a "WORK" virus is on the loose... If
you
> receive any sort of "work" at all, whether via e-mail, Internet, or simply
> handed to you by a colleague ... DO NOT OPEN IT! The "work" virus has been
> circulating round our building for months and those who have been tempted
to
> open it or even look at it have found that their social life is deleted
and
> the brain ceases to function properly. If you do encounter "work" via
> e-mail, then to transmogrify the virus, send an e-mail to your boss with
the
> words, "I've had enough of your shit... I'm off down to the pub." The
"work"
> should automatically be forgotten by your brain and your career will now
be
> successfully destroyed. If you receive "work" in paper document form,
simply
> lift the document and drag to your waste paper bin and deposit there. Put
on
> your coat and skip to the nearest pub with two friends and order 3 pints.
> After repeating this action 14 times you will find that "work" will no
> longer trouble you. Send this message to everyone in your mailbox. If you
do
> not have anyone in your mailbox, then I'm afraid the "work" virus has
> already corrupted your life. Go out and get some friends you sad bastard!
>
> St. Alicia Erisdaughter
> Poltmother
>
>
fire_ant
your religon to know that it is basicaly preaching a form of anarchism.
It's good once people realise this and start SUBverting their bosses and
living a more Yeti lifstyle.
But as a long time anarchist myself, I just want to point out to you
ranker, more cretinous low brow bobbies out there, that anarcho capitalism,
ranging from the more crude ayn rand types all the way to the subtlest
apologists of the right, is not a form of anarchism. It may be jim dandy,
and just great, but it's not anarchism.
(those of you who are still voting republicrat and believe in a state of
some sort I really don't feel like dumbing down the discussion that far so
just skip this post altogether...)
Someone recently claimed that anarcho capitalsim was a form of anarchism
because anarcho capitlaists said it was. By this logic, National-Socialism
(as developed by Hitler, Goebles et al) is a form of socialism, because they
chose to call themselves as such. I agree, I'm amazed everyone doesn't
recognize this obvious point, but then I'm baffled by the popularity of
"wheel of fortune" as well...
I guess next when anarchism becomes even more mainstream in recognition
and they have a TV show about an "anarcho-marine" or an "anarcho-narc" who
rides a harley and goes around beating up bad guys, then it will mean that
is a
form of anarchism too... When I was in LA once I saw a little comic strip
about the "anarcho-viking", since most lib caps trace their ideal
philosophical model to 13th century iceland. He was sort of like Hagar the
Horrible but less realistic or sophisticated.
The main point I like to bring up whenever I am debating so called
anarcho capitalists, is that if they are capitalists and believe in private
property, they very very rarely even try to live up to the notion of actual
lack of a government, and therefore they are actually not anarchists at all
but minarchists, so almost invariably when you start qustioning them they
always admit the "need" for a minium goverment consisting of cops and armies
and prisons to keep the masses from "stealing" the "property" of the
privelaged few.
The litmus test is as follows: in this "anarcho" capitalist society, if
you claim to own something which you aren't physically occupying or using
(like say your own house or your own car) how are you going to prevent me
from using it? I mean that literally, not rhetorically, I don't mean "an
average person", I mean me, "drifter bob". How are you going to say, claim
you own a moutnain or a river in this world because you "inherited" it, for
example, or won it through some dubious manipulation of currencies or real
estate titles, and keep me drifter "bob", and my friends and neighbors off
of "your" land.
I mean me, "drifter bob" literally, because many lib caps on usenet for
example love to deride anarchists as being sheltered middle class college
boys with weak constitutions from drinking to much cappuchino mocha apricot
twirl at their "revolutionary" cafe and shrilly discussing high idealism all
day long. I on the other hand am a 32 year old man, weigh 290 pounds, have
been working class all the days of my life, have lived in crushing poverty
through most, and have the callouses and scars, emotional and otherwise, to
prove it. I have military training, am legally armed and at the risk of
sounding too self congraluatory, I'm an expert marksman. I have also been
an "amateur boxer" on the streets of my home town, an occupational hazard of
being a punk rocker when it still wasn't socially acceptable to look like a
circus clown on a public street, and have a very long arrest record for
getting caught beating up fraternity boys and jocks. I am well versed in
the ancient arts of "slum - fu" and swing a mean axe handle.
So how are you, Lib Cap, MINARCHIST, going to keep me out of your
mansion when I get a hankering to sample some of your silver ware? When my
belly is rumblin from hunger, and my gnarled, twitching fist is wrapped
around a nice, well balanced 32 ounce graphite maul handle, and I'm a
creepin across your lawn at 4:30 AM dreaming of caving in your fragile
little aristocratic head like an egg shell, how do you protect yourself
without cops and armies?
The answer is you can't, so unless you can convince ME, drifter "bob",
that you have a right to a life of waterslides and fancy SUV cars and caviar
and champaigne and airplanes and cocaine and servants and pampering, while I
DISERVE to live out my own one and only life eating ramen noodles and that
one frozen carrot in my fridge and living in a collapsing flat with no air
condition and working 12 hours a day for shit wages, then you can't have a
so called "anarcho" capitalist society. If you got a minimum goverment of
just cops and soldiers and jails you might be able to keep me at bay for a
while, but without the trickery of giving me some benefits back in this
social contract, soon I'll rise up against you with a lot of other drifter
bobs and calamaty janes and bring your ass down like a famished Lion
gobbling up a plump, juicy christian.
So don't even take this lib cap minarchist crap seriously, it doesn't
even have the integrity of a turd sandwich.
DB
HellPope Huey
"fire_ant" <fire...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I am well versed in
> the ancient arts of "slum - fu" and swing a mean axe handle.
>> So how are you, Lib Cap, MINARCHIST, going to keep me out of your
> mansion when I get a hankering to sample some of your silver ware? When my
> belly is rumblin from hunger, and my gnarled, twitching fist is wrapped
> around a nice, well balanced 32 ounce graphite maul handle, and I'm a
> creepin across your lawn at 4:30 AM dreaming of caving in your fragile
> little aristocratic head like an egg shell, how do you protect yourself
> without cops and armies?
>> The answer is you can't, so unless you can convince ME, drifter "bob",
> that you have a right to a life of waterslides and fancy SUV cars and caviar
> and champaigne and airplanes and cocaine and servants and pampering, while I
> DISERVE to live out my own one and only life eating ramen noodles and that
> one frozen carrot in my fridge and living in a collapsing flat with no air
> condition and working 12 hours a day for shit wages, then you can't have a
> so called "anarcho" capitalist society. If you got a minimum goverment of
> just cops and soldiers and jails you might be able to keep me at bay for a
> while, but without the trickery of giving me some benefits back in this
> social contract, soon I'll rise up against you with a lot of other drifter
> bobs and calamaty janes and bring your ass down like a famished Lion
> gobbling up a plump, juicy christian.
What a great rant, tho' scary 'cause its so very TRUE.
HMmmm, slam-fu.....y'know, I'm also a good shot (.45, 9mm)and I once
break a guy's collarbone by swinging him into a great arc that ended at a
flagpole. He DID need it. Can we start this weekend? I love to help.
I need a haircut, so I look the part of the loner nut; I already ooze
ozone and an unnerving hum as my mainspring goes; and I'm so close to the
end of my nental Rope, hey, cartoons are in re-runs and its summer, let's
GO FOR IT!
I'm tryin' to save myself for 4XD, but that may be like tryin' to save
yerself fer marriage when some lush, blood-boiling New Orleans
monkey-love-emitting skank is doing a table dance on yer libido.
Mmmm, monkey love...
HellPope Huey, hellpo...@subgenius.com
I'm a friggin' PRINCE stuck in a toad tuxedo
"I've never known there to be a necessary alliance
between the majority and the truth."
- Bill Maher
"You know, you can lay the Washington Monument
on its side in that church.
We oughta try it."
- "The West Wing"
"F**k the future. I mean, the future doesn't like us. Just last Thursday
night, the future cut into the second half of ROHYPNOL TEMPTATION ISLAND
WHOREHOUSE on Amfeed-3 to broadcast two full minutes of denizens of a city
in the future showing us their asses."
- "Transmetropolitan"
nu-monet
>
> Some of you SubG's have penetrated deeply enough into
> the mysteries of your religon to know that it is basicaly
> preaching a form of anarchism.
"Abolish Capitalism and Replace it with Something Nice!"
-- actual banner at anti-WTO rally.
And some of us have penetrated even further into the
understanding that anarchism is just a playground for
CON-trolled teenage boys of all ages.
What did X-Day prove? One of two possible things. Either
the apocalypso happened and we are living in post-endtimes
times, all the *good* SubGenii having been wafted away in
the pleasure saucers, leaving behind "remainers" on a poor
quality faux earth (now, actually nu-nu-nu-Earth, or n3Earth),
accompanied by clone replacement SubGenii, and replicants,
duplicoids, androids, and zooids to replace the merehumes;
*OR* that XXXX-Day is gonna be it (not holding my breath);
*OR* that we are UTTERLY BONED until "Bob" and the Xists
get their shit together.
In any event GOVERNMENT OR THE LACK THEREOF are equally lame
CONSPIRACY TOOLS, and GIVING A SHIT ABOUT GOVERNMENT OR THE
LACK THEREOF is just becoming a TOOL YERSELF.
And though it is "Bob" grasping the TOOL, if I'm gonna be a
TOOL, it's gonna be a mechanical powered DIESEL DILDO, not
some SPRING-LOADED, BELT-FED, SEMI-AUTOMATIC TOILET PLUNGER
type M-1, USE ONLY HEAD FIRST.
--
"There is no nu-monet. There is only Zuul."
Johnny Magic
><snip>
> But as a long time anarchist myself, I just want to point out to you
> ranker, more cretinous low brow bobbies out there, that anarcho capitalism,
> ranging from the more crude ayn rand types all the way to the subtlest
> apologists of the right, is not a form of anarchism. It may be jim dandy,
> and just great, but it's not anarchism.
>
> (those of you who are still voting republicrat and believe in a state of
> some sort I really don't feel like dumbing down the discussion that far so
> just skip this post altogether...)
>
> Someone recently claimed that anarcho capitalsim was a form of anarchism
> because anarcho capitlaists said it was. By this logic, National-Socialism
> (as developed by Hitler, Goebles et al) is a form of socialism, because they
> chose to call themselves as such. I agree, I'm amazed everyone doesn't
> recognize this obvious point, but then I'm baffled by the popularity of
> "wheel of fortune" as well...
Well, obviously today's mainstream Socialists aren't going to claim
the Nazis as one of their own. But if you judge the average historical
socialist government (like Revolutionary France and Communist Russia),
and the Nazi government, by their actions, you will find the two are
remarkably similar. Consider:
1. State Socialism relies on central planning for the economy to
function. Nazi Germany had a command economy (The Nazis demaded it,
you did it.)
2. The installation of Socialist Governments is quickly followed by
persecution and genocide directed against a portion of their owm
population. France had "arisocrats", Russia had the "bourgeoise", and
the Nazis had the Jews. One of the reasons the Nazis didn't like the
Jews was because they were supposed to be rather rich.
2. Socialists need a good war, or a threat of a good war, to keep them
in power, and so will agrressively wage them for that sake. The Nazis
certainly wern't put into power bake cookies.
<snip>
> The main point I like to bring up whenever I am debating so called
> anarcho capitalists, is that if they are capitalists and believe in private
> property, they very very rarely even try to live up to the notion of actual
> lack of a government, and therefore they are actually not anarchists at all
> but minarchists, so almost invariably when you start qustioning them they
> always admit the "need" for a minium goverment consisting of cops and armies
> and prisons to keep the masses from "stealing" the "property" of the
> privelaged few.
Well, all I can say is that you have been talking to the wrong people.
Try the Agorists. (http://www.agorist.net)
> The litmus test is as follows: in this "anarcho" capitalist society, if
> you claim to own something which you aren't physically occupying or using
> (like say your own house or your own car) how are you going to prevent me
> from using it? I mean that literally, not rhetorically, I don't mean "an
> average person", I mean me, "drifter bob". How are you going to say, claim
> you own a moutnain or a river in this world because you "inherited" it, for
> example, or won it through some dubious manipulation of currencies or real
> estate titles, and keep me drifter "bob", and my friends and neighbors off
> of "your" land.
Well, their is the standard answer of mixing your labor with the land,
i.e, building something on it or otherwise manipulating it, first.
After that, you can trade goods and services to get other land,
usually in the form of some sort of currency. Let me ask you
something. How would use ethically oppose "Polluter oBo" or the "The
Pink Despoiler" from trashing, say, a garden or forest you love, or a
biosphere you need for survival? After all, if nobody actually owns
anything, and you can't physically be everywhere all the time....
<snip brag>
>
> So how are you, Lib Cap, MINARCHIST, going to keep me out of your
> mansion when I get a hankering to sample some of your silver ware? When my
> belly is rumblin from hunger, and my gnarled, twitching fist is wrapped
> around a nice, well balanced 32 ounce graphite maul handle, and I'm a
> creepin across your lawn at 4:30 AM dreaming of caving in your fragile
> little aristocratic head like an egg shell, how do you protect yourself
> without cops and armies?
I will defend my own person. My property is an extension of me,
because at one point someone mingled their labor (their self) with the
property, thus making it an extension of him, and then transferred
that property to me. So, I will defend my property with the same moral
conviction that I defend myself with. If I have a lot of property, or
I'm not very good at defense, I will do what I always do when I need
an expert or an extra set of hands- I'll contract out.
>
> The answer is you can't, so unless you can convince ME, drifter "bob",
> that you have a right to a life of waterslides and fancy SUV cars and caviar
> and champaigne and airplanes and cocaine and servants and pampering, while I
> DISERVE to live out my own one and only life eating ramen noodles and that
> one frozen carrot in my fridge and living in a collapsing flat with no air
> condition and working 12 hours a day for shit wages, then you can't have a
> so called "anarcho" capitalist society. If you got a minimum goverment of
> just cops and soldiers and jails you might be able to keep me at bay for a
> while, but without the trickery of giving me some benefits back in this
> social contract, soon I'll rise up against you with a lot of other drifter
> bobs and calamaty janes and bring your ass down like a famished Lion
> gobbling up a plump, juicy christian.
I don't have to convince you of anything. I don't owe you crap. You
come into this world with original slack; anything else is up to you.
You don't deserve to live like you do. Sarah Michelle Gellar doesn't
deserve to be so pretty. I don't deserve to have red hair, the man who
sells me shoes doesn't deserve to breathe. The universe doesn't
deserve to exist, kittens don't deserve to have whiskers. There is no
objective social justice out there. Every attempt to implement it has
led to death and destruction. All you have is your slack and the Luck
Plane. Use them and quit your bitchin'.
> So don't even take this lib cap minarchist crap seriously, it doesn't
> even have the integrity of a turd sandwich.
Actually, you right. Don't bother with minarchists. As I said before,
check out the Agorists (http://www.agorist.net)
fire_ant
fucking cockwad republican shitguzzler conservatives have nothing to do with
being a "SubGenius". A conservative pretending to be some kind of
afficionado of slack is like when rich yuppie corporate executives going to
Cowboy Camp trying to pretend to be Jessie James. It may have a cute
external appearance, when you get close enough you smell the putrid sweet
smell of softness and rotten lilly livered weakness under the patina of
Marlboro Mand Dust. It just don't wash. It's like Bruce Willis trying to
pretend he is a blues musician, or Vanilla Ice trying to rap.
If you are a true conservative, I know you are trying in your own
stunted way to have fun, and I don't blame your for trying to change your
spots, and pretend to be something you ARENT since you ARE a disgusting
dirarheah bucket who can't get sex without paying for it.
But please people, don't start buying in to your own bullshit. I am
here to tell you that Despite the more twisted rhetoric of the over the top
neo nazi hyper conservtive apologists, if you are conservative you are not
by definition a rebel of any kind, no matter how much you try to play act as
one, I repeat, IF YOU ARE A CONSERVATIVE YOU ARE NOT A REBEL, because by
definition you are a defender of the status quo. Look up "conservative" in
the dictionary.
Even if you are so fucking over the top hitlers dick sucking reactionary
that you feel yourself way out on the lunatic fringe, you are still not a
rebel.
Just because you have no friends and nobody likes you, does not change
the fact that you just have just a slightly more extreme and less
sophisticated vision of the same essential philosophy that JP Morgan,
Saadaam Hussein, Nelson Rockafeller, Ivan the Terrible, Henry Frick, Charles
Keating, Louis the XIV, Henry Ford, Caligula, Ernesto Batista, Martha
Stuart, Ollie North, Richard Nixon, Michael Esiener, Rupert Murdoch, Pat
Buchannon, Berlusconi, David Duke, and 3/4 of the Xtians in the bible belt,
99% of the Ku Kux Klan and 90% of the cops in this country have. That a
rebel does not make, just a slavering over eager lap dog jumping the gun to
go after the real rebels, "PANT PANT PANT, Yassa Massa Yassa Massa, les go
GIt 'em les go Git EM!!!" a little more enthusiasitic than all the rest.
I should add, at this point, that the tradtional Democratic Party style
bureaucratic "liberal" isn't likely to make a fuckwad of a SubG either, they
also aren't rebels, just moderate nazis (the dogs hanging back in the pack a
little and whining some but still in the same lynch mob) A liberal in the
18th century sense perhaps could be construed as a real slack surfer, but
Hillary Clinton does not a SubG make.
No, not liberal, not conservative, not even libertine. "Bob" doesn't
advocate excess for the sake of excess .. "Bob" recognizes the banality of
evil, (though we know paced right, a little excess and even evil can be a
good thing now and then!) but the boring repetetiveness of so called
"shocking" wickedness is no more interesting than the fake leave it to
beaver ersatz happiness is. Lets face it, Neither mother theresa nor
maralyn manson nor even anton lavey could really be true subGs (though Anton
at least had a sense of humor and could have passed easy as a high ranking
bobby within the hierarchy)
The point is to be a sub G or any kind of rebel at all, you really have
to be a (small l) libertarian, and that does not mean some randy weaver
worshiping race baiting christian ersatz conservative big money apologist
american flag kissing "patriot" Libertarian, it means a real actual lover of
fredom and liberty to do what the fuck you want to do without being
controlled every fucking second of your life, and that ALSO means, to not
want to mind anybody elses fucking business. That is the true path to slack
my friends!
anyway, some right wing maggotfuck cocksmoker named
Johnny Magic <johnny...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> "fire_ant" <fire...@hotmail.com> wrote in > ><snip>
> the Nazis as one of their own. But if you judge the average historical
> socialist government (like Revolutionary France and Communist Russia),
> and the Nazi government, by their actions, you will find the two are
> remarkably similar. Consider:
Funny, I would think of Nazi Germany as a corporate and Capitalist
society, or didn't Damiler (Mercedez) Benz, BMW, Porche, Krupp, MAN,
Rhienmetal, IG Farben, and etc. and etc. make avalanches of money out of
world war II in Germany just like Ford, GM, Rolls Royce, Mitsubishi,
Rennault, Boeing, Fiat, Goodyear and etc. and etc. made watefalls of cash in
various other countries?
Anyway this is a typical straw dog thrown up by cocksmoking conservative
walking sore infested junkie armpits. Did I ever once advocate state
socialism in my fucking post you moron? No I didn't, because it's too soft
on Capitalism for me.
But unless you have your head up your ass which you undoubtedly do,
closer models to state socialism actually are countries like modern day
France, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark and etc., which bad as they are and
despite the frantic claims of many GOOD PATRIOTIC AMERICANS are generally
much better places to live than the hypercapitalist, safetey net lacking,
unregulated, george busch electing U.S.A.
> 1. State Socialism relies on central planning for the economy to
> function. Nazi Germany had a command economy (The Nazis demaded it,
> you did it.)
>
What the fuck are you talking about, I did it? Who am I, Allan
Greenspan? You fuicking moron.
> 2. The installation of Socialist Governments is quickly followed by
> persecution and genocide directed against a portion of their owm
> population. France had "arisocrats", Russia had the "bourgeoise", and
> the Nazis had the Jews. One of the reasons the Nazis didn't like the
> Jews was because they were supposed to be rather rich.
>
Yeah and the USA had nice genocides of Africans, Native Americans,
1,000,000 Filipinos during the spanish american war, and the active
surpression of just about every single third world democracy ever founded in
the 20th ceuntry. And Genghiz Khans State, a more or less pure aristocracy,
killed off half the populated world. And so did England, and Ancient Rome,
and the fucking hypercapitalist 18th century mercantile Dutch and the
Portuguese and the Japanese and every country and government on earth just
about, (except for highly democratic AND socialist nations like switzerland
which also benefit from being very rich and situated behind nearly
impregnablel mountain ranges) Whats your fucking point?
> 2. Socialists need a good war, or a threat of a good war, to keep them
> in power, and so will agrressively wage them for that sake. The Nazis
> certainly wern't put into power bake cookies.
No, the Nazis, like the fascists in Italy before them, were put into
power (as you so accurately put it) by rich bankers and capitalists in order
to prevent the terrible economic conditions (caused by the selfr same
capitalists who brought about the great depression through hyperactive
orgies of ususurous greed) from allowing actual true real democratic
socialists from taking power, because the streets were in an uproar and the
rich boys were getting scared... so they let loose their dobermans, the
fascists.
> Well, all I can say is that you have been talking to the wrong people.
> Try the Agorists. (http://www.agorist.net)
Make your point if you actually have one because I'm not going to go
visit some (secretly) hitler loving money dick sucking patriot web site, I'm
not asking you to go look at iww.org or fuckin cnt.org or sending you
schoolmarmishly to go look at the anarchist faq every third paragraph or
anything, am I?
>
> Well, their is the standard answer of mixing your labor with the land,
I see, so if you "mix your labor" by hammering a nail or two while your
hired hands are building some substandard apartment buildings on stolen land
so you can rent them out at gouging prices to poor people and live off them
like a leech, then your rent collection as a slum lord becomes your holy
divine right of some kind? Wow, that labor and land mixing together in a
kind of paste... has a suspiciously neopagan, wagnerian, nazi-esque "blood
and iron" sound to it to me. So what parts labor go to how much land?
If you cut down one tree on say, mount st. helens, do you own the whole
mountain? How far does this labor dilute? How about if you dilute some
blood and spinal fluid in it, or menstural fluid, or shit or snot? Will it
go further? How about if I sacrifice your children because I don't like
blonde blue eyed kinder and mash them into a paste and spread that all over
my land, will that make it more sacred?
>Let me ask you
> something. How would use ethically oppose "Polluter oBo" or the "The
> Pink Despoiler" from trashing, say, a garden or forest you love, or a
> biosphere you need for survival? After all, if nobody actually owns
> anything, and you can't physically be everywhere all the time....
People can form democratic associations as they have historically before
captialism and aristocracy. In a modern world, you have trade unions made
up of people who do work, consumer groups of people who buy the products,
neighborhood associations of people who live in the area, environmental
groups, womens groups, parents groups, and etc. and etc.. Between the
various needs and agendas of the overlapping groups and the people in the
society a consensus will form which will probably not end up deciding that
one person gets 99% of everything and everybody else shares the last 1%,
while paying rent to that same one super aristocrat.
If you believe in liberty you can't believe in liberty for some and not
for others, or in liberty inherited in vast hoarded quantities which drowns
out everyone else and allows a tiny minority to dominate.
Rent is taxation without representation my friend. There is no escaping
it, the king has just put flunkies in charge of managing the day to day
affairs, but not everybody is fooled by that and the land "lord" is no lord
to me any more than your stupid xtian god is.
The only way to decide who will use the land is to give everyone a
voice, that is what true democracy is, not states of any sort, not state
socialism or state capitalism, but actual grass roots functional democracy,
such as took place during the 1871 paris commune or the anarchist sectors in
the 1936 Spanish Revolution, or in many ancient tribes ranging from native
north americans through celts, ancient germans, maltesians, minoans,
polynesians, certain african tribes, and etc., or even in what the $1
billion dollar a year collectivist organized mondragon corporation does even
now in Basque Spain (modeled after the Spanish Anarchists of the 36
revolution)
True empowered democracy with a voice of an armed, informed, empowered
people, which is the ultimate nightmare bugbear the lib caps FEAR MOST, is
ultimately the only viable road toward a relatively sane human society (and
mark me, I never said the word "utopia", relativley sane will be a good
enough start)
> I will defend my own person. My property is an extension of me,
> because at one point someone mingled their labor (their self) with the
> property, thus making it an extension of him, and then transferred
> that property to me. So, I will defend my property with the same moral
> conviction that I defend myself with. If I have a lot of property, or
> I'm not very good at defense, I will do what I always do when I need
> an expert or an extra set of hands- I'll contract out.
First of all, your driving desire to protect your summer house so you
can have a convenient place to vacation is not going to match my hunger or
my desire to find a place to get my children out of the rain, compadre. We
can all have summer houses when everybody has a winter house first.
And as for you hiring "contract" labor to defend yourself, this is a
laughable though familiar concept and one of the ones I most enjoy hearing
from Lib Caps. It's so laughable to think this would work!
If you have propety, the State is your only friend and your only
defense, because it, as the myth that we are "all in this together" is the
only thing which (falesely) legitimizies your position and the position
authority of the people who protect you.
Don' you morons know any history? Listen. At one point your dream of
minimal free lance state with only just enough infrastructure (i.e. cops and
armies) to protect the rich man, the land lord, was the way it was all over.
This was called an aristocracy. Then the people finally got sick of it and
cut off some heads of some kings and dukes and whatnot. So you allowed us
to elect some republics, but carefully limited our power so that you could
still protect the vast majority of your precious hoarded property.
But since capitalists are invetiably greedy and short sighted, you
started resenting having to pay for school lunch programs and orphan
hospitals and whatnot, and you arrogantly assumed you could program enough
people with religion and the media to support your cause.. but if you ever
succeeded and stripped away the part of the state which actually benefits
(theoretically benefits) the masses, and showed your true colors, you would
be doomed.
Without incorporating benefits of the state to the masses, but only
including that part (private cops jails and soldiers) which directly
benefits the owning class and hurts the rest of us, there is no way the
property owners will be
able to hold out. The only way they can keep the system stable and keep us
in line in the U.S.A. with a mere 2 million soliders and few hundred
thousand cops is because we essentially for the most part believe in the
system, at least a
majority of citizens do to some extent or another, at least passively.
Thats because they derive certain benefits from it.
If on the other hand you set up a "anarcho" capitalist society, you get
a bunch of rockafeller company mining towns bascially, it suddenly becomes
much more clear to everyone who their enemy is, and people are a lot less
scared to shoot a company thug than a cop, nor do hired mercenaries
generally fight as well as either professional regular (state loyal)
volunteer soldiers or conscripts. Actually, empowered "masses" generally
fight much better than all of the above, remember the successes of the
French Revolutionary (conscript) army over the professionals of Europe.
Napoleon won his victories largley because of the high "morale" and esprit
de corps of his troops, who beleived in their cause of liberation....(as
well as greater numbers and tighter disciplinary control, which was also
possible due to the high level of fanatic devotion) Same with Mao and his
peoples army, btw., or Ho Chi Minh, or the Durutti Column.
People fight a lot better when they have something really inspiring to
believe in, like the end of parasitism and unrestrected human predation, for
example.
Wackenhutt and Pinkerton guards are never going to keep me out of
somebodies property. I'll pit my passion and fury and desire and spirit
against their steady (low) salary any day. Did you property owners forget
you trained millions of us to be soldiers so you could have cannon fodder
for your foreign wars? We are still here and we know how to resist you, and
until your "liberal" con conspirators ban guns, we are still armed, and
therefore very dangerous. Did you forget you have let your cities ghettoes
fester with hellish murder, and that people who have to live there know how
to survive and endure in all the ways those with soft easy safe lives have
forgotten?
Here in New Orleans, for example, they generally have to get off duty
City Police officers to act as security guards for any situation really
requiring one, because people will think twice, then a third time before
shooting an NOPD, but criminals will shoot a security guard in a second The
latter has the sanction of the community and the unspoken social contract,
the former even though armed, are just "rent a cops".
Personally, I say bring on this feudal state, it will be a short trip
from there to full anarchism since the utter lack of any pretense of
government being of any value to the people will be bare and obvious and
unhidden. A few short weeks of sharp fighting, followed by summary peoples
trials and (hopefully) a small number of executions of the most intransagent
lib cap billionaires, and then we will have actual real democratiuc
collectivist / syndicalist / communist anarchism breaking out all over.
This whole "anarcho" capitalist (actally minarchist / feudalist)
bullshit is just a paper tiger, there is no genuine freedom in it, not even
within the movement. In fact the whole far "libertarian" right are just a
bunch of zombies. They don't really think for themselves, they don't ever
challenge the orthodoxy of their own
movement the way actual anarchists do (perhaps it seems like too much
sometimes but to some degree it is a sign of the intellectual health of our
movement!)
The patriots and lib caps are actually under the control of certain
powerful figures who know how to speak their language and take advantage of
blunders by the left who have mistakenly taken up the crassest forms of
political correctness, advocated gun control, and applauded government
massacres of civiilans, to move in and win over influence of large blocks of
people who they instruct with rhetoric to parrot every day. Just watch 700
club, or listen to Limbaugh, Ollie North, etc. and etc. and you can see or
hear them getting their instructions on what to think on every single issue
every single day.
> I don't have to convince you of anything. I don't owe you crap. You
> come into this world with original slack; anything else is up to you.
> You don't deserve to live like you do. Sarah Michelle Gellar doesn't
> deserve to be so pretty. I don't deserve to have red hair, the man who
> sells me shoes doesn't deserve to breathe. The universe doesn't
yeah, you are right. For once we agree. You DONT owe me CRAP, and I
don't YOU crap. I also don't ow you fuckin RENT, or BILLS, or INTEREST, or
ROYALTIES (who says you are royal) or FEES, or PENALTIES FOR EARLY
WITHDRAWAL or TAXES or fucking ANYTHING. Try to take money from me.
You will get my rent when you pry my cold dead fingers of the trigger of
my FN FAL rifle you capitalist parasite
DB
Beeferroneous
Daihre...hoeiahiah....aaarrr
the shits. The squirts. The howling skinners. Fluid farts. whatever.
guess not.
Salacia the Overseer
And get a sense of humor, and in your case, you'll be NEEDING a gimmick (try a
trumpet), then we might actually read your whole post. You're teaching instead
of preaching, my friend.
Anarchists, conservatives, blah, blah, blah.
SubGeniuses are this, SubGeniuses are that. AaAaChhooOOO!
If you spew didactic dust at us, most folks are likely to just sneeze, wipe our
noses on our sleeves, and move on to the next post.
Headmistress Salacia the Overseer
Branch Salacians
Director of Programming, Keeper of the Seven Squeals, Keanuphobe
William Barwell
fire_ant <fire...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> First of all, I want to point out as I have many times before, that
>fucking cockwad republican shitguzzler conservatives have nothing to do with
>being a "SubGenius".
I would like to point out that there are very few conservatives
left. Instead, we have brain damaged reactionaries who
erroneously claim to be conservatives.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope of Houston
Slack!
Johnny Magic
> here to tell you that Despite the more twisted rhetoric of the over the top
> neo nazi hyper conservtive apologists, if you are conservative you are not
> by definition a rebel of any kind, no matter how much you try to play act as
> one, I repeat, IF YOU ARE A CONSERVATIVE YOU ARE NOT A REBEL, because by
> definition you are a defender of the status quo. Look up "conservative" in
> the dictionary.
> Even if you are so fucking over the top hitlers dick sucking reactionary
> that you feel yourself way out on the lunatic fringe, you are still not a
> rebel.
Okay, fine. What's your point? I'm not a conservative. Hell, in
Britain they call people like me Liberals. I am neither. I am an
anarchist with an aorist economic theory.
> Just because you have no friends and nobody likes you, does not change
> the fact that you just have just a slightly more extreme and less
> sophisticated vision of the same essential philosophy that JP Morgan,
> Saadaam Hussein, Nelson Rockafeller, Ivan the Terrible, Henry Frick, Charles
> Keating, Louis the XIV, Henry Ford, Caligula, Ernesto Batista, Martha
> Stuart, Ollie North, Richard Nixon, Michael Esiener, Rupert Murdoch, Pat
> Buchannon, Berlusconi, David Duke, and 3/4 of the Xtians in the bible belt,
> 99% of the Ku Kux Klan and 90% of the cops in this country have. That a
> rebel does not make, just a slavering over eager lap dog jumping the gun to
> go after the real rebels, "PANT PANT PANT, Yassa Massa Yassa Massa, les go
> GIt 'em les go Git EM!!!" a little more enthusiasitic than all the rest.
While this is entertaining to read, I really don't see you tying me in
with these people.
> I should add, at this point, that the tradtional Democratic Party style
> bureaucratic "liberal" isn't likely to make a fuckwad of a SubG either, they
> also aren't rebels, just moderate nazis (the dogs hanging back in the pack a
> little and whining some but still in the same lynch mob) A liberal in the
> 18th century sense perhaps could be construed as a real slack surfer, but
> Hillary Clinton does not a SubG make.
So, it was okay to be a free marketeer 300 years ago, but its not okay
now?
> No, not liberal, not conservative, not even libertine. "Bob" doesn't
> advocate excess for the sake of excess ..
Thanks for becoming the one true infalliable source for doctrinal
issues within the church of the Subgenius. Silly us for pursuing our
own individual heresies. Any other bits of wisdom from on high for us
lowly sinners, Oh high priest?
"Bob" recognizes the banality of
> evil, (though we know paced right, a little excess and even evil can be a
> good thing now and then!) but the boring repetetiveness of so called
> "shocking" wickedness is no more interesting than the fake leave it to
> beaver ersatz happiness is. Lets face it, Neither mother theresa nor
> maralyn manson nor even anton lavey could really be true subGs (though Anton
> at least had a sense of humor and could have passed easy as a high ranking
> bobby within the hierarchy)
> The point is to be a sub G or any kind of rebel at all, you really have
> to be a (small l) libertarian, and that does not mean some randy weaver
> worshiping race baiting christian ersatz conservative big money apologist
> american flag kissing "patriot" Libertarian, it means a real actual lover of
> fredom and liberty to do what the fuck you want to do without being
> controlled every fucking second of your life, and that ALSO means, to not
> want to mind anybody elses fucking business. That is the true path to slack
> my friends!
Again, when have I done any of the things you accuse me of?
>
> anyway, some right wing maggotfuck cocksmoker named
Huh, a totalitarian and a homophobe. Who would of thought?
> Johnny Magic <johnny...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > "fire_ant" <fire...@hotmail.com> wrote in > ><snip>
>
> > the Nazis as one of their own. But if you judge the average historical
> > socialist government (like Revolutionary France and Communist Russia),
> > and the Nazi government, by their actions, you will find the two are
> > remarkably similar. Consider:
>
> Funny, I would think of Nazi Germany as a corporate and Capitalist
> society, or didn't Damiler (Mercedez) Benz, BMW, Porche, Krupp, MAN,
> Rhienmetal, IG Farben, and etc. and etc. make avalanches of money out of
> world war II in Germany just like Ford, GM, Rolls Royce, Mitsubishi,
> Rennault, Boeing, Fiat, Goodyear and etc. and etc. made watefalls of cash in
> various other countries?
Yes, well, being involved in the weapons industry during wartime will
tend to jack up the profits. Even slaves may earn a few extra coin if
they please their masters.
> Anyway this is a typical straw dog thrown up by cocksmoking conservative
> walking sore infested junkie armpits. Did I ever once advocate state
> socialism in my fucking post you moron? No I didn't, because it's too soft
> on Capitalism for me.
You know, I was going to apologize for bringing up Russia and
Revolutionary France, because you are right, those are straw men. See
below as to why I don't...
> But unless you have your head up your ass which you undoubtedly do,
> closer models to state socialism actually are countries like modern day
> France, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark and etc., which bad as they are and
> despite the frantic claims of many GOOD PATRIOTIC AMERICANS are generally
> much better places to live than the hypercapitalist, safetey net lacking,
> unregulated, george busch electing U.S.A.
You are right, the countries mentioned above show definite Socialist
tendencies. And when the EU finally gets up and running, prepare for a
whole 'nother wave of totalitarian agression.
>
> > 1. State Socialism relies on central planning for the economy to
> > function. Nazi Germany had a command economy (The Nazis demaded it,
> > you did it.)
> >
> What the fuck are you talking about, I did it? Who am I, Allan
> Greenspan? You fuicking moron.
I meant "I" as in a citizen of Germany at that time. Was the context
really so hard to comprehend here?
>
> > 2. The installation of Socialist Governments is quickly followed by
> > persecution and genocide directed against a portion of their owm
> > population. France had "arisocrats", Russia had the "bourgeoise", and
> > the Nazis had the Jews. One of the reasons the Nazis didn't like the
> > Jews was because they were supposed to be rather rich.
> >
> Yeah and the USA had nice genocides of Africans, Native Americans,
> 1,000,000 Filipinos during the spanish american war, and the active
> surpression of just about every single third world democracy ever founded in
> the 20th ceuntry. And Genghiz Khans State, a more or less pure aristocracy,
> killed off half the populated world. And so did England, and Ancient Rome,
> and the fucking hypercapitalist 18th century mercantile Dutch and the
> Portuguese and the Japanese and every country and government on earth just
> about, (except for highly democratic AND socialist nations like switzerland
> which also benefit from being very rich and situated behind nearly
> impregnablel mountain ranges) Whats your fucking point?
My pooint is that ALL governments are somewhat Socialist, all commit
atrocities. The more socialist, the more atrocious.
<snip debate about history that neither one of us are rally qualified
to debate.)
>
> > Well, all I can say is that you have been talking to the wrong people.
> > Try the Agorists. (http://www.agorist.net)
>
> Make your point if you actually have one because I'm not going to go
> visit some (secretly) hitler loving money dick sucking patriot web site, I'm
> not asking you to go look at iww.org or fuckin cnt.org or sending you
> schoolmarmishly to go look at the anarchist faq every third paragraph or
> anything, am I?
Okay, fine. Based on the sanctity of the contract, the validity of
property, and the principle of non-initiation of force, agorists have
constructed what I believe is a workable, productive, model of what a
non-statist world would look like, and one that doesn't involve
killing lots of people, or consigning the majority of the world's
population to abject misery, both of which are hallmarks of
implemented solcialist systems. The have also developed a non-violent,
workable strategy for achieving this, called counter-economics. For a
more detailed treatise of these concepts, see the fuckin' website.
> > Well, their is the standard answer of mixing your labor with the land,
>
> I see, so if you "mix your labor" by hammering a nail or two while your
> hired hands are building some substandard apartment buildings on stolen land
> so you can rent them out at gouging prices to poor people and live off them
> like a leech, then your rent collection as a slum lord becomes your holy
> divine right of some kind? Wow, that labor and land mixing together in a
> kind of paste... has a suspiciously neopagan, wagnerian, nazi-esque "blood
> and iron" sound to it to me. So what parts labor go to how much land?
I am not responsible for what extrapolations you get from my
statements. I have never advocated theft. If land has been stolen
(from some specific person or group who has made an actual claim to
the land), it should be returned, and restitution must be made, but
only by the parties directly responsible. Yes, I realize that good
portion of what is now the United States of America would need to be
handed back to the surviving Native American tribes. I welcome this.
> If you cut down one tree on say, mount st. helens, do you own the whole
> mountain? How far does this labor dilute? How about if you dilute some
> blood and spinal fluid in it, or menstural fluid, or shit or snot? Will it
> go further? How about if I sacrifice your children because I don't like
> blonde blue eyed kinder and mash them into a paste and spread that all over
> my land, will that make it more sacred?
If you cut down a tree, and nobody owns the area, you own the tree. If
you plant a tree farm, and nobody but you has any claim to that land,
you own those trees and the land they grow on. You build a house on
land with no prior claim, you own the house and the land the house
stands on. You fence off an area of unclaimed land, you own that area.
If you pay anyone to do the above things, with the express condition
that you get the benefits of that labor (in exchange for what you are
paying him), you get it. Also, can we keep the death threats directed
at third parties out of this, you cowardly puke?
> >Let me ask you
> > something. How would use ethically oppose "Polluter oBo" or the "The
> > Pink Despoiler" from trashing, say, a garden or forest you love, or a
> > biosphere you need for survival? After all, if nobody actually owns
> > anything, and you can't physically be everywhere all the time....
>
> People can form democratic associations as they have historically before
> captialism and aristocracy. In a modern world, you have trade unions made
> up of people who do work, consumer groups of people who buy the products,
> neighborhood associations of people who live in the area, environmental
> groups, womens groups, parents groups, and etc. and etc.. Between the
> various needs and agendas of the overlapping groups and the people in the
> society a consensus will form which will probably not end up deciding that
> one person gets 99% of everything and everybody else shares the last 1%,
> while paying rent to that same one super aristocrat.
>
> If you believe in liberty you can't believe in liberty for some and not
> for others, or in liberty inherited in vast hoarded quantities which drowns
> out everyone else and allows a tiny minority to dominate.
This is why I will not apologize for the comparisons to States I made
above. You advocate democracy, which at it core is tyranny of the
majority. In order for your "democratic associations" to be able to
credibly defend the land, they will need to be able to coerce people
into doing what "the people" think they should be doing.
Let me get this straight. You advocate what is essentially rule by
popular opinion, the same thing that has made Britney Spears and
'Nsync into virtual gods, and I'M the bobbie, the Pink, the evil one?
That's a laugh.
<snip true but irrelevant babbling, and untrue insinuations that I'm
an xitian>
> The only way to decide who will use the land is to give everyone a
> voice, that is what true democracy is, not states of any sort, not state
> socialism or state capitalism, but actual grass roots functional democracy,
> such as took place during the 1871 paris commune
(Great guys, like their style, but the commune self-destructed rather
quickly)
or the anarchist sectors in
> the 1936 Spanish Revolution,
(Talk about terror & murder! Man, Fire Ant, you have some interesting
role-models.)
or in many ancient tribes ranging from native
> north americans through celts, ancient germans, maltesians, minoans,
> polynesians,
(So, your a time traveller as well as the Subgenius high priest?)
>certain african tribes, and etc.,
(Oh, you mean like the Somali people, who have had an quasi-agorist,
libertarian ethical and legal tradition {called xeer}, which has been
in place and functioning for over a thousand years)
or even in what the $1
> billion dollar a year collectivist organized mondragon corporation does even
> now in Basque Spain (modeled after the Spanish Anarchists of the 36
> revolution)
See my opinion of the Spainish "Anarchists" above.
> True empowered democracy with a voice of an armed, informed, empowered
> people, which is the ultimate nightmare bugbear the lib caps FEAR MOST, is
> ultimately the only viable road toward a relatively sane human society (and
> mark me, I never said the word "utopia", relativley sane will be a good
> enough start)
Oh, now I get. The Pinks are the majority of the world's population,
and being a pink yourself, you want to wipe out all traces of slack.
Yes, that makes sense. The only way to destroy tyrants is to destroy
the power they wield. That power is the State, in all its forms.
Creating a legion of self-righteous armed thugs who are at the whim of
whoever yells the loudest is not the way to go about htis.
> > I will defend my own person. My property is an extension of me,
> > because at one point someone mingled their labor (their self) with the
> > property, thus making it an extension of him, and then transferred
> > that property to me. So, I will defend my property with the same moral
> > conviction that I defend myself with. If I have a lot of property, or
> > I'm not very good at defense, I will do what I always do when I need
> > an expert or an extra set of hands- I'll contract out.
>
> First of all, your driving desire to protect your summer house so you
> can have a convenient place to vacation is not going to match my hunger or
> my desire to find a place to get my children out of the rain, compadre. We
> can all have summer houses when everybody has a winter house first.
Don't call me compadre, pinkboy. I'll fight for what's mine. I would
torch it all (which ain't much, really) than give it to "the people".
>
> And as for you hiring "contract" labor to defend yourself, this is a
> laughable though familiar concept and one of the ones I most enjoy hearing
> from Lib Caps. It's so laughable to think this would work!
>
> If you have propety, the State is your only friend and your only
> defense, because it, as the myth that we are "all in this together" is the
> only thing which (falesely) legitimizies your position and the position
> authority of the people who protect you.
I have never said we are all in this together. You, for example, seem
to be in a rather depressing fantasy world.
> Don' you morons know any history? Listen. At one point your dream of
> minimal free lance state with only just enough infrastructure (i.e. cops and
> armies) to protect the rich man, the land lord, was the way it was all over.
> This was called an aristocracy. Then the people finally got sick of it and
> cut off some heads of some kings and dukes and whatnot. So you allowed us
> to elect some republics, but carefully limited our power so that you could
> still protect the vast majority of your precious hoarded property.
> But since capitalists are invetiably greedy and short sighted, you
> started resenting having to pay for school lunch programs and orphan
> hospitals and whatnot, and you arrogantly assumed you could program enough
> people with religion and the media to support your cause.. but if you ever
> succeeded and stripped away the part of the state which actually benefits
> (theoretically benefits) the masses, and showed your true colors, you would
> be doomed.
Did the lords or aristocrats ever get into a bidding war over who
could provide the cheaper service to the peasants? Were the peasants
ever fully armed, not only with weapons but with access to
information? Were the peasants ever in a position to think that having
leftovers was a hardship, rather than going without being one? I don't
think so. The only thing I share with aristocrats is an aversion to
work, and perhaps a little of their fashion sense.
> Without incorporating benefits of the state to the masses, but only
> including that part (private cops jails and soldiers) which directly
> benefits the owning class and hurts the rest of us, there is no way the
> property owners will be
> able to hold out. The only way they can keep the system stable and keep us
> in line in the U.S.A. with a mere 2 million soliders and few hundred
> thousand cops is because we essentially for the most part believe in the
> system, at least a
> majority of citizens do to some extent or another, at least passively.
> Thats because they derive certain benefits from it.
Amazing, you aren't even trying to pretend you're an anarchist
anymore. Listen, any benefits citizens derive from their State are
held hostage by that State. The con job the State puts out is
"worthless individuals can't do these things, only great and powerful
countries can do these things. Go back to sleep now." And you bought
it, hook, line, and sinker.
> If on the other hand you set up a "anarcho" capitalist society, you get
> a bunch of rockafeller company mining towns bascially, it suddenly becomes
> much more clear to everyone who their enemy is, and people are a lot less
> scared to shoot a company thug than a cop, nor do hired mercenaries
> generally fight as well as either professional regular (state loyal)
> volunteer soldiers or conscripts. Actually, empowered "masses" generally
> fight much better than all of the above, remember the successes of the
> French Revolutionary (conscript) army over the professionals of Europe.
> Napoleon won his victories largley because of the high "morale" and esprit
> de corps of his troops, who beleived in their cause of liberation....(as
> well as greater numbers and tighter disciplinary control, which was also
> possible due to the high level of fanatic devotion) Same with Mao and his
> peoples army, btw., or Ho Chi Minh, or the Durutti Column.
Well, its true that hired armies aren't very good and invading. But I
don't want to invade anybody. And I'm betting that the material
benefits that the masses derive from anarchy agorist style will cause
people to look askance at collectivists. Any thieves, looters, or
parasites left, like yourself, will be adequately warded off by
private defense agencies.
> People fight a lot better when they have something really inspiring to
> believe in, like the end of parasitism and unrestrected human predation, for
> example.
Yes, its amazing how much people will give up, and how restricted they
will live their lives, when they are killing people in the name of
social equality.
> Wackenhutt and Pinkerton guards are never going to keep me out of
> somebodies property. I'll pit my passion and fury and desire and spirit
> against their steady (low) salary any day. Did you property owners forget
> you trained millions of us to be soldiers so you could have cannon fodder
> for your foreign wars? We are still here and we know how to resist you, and
> until your "liberal" con conspirators ban guns, we are still armed, and
> therefore very dangerous. Did you forget you have let your cities ghettoes
> fester with hellish murder, and that people who have to live there know how
> to survive and endure in all the ways those with soft easy safe lives have
> forgotten?
You're the one threatening violence and praising a intrusive,
paternalistic State here, not me.
<snip>
>
> This whole "anarcho" capitalist (actally minarchist / feudalist)
> bullshit is just a paper tiger, there is no genuine freedom in it, not even
> within the movement. In fact the whole far "libertarian" right are just a
> bunch of zombies. They don't really think for themselves, they don't ever
> challenge the orthodoxy of their own
> movement the way actual anarchists do (perhaps it seems like too much
> sometimes but to some degree it is a sign of the intellectual health of our
> movement!)
Which just goes to show how little yo know about your opponent. I'll
put our diversity up against your's any day.
<snip paranoid babbling>
> > I don't have to convince you of anything. I don't owe you crap. You
> > come into this world with original slack; anything else is up to you.
> > You don't deserve to live like you do. Sarah Michelle Gellar doesn't
> > deserve to be so pretty. I don't deserve to have red hair, the man who
> > sells me shoes doesn't deserve to breathe. The universe doesn't
>
> yeah, you are right. For once we agree. You DONT owe me CRAP, and I
> don't YOU crap. I also don't ow you fuckin RENT, or BILLS, or INTEREST, or
> ROYALTIES (who says you are royal) or FEES, or PENALTIES FOR EARLY
> WITHDRAWAL or TAXES or fucking ANYTHING. Try to take money from me.
Don't worry. I really don't like doing business with scummy, parasitic
pinkboys.
>