Ways That are Dark: The Truth About China
Bret Ludwig
by Ralph Townsend
First Edition ©1933
Second Edition ©1997 (The Barnes
Review, 329 pp)
May 21, 2006
This is a book which will most certainly change your preconceptions,
whatever they might happen to be, about China and the Chinese. Ralph
Townsend was a career American diplomat who was assigned to China
between 1931 and 1933. At that time there were basically three large
groups of Americans and Europeans residing in China; Christian
missionaries, businessmen and government foreign service officers.
For diplomatic and business reasons, the latter two groups were
extremely reluctant to express publicly express any negative views
about the Chinese and the missionaries "do not dare to tell the truth,
because if the truth were known continued support for their projects
would be jeopardized."
Mr. Townsend, to put it mildly, didn't think very much of the Chinese
culture. What's more, he declares it's been the same way for 4,000
years and hasn't changed a bit in spite of countless invasions and
conquests and centuries of contacts with other cultures. He sees
little hope for any meaningful changes in the future, which should
give us pause for thought, since China's importance to us looms so
much larger today than it did in 1933, when Ways That are Dark was
written.
What is it about the Chinese character that is so off-putting to most
Westerners? "If a jury of the most experienced Americans or
Englishmen in China today were asked to name the most prominent
characteristic in the Chinese mentality as opposed to our own, I think
most if not all of them would unhesitatingly answer, 'lying'." (p.88)
Not that they are very good liars; in fact most of the lies they tell
are so blatantly transparent, they don't really fool anyone but a real
idiot. And they lie about things that are so trivial and unimportant
that telling the truth would be just as expeditious for them. But
this pervasive habit of lying, while annoying to the Occidental, is
basically harmless and even amusing compared to some other more
injurious Chinese racial traits the author encountered.
Many of these racial traits -- and Townsend was writing in an age when
one could, without incurring the wrath of the PC police, write about
innate racial characteristics - are paradoxical at first glance. "It
is possible," he writes, "to say almost anything about the Chinese and
have the statement true, and yet with proper modifications decidedly
untrue. For example, the Chinese seem to do more washing and slopping
around with pails of water everywhere than any other race on the
globe, and at the same time they are among the dirtiest people to be
found." (p.48) He goes on to note several other paradoxes in their
behavior which so bewilder the uninitiated Western observer.
China at the time he was writing had no effective central government.
Its government or lack thereof could, in fact, be described as an
extreme libertarian or anarcho-capitalist's dream. The functions of
government were "privatized" in a very real sense, with most of the
real authority in the hands of clans and bandits and local warlords
commanding marauding private armies. The Chinese Golden Rule toward
all non-relatives is "do unto others as you think they would do unto
you, and make sure it's tit-for-tat", and so the behavior of the
callous jewish passers-by in the Christian Good Samaritan tale is
normative behavior in China, i.e., there are no Good Samaritans in
China, and genuine gratitude, as opposed to formal politeness, is not
part of the Chinese makeup. It is commonplace for a crowd to ignore a
drowning man and make no attempt at rescue. Townsend tells the story
of a boat carrying a load of pigs which capsized. A nearby boat
rushed over to grab all of the pigs out of the water but left all the
people to drown.
Yeah, for all their theoretical railings about the evils of "The
State," the Lew Rockwells and Hans-Hermann Hoppes of this world ought
to read this volume and see what happens in a society where there is
no effective or legitimate governmental authority and corruption,
murder and extortion become a way of life. The Chinese have in a very
real sense existed in a Hobbesian State of Nature for thousands of
years. Townsend describes this dog-eat-dog world as an "equilibrium
of chaos." At one point he notes that the materialism of the Chinese
exceeds even that of the jews, a comparison I was familiar with in the
sense that the overseas Chinese have often been called the jews of the
orient.
As far as the politics of the Orient is concerned, Townsend has little
regard for the Nationalist movement, or Kuomintang, and either its
anti-American founder Sun Yat-sen or its then leader Chiang Kai-chek.
While the communists were around in good force in 1933, Mao Tse Tung
isn't referenced in this book, probably because his gang was still
hiding out in the remote mountainous regions. Townsend is, however,
decidedly pro-Japanese, a race he holds - contrary to the prevailing
U.S. opinion at the time -- in far higher esteem than the Chinese. In
so many traits, most notably honor, courage and cleanliness, they are
in fact the polar opposites of their racial cousins. So, Townsend is
by no means an anti-Oriental racist.
How much of what Townsend wrote in 1933 is relevant to China today?
Obviously a lot of things have changed politically and economically
since then and I would like to know what he would write about China
today were he alive to tell it. I'd even like to read what he thought
about later events in China - most notably the 1948 Communist takeover
and Nixon's opening of trade relations in 1972 - that occurred before
his death in 1975. Unfortunately, I drew a blank when I Googled his
name on the internet, and his only other later book to be found is his
1936 Asia Answers, available used through Amazon for $67.50. It's too
bad more of his writings haven't survived, but The Barnes Review's
publisher, Willis Carto, was personally acquainted with Mr. Townsend,
so maybe I'll write him and ask him to share his thoughts on the
subject. Mr. Carto, as publisher, wrote the forward to the second
edition of Ways that are Dark, and he did indicate that the book has a
profound relevance for today. At the very least, I should think we'd
best be extremely wary as a nation in any of our dealings with the
Chinese, Red or otherwise.
We do know that politically Ralph Townsend was an outspoken America
First non-interventionist, and in fact was imprisoned by FDR for
"sedition" shortly after Pearl Harbor. He was also, as Carto tells
us, a very good writer. Ways that are Dark is written with a down-to-
earth wit and is very readable despite being filled with unfamiliar
(to me) names and places. Entertaining as well as informative, it is
available through The Barnes Review website and is well worth its
modest $12.50 price.
RICH BROOKS
Patrick Turner
Just what relevance the complete and utter bullshit in the book review
below
has to do with electronics and tubes is hard to see.
At one point it is said below that the chinese are a nation of dirty
people,
and people who lie about everything.
I could point to many americans and englishmen and australians who are
both dirty and loose with the truth.
The chinese in 1933 were rather bereft of wealth unless you were a
member of the ruling elite, where a supply of clean bathwater was
available,
but where lying is a way of being as it is with all politians.
Today, the old cultural mentalities still do exist as entrenched,
but to live the good life we have more ppl tell the truth and wash more
often.
They need to do both to socialise and trust each other to form
co-operative groups.
The chinese appear to lifting themselves toward our standards of living
quite well,
and without our meddlesome assistance or legacies of the colonial past
where we treated them like shit, and misunderstood most aspects of the
their culture.
The chinese I know are intelligent, scrupulous about hygeine, and
don't mind the truth when they hear it.
Meanwhile I am unimpressed by Mr W Bush's crap about weapons of mass
destruction
owned by Saddam Hussein as being a reason to invade Iraq.
They lied. They went to Iraq to steal oil.
Meanwhile, old cultures take an awful long time to change, and change to
american gunboat diplomacy won't change overnight.
Bombing countries in the ME won't change much either, and nor will
pure diplomacy.
I should not say much more; its a grup for tubes, not politics,
and certainly not the right place to review a book of bullshit about the
national
personal characteristics of any nation.
China may seem a bit backward, or bad, inferior even, but average wages
are $2 per hour,
and they slave their guts out to give us their product at cheap prices.
They do what we can't or won't.
Take a real good look at our own culture and history,
there is a lot of shit to be found.
Nobody has a monopoly on being the
best people in the world.
I enjoy books which balance american arrogance titled
Ways That are Dark: The Truth About America.
And when Oz politicians criticize regimes which treat their
people badly, they should remember how the natives here
were dispossed of their nation by shooting parties on sunday,
poisenings of the water holes, and the spread of western diseases,
and the subsequent treatment of the small number of survivors as
trash.
The australian aborigines have a culture about 60,000 years old.
They never needed to invent the wheel.
I doubt the modern Oz culture will last 60,000 years.
Patrick Turner.
Bret Ludwig
>
> The chinese appear to lifting themselves toward our standards of living
> quite well,
> and without our meddlesome assistance or legacies of the colonial past
> where we treated them like shit, and misunderstood most aspects of the
> their culture.
>
> The chinese I know are intelligent, scrupulous about hygeine, and
> don't mind the truth when they hear it.
I know some Chinese people I think of highly, but they have a
different outlook on life to be sure. I don't wish them ill.
>
> Meanwhile I am unimpressed by Mr W Bush's crap about weapons of mass
> destruction
> owned by Saddam Hussein as being a reason to invade Iraq.
> They lied. They went to Iraq to steal oil.
I hate Bush more than you do because he is more in love with mestizos
than his own people, He is turning the US into Mexico.
He loves the Mexican system where a few families own everything and
the masses are too dumb and disorganized to change things. The ruling
class of Mexico is corrupt, evil, and White. The indios are content as
chimpanzees with the status quo. Well, almost-chimps seem more capable
of at least understanding English. Some of these people haven't
learned _Spanish_ in 400+ years! And they're serving food all over the
US now.
¿Yo quiero Taco Bell?
>
> Meanwhile, old cultures take an awful long time to change, and change to
> american gunboat diplomacy won't change overnight.
Well, one did: Perry in the harbor to Paul Tibbets over Hiroshima was
a shorter period than many human lifetimes. A mixed idea at best.
> Bombing countries in the ME won't change much either, and nor will
> pure diplomacy.
>
> I should not say much more; its a grup for tubes, not politics,
> and certainly not the right place to review a book of bullshit about the
> national
> personal characteristics of any nation.
>
> China may seem a bit backward, or bad, inferior even, but average wages
> are $2 per hour,
> and they slave their guts out to give us their product at cheap prices.
And put us out of what were good jobs.
> They do what we can't or won't.
> Take a real good look at our own culture and history,
> there is a lot of shit to be found.
I wish the Chinese all the happiness in the world-in China. I'm not
opposed to Chinese products being sold here-IF they are tariffed to
make them cost as much as US goods because of no environmental
controls, worker safety, product liability, and a non-market party
artificial low wage.
$29 DVD players and cellphones are a CURSE on US as a people, not a
blessing. And on yours as well.
>
> Nobody has a monopoly on being the
> best people in the world.
>
> I enjoy books which balance american arrogance titled
> Ways That are Dark: The Truth About America.
The original Americans of 1780 were the BEST people that ever lived.
Most had been here for four or five generations. Washington, Hamilton,
Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Andrew Jackson, they were humanity at its
peak. After the US Civil War it was downhill from there. We are a
degenerate nation now.
>
> And when Oz politicians criticize regimes which treat their
> people badly, they should remember how the natives here
> were dispossed of their nation by shooting parties on sunday,
> poisenings of the water holes, and the spread of western diseases,
> and the subsequent treatment of the small number of survivors as
> trash.
Their only failing was leaving survivors.
>
> The australian aborigines have a culture about 60,000 years old.
> They never needed to invent the wheel.
>
> I doubt the modern Oz culture will last 60,000 years.
The abbos in Australia formed the ragged trailing edge of what could
be called a human culture. Sixty thousand years and they went nowhere.
I have more respect for mountain gorillas.
Peter Wieck
> I have more respect for mountain gorillas.
As your continued and repeated fantasy as stated in this venue is
"wild monkey sex", that is no surprise at all.
It seems like the world has not treated you well... Whose fault is
that? The world owes you nothing at all, not one single damned thing,
not even e breath of fresh air. What you make of your poor, bitter,
spavined and benighted little life is entirely of your own efforts...
no more, no less.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Patrick Turner
Japanese culture has remained the same since Hiroshima.
OK, a war was lost, but so what. When Japan got busy, they
won later with Toyotas.
>
> > Bombing countries in the ME won't change much either, and nor will
> > pure diplomacy.
> >
> > I should not say much more; its a grup for tubes, not politics,
> > and certainly not the right place to review a book of bullshit about the
> > national
> > personal characteristics of any nation.
> >
> > China may seem a bit backward, or bad, inferior even, but average wages
> > are $2 per hour,
> > and they slave their guts out to give us their product at cheap prices.
>
> And put us out of what were good jobs.
But americans don't care about each others jobs; they just buy what's
cheap,
and too bad if Joe loses his job because everyone swings to buying a
Toyota
instead of a Ford. Or a Samsung instead of a GE.
Cheap imports raised standards of living without paying huge prices for
US made goods.
There are more consumers of goods than makers, and the comsumers win,
makers lose.
Look what you pay for a WE 300B made in the US.
Its a ridiculous price.
We have had the same revolution here.
Tariff walls had been used to protect Oz jobs and ensure
massively inefficient production of radios and TV sets continued.
A succession of Labour and conservative Liberal governments
have worked to reduce tarriffs on imports which gave everyone a chance
to buy
cheap goods.
Then had money left over for houses and other things that could not be
imported.
More people voted for the reforms to the economy than those voting to
save their jobs.
So where the "good jobs" are lost, blame other citizens for it because
your democracy let it all happen.
>
> > They do what we can't or won't.
> > Take a real good look at our own culture and history,
> > there is a lot of shit to be found.
>
> I wish the Chinese all the happiness in the world-in China. I'm not
> opposed to Chinese products being sold here-IF they are tariffed to
> make them cost as much as US goods because of no environmental
> controls, worker safety, product liability, and a non-market party
> artificial low wage.
You will NEVER see high tarrifs again.
Too many people make money from the non tarriffed low cost of production
imports.
Jolida get their amps made in China for $200, then you see them for
$3,500 in hi-fi shops here.
Nobody here seems able to produce the same amp and use the shops to sell
them
for the same price and make a profit.
The shop take is 50%, $1,750, and the US partner of the US-china venture
makes a huge profit.
A high tarriff would spoil this cozy little rip off, and the anti
tarriff ppl
won't allow tariffs to returns because the price of goods would rise
alarmingly.
A Jolida would go maybe to $7,000. You'd never ever sell one.
> $29 DVD players and cellphones are a CURSE on US as a people, not a
> blessing. And on yours as well.
BS. the cheap player and phone promote sales on other things.
Don't you undertsand that DEMAND is an unlimited quantity?
If you gave everyone free electricty, petrol for their cars, and
for their food, they'd just spend furiously on all the other things
money can buy.
Since when was the US ever any good at making phones and DVD players?
Oz is a nation of clumsies, and DVD players and phones are not able to
be made by anyone here.
These items are all dirt cheap because NO human labour is used much to
make them.
Long gone are the crowds of girls soldering stuff in vast factory rooms;
everything CANNOT be made this way now and can only be made by robots
and wave soldering
in automated processes doen by machines which have a few computers in
control and a
few folks to make sure the machines all work and the girls just put the
labels on them and
maybe back them for export.
> >
> > Nobody has a monopoly on being the
> > best people in the world.
> >
> > I enjoy books which balance american arrogance titled
> > Ways That are Dark: The Truth About America.
>
> The original Americans of 1780 were the BEST people that ever lived.
> Most had been here for four or five generations. Washington, Hamilton,
> Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Andrew Jackson, they were humanity at its
> peak. After the US Civil War it was downhill from there. We are a
> degenerate nation now.
A study of history reveal every generation has had a similar proportion
of
rogues and saints.
Claims that there was a golden time in a nations history where people
behaved well
and better than now are all usually sentimental bullshit.
1780 to 1865 wasn't a particularly fine time to be around if you were a
black slave or
an american indian.
>
> >
> > And when Oz politicians criticize regimes which treat their
> > people badly, they should remember how the natives here
> > were dispossed of their nation by shooting parties on sunday,
> > poisenings of the water holes, and the spread of western diseases,
> > and the subsequent treatment of the small number of survivors as
> > trash.
>
> Their only failing was leaving survivors.
My, my, you do have such a wonderful sense of social justice don't you.
Just let me say its no wonder the US flag is burned and trampled
underfoot
in so many countries around the globe.
> >
> > The australian aborigines have a culture about 60,000 years old.
> > They never needed to invent the wheel.
> >
> > I doubt the modern Oz culture will last 60,000 years.
>
> The abbos in Australia formed the ragged trailing edge of what could
> be called a human culture. Sixty thousand years and they went nowhere.
> I have more respect for mountain gorillas.
Had they "gone somewhere" and invented the technology we have now say
50,000 years ago
after being here for 10,000 years, the world would have become a very
different place,
and one where all the problems brought by the "getting to somewhere"
would have by now rendered the
whole world into desert with carparks, empty acidic oceans and not much
else apart from hot air.
Our constant reliance on technology and the techno fix while generating
more and more pollution and rape of the environment will ruin Earth.
Its a case of going for too much of a good thing.
I suspect the animals at local hogfarm near you have a deeper
understanding
of the culture of surviving well without technology than the Brets of
this world who
champion the use of A weapons to change something, and like seeing
"inferior" peoples and cultures entirely exterminated.
Perhaps you should sit down and discuss your views with some of our
local natives,
and compare what you hear with similar conversations you could have with
some american
indians.
Don't forget to drop into Japan on your way around, and talk to them
about Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, and then spend a week with Iraqi locals outside the
Greenzone in Bagdad.
You need education. And travel is a wonderful educator.
There are a few agent orange affected ppl in Vietnam who could complete
your tour of social engagements nicely.
Just watch out some of these people don't see you as being "inferior"
and
wish to see you be exterminated.
Patrick Turner.
Dersu Uzala
>> The australian aborigines have a culture about 60,000 years old.
>> They never needed to invent the wheel.
>>
>> I doubt the modern Oz culture will last 60,000 years.
>
> The abbos in Australia formed the ragged trailing edge of what could
>be called a human culture. Sixty thousand years and they went nowhere.
>I have more respect for mountain gorillas.
>
Here's a test. You and an aboriginal strip naked, and walk into the bush.
Try to survive on your wits and knowledge of the environment. Let's see who
does best.
bassett
"Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote in message .
now we all know why so fucked in the head turner, You really should
get out more.
You have no bloody idea about anything, or how to live and derive
the most enjoyment out of life. It's a good bet, you can't remember
when you had a good laugh last.
And what's this rubbish got to do with RAT, your posting off-topic
again turner, Which means if you can do it, So can everyone else, Not
that you ever had a say in the first place.
bassett
bassett
"Dersu Uzala" <no...@isp.com> wrote in message news:-
>
> Here's a test. You and an aboriginal strip naked, and walk into the bush.
> Try to survive on your wits and knowledge of the environment. Let's see
> who
> does best.
>
It's dead easy, Phone for a cab, to take you to the Coon board,
they will pick up the cab fare for you, ask for assistance and before
you know it, you'll have a nice brick home, a new landcruiser, and an
assisted pension, plus all the time in ther world to tell everyone just
how bad off you are. While your running up a Tab, at the bottle shop.
Where'as a white bloke walks into town, gets sent to the centerlink
office, is retrained into a job, that doesn't exist, gets fuck all
assistance, then has to walk home, to his humpy in the bush.
And at the end of the day the coon's whiter then you are, but he had a
long lost Uncle who was half coon, so that's all right.
Turners friend,
bassett
Patrick Turner
I couldn't last a day in the bush or let alone in central Oz in the
desert.
But then indigenous australians secumb all too readily to
the booze and have appalling health and life expectancy.
They often cannot fit into western city life, and
some at least seemed so determined to be so feckless that its despairing
to witness them.
If your'e black, get back, if brown, stick around, if white, you
alright.
Racism is alive and well in Oz.
There are some very successful natives here, and some whose
attempt at life is a flop.
But then amoung the whites its much the same......
Patrick Turner.
Iain Churches
Patrick wrote to Brett:
> You need education. And travel is a wonderful educator.
> There are a few agent orange affected ppl in Vietnam who could complete
> your tour of social engagements nicely.
>
> Just watch out some of these people don't see you as being "inferior"
> and
> wish to see you be exterminated.
>
> Patrick Turner.
Patrick. I was in Vietnam last winter, and spend some time in
Hi Chi Minh City (Saigon). A visit to the War Museum is a must.
They have a very large number of US fighter planes,
recognisance planes, helicopters, and artillery pieces which
were captured by the Vietcong.
There was a gallery of press photos, some of which made
western visitors weep. Little children being dragged by
their feet behind US armoured personnel carriers to help
jog their memories as to the location of VC hideouts.
I stood very silent looking at these pictures, and a tall
Dutch guy standing next to me said softly in English,
"I thank God I am not an American"
Patrick Turner
The US is a huge country which has a very widely varying population.
It seemed to have no trouble fielding an army of up to 500,000 men
to a country which did not deserve any assistance.
Less folks would have dies if they just left the Viets alone to fight
there own civil war.
Would the carnage have been larger if the poms had helped one side in
the
American Civil War, where a million men perished?
Lord Valve once said the US won in Vietnam, because we killed 3 million
gooks,
and we lost only 50,000.
I've met plenty who wanted to put an H bomb on Hanoi.
The US fielded an army or "interferesta" in south america to topple many
regimes who were good for the people,
but bad for US business.
The arrogance of the military adventurism of those in the US who are
into that sort of thing
is massive. They can't undertsand why they are hated....
All the same old sins are being committed in Iraq.
Any opposition to occupation is labelled as terrorism, but the Sunnis
have been pushed into a corner,
and have nothing to lose by pounding the US on its nose, and biting its
arse
with roadside devices.
Its all going to fail in Iraq.
A US general was quoted in saying they'd have to keep soldiers there for
many years,
like in Korea.
But I think the US people won't have a bar of that.
The US people are now saying "we want a solution NOW, so do the job you
said you were gunna do, then get out".
The Iraq adventure didn't buy anything for the US taxpayer who funded
it.
It was supposed to cost 5 billion, and take about 2 months to win, but
500 billion
and 4 years later, and there's nothing to show for it,
except maybe another 500 billion fee for deepening the quagmire over the
next 3 years.
The military always claims it wasn't given enough men or materials or
time.
Same old crap. I don't think the men on the ground in Iraq want to fight
the fight.
With an average of 3.3 guys killed each day, they'd be huddling down in
fear.
Just hanging around bored.
And when they step out to do something, and ram raid some poor household
and
rampage around looking for weapons, or some insurgent, and kill a few
inocents,
and leave a huge mess behind them, how many friends do they win amoung
the locals? ZERO.
But many more US men are maimed and ruined for life who don't appear in
the newspapers.
In about 20 years, there will be a large number of cancers in soldiers
from breathing
depleted uranium dust blowing around everywhere where DU munitions have
been used.
2 million Iraqis have fled their country, and thousands have perished
needlessly.
It would have been better to have left Saddam there. He was quite
harmless,
and unable to be much of a threat to anyone. Sure he was an arsole.
But there is no shortage of arsoles running nations all around the
world.
We have funded and assisted lots of them, like we funded and assisted
Saddam.
The Australian Wheat Board paid Saddam $300 millions in "transport
fees", ie, kick backs
over wheat sales while we planned to be an ally to the US invasion. It
was a shameful scandal here
when the public found out about it. That sum of money buys a lot of
AK47.
Arsoles grow old and die in the fullness of time, or in coups, or a stab
in the back, whatever,
and are replaced by other arsoles, and sure enough
there will be arsoles wanting to grab power when the US leaves Iraq
soon, as it must.
The US teaches us "democracy grows from the barrel of a gun", and its
the same message as from
China's Mao, who the US despised and hated, and for good reason because
Mao presided over 70 million
deaths of his own ppl to "make China a nation".
We didn't stop Mao though. Invading China wouldn't put a jewel in
anyone's crown.
We only hang the weak arsoles with countries worth stealing for the
resources we want.
Iran is the only "winner" in all of this, but they too have a paper army
which isn't a threat. They probably will make a Bomb for themselves, and
this is a worry,
and so what grandiose bungle will the US perform to counter this threat?
Wartime follies look set to continue on the ME stage for some time, at
least until the oil runs dry,
and then the US won't care a fuck about anything in the ME.
I think the arsoles in Washington think "well if 500,000 Iranians die
if we bomb them to stop them building a real Bomb then so be it; we've
told them what would happen
if they went along with their government."
Millions of japanese "went along with" their government so we fire
bombed dozens of their cities
and burned them alive. Only an arsole can command and devise the means
to do it all so efficiently.
The japs seemed to "get over it". But the ME isn't so forgiving.
Nothing will be won, ever, the culture of revenge is not one which will
change just because the US snaps its fingers,
and bombs, diplomacy, or puppet governments will NOT bring lasting
democracy to Iraq.
Habits that are 10,000 years old can't easily be changed.
The US would probably have to liquidate the whole population to "win"
there, ie,
make all the streets safe and countryside quite safe to conduct oil
extractions without
security forces being needed at all.
Someone said the US does not depend heavily on ME oil, and so why bother
funding an army and putting it there to be shot at by the angry locals?
The large majority Shiites have plenty of resources to win a civil war
if they want to,
and should be left alone to get on with it.
If they lose to the minority Sunni, then so be it.
But the oil is what keeps the US there; its a glittering prize worth 3.3
US soldiers dying daily,
plus the 100 million bucks expense.
As I said, the road and gun death toll in the US is what kills many many
more,
not to mention tobacco and alcohol, heart disease and all other causes.
Its an easy lazy society that don't mind ppl dying; its inevitable
anyway.
Even the rich and wealthy die. They try to make other folks die sooner
than them.
Whats a few soldiers? The expense on Iraq of 33cents a day for each of
the 300million ppl in the US
makes the Iraq war very cheap indeed. Its really difficult to make ppl
grumble very much
if they get swindled out of 33c. If 33c becomes $3.30, grumbling rises
20dB, and goverments
have no chance at the ballot box. If the expense rises to $33.00, you
will see angry mobs in the streets,
and they'll personally burn down the White house and lynch the
President.
The greenhouse problem probably will cost everyone at least $3.30 a day
to fix, so expect loud grumbles.
Average wages here in Oz are now $44,000 per anum, ( USD $35,000 ),
or USD $96 per day.
Probably US wages are higher than Oz wages, but finding 3% of them to
fix greenhouse is possible.
If we found another 7% to fix other problems in the world, AND reduced
arms spending by -20dB,
we'd have friends all around the world.
Meanwhile Osama runs free somewhere, and is a real hero for millions of
muslims......
I am no fan of Osama. But I can see why many like him. There should not
be any reason for it.
I prefer my intersts being tube orientated, as there is little I can do
to change the world
and can only try to understand it.
Patrick Turner.
bassett
Once again mother turner has no fuck'in idea what he is talking about.
But he wastes considerable bandwidth posting off topic in a pathetic
attempt to convince people he does
get out more turner and get a life. bassett
bassett
"Iain Churches" <taelN...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:pcj9i.174223$qA4.1...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
Yes and me and some of my mates where there in 65, 66 and 67, and not
as a bloody visitor. We had no choice.
But let me tell you a 10 year old can kill, just as well with a
bomb, as an adult, or a 12 year old girl can suck dick with mouth
syphilis, just as easy as a 18 year old can fuck you to death. As
for what the yanks did, Would you like me to detail what the VC
did with slivers of bamboo.
You have no fuck'in idea about anything, so shut the fuck up.
Only those that walked out of Nu'e dat, don't need to remember.
bassett
Ian Iveson
> Yes and me and some of my mates where there in 65, 66 and 67,
> and not as a bloody visitor. We had no choice.
No choice? Are you from the US? How come you had no choice?
Ian
Peter Wieck
wrote:
The US still had the draft back then, Basset was unmarried and/or
childless, over 18, not in college, did not have any of the (few)
specific skills that would have gotten him to other posts, did not
enlist in "safer" services such as the Navy or the Air Force, and
could not get a Coast Guard posting and was not a conscientious
objector, did not have an "exempt" job (police/fire and similar), and
was not physically or mentally unfit for service.
Many tens of thousands similar also had "no choice" in the matter at
the time.
Apart from his politics, which are not mine, he is absolutely
accurate in that statement. This is also a country (the US) where
individuals are entited to have (and state) their opinions whether or
not they might be popular, accurate or even sane. We (try to anyway)
keep our fruits and nuts (and not even implying that Bassett is such,
this is a general statement) out in the open where they may be seen
for what they are... the alternative is to drive them underground
where they become cancers and dangerous. Better a few idiots marching
around (in circles) in jackboots and swastikas, or pointy-headed white
robes, or burning a few flags here and there than the nearly
inevitable results of suppression and oppression as constantly proven
out by historical experience.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Ian Iveson
>> > Yes and me and some of my mates where there in 65, 66 and
>> > 67,
>> > and not as a bloody visitor. We had no choice.
>>
>> No choice? Are you from the US? How come you had no choice?
>
Partly this hangs on your definition of "conscientious objector". Did
ppl choose to be such, or was the decision forced on them? How did ppl
qualify? At a guess they would have had to provide evidence of prior
commitment? That is, they had already made their choice before that
particular conscription became an issue.
Partly it hangs on the definition of "choice" which, like "freedom",
is tricky. An Iranian Shi'ite cleric might argue, after Sartre, that
"I had no choice" should be translated as "I had the choice to die
instead, but to my shame I chose to live".
Didn't those pointy hats kill people?
I heard that communists don't get the same freedom as the pointy hats.
Why is that? What about Islamic "fundamentalists"? What about all the
poor people who don't have the freedom to buy things? etc.
cheers, Ian
Peter Wieck
On Jun 6, 11:28 am, "Ian Iveson" <IanIveson.h...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
> Partly this hangs on your definition of "conscientious objector". Did
> ppl choose to be such, or was the decision forced on them? How did ppl
> qualify? At a guess they would have had to provide evidence of prior
> commitment? That is, they had already made their choice before that
> particular conscription became an issue.
Yes, of course. Converts-by-convenience got short shrift. However,
even those could get non-armed status positions, but would see
combat... medics, chaplins (if qualified), and such. Just as dangerous
in many cases, but they did not have to carry or use firearms. This is
still possible for those who wish it... not commonly known but
possible.
> Partly it hangs on the definition of "choice" which, like "freedom",
> is tricky. An Iranian Shi'ite cleric might argue, after Sartre, that
> "I had no choice" should be translated as "I had the choice to die
> instead, but to my shame I chose to live".
Mpfffff.... sure. But belief, principle and survival are often all-
three-mutually exclusive. Since when is this unexpected?
> Didn't those pointy hats kill people?
Have and on rare occasions still do. But for the most part, if they
are allowed to ventilate and potificate and blather without too much
interference, they are relatively harmless as compared to their state
when driven underground.
> I heard that communists don't get the same freedom as the pointy hats.
> Why is that? What about Islamic "fundamentalists"? What about all the
> poor people who don't have the freedom to buy things? etc.
Mpffff... again.
Of course there are variations in perception and in reality and in
practice. Whether the general process is capitalistic, socialist or
communist or any other -ist, it is a brutal fact that the Shortages
are always divided amongst the peasants. And were Islamic
fundamentists to march openly in public, along side the Communists,
Socialists, Nazis, Greenpeace and so forth, they would instantly
become known quantities... and there is nothing like being a 'known
quantity' to put a crimp in one's terroristic creepers.
See it as "voting blocks" and you will understand it more clearly.
There is a commonly applied formula within congressional staffers that
every hand-written letter (typed even but hand-signed, hand-addressed
and stamped) represents 100 people of similar thought. And every
machine-letter (download this tripe and write your congressman such as
many political groups (NRA, Sierra Club, so forth)) represents 10
people of similar thought. So, if a group can get 100 marchers to
carry signs, they represent a much larger actual undercurrent. People
pay attention.
The system ain't nohow perfect. But it does more-or-less work...
unless and until there are pressures that drive such activities
underground. And *that* is where the danger begins. And that is
something that is clearly not understood by the present administration
here in the US... imagine missing over 200 years of history and what
it might teach. So sad.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
bassett
"Ian Iveson" <IanIves...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:doA9i.107428$Ug.1...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Here's another no nothing cock sucker expert, shut the fuck up
"sunshine" you have no fuck'in idea about it, Most likely you were
still sucking your mommies Tit, at the time.
As you where told, people had no choice, you got 6 weeks basic
training, given a gun, and off you went, and yes you did shit
yourself. and one of two things happened to you. You ether got your
guts blown out, or you came home, and got treated like a fuck'in
criminal for the next 20 years, rejected by society, treated like shit
by the government, denied veteran status, and it's only been in the last
few years allowed to march on ANZAC day. Which most of us don't,
as you ether move on or book yourself into a cyco center, if you
haven't jumped out of a window
bassett
bassett
"Peter Wieck" <pf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1181138426.9...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
With the Aussie draft, if your birthday date came up in the ballet
you where in regardless of your status , qualifications , or anything
else. This also applied to anyone who emigrated,
Unfortunatly,, there will always be experts who knew what it was all
about, can argue the why's and wherefore's. and never where involved,
and would shit themselves if they where. and yes these people do piss
me off.. As I said, those that where there don't talk about it
bassett
Bret Ludwig
>
> Had they "gone somewhere" and invented the technology we have now say
> 50,000 years ago
> after being here for 10,000 years, the world would have become a very
> different place,
> and one where all the problems brought by the "getting to somewhere"
> would have by now rendered the
> whole world into desert with carparks, empty acidic oceans and not much
> else apart from hot air.
>
> Our constant reliance on technology and the techno fix while generating
> more and more pollution and rape of the environment will ruin Earth.
> Its a case of going for too much of a good thing.
I think that's largely ecotwaddle.
>
> I suspect the animals at local hogfarm near you have a deeper
> understanding
> of the culture of surviving well without technology than the Brets of
> this world who
> champion the use of A weapons to change something, and like seeing
> "inferior" peoples and cultures entirely exterminated.
> Perhaps you should sit down and discuss your views with some of our
> local natives,
> and compare what you hear with similar conversations you could have with
> some american
> indians.
Most aren't too good at conversation. I know from experience.
My brother married one.
> Don't forget to drop into Japan on your way around, and talk to them
> about Hiroshima
> and Nagasaki,
If they hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor there'd have been no nagasaki,
Hiroshima or worst of all the Tokyo firebombing.
and then spend a week with Iraqi locals outside the
> Greenzone in Bagdad.
> You need education. And travel is a wonderful educator.
> There are a few agent orange affected ppl in Vietnam who could complete
> your tour of social engagements nicely.
Yes, and affected US vets as well-and their children, a lot of which
had birth defects. You don't see the birth defects so much in Vietnam
as they were killed at birth.
>
> Just watch out some of these people don't see you as being "inferior"
> and
> wish to see you be exterminated.
It's too late: if you are white, you are a member of a small minority
which will be hated by large percentages of everyone else no matter
what you do: in fact, the more you try to curry their favor the more
they will hate you.
Bret Ludwig
> There was a gallery of press photos, some of which made
> western visitors weep. Little children being dragged by
> their feet behind US armoured personnel carriers to help
> jog their memories as to the location of VC hideouts.
> I stood very silent looking at these pictures, and a tall
> Dutch guy standing next to me said softly in English,
> "I thank God I am not an American"
We're grateful he isn't also.
Bret Ludwig
> Note the interpolations:
>
> On Jun 6, 11:28 am, "Ian Iveson" <IanIveson.h...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > Partly this hangs on your definition of "conscientious objector". Did
> > ppl choose to be such, or was the decision forced on them? How did ppl
> > qualify? At a guess they would have had to provide evidence of prior
> > commitment? That is, they had already made their choice before that
> > particular conscription became an issue.
>
> Yes, of course. Converts-by-convenience got short shrift. However,
> even those could get non-armed status positions, but would see
> combat... medics, chaplins (if qualified), and such. Just as dangerous
> in many cases, but they did not have to carry or use firearms. This is
> still possible for those who wish it... not commonly known but
> possible.
>
Most men in the US Army in Vietnam joined.
If you REALLY wanted out of the draft it was usually not that tough
to beat. Any book on the biography of US rock stars will show most of
the males beat the draft one way or another and without a lot of
thought. iggy Pop, Ted Nugent, Bruce Springsteen come quickly to
mind. The worst case scenario was a two year prison sentence and you
had to work real hard to get it: nearly every single man sentenced was
someone publicly defying orders to report and acting in a way making
it easy for him to be arrested, for publicity purposes.
One of my co-workers was drafted and after boot camp went home on
leave and never came back. A local radical priest got him a birth
cert in a new name, he went to the classification center AGAIN, told
them he was homosexual and had urges to commit indecent acts with
schoolboys, they gave him a 4-F and he got a job. After the Carter
amnesty he went back to his old name and never heard from anyone about
it.
Up until '68 or so, and in some places all the way almost to the end,
the Vietnam War was not that unpopular with most Americans. And
indeed, had we fought it like a war and not a bobbysoxer riot at a
WWII Sinatra show, we'd have had tanks in Hanoi by Christmas '68.
And yes, while I wasn't old enough to be drafted, I was old enough to
know what was going on.
west
You must be a social Darwinist. Tell that to someone who is born with a
handicap or for that matter to a family of a wounded or dead soldier. OTOH
some people are born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Obviously, your
philosophy is flawed as usual. Why does that not surprise me?
west
>
Peter Wieck
> "Peter Wieck" <p...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
west (and what is your real name?):
You are being particularly stupid today. Why does that not surprise
me?
In point-of-fact, the world owes no one anything. Not the least little
thing. However, some are dealt good hands, some poor hands. It is what
one makes of them that separates the wests and the Brets.... those
that leave the world worse for their passing from those that leave the
world better for it. Stephen Hawking was dealt a difficult hand. But
he carves his place in the world by pure effort and has learned to
love it and himself, just for one example. I seriously doubt if he
ever allowed or allows himself the self-pity that you and Bret hold as
a core-value.
Writing for myself, I have been earning my own living of necessity
since I was 19, and both my parents died before I was 22. But for all
of that, I have never missed a meal except by choice, never slept
anywhere except by choice and I have always had choices. Neither of my
parents spoke English as a first language, if there is one thing I
learned from them, it is that self-pity, whining and bitching about
the world and its complete and total ignorance of our personal needs
is at the very least non-productive.
So, let's consider the family of an individual killed in combat.... or
killed by cancer, accident, crime, all/any of the above. The social
contract requires society to care for these individuals to the extent
possible, but it also requires that they take care of themselves to
the extent possible. "From each according to abilities, to each
according to needs" is not just some flip remark by Karl Marx but a
pretty clear statement (back in 1875, no less) of social strictures
and the absolute responsibility of every individual to return to
society what is within their ability. Only then may they take what
they need. Put in a less inflammatory way, priviledge carries
responsibility. Great priviledge carries great responsibility.
As to 'Darwinism' (social or otherwise) even the likes of you must
know that evolution (social or otherwise) stops in any meaningful way
the moment society gathers. It may become more-so, but the moment the
sick, maimed, damaged or senile are protected, the potential for
significant growth ceases entirely. This is not necessarily a bad
thing, and it leads to other sorts of progress but as far as the
species and the social order is concerned, we are at the end of the
line as a natural progression. Further changes will be engineered
directly if the rest of society permits it. Historical events suggest
that the Social Order resists such engineering. And usually such
resistance takes the form of culling the strongest and most fit out of
the ranks... those most likely to attempt to effect actual change.
The world changes. Inevitably, inexorably, mercilessly, inattentively.
The nanosecond we feel sorry for ourselves, we are essentially dead
meat as far as it is concerned (or unconcerned as it is in reality).
You and Bret appear to spend a great deal of time feeling sorry for
yourselves. Get over it. You will be happier creatures for it.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Andre Jute
flipper wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 04:10:28 -0700, Peter Wieck <pf...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 8, 12:41 am, "west" <nos...@gte.net> wrote:
> >> "Peter Wieck" <p...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> news:1181008824.3...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> > On Jun 4, 7:42 pm, Bret Ludwig <bretld...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > I have more respect for mountain gorillas.
> >>
> >> > As your continued and repeated fantasy as stated in this venue is
> >> > "wild monkey sex", that is no surprise at all.
Looks like Worthless Wieckless has "wild monkey sex" on the brain.
Perhaps he would care to tell us what it is and how he thinks an ugly
old clown like him would appear if he should ever discover a woman
foolish enough to indulge in "wild monkey sex" with him.
In one of my professions we automatically assume that anyone who talks
so much about sex, with monkeys or anyone or anything else, isn't
getting any. We are rarely wrong in this assumption.
> It's interesting that you quote Marx for this because that isn't, at
> all, what it means. There is no 'connection' whatsoever between the
> 'obligation' to society vs 'privilege', needs, or anything else. (In
> fact, 'privilege' would be an oxymoron as there, supposedly anyway, is
> none).
>
> "Each according to abilities" goes *entirely* to the 'collective',
> regardless of what one receives from it, and the 'collective' provides
> for "each according to needs" (as determined by the collective),
> regardless of the contribution.
>
> A Marxist 'collective' also has a tendency to decide for the
> individual what their 'abilities' are and how they best serve the
> 'collective' and, so, dictate what the 'contribution' should be.
> Again, independent of any 'received needs'. The 'obligation' is
> absolute.
>
> So there is no "take care of themselves to the extent possible." The
> 'collective' does the 'taking care', at the cost of total subservience
> to the 'collective.
>
> That's also why it doesn't work as there is a total disconnect between
> expended effort and benefit.
This sort of pompous, total ignorance is commonplace from Worthless
Wieckless but in this instance more than usually ironic because it was
Worthless who changed the thread name to include the words "and west's
Massive Ignorance", complete with the illiterate capital initials. Now
the massive ignorance of Dickless himself is exposed. Unlike Dickless,
I have always believed in natural justice, and once more my belief is
vindicated.
> >As to 'Darwinism' (social or otherwise) even the likes of you must
> >know that evolution (social or otherwise) stops in any meaningful way
> >the moment society gathers.
>
> You must mean 'natural' evolution since society does 'evolve'.
Not to mention that Wieckless hasn't grasped that "*social* Darwinism"
is entirely a political construct, completely manmade. But I have
concluded that even these large distinctions are too subtle for
Worthless to grasp. He'd rather strike postures than listen and study
to improve the appalling crudity of his mind and the lacunae in what
one might laughlingly refer to as his "education"; that fitted him to
be a jumped-up janitor and one cannot blame teachers who failed to
foresee that the internet would empower even fools like Worthless in
the same way as his much more intelligent morally valuable bretheren
-- only to multiply and enlarge opportunities for him to make a fool
of himself.
There's more pompously overblown ignorance and misunderstanding below,
but why bother with layered additional proof when we have so much
already?
Andre Jute
No real corpses were harmed in the assembly of my golem Worthless
Wieckless -- CE Statement of Conformity
Andre Jute
> >> "Peter Wieck" <p...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> news:1181008824.3...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> > On Jun 4, 7:42 pm, Bret Ludwig <bretld...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > I have more respect for mountain gorillas.
> >>
> >> > As your continued and repeated fantasy as stated in this venue is
> >> > "wild monkey sex", that is no surprise at all.
Looks like Worthless Wieckless has "wild monkey sex" on the brain.
Perhaps he would care to tell us what it is and how he thinks an ugly
old clown like him would appear if he should ever discover a woman
foolish enough to indulge in "wild monkey sex" with him.
In one of my professions we automatically assume that anyone who talks
so much about sex, with monkeys or anyone or anything else, isn't
getting any. We are rarely wrong in this assumption.
> >> > It seems like the world has not treated you well... Whose fault is
> >As to 'Darwinism' (social or otherwise) even the likes of you must
> >know that evolution (social or otherwise) stops in any meaningful way
> >the moment society gathers.
>
> You must mean 'natural' evolution since society does 'evolve'.
Not to mention that Wieckless hasn't grasped that "*social* Darwinism"
is entirely a political construct, completely manmade. But I have
concluded that even these large distinctions are too subtle for
Worthless to grasp. He'd rather strike postures than listen and study
to improve the appalling crudity of his mind and the lacunae in what
one might laughlingly refer to as his "education"; that fitted him to
be a jumped-up janitor and one cannot blame teachers who failed to
foresee that the internet would empower even fools like Worthless in
the same way as his much more intelligent morally valuable bretheren
-- only to multiply and enlarge opportunities for him to make a fool
of himself.
There's more pompously overblown ignorance and misunderstanding below,
but why bother with layered additional proof when we have so much
already?
Andre Jute
No real corpses were harmed in the assembly of my golem Worthless
Wieckless -- CE Statement of Conformity
> > It may become more-so, but the moment the
> >sick, maimed, damaged or senile are protected, the potential for
> >significant growth ceases entirely. This is not necessarily a bad
> >thing, and it leads to other sorts of progress but as far as the
> >species and the social order is concerned, we are at the end of the
> >line as a natural progression. Further changes will be engineered
> >directly if the rest of society permits it. Historical events suggest
> >that the Social Order resists such engineering. And usually such
> >resistance takes the form of culling the strongest and most fit out of
> >the ranks... those most likely to attempt to effect actual change.
> >
> >The world changes. Inevitably, inexorably, mercilessly, inattentively.
> >The nanosecond we feel sorry for ourselves, we are essentially dead
> >meat as far as it is concerned (or unconcerned as it is in reality).
> >You and Bret appear to spend a great deal of time feeling sorry for
> >yourselves. Get over it. You will be happier creatures for it.
> >
> >Peter Wieck
> >Wyncote, PA
PS. I feel for the embarrassment of Wyncote, PA, at having such a fool
so visibly resident in virtual space.
Peter Wieck
On Jun 8, 4:13 pm, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
> It's interesting that you quote Marx for this because that isn't, at
> all, what it means. There is no 'connection' whatsoever between the
> 'obligation' to society vs 'privilege', needs, or anything else. (In
> fact, 'privilege' would be an oxymoron as there, supposedly anyway, is
> none).
I am not quoting Marx. He was quoting Louis Blanc, who first used the
phrase in 1840 as a revision writings by Henri de Saint Simon who
stated that each should be *rewarded according to how much they work*.
The Blanc paraphrase in common currency in the late 1800s was co-opted
by Marx to mean a communistic subservience to the "collective".... not
just a flip remark by Karl Marx in 1875... I was hoping someone would
look further into it, and hence also my restatement in "less
inflammatory terms"... And my appeal to west's vanity in calling him
'ignorant'.
> "Each according to abilities" goes *entirely* to the 'collective',
> regardless of what one receives from it, and the 'collective' provides
> for "each according to needs" (as determined by the collective),
> regardless of the contribution.
>
> A Marxist 'collective' also has a tendency to decide for the
> individual what their 'abilities' are and how they best serve the
> 'collective' and, so, dictate what the 'contribution' should be.
> Again, independent of any 'received needs'. The 'obligation' is
> absolute.
At no time was I suggesting or implying a Marxist 'collective', but
the social contract.
> So there is no "take care of themselves to the extent possible." The
> 'collective' does the 'taking care', at the cost of total subservience
> to the 'collective.
See above.
> That's also why it doesn't work as there is a total disconnect between
> expended effort and benefit.
Were that the point, absolutely correct. Communism has its deep,
abiding and incurable faults, amongst which is the almost complete
removal of incentive and personal responsibility... and part of the
undercurrent of my general rant on this subject. West is ignorant and
caught in the trap of self-pity. Bret is angry and caught in the trap
of self-pity. Either way it is sliced and diced, self-pity is entirely
non-productive. And either way it is sliced and diced, society without
a strong admixture of personal incentive and personal responsibility
will fail in the long run. And either way it is sliced and diced,
unless an individual both participates in society and also remains
responsible for his/her own condition to the extent possible the
results are entirely negative.
> >As to 'Darwinism' (social or otherwise) even the likes of you must
> >know that evolution (social or otherwise) stops in any meaningful way
> >the moment society gathers.
>
> You must mean 'natural' evolution since society does 'evolve'.
No. Society does not evolve once it is established. It may adapt to
momentary conditions and shifts in population, but "evolve", no not
hardly. Keep in mind one of my other adopted (from another source, not
mine) little phrases as it applies: The shortages will be divided
amongst the peasants.
Very rich societies (such as ours and most of the developed world (but
by no means all of it), can afford to have fairly liberal societal
standards. As wealth either becomes more concentrated into fewer hands
and/or is reduced overall, these standards begin to degrade and
change. At the ultimate base, each member of what remains sits on his/
her hoard of food in his/her poor shelter and protects it against all
comers. As wealth increases, such behavior decreases... but evolve?
No. The manifestations of behavior may become more sophisticated due
to technology, but evolve? No, not at all. Evolve = fundamental
changes such that a significant disruption to the environment will not
cause a change in behavior or a reversion-to-prior-type without a
corresponding change in generations. Many species that have "evolved"
to certain conditions fail entirely if those conditions change
suddenly on an evolutionary scale. Put another way, evolutionary
changes are hard-wired. Adaptations are not. It is convenient to
believe Society "evolves". And that belief is a necessary condition
for some political systems. But it ain't necessarily so.
Social Darwinism is almost, but not quite, a contradiction-in-terms
and also often taken for a certain type of ruthlessness. But Society
regularly culls elements that actually threaten genuine evolution/
revolution that might actually "take" in the true sense of the word
(become hard-wired). It's called War. And in this century alone the
world-wide results of war have killed, maimed and destroyed many, many
millions, mostly the young and fit, as well as destroyed many
'established' societies before any possibility of genuine "evolution"
could possibly take place. And it is continuing on a regular and
extensive basis.
Right now, the only possibility for true Social Evolution will involve
greater and greater levels of cooperation amongst the various social
elements world wide. Whether that is seen as "Globalization" or "World
Government" or some sort of collective gestalt, that requires a level
of individual cooperation that is simply not going to happen. So, if
we wish to maintain our personal and "Western (American)" collective
primacy, wealth and position, we had damned well better quit bitching
and get on with it. We need to be faster, better, brighter and more
intelligent than our world-neighbors, work harder, and smarter. We
need to be better educated and value that education, be willing to
invest much time and treasure into it and keep the system that
supports it strong, resilient and active. That does not happen by
sitting on our collective fundaments whining about cheap Chinese
labor. I choose not to live like a healthy Bolivian citizen (an
individual with about a 1:1 relationship to world collective wealth on
average vs. the average US citizen at 1:5). So it is incumbent upon me
to make that disparity work. Carping a bit... it does not happen by
bitching.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Peter Wieck
> That's one hell of a Texas Two Step around it but the fact of the
> matter is you explicitly said Marx, and not one blessed thing else in
> way of reference, and it's duplicitous pomposity to now claim someone
> should 'research' the entirety of 19'th century philosophical thought
> to 'uncover' what you now claim you 'meant'.
Not in the context of ignorance. West, twit that he is, claims the
opposite. So, it is incumbent upon him to refute the claim. That would
require thought and research... of which he is proven to be incapable.
Quoting Marx to a self-pitying fool is a red-flag to a bull (even
though they are color-blind). And putting it in "less inflammatory
terms" gives them a graceful way out if they are capable. Neither west
nor Bret are so-blessed.
I have no cares one way or the other about "social evolution"...
remember, I do not believe it to be possible. Adaptation sure.
Evolution, not at all.
Society has considerable defenses against the possibility of true
social evolution. So, whereas it may be possible in theory, some
100,000 years of history deny the actuality.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Peter Wieck
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 16:44:15 -0700, Peter Wieck <p...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 8, 5:49 pm, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
>
> >> That's one hell of a Texas Two Step around it but the fact of the
> >> matter is you explicitly said Marx, and not one blessed thing else in
> >> way of reference, and it's duplicitous pomposity to now claim someone
> >> should 'research' the entirety of 19'th century philosophical thought
> >> to 'uncover' what you now claim you 'meant'.
>
> >Not in the context of ignorance. West, twit that he is, claims the
> >opposite. So, it is incumbent upon him to refute the claim. That would
> >require thought and research... of which he is proven to be incapable.
>
> >Quoting Marx to a self-pitying fool is a red-flag to a bull (even
> >though they are color-blind). And putting it in "less inflammatory
> >terms" gives them a graceful way out if they are capable. Neither west
> >nor Bret are so-blessed.
>
>
> There's no excuse for not saying what you mean and doubly so for
> 'quotations' meaning the opposite.
>
> >I have no cares one way or the other about "social evolution"...
> >remember, I do not believe it to be possible. Adaptation sure.
> >Evolution, not at all.
>
> >Society has considerable defenses against the possibility of true
> >social evolution. So, whereas it may be possible in theory, some
> >100,000 years of history deny the actuality.
>
>
>
>
> >Peter Wieck
> >Wyncote, PA- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yikes.....
Let's take a tiny peak at the context here. West in his infinite
ignorance made the assertion that I was a "social Darwinist". Anyone
who uses such a specific term had damned well better understand its
origins, history and meaning. West does not. Apparently you do not
much either. That is neither here nor there, just a simple fact as
demonstrated herein. He is no more capable of understanding the term
"social Darwinism" as he is capable of understanding "triode noise"or
"shot effect" or "congestion". So, I give him an opening big enough
for the QE2, even you miss it.
And as, again, 100,000 years of "evolutionary thought" does not breed
true, society has not evolved in any discernable way as the slightest
disruption of it causes complete reversion to the most basic
behaviors.
Evolution is hard-wired. Thought, wishful thinking, even dreaming is
not.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Bret Ludwig
>>west
View profile
More options Jun 7, 11:41 pm
Newsgroups: rec.audio.tubes
From: "west" <nos...@gte.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 04:41:36 GMT
Local: Thurs, Jun 7 2007 11:41 pm
Subject: Re: Ways That are Dark: The Truth About China
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
"Peter Wieck" <p...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1181008824.3...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 4, 7:42 pm, Bret Ludwig <bretld...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I have more respect for mountain gorillas.
> As your continued and repeated fantasy as stated in this venue is
> "wild monkey sex", that is no surprise at all.
> It seems like the world has not treated you well... Whose fault is
> that? The world owes you nothing at all, not one single damned thing,
> not even e breath of fresh air. What you make of your poor, bitter,
> spavined and benighted little life is entirely of your own efforts...
> no more, no less.
> Peter Wieck
> Wyncote, PA
You must be a social Darwinist. Tell that to someone who is born with
a
handicap or for that matter to a family of a wounded or dead soldier.
OTOH
some people are born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Obviously,
your
philosophy is flawed as usual. Why does that not surprise me?
west
- Hide quoted text -<<
Actually, I am the Social Darwinist.
More precisely I am a Modified Social Darwinist: I support the
liberal mantra of burping, changing and feeding the woggies such as
can't hack it in Western Civ WITH the proviso, or actually two, that
they be prevented from breeding and that they have no say in the path
of society, so our political whores aren't pressured to act for their
benefit but for ours.
Disenfranchise and sterilize the low-IQ, the learning disabled, the
violent and the uncontrollably crooked or destructive. Give them
sheltered workshop jobs or let them amuse themselves in any
nondestructive way they wish.
Boot the steezers and any other unsuited-to-our-culture types like
the Somali Bantus, the Hmong, and suchlike. Allow in only a few
immigrants on a point system, openly weighted to favor Europeans.
And for Zeus' sake let's do something about do-gooding, which is a
very destructive thing indeed.
Revilo Oliver was possibly the smartest man of the Twentieth Century.
Read his comments on do-gooding carefully. They are all too correct.
Bret Ludwig
Reply Reply to author Forward Rate this post: Text for clearing
space
flipper
View profile
- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:59:22
-0700, Peter Wieck <p...@aol.com> wrote: >Note the interpolations: >On
Jun 8, 4:13 pm, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote: >> It's interesting
that you quote Marx for this because that isn't, at >> all, what it
means. There is no 'connection' whatsoever between the >> 'obligation'
to society vs 'privilege', needs, or anything else. (In >> fact,
'privilege' would be an oxymoron as there, supposedly anyway, is >>
none). >I am not quoting Marx. He was quoting Louis Blanc, who first
used the >phrase in 1840 as a revision writings by Henri de Saint
Simon who >stated that each should be *rewarded according to how much
they work*. >The Blanc paraphrase in common currency in the late 1800s
was co-opted >by Marx to mean a communistic subservience to the
"collective".... not >just a flip remark by Karl Marx in 1875... I was
hoping someone would >look further into it, and hence also my
restatement in "less >inflammatory terms"... And my appeal to west's
vanity in calling him >'ignorant'. That's one hell of a Texas Two Step
around it but the fact of the matter is you explicitly said Marx, and
not one blessed thing else in way of reference, and it's duplicitous
pomposity to now claim someone should 'research' the entirety of 19'th
century philosophical thought to 'uncover' what you now claim you
'meant'. If you 'meant' "rewarded according to how much they work"
then why the hell didn't you *use* that instead of quoting Marx? It
ain't the same words and it don't mean the same thing so get your
ducks in order before you start poking fingers. - Hide quoted text --
Show quoted text ->> "Each according to abilities" goes *entirely* to
the 'collective', >> regardless of what one receives from it, and the
'collective' provides >> for "each according to needs" (as determined
by the collective), >> regardless of the contribution. >> A Marxist
'collective' also has a tendency to decide for the >> individual what
their 'abilities' are and how they best serve the >> 'collective' and,
so, dictate what the 'contribution' should be. >> Again, independent
of any 'received needs'. The 'obligation' is >> absolute. >At no time
was I suggesting or implying a Marxist 'collective', but >the social
contract. >> So there is no "take care of themselves to the extent
possible." The >> 'collective' does the 'taking care', at the cost of
total subservience >> to the 'collective. >See above. >> That's also
why it doesn't work as there is a total disconnect between >> expended
effort and benefit. >Were that the point, absolutely correct.
Communism has its deep, >abiding and incurable faults, amongst which
is the almost complete >removal of incentive and personal
responsibility... and part of the >undercurrent of my general rant on
this subject. West is ignorant and >caught in the trap of self-pity.
Bret is angry and caught in the trap >of self-pity. Either way it is
sliced and diced, self-pity is entirely >non-productive. And either
way it is sliced and diced, society without >a strong admixture of
personal incentive and personal responsibility >will fail in the long
run. And either way it is sliced and diced, >unless an individual both
participates in society and also remains >responsible for his/her own
condition to the extent possible the >results are entirely negative.
>> >As to 'Darwinism' (social or otherwise) even the likes of you must
>> >know that evolution (social or otherwise) stops in any meaningful
way >> >the moment society gathers. >> You must mean 'natural'
evolution since society does 'evolve'. >No. Society does not evolve
once it is established. It may adapt to >momentary conditions and
shifts in population, but "evolve", no not >hardly. It may not evolve
in the direction you like and in the time frame you prefer but it does
evolve. - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -> Keep in mind one of
happen by >bitching. Talking about the 'possibilities' for social
evolution while denying social evolution is a direct contradiction. -
Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text ->Peter Wieck >Wyncote, PA
More options Jun 8, 5:49 pm
Newsgroups: rec.audio.tubes
From: flipper <flip...@fish.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:49:47 -0500
Local: Fri, Jun 8 2007 5:49 pm
Subject: Re: Ways That are Dark: The Truth About China and west's
Massive Ignorance
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
This message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Jun 15, 5:49 pm).
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:59:22 -0700, Peter Wieck <p...@aol.com> wrote:
>Note the interpolations:
>On Jun 8, 4:13 pm, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
>> It's interesting that you quote Marx for this because that isn't, at
>> all, what it means. There is no 'connection' whatsoever between the
>> 'obligation' to society vs 'privilege', needs, or anything else. (In
>> fact, 'privilege' would be an oxymoron as there, supposedly anyway, is
>> none).
>I am not quoting Marx. He was quoting Louis Blanc, who first used the
>phrase in 1840 as a revision writings by Henri de Saint Simon who
>stated that each should be *rewarded according to how much they work*.
>The Blanc paraphrase in common currency in the late 1800s was co-opted
>by Marx to mean a communistic subservience to the "collective".... not
>just a flip remark by Karl Marx in 1875... I was hoping someone would
>look further into it, and hence also my restatement in "less
>inflammatory terms"... And my appeal to west's vanity in calling him
>'ignorant'.
That's one hell of a Texas Two Step around it but the fact of the
matter is you explicitly said Marx, and not one blessed thing else in
way of reference, and it's duplicitous pomposity to now claim someone
should 'research' the entirety of 19'th century philosophical thought
to 'uncover' what you now claim you 'meant'.
If you 'meant' "rewarded according to how much they work" then why the
hell didn't you *use* that instead of quoting Marx?
It ain't the same words and it don't mean the same thing so get your
ducks in order before you start poking fingers.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>See above.
>> >As to 'Darwinism' (social or otherwise) even the likes of you must
>> >know that evolution (social or otherwise) stops in any meaningful way
>> >the moment society gathers.
>> You must mean 'natural' evolution since society does 'evolve'.
>No. Society does not evolve once it is established. It may adapt to
>momentary conditions and shifts in population, but "evolve", no not
>hardly.
It may not evolve in the direction you like and in the time frame you
prefer but it does evolve.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Talking about the 'possibilities' for social evolution while denying
social evolution is a direct contradiction.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>Peter Wieck
>Wyncote, PA
There was someone who posted here as "Ayn Marx" awhile back.
Marx and Rand were one, reversible shirt.
Patrick Turner
Baset is a universally and permanently disgruntled australian.
If he'd been to Vietnam as regular soldier or conscript,
he'd be full of negativity, but other guys who went just got over it.
Patrick Turner.
bassett
yeah right, Once again Mother turner talks about something he knows
nothing about,
let me tell you , most of the people that managed to come home are
on some sort of benifit, or medicatted in one form or another,
Some simply jumped of a roof.
And the small few that arn't simply get on with life, and forget
about it, Until some know all cock sucker starts to tell people
just how wonderful it was and what a lot of damage we did to the
place.
Once again mother turner demonstrates he knows fuck all about
anything, but the question should really be asked is, Which bed was
turner hiding under while all this was going on.
bassett
west
"Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181366026....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
can't remember at this time what you call something that's spelled the same
backwards).
Bret: "Disenfranchise and sterilize the, let's pick one of your categories
... Learning Disabled. Would you feel the same if your daughter or son fit
this category? You owe it to us to answer...please!.
west
>
>
west
"Iain Churches" <taelN...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:pcj9i.174223$qA4.1...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...> news:4664CCC1...@turneraudio.com.au...
>
>
> Patrick wrote to Brett:
>
> > You need education. And travel is a wonderful educator.
> > There are a few agent orange affected ppl in Vietnam who could complete
> > your tour of social engagements nicely.
> >
> > and
> > wish to see you be exterminated.
> >
>
> Patrick. I was in Vietnam last winter, and spend some time in
> Hi Chi Minh City (Saigon). A visit to the War Museum is a must.
> They have a very large number of US fighter planes,
> recognisance planes, helicopters, and artillery pieces which
> were captured by the Vietcong.
personally. First of all, was it an American driving that carrier or perhaps
a South Vietnam soldier.
Mainly I would like to ask you and most of your countrymen if you feel safer
knowing that the USA exists with the Soviet Union so close to your borders.
It seems everyone hates Americans until they need them. It certainly not a
popular position being the world's policeman.
>
>
>
>
Eeyore
west wrote:
> It seems everyone hates Americans until they need them. It certainly not a
> popular position being the world's policeman.
But the USA isn't a 'policeman'. The USA is very partial in its interventions.
In fact it only acts to protect its own supposed interests (yet does that rather
badly too).
Graham
bassett
"west" <nos...@gte.net> wrote in message news:xwlgi.2178$s%.1274@trnddc02...
Take no notice of Churches, he's crying through his arse again.. Knows
fuck all about the situation, while people where dying, He was still
sucking his mothers tit.
As for Agent orange, Yes a few people where affected, all the others
just died, as to the effects, who knows what they where, But good
people are still jumping out of windows, and babies are still being
born deformed. And in the end it proved nothing, except there having
an encore in Iraq, and the same thing will happen in 20 or 30 years time,
In fact it's happening now.
And another cock sucker like churches will be there proclaiming ,
just how bad it was simply because he was a fuck-in tourist, and
believed all the propaganda they waved in front of him.. All the crap
about kid's being dragged along behind a truck. What he total fails
to understand is one minute, your giving kid's candy ,and the next
there blowing you to bit's. Shame about the waste of candy. But
a bomb is a bomb, is a bomb. regardless of where you are..
Frankly , they should have gone in there and nuked the fuck-in lot of
them, would have saved a lot of time and lives, Then done the same in
Iraq.
But there's good money to be made out of wars, Just read ProSoldier,
if you can get a black-market copy..
bassett
bassett
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4681EACF...@hotmail.com...
And oil's is oil's .
But the yanks win thing's by shear weight of numbers, and they
loose 20% to cannon fodder. Then they all come home and wait for the
next invasion
bassett