Am I The Only One That See's It ???
Harold
Socialism gave us Hitler, Stalin and Castro.
Capitalism has given the United States one of the greatest economies
in history. An economy that allows us to give out billions of dollars
a year in humanitary aid.
We have the best medical research in the world, the strongest military
in the world, more food than we know what to do with, and on and on
and on.
All of this has led to a country that people die trying to get to.
Which begs the quesion, if Capitalism is such a bad philosophy, what a
people risking their lives, and in some cases dying just to come here?
I don't see the same thing happening when it comes to countries that
practice socialism
Andrew J. Brehm
> Let's see
>
> Socialism gave us Hitler, Stalin and Castro.
What exactly does _Hitler_ have to do with socialism?
You cannot blame socialism for people set up by nationalists and
conservatives to stop it.
Few socialists consider Stalin a socialist.
We can argue about Castro though. I claim he wasn't worse than the
system he replaced.
> Capitalism has given the United States one of the greatest economies
> in history. An economy that allows us to give out billions of dollars
> a year in humanitary aid.
Not to speak about stealing land from Indians, slave labour, and natural
resources.
> We have the best medical research in the world, the strongest military
> in the world, more food than we know what to do with, and on and on
> and on.
Much like the other industrialized nations.
> All of this has led to a country that people die trying to get to.
> Which begs the quesion, if Capitalism is such a bad philosophy, what a
> people risking their lives, and in some cases dying just to come here?
Maybe because there are better alternatives?
When you compare statistics from Germany to the numbers of the US, you
might doubt your beliefs as well.
> I don't see the same thing happening when it comes to countries that
> practice socialism
Germany is overrun with immigrants. Sadly they don't accept most of
them. Germany does and did practice a form of socialism.
So to answer your question: you are not the only one who sees it, there
are many others who cannot look a long way beyond their current beliefs
of what the world is or can be.
But you can try to educate yourself.
I would point you to http://www.census.gov and
http://www.statistik-bund.de for a beginning. This will help you compare
the US to other countries.
The CIA World Factbook will also help.
You could also ask a socialist whether Stalin was a socialist.
(Or compare Stalin's policies to Marx's theories if you have the time.)
And ask somebody who speaks German what "Nationalsozialismus" means and
where the word comes from.
It's just a question of education, really.
Do you Americans have the best educational system or do you lack some
knowledge about certain things?
--
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
Steve Harris
Andrew J. Brehm wrote in message
<1f1g0sz.n8km5y13a8xa8N%and...@netneurotic.net>...
>Harold <guar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Let's see
>>
>> Socialism gave us Hitler, Stalin and Castro.
>
>What exactly does _Hitler_ have to do with socialism?
He was head of the German National Socialist party (abbreviation: Nazi)
Andrew J. Brehm
And that makes him a socialist because...?
Is that it? He is a socialist because his party has a name that
translated into English sounds like "socialist"?
Hint: look up what "nationalsozial" and "nationalsozialistisch" mean in
German.
Ron Allen
> practice socialism.
Ron Allen answers:
There is no nation actively/actually practicing an
authentic anarcho-libertarian social democratic polity.
Not one nation.
<><><><><><><>
"Liberal -- a power worshipper without the power."
-- George Orwell
Ron Allen
> Let's see
> Socialism gave us Hitler, Stalin and Castro.
Ron Allen answers:
Let's not bring up Salvador Allende Gossens, killed in a
CIA backed coup. Let's not bring up what reactionary
capitalism gave us -- namely, Augusto Pinochet Ugarte.
Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> What exactly does _Hitler_ have to do with socialism?
> You cannot blame socialism for people set up by nationalists
> and conservatives to stop it [i.e., socialism/communism].
> Few socialists consider Stalin a socialist.
> We can argue about Castro though. I claim he wasn't worse than
> the system he replaced.
Ron Allen answers:
The United States at first favored Fidel Castro Ruz, until
he started nationalizing the property of wealthy Cubans,
Americans, and other foreigners.
Harold wrote:
> Capitalism has given the United States one of the greatest economies
> in history. An economy that allows us to give out billions of dollars
> a year in humanitary aid.
Ron Allen answers:
You credit capitalism for our bountiful productivity here
in the United States. I credit scientific agriculture,
technological capital, and the integration of labor in
large-scale collaborative production.
Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> Not to speak about stealing land from Indians, slave labour, and
> natural resources.
Harold wrote:
> We have the best medical research in the world, the strongest
> military in the world, more food than we know what to do with,
> and on and on and on.
Ron Allen answers:
I'm not so sure that we can credit our noteworthy medical
research to capitalism. I give all the credit to the
scientific community in which cooperation has managed to
get the better of competition. I do not give the credit
to capitalism; I give the credit for medical advancements
to the working medical researchers.
Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> Much like the other industrialized nations.
Harold wrote:
> All of this has led to a country that people die trying to get to.
> Which begs the quesion, if Capitalism is such a bad philosophy,
> what a people risking their lives, and in some cases dying just to
> come here?
Ron Allen answers:
The hell that capitalism has created can be best seen, not
so much in the capitalist centers of global power, but
rather in the colonized margins of global poverty. The
wretched masses of the exploited would rather live where
the exploiters enjoy the life of affluence and prosperity.
Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> Maybe because there are better alternatives?
> When you compare statistics from Germany to the numbers of the US,
> you might doubt your beliefs as well.
Harold wrote:
> I don't see the same thing happening when it comes to countries that
> practice socialism.
Ron Allen answers:
How easy is it for immigrants from third-world economies
to get into the more developed economies of Europe? A
lot of our immigrants come in from Mexico and Canada.
America is where people think of going when they need to
escape their native country, and that's because we are a
nation of immigrants, and we welcome immigrants. I do
not think it's the capitalism that attracts people to
come to these United States to live and work.
Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> Germany is overrun with immigrants. Sadly they don't accept most of
> them. Germany does and did practice a form of socialism.
> So to answer your question: you are not the only one who sees it,
> there are many others who cannot look a long way beyond their
> current beliefs of what the world is or can be.
> But you can try to educate yourself.
> I would point you to http://www.census.gov and http://www.statistik-
> bund.de for a beginning. This will help you compare the US to other
> countries.
> The CIA World Factbook will also help.
> You could also ask a socialist whether Stalin was a socialist.
> Or compare Stalin's policies to Marx's theories if you have the
> time.
Ron Allen answers:
Or, if you have the mind.
Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> And ask somebody who speaks German what "Nationalsozialismus" means
> and where the word comes from.
> It's just a question of education, really.
> Do you Americans have the best educational system or do you lack
> some knowledge about certain things?
Ron Allen answers:
The American education system educates people for life in
capitalism. That says a whole lot about our inadequate
education in the United States.
Just how much education does a good wage slave need?
<><><><><><><><><>
"Law and order are always and everywhere the law and order
which protect the established hierarchy."
-- Herbert Marcuse
Ron Allen
> Let's see
> Socialism gave us Hitler, Stalin and Castro.
Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> What exactly does _Hitler_ have to do with socialism?
Steve Harris wrote:
> He was head of the German National Socialist party (abbreviation:
> Nazi)
Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> And that makes him a socialist because...?
> Is that it? He is a socialist because his party has a name that
> translated into English sounds like "socialist"?
> Hint: look up what "nationalsozial" and "nationalsozialistisch"
> mean in German.
Ron Allen answers:
We have a political party here in the United States
called the Democratic Party, but this party does not
advocate genuine democracy.
Andrew, please tell us what "nationalsozial" and
"nationalsozialistisch" really mean.
<><><><><><><>
"Art is the lie that enables us to realize the truth."
-- Pablo Picasso
Andrew J. Brehm
> > Hint: look up what "nationalsozial" and "nationalsozialistisch"
> > mean in German.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> We have a political party here in the United States
> called the Democratic Party, but this party does not
> advocate genuine democracy.
>
> Andrew, please tell us what "nationalsozial" and
> "nationalsozialistisch" really mean.
>
Before WW1 there were three major political factions in Germany: the
conservatives or nationalists, the socialists, and a smaller faction,
the liberals.
The first faction to use "nationalsozial" to describe its own position
was the liberals. "nationalsozial" stood for "national and social" or
"between national and sozial". The liberals were commonly understood as
being in the middle of the political spectrum. They opposed socialism
and also democracy (they were generally monarchists), but they also
opposed nationalism and conservatism. Many liberals were accused of
being "hidden social democrats".
The term "Nationalsozialistisch" does not mean "a version of socialism
that has to do with the nation" as opposed to an international version;
it means "socialism applied to the nation". It's a version of
nationalism, not a version of socialism.
Nationalsocialism rejects socialism (the economy theory of Marx and the
social democrats) and advocates capitalism instead.
The Nazis didn't use the word "Nationalsozialismus" to point out they
were socialists, they used that word to point out that they were not.
Otherwise they wouldn't have convinced anybody, as their members and
voters were not fond of socialism and didn't vote for socialist parties.
The theorem "Nazis are socialists" came up much later, after WW2.
Max Schmeder
> Ron Allen answers:
> There is no nation actively/actually practicing an
> authentic anarcho-libertarian social democratic polity.
> Not one nation.
Question for you Ron:
As an anarcho-libertarian, what do you think of gun control? Should
people be able to walk around with machine guns?
Max
Dave
Hash: SHA1
"Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.net>, having nothing better to do
than breathe other people's air and use up other people's bandwidth,
spewed in message news:1f1g62i.1tti4o9fc1r28N%and...@netneurotic.net...
> > He was head of the German National Socialist party (abbreviation:
> > Nazi)
>
> And that makes him a socialist because...?
>
> Is that it? He is a socialist because his party has a name that
> translated into English sounds like "socialist"?
>
> Hint: look up what "nationalsozial" and "nationalsozialistisch" mean in
> German.
"National Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" (German) = "National
Socialist German Workers' Party" (English). German abbreviation : NSDAP.
The term "Nazi" comes from the 1st syllable of the 1st word and the 2nd
syllable of the 2nd word.
Welcome to the Usenet underworld (aka killfile), "Mistkopf." KERPLUNK!
Dave
----------------
"Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after awhile, but because
Liberals are so stupid it is easy work."
-- Steven M. Barry
----------------
"One of these centuries, the brutes, private or public, who believe
that they can rule their betters by force, will learn the lesson
of what happens when brute force encounters mind and force."
-- Ragnar Danneskjöld
- --
ROT13 the "reply-to" for actual e-mail address.
TANSTAAFL
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
Comment: Without privacy, there can be no liberty.
iQA/AwUBO9CuHU6QdcRkUwgxEQJzlACg6oZJ2tomx0pyyTaTP7rDSSDsrhwAn006
+mWlhqUcTAzntmLWjlyy1QWl
=sWk5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Andrew J. Brehm
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> "Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.net>, having nothing better to do
> than breathe other people's air and use up other people's bandwidth,
> spewed in message news:1f1g62i.1tti4o9fc1r28N%and...@netneurotic.net...
>
> > > He was head of the German National Socialist party (abbreviation:
> > > Nazi)
> >
> > And that makes him a socialist because...?
> >
> > Is that it? He is a socialist because his party has a name that
> > translated into English sounds like "socialist"?
> >
> > Hint: look up what "nationalsozial" and "nationalsozialistisch" mean in
> > German.
>
> "National Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" (German) = "National
> Socialist German Workers' Party" (English). German abbreviation : NSDAP.
> The term "Nazi" comes from the 1st syllable of the 1st word and the 2nd
> syllable of the 2nd word.
>
> Welcome to the Usenet underworld (aka killfile), "Mistkopf." KERPLUNK!
>
I am sorry that disagreement hurts your feelings.
But why didn't you look up what the words "nationalsozialistisch" and
"nationalsozial" mean?
Nobody has mentioned any doubt about what "NSDAP" stands for.
Ron Allen
> There is no nation actively/actually practicing an authentic
> anarcho-libertarian social democratic polity.
> Not one nation.
Max Schmeder wrote:
> Question for you Ron:
> As an anarcho-libertarian, what do you think of gun control?
Ron Allen answers:
I am more concerned about controlling government, and less
interested in controlling people. I do not own a gun or a
rifle, and I do not care if you or anyone else owns a gun
or a rifle.
Max Schmeder wrote:
> Should people be able to walk around with machine guns?
Ron Allen answers:
If people feel a need to do so, then they ought to be
free to do so. But I think that in an anarcho-libertarian
democratic commonwealth, most people will not feel a need
to go about carrying machine guns. What we need is to
create a social world in which legal and illegal crimes
are weeded out -- a world in which honest and honorable
dealings between persons and peoples are pursued and
cultivated.
Wherever there is fear, the people will naturally arm
themselves. Wherever there is peace, the people will
freely disarm themselves.
<><><><><><><><>
"It's strange that men should take up crime when there are
so many legal ways to be dishonest."
-- Laurence L. Peter
Ron Allen
> Hint: look up what "nationalsozial" and "nationalsozialistisch" mean
> in German.
Ron Allen wrote:
> We have a political party here in the United States called the
> Democratic Party, but this party does not advocate genuine democracy.
> Andrew, please tell us what "nationalsozial" and "nationalsozialistisch"
> really mean.
Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> Before WW1 there were three major political factions in Germany: the
> conservatives or nationalists, the socialists, and a smaller faction,
> the liberals.
> The first faction to use "nationalsozial" to describe its own position
> was the liberals. "nationalsozial" stood for "national and social" or
> "between national and sozial". The liberals were commonly understood as
> being in the middle of the political spectrum. They opposed socialism
> and also democracy (they were generally monarchists), but they also
> opposed nationalism and conservatism. Many liberals were accused of
> being "hidden social democrats".
> The term "Nationalsozialistisch" does not mean "a version of socialism
> that has to do with the nation" as opposed to an international version;
> it means "socialism applied to the nation". It's a version of nationalism,
> not a version of socialism.
> Nationalsocialism rejects socialism (the economy theory of Marx and the
> social democrats) and advocates capitalism instead.
> The Nazis didn't use the word "Nationalsozialismus" to point out they
> were socialists, they used that word to point out that they were not.
> Otherwise they wouldn't have convinced anybody, as their members and
> voters were not fond of socialism and didn't vote for socialist parties.
> The theorem "Nazis are socialists" came up much later, after WW2.
Ron Allen answers:
Andrew, as I understand German Nazism, its principles were
adopted from Italian Fascism. And that is why I regard
Nazism was a statist substitute, or a surrogate, for
socialism. This is because Mussolini was a right-wing
nationalist, who was a former socialist journalist. I
postulate/speculate that Mussolini, as a former socialist,
was well aware of Bolshevism, and so I hypothesize that
Mussolini's Fascism was derived/descended from Lenin's
Bolshevism. In other words, Mussolini's Fascism was a
perversion/corruption of socialism, just as Lenin's
Bolshevism was a decadent/degenerate version of socialism.
Mussolini founded the Fascist Party in 1919, and he was
able to establish his dictatorship in 1922, when he became
Prime Minister. His dictatorship lasted from 1925-43.
Interestingly, Joseph Stalin became General Secretary of
the Communist Party in 1922, and we all know about how his
dictatorship evolved during the 1930s.
Benito Mussolini (Fascism), Adolf Hitler (Nazism), and
Francisco Franco (Falangism) were all statists, reacting
against democracy, socialism, and communism. These were
all wrongheaded, but headstrong, statist misuses and
misapplication of socialist ideas -- they misunderstood
and misrepresented socialism, they falsified and subverted
socialism, as much as Bolshevism did. In fact, like so
many, I call Bolshevism "Red Fascism".
Andrew, although I fully agree with you that fascism and
socialism are conflicting ideologies, contradictory and
the reverse of each other, still I believe that a lot of
people think of socialism as statism because of the
Bolsheviks and the National Socialists -- i.e., both
political movements called themselves socialist. It is
therefore imperative that democratic and libertarian
socialists offer a version/model of socialism that is
the converse of Fascism/Nazism. Authentic socialism is
antithetical to any and every version of authoritarian
statism. Socialism and statism are antagonistic beliefs.
<><><><><><><><>
"For my part I prefer 50,000 rifles to 50,000 votes."
-- Benito Mussolini
Pat Hines
Nonsense, Mussolini was a Marxist through and through. His socialism
predated the Russian revolution by decades, by about 1910 he was one of
the highest ranking socialists in Italy.
> Mussolini founded the Fascist Party in 1919, and he was
> able to establish his dictatorship in 1922, when he became
> Prime Minister. His dictatorship lasted from 1925-43.
> Interestingly, Joseph Stalin became General Secretary of
> the Communist Party in 1922, and we all know about how his
> dictatorship evolved during the 1930s.
Stalin was what all socialists become or starve to death, a fascist in
deed, just not in words.
> Benito Mussolini (Fascism), Adolf Hitler (Nazism), and
> Francisco Franco (Falangism) were all statists, reacting
> against democracy, socialism, and communism.
Statism, both fascist and socialist, were all the rage since Fabianism
had spread to many universities, and Marx was widely read.
> These were all wrongheaded, but headstrong, statist misuses and
> misapplication of socialist ideas -- they misunderstood
> and misrepresented socialism, they falsified and subverted
> socialism, as much as Bolshevism did. In fact, like so
> many, I call Bolshevism "Red Fascism".
Socialism requires force to be enacted. No one, left to unanimous
selection, will choose socialism.
> Andrew, although I fully agree with you that fascism and
> socialism are conflicting ideologies, contradictory and
> the reverse of each other, still I believe that a lot of
> people think of socialism as statism because of the
> Bolsheviks and the National Socialists -- i.e., both
> political movements called themselves socialist. It is
> therefore imperative that democratic and libertarian
> socialists offer a version/model of socialism that is
> the converse of Fascism/Nazism. Authentic socialism is
> antithetical to any and every version of authoritarian
> statism. Socialism and statism are antagonistic beliefs.
More utter nonsense. When Mussolini and other socialists discovered
that the workers weren't interested in revolting against capitalism
themselves, they founded fascism to both revolt for them and as a
nationalist hedge against Moscow oriented world communism.
Socialism will never defeat capitalism without the use of overwhelming
force, and fortunately in America, the citizenry is still an armed
society that is capable of defeating any such forced sociofascism beyond
what we have now, primarily in the cities.
Pat Hines
Andrew J. Brehm
> > Ron Allen answers:
> > Andrew, as I understand German Nazism, its principles were
> > adopted from Italian Fascism. And that is why I regard
> > Nazism was a statist substitute, or a surrogate, for
> > socialism. This is because Mussolini was a right-wing
> > nationalist, who was a former socialist journalist. I
> > postulate/speculate that Mussolini, as a former socialist,
> > was well aware of Bolshevism, and so I hypothesize that
> > Mussolini's Fascism was derived/descended from Lenin's
> > Bolshevism. In other words, Mussolini's Fascism was a
> > perversion/corruption of socialism, just as Lenin's
> > Bolshevism was a decadent/degenerate version of socialism.
>
> Nonsense, Mussolini was a Marxist through and through. His socialism
> predated the Russian revolution by decades, by about 1910 he was one of
> the highest ranking socialists in Italy.
None of what you say to "explain" your thesis contradicts what Ron has
just said.
Ron's thesis, for which he has good arguments, is that Mussolini turned
away from socialism.
The only "argument" you have against that thesis is that Mussolini's
socialism predates Bolshevism. But how does this prove your point or
disprove Ron's?
> > Mussolini founded the Fascist Party in 1919, and he was
> > able to establish his dictatorship in 1922, when he became
> > Prime Minister. His dictatorship lasted from 1925-43.
> > Interestingly, Joseph Stalin became General Secretary of
> > the Communist Party in 1922, and we all know about how his
> > dictatorship evolved during the 1930s.
>
> Stalin was what all socialists become or starve to death, a fascist in
> deed, just not in words.
Please tell me how Willy Brandt became a fascist in deed.
> > Benito Mussolini (Fascism), Adolf Hitler (Nazism), and
> > Francisco Franco (Falangism) were all statists, reacting
> > against democracy, socialism, and communism.
>
> Statism, both fascist and socialist, were all the rage since Fabianism
> had spread to many universities, and Marx was widely read.
Again, you have no arguments. The fact that Marx was widely read has no
impact on whether fascism and socialism are identical or not.
>
> > These were all wrongheaded, but headstrong, statist misuses and
> > misapplication of socialist ideas -- they misunderstood
> > and misrepresented socialism, they falsified and subverted
> > socialism, as much as Bolshevism did. In fact, like so
> > many, I call Bolshevism "Red Fascism".
>
> Socialism requires force to be enacted.
Any political system that people disagree with requires force to be
enacted.
> No one, left to unanimous selection, will choose socialism.
That is wrong. Ron Allen has made it clear that he would.
> > Andrew, although I fully agree with you that fascism and
> > socialism are conflicting ideologies, contradictory and
> > the reverse of each other, still I believe that a lot of
> > people think of socialism as statism because of the
> > Bolsheviks and the National Socialists -- i.e., both
> > political movements called themselves socialist. It is
> > therefore imperative that democratic and libertarian
> > socialists offer a version/model of socialism that is
> > the converse of Fascism/Nazism. Authentic socialism is
> > antithetical to any and every version of authoritarian
> > statism. Socialism and statism are antagonistic beliefs.
>
> More utter nonsense. When Mussolini and other socialists discovered
> that the workers weren't interested in revolting against capitalism
> themselves,
That must have been a strange kind of "discoverey" since workers were
interested.
> they founded fascism to both revolt for them and as a
> nationalist hedge against Moscow oriented world communism.
The second part of your sentence has no relation to the first.
Mussoloni's (flawed) "discoverey" did not trigger a fascist revolution
against capitalism.
(Mussoloni did not discover something that was untrue, and fascism did
not revolt against capitalism.)
> Socialism will never defeat capitalism without the use of overwhelming
> force, and fortunately in America, the citizenry is still an armed
> society that is capable of defeating any such forced sociofascism beyond
> what we have now, primarily in the cities.
What are you talking about?
Adrian
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> > Hint: look up what "nationalsozial" and "nationalsozialistisch" mean
> > in German.
-snip-
> > The term "Nationalsozialistisch" does not mean "a version of socialism
> > that has to do with the nation" as opposed to an international version;
> > it means "socialism applied to the nation". It's a version of nationalism,
> > not a version of socialism.
>
No shit! How one can think that "socialism applied to the nation" is
not a version of socialism is beyond comprehension.
> > Nationalsocialism rejects socialism (the economy theory of Marx and the
> > social democrats) and advocates capitalism instead.
>
Basically this is where his misconception lies -- that socialism is
the economic theory of Marx or social democrats.
> > The Nazis didn't use the word "Nationalsozialismus" to point out they
> > were socialists, they used that word to point out that they were not.
No they didn't. They used the word to point out that they were
nationalists and socialists. They certainly weren't bourgeois
liberals.
> > Otherwise they wouldn't have convinced anybody, as their members and
> > voters were not fond of socialism and didn't vote for socialist parties.
>
> > The theorem "Nazis are socialists" came up much later, after WW2.
The reason this sort of thing generally pisses me off is the shear
fraud it represents. It is well known that the Nazis weren't
Socialists (with a capital "S") and they used "National Socialist" to
distinguish themselves from that other *political party* in germany at
the time. They certainly didn't use the term to distinguish
themselves as not being socialists (with a little "s").
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Andrew, as I understand German Nazism, its principles were
> adopted from Italian Fascism.
No -- the two are ideologically actually quite different even though
they are both nationalistic and so have compatible aims from an
international standpoint.
> And that is why I regard
> Nazism was a statist substitute, or a surrogate, for
> socialism.
Socialism is not by definition "nonstatist".
> This is because Mussolini was a right-wing
> nationalist, who was a former socialist journalist. I
> postulate/speculate that Mussolini, as a former socialist,
> was well aware of Bolshevism, and so I hypothesize that
> Mussolini's Fascism was derived/descended from Lenin's
> Bolshevism.
I strongly doubt that. The corporatism of Italian fascism bears a
remarkable similarity to Sait-Simon's rule by industriels.
> In other words, Mussolini's Fascism was a
> perversion/corruption of socialism, just as Lenin's
> Bolshevism was a decadent/degenerate version of socialism.
They are all just socialist. Why do socialist apologists *define*
socialism as a good thing. Why can't there just be bad versions of
socialism. Socialism as "the public ownership of the means of
production" certainly leaves open the possibility of all sorts of
versions of socialism. You don't call one a perversion and another
"true socialism" if the both fit the definition.
>
> Mussolini founded the Fascist Party in 1919, and he was
> able to establish his dictatorship in 1922, when he became
> Prime Minister. His dictatorship lasted from 1925-43.
> Interestingly, Joseph Stalin became General Secretary of
> the Communist Party in 1922, and we all know about how his
> dictatorship evolved during the 1930s.
The difference is that Stalin really was a perversion of
Marxism-Leninism and Mussolini, though equally tyrranical, was inline
with fascism (obviously since it was his own philosophy).
>
> Benito Mussolini (Fascism), Adolf Hitler (Nazism), and
> Francisco Franco (Falangism) were all statists, reacting
> against democracy, socialism, and communism. These were
> all wrongheaded, but headstrong, statist misuses and
> misapplication of socialist ideas -- they misunderstood
> and misrepresented socialism, they falsified and subverted
> socialism, as much as Bolshevism did. In fact, like so
> many, I call Bolshevism "Red Fascism".
Call it what you like, but Stalin almost surely was not a
representative of Marxist-Leninism.
>
> Andrew, although I fully agree with you that fascism and
> socialism are conflicting ideologies,
Only if you define socialism to be nonfascist. Marx was just one of a
great multitude of socialists in his day following a great many
socialists that preceeded him. How is that today all the socialist
apologetics seem to consider him the creator of socialism?
> contradictory and
> the reverse of each other,
No -- fascism and nationalism might be the reverse of democracy, but
it is very similar to early socialist thought.
> still I believe that a lot of
> people think of socialism as statism because of the
> Bolsheviks and the National Socialists -- i.e., both
> political movements called themselves socialist.
And they were.
> It is
> therefore imperative that democratic and libertarian
> socialists offer a version/model of socialism that is
> the converse of Fascism/Nazism. Authentic socialism is
> antithetical to any and every version of authoritarian
> statism. Socialism and statism are antagonistic beliefs.
>
That's really just not true.
"The public ownership of the means of production"
How does this require anti-statism? Don't give me any
rationalizations about "true ownership by the public". That's just
bullshit and we both know it. It is your own interpretation of what
that is supposed to mean and I am not even going to bother to dispute
it. The point is that it is YOUR interpretation and not the ONLY
interpretation.
And it is an unmitigated lie to pretend that someone else who:
1) EXPLICITLY denounced bourgeoisie capitalists
2) EXPLICITLY defended the working class and demanded a better lot for
them
3) EXPLICITLY called themselves socialist (with a little "s")
4) EXPLICITLY called for the public ownership of the means of
production
is not socialist!
If you're looking for an example (outside of Hitler) of nationalistic
versions of socialism in GERMANY, no less, here is an example of
something that would be very, VERY easy for ANYONE to find:
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"Pat Hines" <fas...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3C2E9543...@attbi.com...
> Ron Allen wrote:
>
> Nonsense, Mussolini was a Marxist through and through.
Nonsense, Mussolini fought against the Marxists. He came to power by
defeating the Marxists.
>His socialism
> predated the Russian revolution by decades, by about 1910 he was one of
> the highest ranking socialists in Italy.
When Communists say "socialism" they mean Communism. They want their idea
of socialism to be the only alternative to capitalism.
When capitalists say "socialism" they mean anything the government might
do that is designed to help people. The minimum wage they would call
socialist. They want Capitalism to be the only alternative to Communism.
The truth is that Communism and Capitalism are both bad.
>
> Stalin was what all socialists become or starve to death, a fascist in
> deed, just not in words.
It was the Capitalists that sided with the Communists during WWII. That
is because they are both Jewish. Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"the Jew seized upon the manifold possiblities which the situation
offered him for the future. While on the one hand he organized capitalistic
methods of exploitation to their ultimate degree of efficiency, he curried
favour with the victims of his policy and his power and in a short while
became the leader of their struggle against himself. 'Against himself' is
here only a figurative way of speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies'
knows how to appear in the guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on
others. Since he had the impudence to take a personal lead among the masses,
they never for a moment suspected that they were falling prey to one of the
most infamous deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it actually was."
>
> Statism, both fascist and socialist, were all the rage since Fabianism
> had spread to many universities, and Marx was widely read.
>
There are two schools of thought in the world, the right and the left.
The right is guided by what was known as Christian principles. It is for
outlawing homosexual perversion, prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other
bad things. It puts the good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom
of individuals to corrupt the culture of the nation.
Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it harm
none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple that the
witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of Witchcraft is the
Bible of liberalism. It would legalize the homosexual perversion,
prostitution, drugs, etc.
The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only about
individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make the nation
better. There are beaches where normal families will not go because
homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach. This is fine
with leftists. This is what they want. They are like children who only care
about their individual selves and are oblivious to what should be done to
make the nation great. Their philosophy for example would not allow the law
that drivers have to stop at the red lights. Their philosophy would result
in chaos and degeneracy.
Today there are some libertarians who pretend to be rightists because
they are for the freedom of the Ebenezer Scrooges to be as greedy as they
want. That group has a lot of money and they can pretend to be right wing
on TV, but what they really do is serve mammon (money). The real right wing
was not for legalizing drugs, or for using this same liberal philosophy of
the Rede of Witchcraft to legalize greed. People should not be side-tracked
into serving money if they really want to fight liberalism. Fighting
homosexual perversion with libertarianism is exactly the same as fighting a
fire with gasoline. Most libertarians know they are liberal. Anyone who
would legalize prostitution and heroin is a leftist.
The Communist were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and the
anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The Communists
were for having government but only temporarily. They said that their
government was necessary only until the whole world was Communist. After the
world was Communist they wanted to disolve the government and have an
anarchy.
What liberals want to be liberated from is Christianity, or what used
to be Christianity. Capitalists want freedom for their greed, other liberals
want freedom for degeneracy, and Communists wanted to be free to burn down
churches. They had their differences but they all joined together to fight
against the real right wing during World War Two.
The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about having a
good time in the present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future
like in Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the freedom
of individuals to be as decadant as they want. They are like the children in
the old black and white movie "Lord of the Flies".
>
> Socialism requires force to be enacted. No one, left to unanimous
> selection, will choose socialism.
The Germans voted for Hitler. Capitalism and Communism are both bad.
Pure Capitalism results in the few very rich and the many very poor.
>
> More utter nonsense. When Mussolini and other socialists discovered
> that the workers weren't interested in revolting against capitalism
> themselves, they founded fascism to both revolt for them and as a
> nationalist hedge against Moscow oriented world communism.
>
> Socialism will never defeat capitalism without the use of overwhelming
> force, and fortunately in America, the citizenry is still an armed
> society that is capable of defeating any such forced sociofascism beyond
> what we have now, primarily in the cities.
>
Capitalism and Communism are both evil. The problem with capitalism is
that it is materialistic and puts no special value on people. Capitalism is
based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that made potato chips for
example would need--X number of potatoes, Y amount of salt, and Z number of
human beings for labor. The human beings have no more value than the
potatoes or the salt.
Before the industrial revolution capitalism may not have been too bad
because a lot of labor was needed. But during the industrial revolution
machines replaced human labor. The machines should of been a blessing to
mankind but instead they became a curse. Why would a capitalist want a human
being who has to be paid if he can have a machine that works for nothing?
There are too many people competing for jobs. According to capitalist
theory they must compete to see who will work for the least pennies per
hour. They say people must compete with the people in Mexico and China to
see who will work for the fewest pennies. If a company makes billions in
profit while paying its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine.
At least the sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the
people die of starvation that is fine too. You can always get more people.
If there is not enough work for everyone to do then people need to die off.
Ebenezer Scrooge would be considered a great hero and all capitalists strive
to be as efficient as Scrooge.
There was a time when people dreamed of a great future for mankind. We
dreamed of a time when robots would be doing most of the work. But if we
still clung to capitalism how would the people who aren't working get any
money? Suppose we had our civilization so advanced that people would only
have to work two hours a day? Wouldn't it be great? Not if we had
capitalism. The increase in work done by robots and increased technology
would not result in any benefits for mankind.People would need to get eight
ours pay for the two hours work of there would be no benefit. But capitalist
companies would still pay people as little as possible so they can have
maximum profit.
The apologists for Scrooges correctly point out that people only
start business for a profit. Of course that is true. Anyone can see that
communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people start the business for only
hundreds of thousands in profits rather than hundreds of millions? What if
there were laws that made sure working people got a reasonable share of the
profit? Would that be so terrible?
We have many laws that help people. There are laws that give people
extra pay if they work over forty hours. There are laws that ensure people
will have retirement. There are many laws that help people that are good.
We shouldn't want capitalism with its supply and demand theories that people
are of no special value.
The total freedom that capitalists worship would bring total chaos.
Today we have laws that when we buy a can of food they must list the true
ingrediants of what is in the can. There is a law that if a car dealer sells
a used car it must at least be able to pass the state inspection. There are
many laws that help people. Isn't it good to help people?
Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy people
should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be when
capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue? If there was no
welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for everything while
other people do not pay one thin dime. We have welfare so people all pay
their fair share. It is part of having civilization.
We need to reject both Capitalism and Communism. They are both
materialistic and they are both evil.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Steve Harris
news:3c2fa...@news.newsgroups.com...
>
> http://stormfront.org
> www.spearhead-uk.com
> "Pat Hines" <fas...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3C2E9543...@attbi.com...
> > Ron Allen wrote:
> >
> > Nonsense, Mussolini was a Marxist through and through.
>
> Nonsense, Mussolini fought against the Marxists. He came to power by
> defeating the Marxists.
>
> >His socialism
> > predated the Russian revolution by decades, by about 1910 he was one of
> > the highest ranking socialists in Italy.
COMMENT:
Never the less, "fascism," as Mussolini invented it, and saw it, was
certainly not scientific Marxism. It did indeed oppose many of the ideas of
Marxism. Rather, Italian "fascism" was a sort of romantic, authoritarian,
heroic, violent expansion of society not unlike the Roman Empire (hence the
name). There is also a strong Roman element of the worship of physical
courage. Think of Wagnerian opera rather than Italian opera. It's not at all
hard to see why Hitler regarded all this emotionalism as perfect tutoring
for the sort of thing that we wanted to put in motion. He long referred to
Mussolini as "my teacher," and not without good reason.
If you want to know how Mussolini viewed Fascism, you have to read what he
wrote about it. Some of the stuff below reminds me of Ayn Rand, though of
course the emphasis on the individual is missing. The violent romanticism,
however, is all too familiar.
=======================================
Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions, 1935
by Benito Mussolini
The years which preceded the march on Rome [1922] were years of great
difficulty, during which the necessity for action did not permit of research
or any complete elaboration of doctrine The battle had to be fought in the
towns and villages There was much discussion, but-what was more important
and more sacred-men died. They knew how to die. Doctrine beautifully defined
and carefully elucidated, with headlines and paragraphs, might be lacking;
but there was to take place something more decisive-Faith! ... It was
precisely in those years that Fascist thought armed itself, was refined, and
began the great task of organization. [It sought to solve] the problem of
the relation between the individual citizen and the State, the allied
problems of authority and liberty, political and social problems as well as
those specifically national.... And all the while, it continued its struggle
against Liberalism, Democracy, Socialism and Masonic bodies.... Fascism is
now a completely individual thing, not only as a regime but as a doctrine.
This means that today, Fascism ... forms its own distinct and peculiar point
of view ... which confronts the world.
Primarily, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the
development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the
moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual
peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of pacifism-born of a renunciation of
the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone
brings up to the highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of
nobility upon the peoples who have the courage to meet it. All other trials
are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they
have to make the great decision-the alternative of life or death. Thus a
doctrine which is founded upon this harmful postulate of peace is hostile to
Fascism. And thus hostile to the spirit of Fascism, though accepted for what
use they can be in dealing with particular situations, are all the
international leagues and societies which, as history will show, can be
scattered to the winds when once strong national feeling is aroused by any
motive-sentimental, ideal, or practical. This anti-pacifist spirit is
carried by Fascism even into the life of the individual; the proud motto of
the Squadrista, "Me ne frego" ["I don't give a damn!"], written on the
bandage of the wounded, is an act of philosophy not only stoic, the summary
of a doctrine not only political-it is the education to combat, the
acceptation of the risks which combat implies, and a new way of life for
Italy. Thus the Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of the
despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and
conquest, life which should be high and full, lived for oneself, but above
all for others-those who are at hand and those who are far distant,
contemporaries, and those who will come after....
Fascism repudiates any universal embrace, and in order to live worthily in
the community of civilized peoples watches its contemporaries with vigilant
eyes, takes good note of their state of mind and, in the changing trend of
their interests, does not allow itself to be deceived by temporary and
fallacious appearances.
Such a conception of life makes Fascism the complete opposite of that
doctrine, the base of so-called scientific and Marxian Socialism, the
materialist conception of history; according to which the history of human
civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among
the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and
instruments of production. That the changes in the economic field-new
discoveries of raw materials, new methods of working them and the inventions
of science-have their importance no one can deny; but that these factors are
sufficient to explain the history of humanity excluding all others is an
absurd delusion. Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in
heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct
or indirect. And if we deny the economic conception of history, according to
which men are no more than puppets carried to and fro by the waves of
chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it
follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is
also denied-the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And
above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the
transformation of society. These two fundamental concepts of Socialism being
thus refuted, nothing is left of it but the sentimental aspiration-as old as
humanity itself-towards a social convention in which the sorrows and
sufferings of the humblest shall be alleviated. But here again Fascism
repudiates the conception of "economic" happiness, to be realized by
Socialism and, as it were, at a given moment in economic evolution to assure
to everyone the maximum of well-being. Fascism denies the materialist
conception of happiness as a possibility, and abandons it to its inventors,
the economists of the first half of the nineteenth century; that is to say,
Fascism denies the validity of the equation, well-being = happiness, which
would reduce men to the level of animals, caring for one thing only-to be
fat and well-fed-and would thus degrade humanity to a purely physical
existence.
After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic
ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its
practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact
that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers
alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the
immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never
be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process
such as universal suffrage. The democratic regime may be defined as from
time to time being in the hands of other concealed and irresponsible forces.
Democracy is a regime nominally without a king, but is ruled by many
kings-more absolute, tyrannical, and ruinous than one sole king, even though
a tyrant....
Fascism denies, in democracy, the absurd conventional untruth of political
equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the
myth of "happiness" and infinite progress. But if democracy may be conceived
in diverse forms-that is to say, taking democracy to mean a state of society
in which the populace is not reduced to impotence in the State-Fascism may
write itself down as "an organized, centralized, and authoritative
democracy."
Fascism has taken up an attitude of complete opposition to the doctrines of
Liberalism, both in the political field and in the field of economics. There
should be no undue exaggeration (simply with the object of immediate success
in controversy) of the importance of Liberalism in the last century, nor
should what was but one among many theories which appeared in that period be
put forward as a religion for humanity for all time, past, present and to
come. Liberalism only flourished for half a century.... The era of
Liberalism, after having accumulated an infinity of Gordian knots, tried to
untie them in the slaughter of the World War-and never has any religion
demanded of its votaries such a monstrous sacrifice. Perhaps the Liberal
gods were athirst for blood? But now, today, the Liberal faith must shut the
doors of its deserted temples, deserted because the peoples of the world
realize that its worship-agnostic in the field of economics and indifference
in the field of politics and morals-will lead, as it has already led, to
certain rum.
But the Fascist negation of Socialism, Democracy, and Liberalism must not be
taken to mean that Fascism desires to lead the world back to the state of
affairs before 1789, the date which seems to be the opening years of the
semi-Liberal century; we do not desire to turn back. Absolute monarchy has
been and can never return. As for the privileges of the feudal "have beens"
and the division of society into castes impenetrable from outside and with
no intercommunication among themselves, the Fascist conception of authority
has nothing to do with such a policy.... Fascism uses whatever elements in
the Liberal, Socialist, or Democratic doctrines still have a living value
... but it rejects all the rest.... Political doctrines pass, but humanity
remains, and it may be expected that this will be a century of authority. If
the nineteenth century was a century of individualism (and Liberalism always
signifies individualism), it may be expected that this will be a century of
collectivism and hence the century of the State.
The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its
duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in
comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be
conceived of in their relation to the State. The "Liberal State" is not a
directing force, guiding the play and development (both material and
spiritual) of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function
of recording results. On the other hand, the Fascist State is itself
conscious, and has itself a will and a personality-thus it may be called the
"ethical" State....
The individual in the Fascist State is not annulled but rather multiplied,
just in the same way that a soldier in a regiment is not diminished but
rather increased by the number of his comrades. The Fascist State organizes
the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the
latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains
what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the
individual, but the State alone....
The Fascist State is an embodied will to power and government, the idea of
force in action. According to Fascism, government is not so much a thing to
be expressed in territorial or military terms as in terms of morality and
spirit. It is an empire-that is to say, a nation which directly or
indirectly rules other nations without the need of conquering a single
square yard of territory. The growth of empire, the expansion of the nation
is for Fascism an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a
sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising ... are always imperialist; any
renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism represents the
tendencies and the aspirations of a people rising after many centuries of
abasement and foreign servitude. But the empire demands discipline, the
coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice:
this fact explains many aspects of the practical workings of the regime, the
character of many forces in the State and the necessarily severe measures
taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable
movement ... by recalling the outworn ideology of the 19th century.
Never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction,
and of order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a
thousand signs which point to Fascism as the doctrine of our time. For
Fascism has created a living faith, a faith powerful enough in the minds of
men that they have suffered and died for it. Fascism represents a stage in
the history of the human spirit.
End of Mussolini quote
SBH
--
I welcome Email from strangers with the minimal cleverness to fix my address
(it's an open-book test). I strongly recommend recipients of unsolicited
bulk Email ad spam use "http://combat.uxn.com" to get the true corporate
name of the last ISP address on the viewsource header, then forward message
& headers to "abuse@[offendingISP]."
tribal...@earthlink.net
this message in news:alt.philosophy.debate . . .
> "Pat Hines" <fas...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3C2E9543...@attbi.com...
>
> There are two schools of thought in the world, the right and the left.
> The right is guided by what was known as Christian principles. It is
> for outlawing homosexual perversion, prostitution, abortions, heroin,
> and other bad things. It puts the good of the nation first and ahead
> of the freedom of individuals to corrupt the culture of the nation.
>
> Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it harm
> none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
> that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
> Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize the
> homosexual perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.
As if that's such a bad thing? The problem with the world now is that we have
too many laws trying to control us and make us act like something we're not.
If some people want to be or use prostitutes for sex or other activities, why
should we deny that part of human nature? Not everybody likes beans and
cornbread, but it's legal for all to consume. Not everybody likes cigarettes,
but it's there for people over 18. Not everybody likes to smoke pot, but
nobody can legally do so, even though some states have legalized for medical
purposes. The feds move in and throw cancer-striken people in jail.
So look at it this way. We currently have laws to protect people from
themselves. This is a bad thing. If people are so stupid as to do things to
their bodies that will kill them, then why not let them die? Why continue to
allow these people to propogate their DNA into the future? Poinsettias and
holly are both poisonous. Drano is lethal if swallowed. Yet there are no
laws against eating holly berries or drinking Drano. We just assume people
have enough sense not to do those things, and indeed, most people do not.
Cannabis has been used by man for thousands of years with no ill results.
Nobody has died. Yet it's illegal and eating holly berries isn't? That
doesn't make much sense.
> The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only about
> individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make the
> nation better. There are beaches where normal families will not go
> because homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach.
And heterosexual perverts practice their perversion on the Kroger parking lot
in full view of grandmothers across America. Please... As one who is gay
myself, I'm somewhat grossed out when I see some guy sucking his girlfriend's
tonsils in a public place and I think, "Well, just throw her on the floor and
fuck her, why don't you?" I'm not any more impressed with gays who kiss and
fondle each other in public. I don't mind them doing it, I'm not going to
interfere and I'm not going to try to change laws to make it illegal for gays
to kiss in public. Do you know what I do? I simply walk past them. It's
uncomforble for me, but I believe in freedom. If twelve people decide they
want to strip naked and have an orgy in the Wal-Mart snack bar, that's fine
with me. But don't drag me over and expect me to join in.
The problem today is that people want to have their freedoms, but they don't
want anybody else to have freedoms they might disagree with. That is more of
a perversion than any kind of "sexual depravity".
> This is fine with leftists. This is what they want. They are like
> children who only care about their individual selves and are oblivious
> to what should be done to make the nation great.
What makes a nation great?
> Their philosophy for example would not allow the law that drivers have
> to stop at the red lights. Their philosophy would result in chaos and
> degeneracy.
That's malarky! I've never heard anybody say that we don't need red lights.
If you have any reputable documentation to back up that claim, I will retract
my statement.
> Today there are some libertarians who pretend to be rightists because
> they are for the freedom of the Ebenezer Scrooges to be as greedy as
> they want. That group has a lot of money and they can pretend to be
> right wing on TV, but what they really do is serve mammon (money).
> The real right wing was not for legalizing drugs, or for using this
> same liberal philosophy of the Rede of Witchcraft to legalize greed.
> People should not be side-tracked into serving money if they really
> want to fight liberalism. Fighting homosexual perversion with
> libertarianism is exactly the same as fighting a fire with gasoline.
> Most libertarians know they are liberal. Anyone who would legalize
> prostitution and heroin is a leftist.
There are good reasons for legalizing prostitution and heroin. Making both
safer is one of the greatest benefits.
> The Communist were leftist and they said they were fighting for
> freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and
> the anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The
> Communists were for having government but only temporarily. They said
> that their government was necessary only until the whole world was
> Communist. After the world was Communist they wanted to disolve the
> government and have an anarchy.
I'd agree with such an approach. I think one of the reasons communism has
failed in the past is lack of rapid communication. With the internet, I think
communism could succeed easily because different groups who take on different
responsibilities could keep in contact to augment and complement each other's
work.
> What liberals want to be liberated from is Christianity, or what used
> to be Christianity. Capitalists want freedom for their greed, other
> liberals want freedom for degeneracy, and Communists wanted to be free
> to burn down churches.
I wouldn't want to burn down any churches. I'm all for freedom and I respect
everyone's freedom, but I only want them to respect my freedom as much as I
respect theirs.
> The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about
> having a good time in the present. If their philosophy results in a
> nightmare future like in Soylent Green or some other futuristic
> nightmare they are not interested and insist that nothing could be
> more important than the freedom of individuals to be as decadant as
> they want. They are like the children in the old black and white
> movie "Lord of the Flies".
I think the leftist approach gives us the kind of world we're best suited to.
If something arises that needs to be done, but nobody wants to do it, then it
doesn't need to be done. I know someone is going to bring up working with
sewage, so I'll point out that if you've scanned the internet porno sites,
there are some where people are crapping on each other, so there is no
shortage of people to handle septic duties.
The rightist approach creates an artificial world where some people suffer
doing things they don't necessarily want to do, while others don't have to do
anything they don't want to do.
> > Socialism requires force to be enacted. No one, left to unanimous
> > selection, will choose socialism.
>
> The Germans voted for Hitler.
...not realy realizing what they were getting into. Politicians make promises
all the time. George Bush's record as governor was pointed out. One of the
things addressed was the fact that he made certain promises during his
campaign that he broke after he took office. His response was that we should
"look at the results". I guess Hitler had the same view. He apparently
believe that the end justifies the means. Hitler had a certain end in mind,
but his means never got him there.
> Capitalism and Communism are both bad. Pure Capitalism results in the
> few very rich and the many very poor.
I agree with that. And what's more is that capitalism is nothing but a scam
to accomplish this very goal of having a few rich people and a bunch of poor
people. Look at it this way. I may work in a factory building car stereos.
I build a stereo and a company takes the stereo and gives me a certain amount
of money for building it. If I want that stereo I built, I have to give the
money back and I can have the stereo. What I've just done is made someone
rich off my own labor. Not only did I have to build the stereo, an artificial
medium of exchange was introduced (money) to trick me into thinking the car
stereo had value. If I had cut out the middle man by building the stereo and
taking it home with me, the company I gave the money to would have to find
something to do to contribute to society besides stealing the productivity of
the people. The reason capitalists fight any moves to weaken capitalism is
because they know it means that their free ride will be coming to an end.
Capitalism is an elegant form of slavery and a horrible waste of resources.
Marketing plans are put together in attempts to milk as much money from
productivity as possible. This means that research is done to find out how
much of an improvement on a current product would be needed to entice people
into buying a new and improved product. They improve the product just enough
to hit a sweet spot and people go nuts and buy, all while three or four more
generations of product are already shelved waiting to go on the assembly line
after most buyers have acquired the latest released upgrade. Another reason
capitalism is a waste is because we have so many projects going on in the
world to advance science, medicine and technology that we can't afford to give
them all the resources they need to make the advances that are possible.
Money isn't available. Well, if money were no object, advances would
obviously take place at a much faster rate, plus any fraudulent activities
going on to siphon more money into programs (like scientists trying to get
another year's worth of paychecks by asking for money and then engaging in
research they already know is bogus) also is a waste and it hurts humanity by
wasting finite resources.
> There was a time when people dreamed of a great future for mankind.
> We dreamed of a time when robots would be doing most of the work. But
> if we still clung to capitalism how would the people who aren't
> working get any money? Suppose we had our civilization so advanced
> that people would only have to work two hours a day? Wouldn't it be
> great? Not if we had capitalism. The increase in work done by robots
> and increased technology would not result in any benefits for
> mankind.People would need to get eight ours pay for the two hours work
> of there would be no benefit. But capitalist companies would still
> pay people as little as possible so they can have maximum profit.
That's one of the more intelligent paragraphs in this post, and usenet.
> The apologists for Scrooges correctly point out that people only start
> business for a profit. Of course that is true. Anyone can see that
> communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people start the business
> for only hundreds of thousands in profits rather than hundreds of
> millions? What if there were laws that made sure working people got a
> reasonable share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?
It would probably improve service, for one thing.
> We have many laws that help people. There are laws that give people
> extra pay if they work over forty hours.
That law is a curse because it's mandatory. Once I had to work two jobs
because I couldn't get over 40 hours at one job. They should make it possible
to sign waivers for that law.
> We need to reject both Capitalism and Communism. They are both
> materialistic and they are both evil.
I've seen a lot of attacking of capitalism in your post, and you've proven why
capitalism is evil and materialistic, but you didn't say much about communism,
and definitely not enough to prove that communism is bad.
Damaeus
john h brockbank
No it is not. Neither Communism nor Capitalism are bad. As long as they
are practised in democracies.
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
<tribal...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uusv2ucd7n2lo0b8n...@4ax.com...
> On around Mon, 31 Dec 2001 05:29:58 -0600, "Alex Vange" <va...@i1.net>
posted
> this message in news:alt.philosophy.debate . . .
>
>
> As if that's such a bad thing? The problem with the world now is that we
have
> too many laws trying to control us and make us act like something we're
not.
All laws should have a good reason for their existance. Laws make life
better for people. Here is an example:
"Libertarians believe that once one is burned by charlatans,
they'll simply stop doing business with the ogres who proselytize
inferior work and product. But, isn't the hue and cry for governmental
regulation the mechanism that the public demands when they've been
ripped-off by nefarious business people? In many cases, especially
with bigger ticket items, they don't have the luxury of not doing
business with a sinister plutocrat, but must buy and weep over shoddy
business practices...
"Surely, we've seen enough charlatans to
know that the market itself cannot monitor its own activities to the
good of all!"
D. Stephen Heersink
dsh...@worldnet.att.net
> If some people want to be or use prostitutes for sex or other activities,
why
> should we deny that part of human nature?
Because I want to live in a good nation.
Not everybody likes beans and
> cornbread, but it's legal for all to consume. Not everybody likes
cigarettes,
> but it's there for people over 18. Not everybody likes to smoke pot, but
> nobody can legally do so, even though some states have legalized for
medical
> purposes. The feds move in and throw cancer-striken people in jail.
I am not for having laws that are unpopular with the people. Actually we
should outlaw tobacco. If tobacco was a new substance being brought before
the public there is no way that it would be legalized. But it would be too
unpopular to outlaw tobacco now.
> So look at it this way. We currently have laws to protect people from
> themselves. This is a bad thing.
No, it is a good thing.
If people are so stupid as to do things to
> their bodies that will kill them, then why not let them die?
They wouldn't die suddenly. They would take society down with them.
> Why continue to
> allow these people to propogate their DNA into the future? Poinsettias
and
> holly are both poisonous. Drano is lethal if swallowed. Yet there are no
> laws against eating holly berries or drinking Drano.
There should be.
We just assume people
> have enough sense not to do those things, and indeed, most people do not.
> Cannabis has been used by man for thousands of years with no ill results.
I disagree.
> Nobody has died. Yet it's illegal and eating holly berries isn't? That
> doesn't make much sense.
Cannabis is harmfull to the brain. People with harmed brains don't build
the kind of great nation I want to live in.
>
> And heterosexual perverts practice their perversion on the Kroger parking
lot
> in full view of grandmothers across America. Please... As one who is gay
> myself, I'm somewhat grossed out when I see some guy sucking his
girlfriend's
> tonsils in a public place and I think, "Well, just throw her on the floor
and
> fuck her, why don't you?" I'm not any more impressed with gays who kiss
and
> fondle each other in public. I don't mind them doing it, I'm not going to
> interfere and I'm not going to try to change laws to make it illegal for
gays
> to kiss in public. Do you know what I do? I simply walk past them. It's
> uncomforble for me, but I believe in freedom. If twelve people decide
they
> want to strip naked and have an orgy in the Wal-Mart snack bar, that's
fine
> with me. But don't drag me over and expect me to join in.
You don't mind living in a crappy nation. Those who do mind should not
support whatever political party you adhere to, and should reject your
philosophies. And I don't really want to write to homos so I will end this
debate now.
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"john h brockbank" <wag...@wagley.screaming.net> wrote in message
news:3c30c50d$1...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
> > The truth is that Communism and Capitalism are both bad.
>
> No it is not. Neither Communism nor Capitalism are bad. As long as they
> are practised in democracies.
>
H.L. Menchen said democracy was the art of running the circus from the
monkey cage.
If the majority of people are for either Communism or Capitalism than
that majority is wrong, and it is the minority that is right.
Pat Hines
>
> http://stormfront.org
> www.spearhead-uk.com
> "john h brockbank" <wag...@wagley.screaming.net> wrote in message
> news:3c30c50d$1...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
> > > The truth is that Communism and Capitalism are both bad.
> >
> > No it is not. Neither Communism nor Capitalism are bad. As long as they
> > are practised in democracies.
> >
> H.L. Menchen said democracy was the art of running the circus from the
> monkey cage.
>
> If the majority of people are for either Communism or Capitalism than
> that majority is wrong, and it is the minority that is right.
In America, the capitalists have the heaviest firepower and numbers,
forget sociofascism.
Pat Hines
>
> http://stormfront.org
> www.spearhead-uk.com
> "Pat Hines" <fas...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3C2E9543...@attbi.com...
> > Ron Allen wrote:
> >
> > Nonsense, Mussolini was a Marxist through and through.
>
> Nonsense, Mussolini fought against the Marxists. He came to power by
> defeating the Marxists.
Mussolini was a leading Marxist who became disenchanted with it, he
founded Fascism in 1919.
> >His socialism
> > predated the Russian revolution by decades, by about 1910 he was one of
> > the highest ranking socialists in Italy.
>
> When Communists say "socialism" they mean Communism. They want their idea
> of socialism to be the only alternative to capitalism.
They may do that, it's irrelevant. Sociofascism, today's melding of
socialism and fascism in the modern liberal, is what is eating away at
the American culture and society.
Capitalism is being used to finance modern sociofascism in the same way
the Fascists used it.
As Von Mises and Hayek stated it over 80 years ago, capitalism is the
only economic model capable of being successful.
> When capitalists say "socialism" they mean anything the government might
> do that is designed to help people. The minimum wage they would call
> socialist. They want Capitalism to be the only alternative to Communism.
>
> The truth is that Communism and Capitalism are both bad.
Fascism, communism without state ownership of the means of production,
but owners of individuals is the step child of communism/socialism. You
attempt to show that there is no connection is absurd.
> >
> > Stalin was what all socialists become or starve to death, a fascist in
> > deed, just not in words.
>
> It was the Capitalists that sided with the Communists during WWII. That
> is because they are both Jewish. Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
>
> "the Jew seized upon the manifold possiblities which the situation
> offered him for the future. While on the one hand he organized capitalistic
> methods of exploitation to their ultimate degree of efficiency, he curried
> favour with the victims of his policy and his power and in a short while
> became the leader of their struggle against himself. 'Against himself' is
> here only a figurative way of speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies'
> knows how to appear in the guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on
> others. Since he had the impudence to take a personal lead among the masses,
> they never for a moment suspected that they were falling prey to one of the
> most infamous deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it actually was."
Hitler said, "why socialize the means of production and the banks, we
socialize the people.
> >
> > Statism, both fascist and socialist, were all the rage since Fabianism
> > had spread to many universities, and Marx was widely read.
> >
>
> There are two schools of thought in the world, the right and the left.
The same tired old communist obfuscation of fascism being on the
opposite end of the spectrum used by an apparent sociofascist, that myth
doesn't work any longer.
> The right is guided by what was known as Christian principles. It is for
> outlawing homosexual perversion, prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other
> bad things. It puts the good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom
> of individuals to corrupt the culture of the nation.
<national socialist rant snipped>
> The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about having a
> good time in the present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future
> like in Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
> interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the freedom
> of individuals to be as decadant as they want. They are like the children in
> the old black and white movie "Lord of the Flies".
National socialism is still equally the gutter philosophy is always
was, the only shortcoming in that vein is that national socialism only
managed to murder 20% of the numbers murdered by Stalin alone, Mao put
you national socialist to shame as well.
> >
> > Socialism requires force to be enacted. No one, left to unanimous
> > selection, will choose socialism.
>
> The Germans voted for Hitler. Capitalism and Communism are both bad.
> Pure Capitalism results in the few very rich and the many very poor.
That's abundantly not true, capitalism has improved the lot of more
individuals worldwide than all the small minded, deadly sociofascists
added together and multiplied by 1000's. Most people know this fact,
and as a result the only political philosophy having a harder time
succeeding than socialism is fascism. Today, the socialists have become
fascists, and that is why they are called sociofascists.
> >
> > More utter nonsense. When Mussolini and other socialists discovered
> > that the workers weren't interested in revolting against capitalism
> > themselves, they founded fascism to both revolt for them and as a
> > nationalist hedge against Moscow oriented world communism.
> >
> > Socialism will never defeat capitalism without the use of overwhelming
> > force, and fortunately in America, the citizenry is still an armed
> > society that is capable of defeating any such forced sociofascism beyond
> > what we have now, primarily in the cities.
> >
>
> Capitalism and Communism are both evil.
The above statement is another absurd juxtaposition. All capitalists
know that visible totalitarianism is bad, some of them can't see that
they are acting as fascists when the harness capitalism to socialist ideas.
<additional national socialist rantings snipped>
> We need to reject both Capitalism and Communism. They are both
> materialistic and they are both evil.
Sociofascism has killed over 170 million in the twentieth century
alone, we really don't need any more of them at all.
When we free people from governments altogether, those that would
murder in vast numbers through the armed state will be vanquished totally.
Pat Hines
Andrew J. Brehm
Do try to remember that socialism and fascism are not the same thing.
Andrew J. Brehm
> Alex Vange wrote:
> >
> > http://stormfront.org
> > www.spearhead-uk.com
> > "Pat Hines" <fas...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:3C2E9543...@attbi.com...
> > > Ron Allen wrote:
> > >
> > > Nonsense, Mussolini was a Marxist through and through.
> >
> > Nonsense, Mussolini fought against the Marxists. He came to power by
> > defeating the Marxists.
>
> Mussolini was a leading Marxist who became disenchanted with it, he
> founded Fascism in 1919.
So you do remember.
tribaI...@earthlink.com
decision to post:
> <tribal...@earthlink.net> wrote
>
> > As if that's such a bad thing? The problem with the world now is that
> > we have too many laws trying to control us and make us act like
> > something we're not.
>
> All laws should have a good reason for their existance. Laws make
> life better for people. Here is an example:
>
> "Libertarians believe that once one is burned by charlatans,
> they'll simply stop doing business with the ogres who proselytize
> inferior work and product. But, isn't the hue and cry for governmental
> regulation the mechanism that the public demands when they've been
> ripped-off by nefarious business people? In many cases, especially
> with bigger ticket items, they don't have the luxury of not doing
> business with a sinister plutocrat, but must buy and weep over shoddy
> business practices...
We have too many laws. I'm not saying we should have no laws, especially
not all at once. I think a time will come when laws will no longer be
necessary, but to unleash such a system now would probably do more harm than
good.
> > If some people want to be or use prostitutes for sex or other
> > activities, why should we deny that part of human nature?
>
> Because I want to live in a good nation.
But the definition of good changes from one person to the next. I don't
want to live in a democracy or a republic. I want to live in an anarchistic
state where people are free to do whatever they want to do as long as they
don't do things to others that others don't consent to, such as stealing and
murder. But if I want to be murdered, then I'd expect the person who
murdered me to continue to live a life of freedom. Of course, by the time
such a society becomes a reality, doctor assisted suicide will have become
an accepted way of dealing with life.
> > Not everybody likes beans and cornbread, but it's legal for all to
> > consume. Not everybody likes cigarettes, but it's there for people
> > over 18. Not everybody likes to smoke pot, but nobody can legally do
> > so, even though some states have legalized for medical purposes. The
> > feds move in and throw cancer-striken people in jail.
>
> I am not for having laws that are unpopular with the people.
But the problem in a republic is that either half the people are pissed
because the other side got their way, or a compromise is made that doesn't
completely satisfy anybody. The problem with society is that we're all
forced to live under the same rules and regulations. And I'm not talking
about corporate law. I'm just talking about day to day laws like abortion
laws, suicide laws, drug laws, indecency laws. Hey, if my next door
neighbor decides that he never wants to wear clothes for as long as he
lives, that's great! But the law says he can't go anywhere if he's going to
be naked or he'll be arrested for indecent exposure. If my neighbor wants
to kill himself, I'll back him up. If my neighbor's wife wants to abort her
baby, so be it. It doesn't mean *I* want to do any of those things and I
won't have to. Furthermore, if I want to build a greenhouse and fill it
with growing marijuana plants, I want to be able to do that without fear of
the cops coming to arrest me.
The very basic, fundamental human freedoms are the ones I'm most concerned
with. No, I don't think we should be allowed to steal. I think some form
of speed limit is a good idea within city limits because that's about
safety. But these crazy abortion, suicide, drug, prostitution, pornography
and anti-nudity laws are moralistic hogwash that should all be repealed.
Those are the kinds of decisions people can make for themselves and when I
tell people that America is no longer the greatest icon of freedom in the
world, it is these basic laws I'm referring to. The only kind of freedom
the government seems to be concerned with is economic freedom. Basic rights
which I consider inalienable rights are disappearing and have been for some
time.
> Actually we should outlaw tobacco. If tobacco was a new substance
> being brought before the public there is no way that it would be
> legalized. But it would be too unpopular to outlaw tobacco now.
I don't think we should outlaw anything people want to consume. If people
are made well aware of the risks involved with using certain substances,
then when they die, they die. If someone get cancer from smoking
cigarettes, they shouldn't be covered by insurance. If they can afford the
care they need, that's fine. If not, they can start talking to death
counselors at hospice centers and their trip out can be made as painless as
possible with drugs which could be donated by philanthropic organizations.
I know that if I get cancer or if I suffer some accident which does serious
damage and will result in my living like a vegetable for the rest of my
life, I do *NOT* want to stay here. I just want to go ahead and give up the
ghost. So I'm working on drawing up legal papers that will forbid doctors
from saving my life in those cases, and the only thing I'd receive is help
from the doctors to experience as painless a death as possible.
> > So look at it this way. We currently have laws to protect people from
> > themselves. This is a bad thing.
>
> No, it is a good thing.
>
> > If people are so stupid as to do things to their bodies that will kill
> > them, then why not let them die?
>
> They wouldn't die suddenly. They would take society down with them.
Not necessarily. If a crack addict spends all his money and sells his house
and his car to get more crack, who is he going to hurt? Yeah, he could rob
somebody at gunpoint, but that happens now as it is due to the fact that the
price of crack is inflated as a result of prohibition.
> > Why continue to allow these people to propogate their DNA into the
> > future? Poinsettias and holly are both poisonous. Drano is lethal if
> > swallowed. Yet there are no laws against eating holly berries or
> > drinking Drano.
>
> There should be.
>
> > We just assume people have enough sense not to do those things, and
> > indeed, most people do not. Cannabis has been used by man for
> > thousands of years with no ill results.
>
> I disagree.
Well, we're here, aren't we?
> > Nobody has died. Yet it's illegal and eating holly berries isn't? That
> > doesn't make much sense.
>
> Cannabis is harmfull to the brain. People with harmed brains don't
> build the kind of great nation I want to live in.
Picture this scenario. Some happily married and financially successful
family man has some marijuana in his indoor garden -- just a few plants for
personal use. He and his wife smoke it on a regular basis. Their kids find
out about the pot. Doing what DARE suggests, the kid tells his DARE officer
that their parents have pot growing in their guest bedroom closet. The cops
come to investigate and indeed find pot growing. The parents are arrested,
the kids are either given to relatives or become wards of the state, and one
family goes down in dust. This kind of thing happens daily because of the
prohibition of marijuana, and in my not so humble opinion, that is not what
makes a nation great. Obviously, the people making laws against marijuana
have not been smoking anything themselves or they would know better.
> > And heterosexual perverts practice their perversion on the Kroger
> > parking lot in full view of grandmothers across America. Please... As
> > one who is gay myself, I'm somewhat grossed out when I see some guy
> > sucking his girlfriend's tonsils in a public place and I think, "Well,
> > just throw her on the floor and fuck her, why don't you?" I'm not any
> > more impressed with gays who kiss and fondle each other in public. I
> > don't mind them doing it, I'm not going to interfere and I'm not going
> > to try to change laws to make it illegal for gays to kiss in public.
> > Do you know what I do? I simply walk past them. It's uncomforble for
> > me, but I believe in freedom. If twelve people decide they want to
> > strip naked and have an orgy in the Wal-Mart snack bar, that's fine
> > with me. But don't drag me over and expect me to join in.
>
> You don't mind living in a crappy nation.
I don't mind living in a FREE nation.
> Those who do mind should not support whatever political party you
> adhere to, and should reject your philosophies.
Apparently, you only want to live in a great FASCIST nation. Something like
Hitler envisioned.
> And I don't really want to write to homos so I will end this debate
> now.
Hmmm. I guess that proves the point I made. I suppose you'd like it if I
just croaked right now. Not that you'd care, but I'd welcome you completey
in a nation run in line with my vision. I'm only sorry I'm not welcome in
yours.
Ron Allen
> I want to live in an anarchistic state where people are free to do
> whatever they want to do as long as they don't do things to others
> that others don't consent to, such as stealing and murder.
Ron Allen answers:
Anarchistic state!?
Anarchism is the absence of a political state, and the
presence of a political democracy -- i.e., the people
are no longer alienated from public choice decision-
making, the people are no longer estranged or separated
from the political process. A true democracy is when
the citizens, the people, and not the politicians, are
empowered and enfranchised to determine public policy.
<><><><><><><><>
"If newspapers are useful in overthrowing tyrants, it is
only to establish a tyranny of their own."
-- James Fenimore Cooper
Ron Allen
> The truth is that Communism and Capitalism are both bad.
john h brockbank wrote:
> No it is not. Neither Communism nor Capitalism are bad. As long as
> they are practised in democracies.
Ron Allen answers:
Interesting reply; and I agree. If capitalism were truly
democratic in both the political and economic realm of
activity, then I can and will support such a capitalism.
But, it must be pointed out, that when capitalism has
been wholly democratized, it will have been transformed
into socialism. After all, socialism is itself the full
democratization of both politics and economics, the full
communization of both the means of production and the
means of government.
<><><><><><><><><>
"Capitalism accomplished the overthrow of feudal tyranny;
but it also established a new tyranny of its own."
-- Ron Allen
Ron Allen
> I don't want to live in a democracy or a republic. I want to live in
Ron Allen answers:
It is very common for people to oppose democracy and
anarchism, and that is because the only democracy we
know so far is bourgeois democracy (i.e., plutocracy).
In my opinion, anarchism is not the absence of true
democracy; it's the absence of an authoritarian state.
Those who oppose anarchism and democracy usually do not
consider the question of how public sphere policies are
determined, and who is empowered and authorized to make
decisions that concern society. As anarchists they
advocate self government and self determination, but
they neglect the political sphere and the question of
social government and social determination. As I see
it, just as the individual self ought to be free to
govern and determine the individual self, so also the
autonomous social unit should be free to govern and
decide the community's collective being/life. Those
who oppose anarchism and democracy neglect and forget the
fact that human being is ever and always social being.
If we the people are not free to fully decide our social
and public life, then we as persons will never be truly
free to decide our solitary and private lives.
<><><><><><><><><>
"The certainties of one age are the problems of the next."
-- Richard Henry Tawney
Ron Allen
> H.L. Menchen said democracy was the art of running the circus from the
> monkey cage.
> If the majority of people are for either Communism or Capitalism than
> that majority is wrong, and it is the minority that is right.
Ron Allen answers:
But, then, what you seem not to be aware of is that a
minority group of élite monkeys, running the whole circus,
are still just monkeys running the circus.
<><><><><><><><><>
"The little I know I own to my ignorance."
-- Sacha Guitry
Ron Allen
> In America, the capitalists have the heaviest firepower and numbers,
> forget sociofascism.
Ron Allen answers:
If capitalism had the heaviest numbers (i.e., a democratic
majority favoring it), then there would be no need for the
capitalists to also require the heaviest firepower. A
political state with a monopoly in military and police
power, a monopoly in the means of organized violence, is
very likely not a state with a truly overwhelming base
of popular support.
Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> Do try to remember that socialism and fascism are not the same thing.
Ron allen answers:
It serves Pat's purposes to keep these two ideologies
con-founded and con-fused.
<><><><><><><><><>
"Every thing is of the nature of no thing."
-- Parmenides
Ron Allen
> As Von Mises and Hayek stated it over 80 years ago, capitalism is the
> only economic model capable of being successful.
Ron Allen answers:
These two individuals had opinions, like you and I have
opinions. We can be wrong, just as they could be wrong.
Their words are simply not the last word.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"Nobody can leave their individuality."
-- Arthur Schopenhauer
Pat Hines
In America practicing socialists have become fascists in fact, hence
Sociofascism. Your continual reference to textbook socialism and
fascism have no place in real world practice, rather typical of one in college.
Pat Hines
Pat Hines
>
> Pat Hines <fas...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > Alex Vange wrote:
> > >
> > > http://stormfront.org
> > > www.spearhead-uk.com
> > > "Pat Hines" <fas...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3C2E9543...@attbi.com...
> > > > Ron Allen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Nonsense, Mussolini was a Marxist through and through.
> > >
> > > Nonsense, Mussolini fought against the Marxists. He came to power by
> > > defeating the Marxists.
> >
> > Mussolini was a leading Marxist who became disenchanted with it, he
> > founded Fascism in 1919.
>
> So you do remember.
Mussolini didn't abandon any of the totalitarian aspects of Marxism, he
merely decided that to adopt all of Marxism was to gut productivity
which would, he felt, pay for the socialist programs he wanted.
Socialism, fascism, and the other Marxist based economic philosophies
require force for participation, and since that is true, all but a tiny
few who have a choice have abandoned it. The tiny few who have not
abandoned sociofascism are usually un- or undereducated, are dangerous
demagogues, or fools.
Pat Hines
Hewpiedawg
"Andrew J. Brehm" <and...@netneurotic.de> wrote in message
news:1f5bhel.yd9sa3107tciuN%and...@netneurotic.de...
Some people like Pepsi, some people like Coke.
The marketing and philosophy are different, but
the product that is actually sold is the same.
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
<tribaI...@earthlink.com> wrote in message
news:ge433ugr7gfns26s7...@creamy.legs...
>
> We have too many laws. I'm not saying we should have no laws, especially
> not all at once. I think a time will come when laws will no longer be
> necessary, but to unleash such a system now would probably do more harm
than
> good.
No one is for having a law for reason at all. If there are such laws,
everyone agrees we should get rid of it.
>
> But the definition of good changes from one person to the next.
Of course. That is why we agrue on usenet and support political parties
that we agree with.
>I don't
> want to live in a democracy or a republic. I want to live in an
anarchistic
> state where people are free to do whatever they want to do as long as they
> don't do things to others that others don't consent to, such as stealing
and
> murder.
You are a liberal.
There are two schools of thought in the world, the right and the left.
The right is guided by what was known as Christian principles. It is for
outlawing homosexual perversion, prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other
bad things. It puts the good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom
of individuals to corrupt the culture of the nation.
Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it harm
none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple that the
witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of Witchcraft is the
Bible of liberalism. It would legalize the homosexual perversion,
prostitution, drugs, etc.
The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only about
individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make the nation
better. There are beaches where normal families will not go because
homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach. This is fine
with leftists. This is what they want. They are like children who only care
about their individual selves and are oblivious to what should be done to
make the nation great. Their philosophy for example would not allow the law
that drivers have to stop at the red lights. Their philosophy would result
in chaos and degeneracy.
Today there are some libertarians who pretend to be rightists because
they are for the freedom of the Ebenezer Scrooges to be as greedy as they
want. That group has a lot of money and they can pretend to be right wing
on TV, but what they really do is serve mammon (money). The real right wing
was not for legalizing drugs, or for using this same liberal philosophy of
the Rede of Witchcraft to legalize greed. People should not be side-tracked
into serving money if they really want to fight liberalism. Fighting
homosexual perversion with libertarianism is exactly the same as fighting a
fire with gasoline. Most libertarians know they are liberal. Anyone who
would legalize prostitution and heroin is a leftist.
The Communist were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and the
anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The Communists
were for having government but only temporarily. They said that their
government was necessary only until the whole world was Communist. After the
world was Communist they wanted to disolve the government and have an
anarchy.
What liberals want to be liberated from is Christianity, or what used
to be Christianity. Capitalists want freedom for their greed, other liberals
want freedom for degeneracy, and Communists wanted to be free to burn down
churches. They had their differences but they all joined together to fight
against the real right wing during World War Two.
The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about having a
good time in the present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future
like in Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the freedom
of individuals to be as decadant as they want. They are like the children in
the old black and white movie "Lord of the Flies".
> But if I want to be murdered, then I'd expect the person who
> murdered me to continue to live a life of freedom. Of course, by the time
> such a society becomes a reality, doctor assisted suicide will have become
> an accepted way of dealing with life.
>
> But the problem in a republic is that either half the people are pissed
> because the other side got their way, or a compromise is made that doesn't
> completely satisfy anybody. The problem with society is that we're all
> forced to live under the same rules and regulations. And I'm not talking
> about corporate law. I'm just talking about day to day laws like abortion
> laws, suicide laws, drug laws, indecency laws. Hey, if my next door
> neighbor decides that he never wants to wear clothes for as long as he
> lives, that's great! But the law says he can't go anywhere if he's going
to
> be naked or he'll be arrested for indecent exposure. If my neighbor wants
> to kill himself, I'll back him up. If my neighbor's wife wants to abort
her
> baby, so be it. It doesn't mean *I* want to do any of those things and I
> won't have to. Furthermore, if I want to build a greenhouse and fill it
> with growing marijuana plants, I want to be able to do that without fear
of
> the cops coming to arrest me.
>
I don't want to live in the liberal society you describe. We are
enemies.
> The very basic, fundamental human freedoms are the ones I'm most concerned
> with. No, I don't think we should be allowed to steal. I think some form
> of speed limit is a good idea within city limits because that's about
> safety. But these crazy abortion, suicide, drug, prostitution,
pornography
> and anti-nudity laws are moralistic hogwash that should all be repealed.
You should probably support either the democratic party or the
libertarian party. I on the other hand should do all I can to oppose these
parties.
> Those are the kinds of decisions people can make for themselves and when I
> tell people that America is no longer the greatest icon of freedom in the
> world, it is these basic laws I'm referring to. The only kind of freedom
> the government seems to be concerned with is economic freedom. Basic
rights
> which I consider inalienable rights are disappearing and have been for
some
> time.
I am highly in favor of outlawing prostition and the other things you
call your "basic rights".
>
> I don't think we should outlaw anything people want to consume.
I don't think this conversation is accomplishing anything. I will stop
reading now, no offence.
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"Ron Allen" <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3C31E280...@bellsouth.net...
> tribaI...@earthlink.com wrote:
> Anarchism is the absence of a political state,
Anarchy is hell on earth. Without the fear of the police some people would
make life miserable for the rest of us.
and the
> presence of a political democracy -- i.e., the people
> are no longer alienated from public choice decision-
> making,
So somebody would be making the decisions, in this case "the people".
Most people are couch potatoes who let the TV do their thinking for them.
Their decisions may be worse than the decisions made in other political
systems.
the people are no longer estranged or separated
> from the political process. A true democracy is when
> the citizens, the people, and not the politicians, are
> empowered and enfranchised to determine public policy.
>
I agree with that somewhat. When did we vote to give billions of dollars
to the Jew country for one thing. I never voted for that. All the
politicians are for that because the Jews control the media.
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"Ron Allen" <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3C31F51F...@bellsouth.net...
> tribaI...@earthlink.com wrote:
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> It is very common for people to oppose democracy and
> anarchism, and that is because the only democracy we
> know so far is bourgeois democracy (i.e., plutocracy).
> In my opinion, anarchism is not the absence of true
> democracy; it's the absence of an authoritarian state.
Anarchy is hell on earth. For one thing who would pave the roads in an
anarchy?
>
> Those who oppose anarchism and democracy usually do not
> consider the question of how public sphere policies are
> determined, and who is empowered and authorized to make
> decisions that concern society. As anarchists they
> advocate self government and self determination, but
> they neglect the political sphere and the question of
> social government and social determination. As I see
> it, just as the individual self ought to be free to
> govern and determine the individual self, so also the
> autonomous social unit should be free to govern and
> decide the community's collective being/life. Those
> who oppose anarchism and democracy neglect and forget the
> fact that human being is ever and always social being.
> If we the people are not free to fully decide our social
> and public life, then we as persons will never be truly
> free to decide our solitary and private lives.
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"Ron Allen" <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3C31F6C0...@bellsouth.net...
> Alex Vange wrote:
> Ron Allen answers:
> But, then, what you seem not to be aware of is that a
> minority group of élite monkeys, running the whole circus,
> are still just monkeys running the circus.
>
The reality is that people are not equal and the best of us would run the
circus much better than just the majority opinion. Who would make the better
chess move, Kasparov or the majority opinion if everyone voted on it?
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"Pat Hines" <fas...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3C3116D0...@attbi.com...
> Alex Vange wrote:
> >
>
> Mussolini was a leading Marxist who became disenchanted with it, he
> founded Fascism in 1919.
>
>
> They may do that, it's irrelevant. Sociofascism, today's melding of
> socialism and fascism in the modern liberal, is what is eating away at
> the American culture and society.
>
> Capitalism is being used to finance modern sociofascism in the same way
> the Fascists used it.
>
> As Von Mises and Hayek stated it over 80 years ago, capitalism is the
> only economic model capable of being successful.
We need to reject both Capitalism and Communism. They are both
materialistic and they are both evil.
>
> Fascism, communism without state ownership of the means of production,
> but owners of individuals is the step child of communism/socialism. You
> attempt to show that there is no connection is absurd.
The answer to Communism is not to try to defend Capitalism. The answer
the Communism is to show a better way namely Fascism.
> Hitler said, "why socialize the means of production and the banks, we
> socialize the people.
>
>
> The same tired old communist obfuscation of fascism being on the
> opposite end of the spectrum used by an apparent sociofascist, that myth
> doesn't work any longer.
The main thing is not what ends of the spectrum we put things on. The
main thing is for us to all be on the same page and speaking the same
language. Only when we can agree on the meaning of words can there be
communication.
> National socialism is still equally the gutter philosophy is always
> was,
I will stop reading now. You have your beliefs because your only source
of information is the Jewish controlled media.
There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of Their
Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran Hollywood.
Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment". It is
subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are from the Aug
1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So What?":
"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power
and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most influential
pruduction executives at each of the major movie studios will produce a
heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."
"the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt Disney, a
gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic attitudes, now
features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most powerful positions."
The head of Walt Disney studios is now the Jew Michael Eisner. On
studios that were bought out by the Japanese the magazine says:
"When Mitsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to undermine the
unquestioned authority of Universal's legendary - and all Jewish -
management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg, and Tom Pollack."
Here are some quotes from the paper "Jews Control the Media and Rule
America"
"American Broadcasting Companies (ABC), Coumbia Broadcasting System
(CBS), and National Broadcasting Company (NBC). Each of these three has been
under the absolute control of a single man over a long enough period of
time--ranging from 32 to 55 years--for him to staff the corporation at every
level with officers of his choosing and then to place his imprint indelibly
upon it. In each case that man has been a Jew.
"Until 1985, when ABC merged with Capital Cities Communications,
Inc...the chairman of the board of directors and chief executive officer
(CEO) of the network was Leonard Harry Goldenson, a Jew...In an interview in
the April 1, 1985 issue of Newsweek, Goldenson boasted 'I built this company
(ABC) from scratch.'"
"CBS was under the domination of William S. Paley for more than half
a century. The son of immigrant Jews from Russia..."
"There has been no move by top G-E management to change the Jewish
"profile" of NBC or to replace key Jewish personel. To the contrary, new
Jewish executives have been added: an example is Steve Friedman..."
"The man in charge of the television entertainment division at CBS is
Jeff Sagansky. At ABC the entertainment division is run by two men....nearly
all of the men who shape young Amercians' concept of reality, of good and
evil, of permissible and impermissible behavior are Jews. In particular,
Sagansky and Bloomberg arre Jews. So is Tartikoff. Littlefield is the only
Gentile who has had a significant role in TV entertainment programming in
recent years."
"American Film magazine listed the top 10...entertainment companies
and their CEOs...Time Warner Communications (Steven J Ross, Jew) Walt Disney
Co. (Michael D. Eisner, Jew)...Of the 10 top entertainment CEOs listed
above, eight are Jews."
"The Newhouse media empire provides an example of more than a lack of
real competition among America's daily newspapers; it also illustrates the
insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all organs of opinion... The
Newhouse's own 31 daily newspapers, including several large and important
ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Newark Star-Ledger, and the
New Orleans Times-Picayune; the nation's largest trade book publishing
conglomerate, Random House, with all its subsideries; Newhouse
Broadcasting, consisting of 12 television broadcasting stations and 87
cable-TV systems, including some of the countries largest cable networks-
the Sunday supplement Parade, with a circulation of more than 22 million
copies per week; some two dozen major magazines, including the New Yorker,
Vogue, Madamoiselle, Glamour, Vanity Fair, HQ, Bride's, Gentlemen's
Quarterly, Self, Home&Garden...."
"Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership and
management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising..."
"the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post.
These three...are the newspapers which set trends and guidlines for nearly
all others. They are the ones which decide what is news and what isn't, at
national and international levels. They originate the news; the others
merely copy it. And all three newspapers are in Jewish hands...The Suzberger
family also owns, through the New York Times Co. 36 other newspapers; twelve
magazines, including McCall's and Family Circle..."
"New York's other newspapers are in no better hands than the Daily
News. The New York Post is owned by billionare Jewish real-estate developer
Peter Kalikow. The Village Voice is the personal property of Leonard Stern,
the billionaire Jewish owner of..."
"There are only three newsmagazines of any note published in the United
States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report....The CEO of Time
Warner Communications is Steven J. Ross, and he is a Jew.
"Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington Post
Co., under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham..."
"U.S. News & World Report... owned and published by Jewish real estate
developer Mortimer B. Zucherman..."
" The three largest book publishers...Random House... Simon & Schuster
, and Time Inc. Book Co....All three are owned or controlled by Jews...The
CEO of Simon & Schuster if Richard Snyder, and the president is Jeremy
Kaplan; both are Jews too."
"Western Publishing...ranks first among publishers of childrens books, with
more than 50 per cent of the market. Its chairman and CEO is Richard
Bernstein, a Jew."
"Jewish spokesmen customarily will use evasive tactics. "Ted Turner
isn't a Jew!" they will announce..."
"We are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on our
political system and virtual control of our government; we also are giving
them control of the minds and souls of our children..."
Steve Harris
>
> Capitalism and Communism are both evil. The problem with capitalism
is
> that it is materialistic and puts no special value on people. Capitalism
is
> based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that made potato chips
for
> example would need--X number of potatoes, Y amount of salt, and Z number
of
> human beings for labor. The human beings have no more value than the
> potatoes or the salt.
Get a clue, Alex. This simply means that "capitalism" (or more correctly,
the free market) should not be your total philosophy. Perhaps it shouldn't
even be your total political philosophy (though this is precisely the point
at which many minarchists differ from full-strength propertarian
anarchists). The free market was never meant as a substitute for your
Priest or your Rabbi or your humanistic values, where ever you get them.
It's simply a tool, like a railroad, which allows you to do things
efficiently in an economic system. It's efficient because it's networked,
distributed, multitasked, and by nature it involves the maximal number of
human brains, thus maximal processing power, to solve the difficult and
perpetual economic problem. Whatever layer of government or charity or
robbery/taxation you want to tack onto it, is just that-- an add-on.
Andrew J. Brehm
> "Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
> >
> > Pat Hines <fas...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Alex Vange wrote:
> > > >
> > > > http://stormfront.org
> > > > www.spearhead-uk.com
> > > > "Pat Hines" <fas...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:3C2E9543...@attbi.com...
> > > > > Ron Allen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Nonsense, Mussolini was a Marxist through and through.
> > > >
> > > > Nonsense, Mussolini fought against the Marxists. He came to power by
> > > > defeating the Marxists.
> > >
> > > Mussolini was a leading Marxist who became disenchanted with it, he
> > > founded Fascism in 1919.
> >
> > So you do remember.
>
> Mussolini didn't abandon any of the totalitarian aspects of Marxism,
What totalitarian aspects of Marxism are you talking about?
> Socialism, fascism, and the other Marxist based economic philosophies
> require force for participation, and since that is true, all but a tiny
> few who have a choice have abandoned it. The tiny few who have not
> abandoned sociofascism are usually un- or undereducated, are dangerous
> demagogues, or fools.
Fascism is not "Marxist based". It's the opposite.
A philosophy based on a belief in a master race is by definition the
opposite of a philosophy based on the ideal of a classless society.
James A. Donald
On Wed, 2 Jan 2002 02:06:13 +0100, and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J.
Brehm) wrote:
> What totalitarian aspects of Marxism are you talking about?
Labor battalions and all that -- recollect the way they
turned out when Trotsky and later Pol Pot tried them.
And of course there is abolition of the difference between
town and country, a program so over the top that of all the
Marxists, only the ultra pure Pol Pot tried it.
And then of course there is Marx on "bourgeois liberty".
Instead of such mere bourgeous liberties such as freedom to
think whatever one pleases, under Marxism one will instead
receive a higher and superior form of liberty -- assistance
to make sure one will only think correct thoughts. Instead
of freedom of religion, one will instead receive the higher
liberty of freedom from religion, and so on and so forth.
And of course, plenty more of the same.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
HOlTN9ex9BCZkx013PUoBk9KaJf6/Kutpk58s6KW
4/K2cCZaMBjkGURqDtp5Dc3kst9a3zfStW1OoEZlh
------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
Andrew J. Brehm
> --
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2002 02:06:13 +0100, and...@netneurotic.de (Andrew J.
> Brehm) wrote:
> > What totalitarian aspects of Marxism are you talking about?
>
> Labor battalions and all that -- recollect the way they
> turned out when Trotsky and later Pol Pot tried them.
What does that have to do with Marxism?
> And of course there is abolition of the difference between
> town and country, a program so over the top that of all the
> Marxists, only the ultra pure Pol Pot tried it.
What exactly makes Pol Pot a Marxist?
> And then of course there is Marx on "bourgeois liberty".
> Instead of such mere bourgeous liberties such as freedom to
> think whatever one pleases, under Marxism one will instead
> receive a higher and superior form of liberty -- assistance
> to make sure one will only think correct thoughts. Instead
> of freedom of religion, one will instead receive the higher
> liberty of freedom from religion, and so on and so forth.
>
> And of course, plenty more of the same.
What I'd need would be examples of Marx promoting totatilatrain
politicies, not examples of someone else promoting them.
Ron Allen
> Anarchy is hell on earth.
Ron Allen answers:
To paraphrase Milton's Satan, it is better to rule one's
own self in hell than serve in heaven.
Alex Vange wrote:
> For one thing who would pave the roads in an anarchy?
Ron Allen answers:
There is nothing in anarchy to prohibit free people from
organizing themselves together for some cooperative and
collaborative projects, such as the paving of roads.
<><><><><><><><><>
"Deeds are fruits, words are but leaves."
-- English proverb
James A. Donald
Andrew J. Brehm
> > > What totalitarian aspects of Marxism are you talking
> > > about?
James A. Donald:
> > Labor battalions and all that -- recollect the way they
> > turned out when Trotsky and later Pol Pot tried them.
Andrew J. Brehm
> What does that have to do with Marxism?
It is one of the points of the program listed in "the
communist manifesto", and was tried by the two most extreme
Marxists.
James A. Donald:
> > And of course there is abolition of the difference
> > between town and country, a program so over the top that
> > of all the Marxists, only the ultra pure Pol Pot tried
> > it.
Andrew J. Brehm
> What exactly makes Pol Pot a Marxist?
Fanatical devotion to the purest of pure Marxism.
James A. Donald:
> > And then of course there is Marx on "bourgeois liberty".
> > Instead of such mere bourgeois liberties such as freedom
> > to think whatever one pleases, under Marxism one will
> > instead receive a higher and superior form of liberty --
> > assistance to make sure one will only think correct
> > thoughts. Instead of freedom of religion, one will
> > instead receive the higher liberty of freedom from
> > religion, and so on and so forth.
> >
> > And of course, plenty more of the same.
Andrew J. Brehm
> What I'd need would be examples of Marx promoting
> totatilatrain politicies,
When Marx condemned "bourgeois liberty", advocated labor
battalions, and so on and so forth, he was promoting
totalitarian policies.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
bl/yHO3pA/6ydApt4un8zajsEM/WExzUXT6uoGFC
49EQaFgSROFVQecxjBz1buopRJVREtsZ2h5A5fd7O
Steve Harris
> Alex Vange wrote:
> > Anarchy is hell on earth.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> To paraphrase Milton's Satan, it is better to rule one's
> own self in hell than serve in heaven.
COMMENT:
What makes you think you'd get to rule yourself in an anarchy, Ron? Any more
than you get to now? I'm going to hammer away on this point until you all
"get" it. Anarchy is not a society in which there is an absence of force.
Anarchy is merely a society in which there is an absence of "authority."
Which means an absence of "authorized force." Force, however, is still
present. And force rules. Authority, however, is like beauty, and resides
only in the eye of the beholder.
You like anarchy? It's easy for to create such a society NOW, for anyone who
wants it. Just close your eyes, and decide that the government has no true
and honest "authority" over you. And that all the force the government
wields, is done so by means of your neighbors having gotten together and
anarchistically deciding that they are going to force you to do things you'd
rather not, at the point of a gun, without any "authority" at all. But just
because they outgun you.
Now, open your eyes, Shallow Hal. Are you happy? You live in an anarchy NOW.
Glinda the Good Witch has granted your wish. There are no legitimate laws,
because you have decided there aren't any. Thus, you're quite free to do
anything you want, so long as you don't run afoul of some group which
outguns you, and which wants you to behave in some other way. Which is of
course a constraint in any anarchy.
There you are.
Happy Holidays.
Ron Allen
> The reality is that people are not equal and the best of us would run
> the circus much better than just the majority opinion.
Ron Allen answers:
Who decides which of us is the best of us, and how is this
decision made?
Are you better than me? If I decide democracy is better
than plutocracy, does that decision make me less a person
than you?
Alex Vange wrote:
> Who would make the better chess move, Kasparov or the majority opinion
> if everyone voted on it?
Ron Allen answers:
Chess moves do not influence or concern -- help or harm
-- people; and the chess game was created precisely to
challenge the players. Most public choice matters of
social concern are not as difficult as a chess move, if
any such matters can be compared to a chess move.
Besides, there is nothing in democratic theory which says
the people cannot elect smart people to make the hard
decisions for them. I just don't think political choices
can be as difficult as a chess move.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"The best way to know God is to love many things."
-- Vincent van Gogh
Andrew J. Brehm
> --
> Andrew J. Brehm
> > > > What totalitarian aspects of Marxism are you talking
> > > > about?
>
> James A. Donald:
> > > Labor battalions and all that -- recollect the way they
> > > turned out when Trotsky and later Pol Pot tried them.
>
> Andrew J. Brehm
> > What does that have to do with Marxism?
>
> It is one of the points of the program listed in "the
> communist manifesto", and was tried by the two most extreme
> Marxists.
The manifesto says no such thing.
> James A. Donald:
> > > And of course there is abolition of the difference
> > > between town and country, a program so over the top that
> > > of all the Marxists, only the ultra pure Pol Pot tried
> > > it.
>
> Andrew J. Brehm
> > What exactly makes Pol Pot a Marxist?
>
> Fanatical devotion to the purest of pure Marxism.
Seems more like a devotion to your idea of what Marxism is rather than
devotion to Marxism.
When did Pol Put enforce a classless society in his country?
> James A. Donald:
> > > And then of course there is Marx on "bourgeois liberty".
> > > Instead of such mere bourgeois liberties such as freedom
> > > to think whatever one pleases, under Marxism one will
> > > instead receive a higher and superior form of liberty --
> > > assistance to make sure one will only think correct
> > > thoughts. Instead of freedom of religion, one will
> > > instead receive the higher liberty of freedom from
> > > religion, and so on and so forth.
> > >
> > > And of course, plenty more of the same.
>
> Andrew J. Brehm
> > What I'd need would be examples of Marx promoting
> > totatilatrain politicies,
>
> When Marx condemned "bourgeois liberty", advocated labor
> battalions, and so on and so forth, he was promoting
> totalitarian policies.
Actually he was promoting going away from such policies.
James A. Donald
Andrew J. Brehm:
> > > > > What totalitarian aspects of Marxism are you
> > > > > talking about?
James A. Donald:
> > > > Labor battalions and all that -- recollect the way
> > > > they turned out when Trotsky and later Pol Pot tried
> > > > them.
Andrew J. Brehm:
> > > What does that have to do with Marxism?
James A. Donald:
> > It is one of the points of the program listed in "the
> > communist manifesto", and was tried by the two most
> > extreme Marxists.
Andrew J. Brehm:
> The manifesto says no such thing.
What it does say is: "Equal liability of all to labour.
Establishment of industrial armies, especially for
agriculture", which sounds remarkably like the labor
battalions in which so many recently died in so many
countries.
James A. Donald:
> > > > And of course there is abolition of the difference
> > > > between town and country, a program so over the top
> > > > that of all the Marxists, only the ultra pure Pol Pot
> > > > tried it.
Andrew J. Brehm:
> > > What exactly makes Pol Pot a Marxist?
James A. Donald:
> > Fanatical devotion to the purest of pure Marxism.
Andrew J. Brehm:
> Seems more like a devotion to your idea of what Marxism is
> rather than devotion to Marxism.
>
> When did Pol Put enforce a classless society in his
> country?
He instituted a classless society immediately and instantly.
Everyone was required, on pain of immediate execution, to use
forms of address, and a manner of speaking, that asserted
that everyone was a brother, everyone was equal, and which
superficially concealed the fact that some people could
execute other people. Everyone had to eat collectively, and
theoretically they all got the same food.
James A. Donald:
> > > > And then of course there is Marx on "bourgeois
> > > > liberty". Instead of such mere bourgeois liberties
> > > > such as freedom to think whatever one pleases, under
> > > > Marxism one will instead receive a higher and
> > > > superior form of liberty -- assistance to make sure
> > > > one will only think correct thoughts. Instead of
> > > > freedom of religion, one will instead receive the
> > > > higher liberty of freedom from religion, and so on
> > > > and so forth.
> > > >
> > > > And of course, plenty more of the same.
Andrew J. Brehm:
> > > What I'd need would be examples of Marx promoting
> > > totatilatrain politicies,
James A. Donald:
> > When Marx condemned "bourgeois liberty", advocated labor
> > battalions, and so on and so forth, he was promoting
> > totalitarian policies.
Andrew J. Brehm:
> Actually he was promoting going away from such policies.
If labor battalions and the abolition of bourgeois liberty is
not totalitarian, then Pol Pot and Stalin are not
totalitarian
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
+8hrCBwNJ9arR1AECLl2o6BFBY61YKsuLaigxbpF
4laBB92EnLulAC4+6VUuTSp5JXhjDMF2rhmYq/P9M
Steve Harris
news:3c323...@news.newsgroups.com...
> The reality is that people are not equal and the best of us would run
the
> circus much better than just the majority opinion. Who would make the
better
> chess move, Kasparov or the majority opinion if everyone voted on it?
Well, that's a nice statement of the Jeffersonian argument for a "natural
aristoi" (vs. one supposes, the "natural hoi polloi"). And it's one reason
why historically we have a republican form of democracy.
You can't push this too far, though. With a thousand chess games going at
once, even Kasparov will be outclassed by 1000 "merely good" players
operating in parallel. And when you get to 10,000 or a million, it's no
contest. These situations are more like what we have in economic or
political life. The second-class intellect who is closer to the problem and
more more time and information, is going to do a better job than the genius
in Washington, thousands of miles away.
That was the problem with Bill and Hillary, don't you know. They were both
smart people and knew it. Their problem came in the next step, which was
believing that since they were smart people, they should be running many
aspects of your lives for you, since they're smart than you are. However,
that's not necessarily true, even from a pure efficiency point of view, and
even if there wasn't any objection to it from the "right to autonomy" point
of view. The communists, and in fact the Left in general, have never quite
gotten this.
SBH
--
Steve Harris
You can email me at sbhar...@ix.netcom.com
But remove the numerals in the address first.
==============================
Our nada who art in Nada
Nada be thy nada..
-- Dada Hemingway
==========================
tribal...@earthlink.net
wise decision to post:
> tribaI...@earthlink.com wrote:
> > I want to live in an anarchistic state where people are free to do
> > whatever they want to do as long as they don't do things to others
> > that others don't consent to, such as stealing and murder.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Anarchistic state!?
>
> Anarchism is the absence of a political state
Yes. It sounds wonderful, doesn't it? People can get together and do
things for their own community without government rule. I think many people
care about the places they live in, and they would love to have hands-on
participation in taking care of their hometowns. But I don't think
capitalism really encourages people to help support their community. I
think people are usually so physically and emotionally pooped after working
40-60 hours at a job they may not even like, that spending time with the
spouse and kids, taking care of bills, and home maintenance become the main
priorities. That's not to say that any less work would need to be done
under some other societal structure, but I think something other than
capitalism would allow more people to have jobs they enjoy more rather than
selecting jobs based on the amount of money to be made.
> , and the presence of a political democracy -- i.e., the people are no
> longer alienated from public choice decision- making, the people are
> no longer estranged or separated from the political process. A true
> democracy is when the citizens, the people, and not the politicians,
> are empowered and enfranchised to determine public policy.
Political democracy? But wouldn't that mean that if the majority decides
that society will be a certain way, then it will be that certain way? The
minority loses? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought anarchy was somewhat
similar to the creed of the Wiccans: "An ye harm none, do as thou will." I'm
looking for a society in which pretty much everyone gets their way. People
who want have abortions, commit suicide, hire a prostitute, take drugs,
etc... would be able to do these things without fear of criminal or civil
prosecution or fines. Murders would not get their way.
Many people mistakenly believe that anarchy is nothing more than complete
and total chaos, but the form of society I'm advocating is one in which
people take responsibility for themselves. Though this may sound surprising
to some, I don't think privacy is such a big deal. What have I to be
ashamed of? We're all human. So if society wants cameras all over the
place so that we have nowhere in this country that's private, so be it. If
we're going to talk about individual responsibility, cameras don't lie. If
someone does murder another person, the camera will tell the tale. Let the
family of the dead decide on the punishment of the killer. With clear
camera shots of the murder, there would be no need for a trial. The suspect
is guilty and should be at the mercy of the family of the one who was
killed.
Now if we're talking about putting up cameras to arrest me for smoking a
cigarette or "scratching myself" in public, then that's taking things a bit
too far. Unfortunately, people in America seem to think they have a right
not to be offended, so it seems like more laws or ordinance are enacted to
protect people from being offended. I don't think that's the right
direction to go.
Damaeus
tribal...@earthlink.net
<sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> did make a wise decision to post:
tribal...@earthlink.net
<sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> did make a wise decision to post:
> "Ron Allen" <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
tribal...@earthlink.net
<sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> did make a wise decision to post:
> You like anarchy? It's easy for to create such a society NOW, for anyone who
> wants it. Just close your eyes, and decide that the government has no true
> and honest "authority" over you. And that all the force the government
> wields, is done so by means of your neighbors having gotten together and
> anarchistically deciding that they are going to force you to do things you'd
> rather not, at the point of a gun, without any "authority" at all. But just
> because they outgun you.
Your statement does point out some concerns, but that would only happen if
we all wake up tomorrow and find that we have no central government. If
anarchy is implemented slowly, people will eventually grow more tolerant of
different kinds of people. It takes a *mature* society to live under
anarchy. The infantile, whining, griping and vindictive society we have now
would indeed destroy itself under anarchy because there is too much
intolerance of varying viewpoints.
> Now, open your eyes, Shallow Hal. Are you happy? You live in an anarchy NOW.
No, we don't. America is a fascist state. Capitalism and fascism, all
mixed together. Have you ever seen the ad on TV from the New York Stock
Exchange? It began airing soon after the September 11 attacks. The ad
shows pictures of cops, firefighters and families with music in the
background. The text reads:
Here's to the human spirit.
Here's to courage.
Here's to the essential strength of American business
and the American dream.
It's why this bell has rung for 209 years
and will ring again tomorrow.
Let freedom ring.
NYSE New York Stock Exchange
Every time I see that ad, I want to throw up. It just reeks of the only
kind of freedom that the U.S. government really cares about: Capitalism.
They like it probably because a robust economy generates more taxes and
keeps those in power, in power longer. So not only are basic freedoms being
chewed away, they're stealing our own money to do it. It's like paying
someone to steal your lunch and eat it for you.
> Glinda the Good Witch has granted your wish. There are no legitimate laws,
> because you have decided there aren't any. Thus, you're quite free to do
> anything you want, so long as you don't run afoul of some group which
> outguns you, and which wants you to behave in some other way. Which is of
> course a constraint in any anarchy.
You're not talking about anarchy. You're talking about living on a planet
full of assholes. Anarchists are typically not assholes because as long as
you don't try to force them to do something they don't want to do, they'll
be your best friend.
Damaeus
tribal...@earthlink.net
wise decision to post:
> Alex Vange wrote:
> > For one thing who would pave the roads in an anarchy?
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> There is nothing in anarchy to prohibit free people from
> organizing themselves together for some cooperative and
> collaborative projects, such as the paving of roads.
That's true. I know that it's not beneath me to scrub toilets. I would
like to be a musician, but while I'm studying or perfecting my technique, I
would have no problem hanging out at the mall all day to clean up the
bathrooms. Plus I think society currently creates some kind of negative
image around janitors and custodians and people treat them like they might
want to do something more with their lives, but they're unable to. I think
some people enjoy being custodians. The only reason they may look depressed
is because some of them are treated like it's all their worth, even though
they enjoy the honest work.
tribal...@earthlink.net
decision to post:
> <tribaI...@earthlink.com> wrote in message
> news:ge433ugr7gfns26s7...@creamy.legs...
>
> > I don't want to live in a democracy or a republic. I want to live in
> > an anarchistic state where people are free to do whatever they want to
> > do as long as they don't do things to others that others don't consent
> > to, such as stealing and murder.
>
> You are a liberal.
Yes. I typically agree with Alan Colmes far more than I agree with Sean
Hannity. Funny, though. I'm typically like the Republican stance on
corporate issues and I like the liberal stance on societal issues.
> There are two schools of thought in the world, the right and the left.
> The right is guided by what was known as Christian principles. It is
> for outlawing homosexual perversion, prostitution, abortions, heroin,
> and other bad things. It puts the good of the nation first and ahead
> of the freedom of individuals to corrupt the culture of the nation.
I think we've already been over this. I suspect it's a copy & paste from an
earlier message of yours.
> Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it harm
> none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
> that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
> Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize the
> homosexual perversion, prostitution, drugs, etc.
Homosexuality is already legal in the United States. Would you prefer to
see it outlawed? Should we have a death penalty for practicing or
proclaiming homosexuality as they do in some countries in the east?
Should Wiccans, pagans and Satanists be punished for their beliefs? You
know, I have always found those three types of people to be more honest,
loving and sincere than most Christians; plus they don't preach and tell me
everything I'm doing wrong unless I start trying to tell them how to live
their lives. I think that's how we're supposed to live. I think that's the
spirit of loving your neighbor, as the Bible says. If you love your
neighbor as yourself, do you want people coming to you and punishing you for
doing things that others disagree with? Of course not. So why would you
want to force such experiences on others? Would that mean that you love
yourself more than others?
> The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only about
> individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make the
> nation better.
Forced patriotism?
> > But if I want to be murdered, then I'd expect the person who
> > murdered me to continue to live a life of freedom. Of course, by the time
> > such a society becomes a reality, doctor assisted suicide will have become
> > an accepted way of dealing with life.
>
> > Hey, if my next door neighbor decides that he never wants to wear
> > clothes for as long as he lives, that's great! But the law says he
> > can't go anywhere if he's going to be naked or he'll be arrested for
> > indecent exposure. If my neighbor wants to kill himself, I'll back
> > him up. If my neighbor's wife wants to abort her baby, so be it. It
> > doesn't mean *I* want to do any of those things and I won't have to.
> > Furthermore, if I want to build a greenhouse and fill it with growing
> > marijuana plants, I want to be able to do that without fear of the
> > cops coming to arrest me.
>
> I don't want to live in the liberal society you describe. We are
> enemies.
So you want to live in a society where forbiddances and restrictions are
placed upon people to make them all behave in ways that you find appropriate
and which fall in line with what you think is moral? What if 50.01% of the
people do not agree with you? Would you accept defeat and admit that most
of the people want a more liberal society, or would you use force against
the will of the majority?
> > The very basic, fundamental human freedoms are the ones I'm most
> > concerned with. No, I don't think we should be allowed to steal. I
> > think some form of speed limit is a good idea within city limits
> > because that's about safety. But these crazy abortion, suicide, drug,
> > prostitution, pornography and anti-nudity laws are moralistic hogwash
> > that should all be repealed.
>
> You should probably support either the democratic party or the
> libertarian party. I on the other hand should do all I can to oppose
> these parties.
I don't see why. God gave us ten commandments. I don't see why that isn't
enough. If everyone lived by the ten commandments, society would be a
paradise. Why do you want to continue the damage that's been done by man's
laws which throw natural order out of alignment?
> > Those are the kinds of decisions people can make for themselves and
> > when I tell people that America is no longer the greatest icon of
> > freedom in the world, it is these basic laws I'm referring to. The
> > only kind of freedom the government seems to be concerned with is
> > economic freedom. Basic rights which I consider inalienable rights
> > are disappearing and have been for some time.
>
> I am highly in favor of outlawing prostition and the other things you
> call your "basic rights".
Prostitution is already outlawed except in Nevada. Drug laws will
eventually soften, too.
Damaeus
tribal...@earthlink.net
wise decision to post:
> tribaI...@earthlink.com wrote:
> > I don't want to live in a democracy or a republic. I want to live in
> > an anarchistic state . . .
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> It is very common for people to oppose democracy and anarchism, and
> that is because the only democracy we know so far is bourgeois
> democracy (i.e., plutocracy). In my opinion, anarchism is not the
> absence of true democracy; it's the absence of an authoritarian state.
>
> Those who oppose anarchism and democracy usually do not consider the
> question of how public sphere policies are determined, and who is
> empowered and authorized to make decisions that concern society. As
> anarchists they advocate self government and self determination, but
> they neglect the political sphere and the question of social
> government and social determination. As I see it, just as the
> individual self ought to be free to govern and determine the
> individual self, so also the autonomous social unit should be free to
> govern and decide the community's collective being/life. Those who
> oppose anarchism and democracy neglect and forget the fact that human
> being is ever and always social being. If we the people are not free
> to fully decide our social and public life, then we as persons will
> never be truly free to decide our solitary and private lives.
Very wise, indeed. I put it into perspective by looking at my home life.
The only people living here are me and my housemate. My housemate likes to
decorate for Christmas and buy knick-knacks like statues and figurines which
litter almost the entire house. I don't care about those things, so I have
nothing to do with them and they do not go in my bedroom. Within the
confines of the walls of this house, it's pretty much anarchy.
Applying this same living concept on a social scale, suppose a group of
people want a race track so they can race their cars. If they're able to
get the resources together, I have no problem with a racetrack. But since I
don't care for auto racing, I will have nothing to do with it. People may
want to plant flowers on the town square. Fine with me, but I don't care
about flowers, so I will not participate in that, either. But let's say I
want a movie theater built. I would participate with others to see that it
gets built, meaning I would spend some of my spare time actually
constructing the building. Even people who know nothing about carpentry can
contribute to building a structure. And I think these are all things that
can be done without money.
People always ask who will clean the toilets if nobody is getting paid.
Prisoners can do it. I don't think we'll ever have a shortage of prisoners,
so their repayment to society for their wrongdoing can be the dirty work
like digging ditches, cleaning sewers and scrubbing toilets.
I think it's a very simple structure that would work because people would
get involved in things they care about and people who don't care about those
things would not be forced to contribute as they do now in the form of
taxes.
Damaeus
david_michael
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:a0tqnp$hmv$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
Yes, that's what's always puzzled me about anarchy. I've just read some
Bakunin. He writes, in *Politics and the State*:
<begin quote>
The State, however popular may be the form it assumes, will always be an
institution of domination and exploitation, and consequently a permanent
source of poverty and enslavement for the populace. There is no other way,
then, of emancipating the people economically and politically, of giving
them liberty and well-being at one and the same time than by abolishing the
State, all States, and, by so doing, killing, once and for all time, what,
up to now, has been called "Politics," i e., precisely nothing else than the
functioning or manifestation both internal and external of State action,
that is to say, the practice, or art and science of dominating and
exploiting the masses in favour of the privileged classes.
<end quote>
A few sentences later he writes:
<begin quote>
The organisation of the society of the future must and can be accomplished
only from the bottom upwards, through the free federation and union of the
workers into groups, unions, and societies, which will unite again into
districts, communes, national communes, and finally form a great
international federation.
<end quote>
And, of course, what would such a great federation be other than . . . you
guessed it . . . a state????!!!! Complete, doubtless, with oppression of man
by man!
It seems to me that the fundamental difficulty with anarchism is that the
moment it addresses the problem of what to replace the state with it ends up
either advocating a de facto state, or something that will inevitably end up
as a de facto state!
I have a lot of sympathy with overthrowing the established order, but there
does seem to be a lot of confusion about what to replace it with.
David
Hewpiedawg
> www.spearhead-uk.com
> "Ron Allen" <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:3C31E280...@bellsouth.net...
> > tribaI...@earthlink.com wrote:
> > Anarchism is the absence of a political state,
>
> Anarchy is hell on earth. Without the fear of the police some people
would
> make life miserable for the rest of us.
There is no way that the worst case of anarchy could
be any worse than the worst case of the State. The
worst cases of the State made some hells on Earth
in the last century that could not possibly be topped.
> and the
> > presence of a political democracy -- i.e., the people
> > are no longer alienated from public choice decision-
> > making,
>
> So somebody would be making the decisions, in this case "the people".
> Most people are couch potatoes who let the TV do their thinking for them.
> Their decisions may be worse than the decisions made in other political
> systems.
>
> the people are no longer estranged or separated
> > from the political process. A true democracy is when
> > the citizens, the people, and not the politicians, are
> > empowered and enfranchised to determine public policy.
> >
> I agree with that somewhat. When did we vote to give billions of
dollars
> to the Jew country for one thing. I never voted for that. All the
> politicians are for that because the Jews control the media.
And now all can see what kind of hell-on-earth State
you favor, Alex.
Don Watkins III
>What makes you think you'd get to rule yourself in an anarchy, Ron? Any more
>than you get to now? I'm going to hammer away on this point until you all
>"get" it. Anarchy is not a society in which there is an absence of force.
>Anarchy is merely a society in which there is an absence of "authority."
>Which means an absence of "authorized force." Force, however, is still
>present. And force rules. Authority, however, is like beauty, and resides
>only in the eye of the beholder.
IOW -- in an anarchist society, people stop pretending that domination of other
human beings can be moral if only it's done by a powerful enough "authority."
At least anarchy doesn't require that you pay for the privilege of being
coerced!
>You like anarchy? It's easy for to create such a society NOW, for anyone who
>wants it. Just close your eyes, and decide that the government has no true
>and honest "authority" over you. And that all the force the government
>wields, is done so by means of your neighbors having gotten together and
>anarchistically deciding that they are going to force you to do things you'd
>rather not, at the point of a gun, without any "authority" at all. But just
>because they outgun you.
That's not likely to happen in an anarchy because there's no incentive for to
do so.
What allows government crime to flourish is the fact that the guns are hidden.
Once it's clear that there is no legitimate coercive authority, the issue
becomes too clear and decent people are less likely to engage in the activities
the government now does.
>Now, open your eyes, Shallow Hal. Are you happy? You live in an anarchy NOW.
That's actually true. There is no such thing as government, you know. There's
just a bunch of people who have decided that they have the authority to
dominate you and me and all of us.
They don't, of course, because they can't, because forceful domination of
another human being is unjustifiable.
>Glinda the Good Witch has granted your wish. There are no legitimate laws,
>because you have decided there aren't any.
Nah...there are no legitimate laws because there aren't any, not because you or
I think there aren't.
>Thus, you're quite free to do
>anything you want, so long as you don't run afoul of some group which
>outguns you, and which wants you to behave in some other way. Which is of
>course a constraint in any anarchy.
And your solution is to organize those thugs? To pretend that somehow their
domination of human beings is legitimate?
Don Watkins
Steve Harris
news:3c32...@212.67.96.135...
> Yes, that's what's always puzzled me about anarchy. ...
> It seems to me that the fundamental difficulty with anarchism is that the
> moment it addresses the problem of what to replace the state with it ends
up
> either advocating a de facto state, or something that will inevitably end
up
> as a de facto state!
>
> I have a lot of sympathy with overthrowing the established order, but
there
> does seem to be a lot of confusion about what to replace it with.
Comment:
Somebody always must chase the bad guys (defined as they will) and put them
in jail or kill them. That group is the state. Call it whatever you like.
It two groups disagree about who to put in jail or kill, then they must
fight (unless somebody actually volunteers to go to jail or die, in order to
keep the peace). If they fight, the group that loses, is called "the
criminals." The group that wins is "the government." See? Easy.
If they fight for a long time, it's called "civil war". If it's a standoff,
you get two states.
Steve Harris
news:c5q53uogl00nopgcv...@creamy.legs...
> Your statement does point out some concerns, but that would only happen if
> we all wake up tomorrow and find that we have no central government. If
> anarchy is implemented slowly, people will eventually grow more tolerant
of
> different kinds of people. It takes a *mature* society to live under
> anarchy. The infantile, whining, griping and vindictive society we have
now
> would indeed destroy itself under anarchy because there is too much
> intolerance of varying viewpoints.
> You're not talking about anarchy. You're talking about living on a planet
> full of assholes. Anarchists are typically not assholes because as long
as
> you don't try to force them to do something they don't want to do, they'll
> be your best friend.
>
> Damaeus
COMMENT
Dameaus, you win a prize for the most naive post made on the net by a person
who can write a simple declarative sentence. That's an impressive
achievement. There are 8 year-olds here on Usenet who can write a sentence.
I forgot to ask your age, didn't I?
Ron Allen
> For one thing who would pave the roads in an anarchy?
Ron Allen wrote:
> There is nothing in anarchy to prohibit free people from organizing
> themselves together for some cooperative and collaborative projects,
> such as the paving of roads.
tribal...@earthlink.net wrote:
> That's true. I know that it's not beneath me to scrub toilets. I
> would like to be a musician, but while I'm studying or perfecting my
> technique, I would have no problem hanging out at the mall all day to
> clean up the bathrooms.
Ron Allen answers:
In my opinion, if you can make a mess, then you can also
clean it up. If you have a share in making a mess in a
public restroom, then you can have a part in cleaning up
the mess. I we all do our share, then no one will have
to do it all the time, and doing it will not seem beneath
any of us.
tribal...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Plus I think society currently creates some kind of negative image
> around janitors and custodians and people treat them like they might
> want to do something more with their lives, but they're unable to.
> I think some people enjoy being custodians. The only reason they may
> look depressed is because some of them are treated like it's all their
> worth, even though they enjoy the honest work.
Ron Allen answers:
I have done custodian work, when I was studying in school.
It was work I did not mind doing. I would not want it as
a career, but I do not mind custodial work.
<><><><><><><><><>
"I am a soldier of Christ. I am not allowed to fight."
-- St. Martin of Tours
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"Hewpiedawg" <hewpi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pzGY7.5843$0g.1...@iad-read.news.verio.net...
>
> And now all can see what kind of hell-on-earth State
> you favor, Alex.
>
The Jews Are Our Misfortune
By Dr. William Pierce
Hello!
If you've been listening to many of my broadcasts you will know that the
issue I talk about most often is that of media control. In nearly every
broadcast I have pointed out that the people who control the mass media
of news and entertainment are able to manipulate the opinions and
attitudes of about 95 per cent of the population. I have pointed out
that the media bosses do this manipulation deliberately and in collusion
with one another, taking advantage of the compelling need most people
have to conform their ideas and their behavior to a perceived norm.
The media bosses use their control over the mass media of entertainment
-- and to a lesser extent over the news media -- to create an artificial
norm that is presented to the public through television, motion
pictures, advertising, and other media, and this artificial norm is the
one perceived as real by most of the public. Through their control of
public opinion the media bosses also control the democratic political
process and governmental policy in a way that is advantageous to them
and disadvantageous to the White public. And these media bosses are
overwhelmingly Jews.
That has been the message I have presented over and over again in many
of these broadcasts. I have talked about different facets of Jewish
media control and have presented different specifics, different details,
in various broadcasts. I've discussed a number of different Hollywood
films or television shows as specific examples of the way in which the
Jews use their media control to brainwash the public, to promote
fashions and styles and behavior that are harmful to our people but that
advance the long-term schemes of the Jews to further dominate and
exploit our society.
I've talked about specific Jews who control various segments of the mass
media, and I've pointed out specific instances of the destructive way in
which they use their control. I've talked about the Jewish media boss
Sumner Redstone and his control of MTV and CBS and the Hollywood film
studio Paramount Pictures. I've talked about the Jewish media boss
Michael Eisner and his control of the Disney Company and ABC. I've
talked about the Jewish media boss Gerald Levin and his control of Time
Warner and CNN. I've talked about the Jewish media boss Edgar Bronfman
and his control of the largest segment of the popular music industry and
Universal Studios in Hollywood. And I've talked about dozens of other
Jewish media bosses and the media they control and the specific ways in
which they use those media. In particular, during the past few months
I've talked about several recent Hollywood films which deliberately
target teenaged White girls and brainwash them with the notion that it
is fashionable for them to have sex with Black males.
And of course, I've talked about the Jewish control of the news media as
well as the entertainment media. In a way similar to their use of the
entertainment media to set popular fashions, the Jewish media bosses
distort and censor the news in order to give the public a distorted
picture of what is happening in the world. I've given several very
specific examples of this Jewish management of the news in recent
months.
I've talked about the total blackout at the national level of the news
of the atrocious rape and massacre of Whites in Wichita, Kansas, by
Blacks last December, and I've talked about the almost total suppression
of the news of the Black racial attacks on Whites in Seattle in the
Mardi Gras riot at the end of February this year. I also talked about
the downplaying of the racial aspects of the Black rioting in Cincinnati
in April of this year, about the failure of the news media outside the
immediate Cincinnati area to mention the deliberate targeting of Whites,
especially White women, by the Black rioters. And I described the gross
distortions in the news coverage of the racial politics in York,
Pennsylvania, that led to the current White mayor of York being charged
in May with the killing of a Black during a Black race riot in York 32
years ago.
I have pointed out repeatedly how all of this suppression of the news
and distortion of the news is aimed at creating and maintaining a false
picture in the public mind of racial conflict in the United States. In
this false picture Whites always are the aggressors, Blacks or other
non-Whites are the innocent victims, and the root of all racial conflict
is White racism.
In a number of my broadcasts I've discussed at length why the Jews do
what they do: why they use their media control in such a deceptive and
destructive way, what their motives are. I've also talked about how they
collaborate. I've pointed out that their propaganda policies are not
formulated independently, but that they have a coherent party line that
they all follow. I've given a number of specific examples of this.
Well, all of these things that I've talked about have not gone unnoticed
by the Jewish media bosses themselves. When people expose their
activities or their scheming they pay attention. In particular, they
have been paying attention to these American Dissident Voices broadcasts
and to the work of my organization, the National Alliance. They read
what's on our Web sites at natvan.com and natall.com and resistance.com,
and they talk about it among themselves. This shows up pretty clearly in
the uniform way in which their media respond to us. Whether it's the
Associated Press or Time magazine or the Washington Post or a television
news commentator anywhere in the United States, they always use the same
phrasing in talking about us. They always use the word "hate" in
referring to us. They always say that the National Alliance is the "most
dangerous organized hate group" in America, despite the fact that all we
do is disseminate to the public the truth about what they're doing.
That's what they regard as "dangerous" and as "hate."
If you want to see a current indicator of the fact that they do think
about us, go to the Web site promoting Steven Spielberg's new movie,
A.I. There you'll see a parody of a part of the National Alliance's Web
site in the form of a page headed "Who Is the Anti-Robot Militia?" It's
obviously copied, almost word for word, from the page "Who Is the
National Alliance?" on our Web site. It's difficult for me to understand
what they hoped to accomplish with this parody. Perhaps they believe
that it will make people take us less seriously.
Somewhat less quirky but much more directly deceptive are their standard
smokescreen responses. It used to be that whenever I would raise the
issue of Jewish monopoly control of the mass media of news and
entertainment during an interview or on a call-in program, I would hear
the response from a Jew or an apologist for the Jews: "What about Ted
Turner? He's not a Jew," as if that negated everything I had said. Of
course, that response was used before Ted Turner's CNN was taken over by
the very Jewish Time Warner. And now that Ted Turner has been eased out
of all decision-making positions in the cable news network he built and
has been replaced by Jews, one doesn't hear the Ted Turner response any
longer.
The standard responses today, the ones I hear as often as I used to hear
the Ted Turner response, are the "it's the shareholders" and the "it's
the big bankers." Whenever I start naming names -- whenever I begin
talking about the control over the media wielded by Michael Eisner or
Sumner Redstone, for example, a Jew will pop up with the response:
"Those guys don't control the media. It's the shareholders who control
the media. Eisner and Redstone are just employees. The shareholders tell
them what to do." A variation on this theme is, "Eisner and Redstone
don't own the media. It's the big banks that own all of the media, and
most of the big bankers are Gentiles."
Well, of course, that's not really true, and they know it's not true.
The big Jewish media bosses are mostly quite autonomous. Sumner
Redstone, for example, owns outright two-thirds of the shares in his
media empire. His personal fortune is more than 12 billion dollars,
according to Forbes magazine this month. I'm quite sure he doesn't check
with any shareholders before he dreams up some new piece of race-mixing
filth for MTV.
As for Gentile bankers telling the Jewish media bosses what kind of
propaganda they must produce for the public, that's total nonsense. I
haven't yet done a study of the investment banking industry to determine
what percentage of Jews and what percentage of Gentiles are involved in
it, but one thing that's certain is that the Gentile bankers would faint
dead away at the thought of telling Jewish media bosses such as Michael
Eisner or the Sulzberger family or the Newhouses or Sumner Redstone to
cut back on the race-mixing propaganda. Gentile bankers as a class are
rich, deracinated capons, whose only interest is money.
Every Jewish propaganda medium -- CBS or MTV or Time magazine or the New
York Times -- is staffed from top to bottom with Jews, and they all know
what they're doing. They work as a tribe, as a swarm of termites gnawing
at the foundations of our existence. There is total agreement among the
media Jews as to the general thrust of their propaganda. They may
disagree on many of the details -- they may even compete against each
other for a bigger slice of the media pie -- but all agree on the
general goals of degrading and subverting Gentile civilization, of
corrupting Gentile institutions, of mongrelizing our race. Again, the
Jews work as a tribe, and that is the source of their strength and their
success.
Gentile bankers, on the other hand, work only for themselves. They would
not dream of combining and using their financial strength to protect our
people from the Jews. They are terrified of the Jews, of the media. The
more money they have, the more selfish and the more cowardly they are.
The huge difference, the decisive difference, between the Jews and our
people is that they work as a tribe, and we work as individuals. They
work together, rich Jews and poor Jews, for their common tribal
interests, against us, and until now we have failed to organize
effectively to defend ourselves against them.
Anyway, my point is that their defense against my exposure of their
activities and their power over our government is orchestrated -- that
is, they've all gotten together and decided what their defense will be
-- and it's a deliberate lie. As I continue to expose the destructive
activities of the Jewish media bosses, you will continue to hear them
and their apologists respond that they really don't have any power, that
it's the Gentile shareholders and the Gentile bankers who control the
media. A lot of dimwits will believe that lie. A lot of couch potatoes,
a lot of soccer moms, a lot of baseball fans, a lot of lemmings, will
believe that it's not the Jew Sumner Redstone who deliberately uses MTV
to corrupt White teenagers; instead it's some cabal of Gentile
shareholders and Gentile bankers who tell him what to do, and Redstone
is only an employee who follows their orders.
I think it's time for us to orchestrate our exposure of the Jewish
media. I think it's about time for the public, lemmings and all, to
begin hearing a uniform charge against them, a uniform statement of our
opposition to them. How about this: The Jews are our misfortune. That's
simple, and it's true, and it's easy to remember. Repeat after me: The
Jews are our misfortune. Let's use that statement. Let's let everyone
hear it. Let's impress it on everyone's consciousness: The Jews are our
misfortune.
Of course, when I say the Jews are our misfortune, I'm not talking only
about the Jewish media bosses. I'm not talking only about the Jews at
the top, such as Sumner Redstone and the Sulzbergers and Michael Eisner
and the others who formulate and direct the propaganda line against
Gentile society; I'm talking about the whole tribe, and I believe that
message comes across in the statement, the Jews are our misfortune. Let
me tell you what the standard lemming response will be to that
statement, the response that they have been taught and will parrot back.
First, from the religious lemmings it will be something like this: "Oh,
no, the Jews aren't our misfortune, we owe everything to the Jews. Don't
you know that Jesus was a Jew and God was his father? That makes God a
Jew. We must do what the Jews tell us. They are God's people." I'm sure
that argument is embarrassing to some of the more sophisticated
apologists for the Jews, but many Christian Fundamentalists use it, and
I've heard it often.
>From the secular lemmings it will be more like: "Don't you know that
Freud and Einstein and Salk were Jews? We wouldn't have a space program
if it weren't for Einstein. We wouldn't have a cure for polio if it
weren't for Salk. The Jews are our fortune, not our misfortune." Well,
of course, our space program has practically nothing to do with Einstein
or his Jewishness. Gentile thinkers envisioned it and pioneered both its
theoretical basis and its practical development. The German
theoretician, Hermann Oberth, and the Russian, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky,
were two of the Gentiles who independently demonstrated mathematically
the feasibility of space travel in the early years of the last century.
The American rocket pioneer Robert Goddard and the German Wernher von
Braun designed actual rockets and built the vehicles which were the
precursors of today's space ships. Jews didn't become involved until it
became glamorous and profitable. And the development of a polio vaccine
hardly would have missed a beat if Jonas Salk had gone into the garment
business instead of medicine. He was one of a team, and he got the
credit for the work of others as well as for his own work.
The reasons we hear these silly and groundless claims in the first place
about how much we owe the Jews -- the reasons are Jewish media control
and Jewish tribalism, Jewish support for their own. Freud was given the
enormous buildup he received for his theorizing about anal personalities
and penis envy and the like because he was a Jew, not because of any
genuine merit in his theorizing. Other Jewish writers recognized him as
one of their own and propelled him to a position of undeserved
authority, and his theories ultimately did an enormous amount of damage
to the development of our understanding of psychology and mental
disease. Einstein was a competent mathematical physicist, but a great
deal of the publicity he received was based on the fact that he was a
Jew rather than on the merits of his work. As in the case of Salk,
Jewish publicists gave Einstein credit for the work of others as well as
for his own work.
What we must do is look at the balance sheet. Is the damage done to our
race by Karl Marx and all of his Jewish followers in the communist
movement -- the selective murder of more than 30 million of the best of
our people in Europe during the past century -- offset by whatever
contributions Einstein and Salk and other Jews have made -- even if they
did everything their Jewish boosters claim for them? Certainly, there
have been many other Jews who were competent and creative engineers and
scientists besides Einstein and Salk. Not every clever Jew became a
lawyer or a scriptwriter or a pawn shop owner or a middleman. Some
became chemists or mathematicians or physicists. But can all of them
together make up for the mass murders Lazar Kaganovich perpetrated
aginst the Ukrainians, for the rapes and murders of German civilians
instigated by Ilya Ehrenburg, for the Eastern European girls still being
forced into sexual slavery on a huge scale today by Israeli slave
dealers?
I think not. And I have not yet put on the balance sheet what the Jewish
masters of America's mass media have done and are doing to us. What can
possibly compensate White Americans for the deliberate, malevolent
corruption of our young people by just one Jewish gangster like Sumner
Redstone and his MTV? The race-mixing, culture-destroying, hip-hop filth
churned out by Sumner Redstone's MTV seven days a week is the single
most destructive influence in American life today. And of course,
Redstone doesn't produce this filth all by himself. He has thousands of
Jews working for him at every level, not only in MTV but also in CBS and
in Paramount Pictures and in all of his other media properties.
And although MTV, targeting White teenagers as it does, may seem the
most blatantly and maliciously destructive of the Jewish media, it is
hardly much worse than some of the filth being poured into the minds of
the American public by Michael Eisner's Disney empire: especially by its
Miramax films division under the Weinstein brothers. The fact that much
of the entertainment produced by Eisner's Disney Company is relatively
innocuous does not compensate for the fact that some of it is pure
poison. The poison is being introduced gradually, more and more each
year, and it is having its effect. When the Disney Company was entirely
a Gentile company a few years ago, its output of entertainment may
sometimes have been excessively bland, but none of it was poison
designed to corrupt White Americans.
And what can possibly compensate on our balance sheet for what the
Jewish news media are doing in their deliberate, calculated distortion
of the picture of the world seen by the American public. It is a picture
which has been designed to confuse White Americans, to undermine their
self-confidence, to induce feelings of racial guilt in them. Just one
example: the systematic suppression of the news of Black crimes against
White people and the exaggeration of the news of every White crime
against non-Whites is not a fluke. It is done routinely by all of the
Jewish news media: by the New York Times, by the Washington Post, by
Time magazine and Newsweek magazine, by CNN and ABC News and CBS News
and NBC News and all the rest. And interracial crime is just one issue.
The relations between the sexes; immigration; the foreign relations of
the United States with the rest of the world, especially in the Middle
East; and a hundred other important issues are similarly distorted in
their portrayal by the media. This deliberate distortion of the public's
view of the world has done irreparable damage to the American system of
government and to American society. And again: the distortion has been
deliberate, planned, systematic, and intended to do harm to us. No
number of funny Jewish comedians, or successful Jewish entrepreneurs in
Silicon Valley or on Wall Street, or clever Jewish medical researchers
can compensate for this harm.
When we look at the balance sheet the conclusion is clear beyond any
doubt: the Jews are our misfortune. It's way past time for us to accept
this conclusion, to overcome our fears of being labeled "anti-Semitic"
for accepting this conclusion, to brush aside these fears which have
been instilled in us by the propaganda of the mass media, and then to
begin working to improve our fortunes.
Thanks for being with me again today.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
It is distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribers of ADVlist.
To subscribe to ADVlist send an e-mail message to:
ADVli...@NatVan.com (The subject and body of the message don't
matter.)
For more information about National Vanguard Books or the
National Alliance see our web site at http://www.natvan.com or
http://www.natall.com
==> The National Alliance has a strict anti-spamming policy. This
information is intended for interested parties only and is not to be
indiscriminately distributed via mass e-mailing or newsgroup posting.
To contact us, write to:
National Vanguard Books
Attention: ADVlist
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946
or e-mail: nati...@NatVan.com please tell us if we can post your
comments and if so whether you want your name or e-mail address
given.
==> TO BE REMOVED from ADVlist, send an e-mail message to:
ADVli...@NatVan.com (The subject and body of the message don't
matter.)
(c) 2001 National Vanguard Books
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
<tribal...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:p5q53u469j0udi5j9...@creamy.legs...
> > Anarchism is the absence of a political state
>
> Yes. It sounds wonderful, doesn't it? People can get together and do
> things for their own community without government rule.
It sounds like nonsense. Who would get their way if people didn't agree
on things?
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"Ron Allen" <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3C3269D0...@bellsouth.net...
> Alex Vange wrote:
> > Anarchy is hell on earth.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> To paraphrase Milton's Satan, it is better to rule one's
> own self in hell than serve in heaven.
>
>
> Alex Vange wrote:
> > For one thing who would pave the roads in an anarchy?
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> There is nothing in anarchy to prohibit free people from
> organizing themselves together for some cooperative and
> collaborative projects, such as the paving of roads.
>
People do it now because they are paid. And they are paid because there
are taxes. Why would people do it in your system?
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
<tribal...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:c5q53uogl00nopgcv...@creamy.legs...
>
> Your statement does point out some concerns, but that would only happen if
> we all wake up tomorrow and find that we have no central government. If
> anarchy is implemented slowly, people will eventually grow more tolerant
of
> different kinds of people. It takes a *mature* society to live under
> anarchy. The infantile, whining, griping and vindictive society we have
now
> would indeed destroy itself under anarchy because there is too much
> intolerance of varying viewpoints.
If you take away the fear of the police you take away civilization
itself. Some people might not kill and rape and loot. But other people
would.
> No, we don't. America is a fascist state. Capitalism and fascism, all
> mixed together. Have you ever seen the ad on TV from the New York Stock
> Exchange? It began airing soon after the September 11 attacks. The ad
> shows pictures of cops, firefighters and families with music in the
> background. The text reads:
>
> Here's to the human spirit.
> Here's to courage.
> Here's to the essential strength of American business
> and the American dream.
> It's why this bell has rung for 209 years
> and will ring again tomorrow.
> Let freedom ring.
> NYSE New York Stock Exchange
>
> Every time I see that ad, I want to throw up. It just reeks of the only
> kind of freedom that the U.S. government really cares about: Capitalism.
> They like it probably because a robust economy generates more taxes and
> keeps those in power, in power longer. So not only are basic freedoms
being
> chewed away, they're stealing our own money to do it. It's like paying
> someone to steal your lunch and eat it for you.
Capitalism and anarchy are the same. They are both against having laws to
help people. They are both bad.
>
> You're not talking about anarchy. You're talking about living on a planet
> full of assholes. Anarchists are typically not assholes because as long
as
> you don't try to force them to do something they don't want to do, they'll
> be your best friend.
>
Laws are made for the assholes. The good people should not mind the
laws. The laws are to keep the assholes from ruining our lives.
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
<tribal...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:f5q53u0euhdhrtvff...@creamy.legs...
> In news:alt.philosophy.debate, Ron Allen <ral...@bellsouth.net> did make
a
>
> That's true. I know that it's not beneath me to scrub toilets. I would
> like to be a musician, but while I'm studying or perfecting my technique,
I
> would have no problem hanging out at the mall all day to clean up the
> bathrooms. Plus I think society currently creates some kind of negative
> image around janitors and custodians and people treat them like they might
> want to do something more with their lives, but they're unable to. I
think
> some people enjoy being custodians. The only reason they may look
depressed
> is because some of them are treated like it's all their worth, even though
> they enjoy the honest work.
>
They do that work because they are paid. Communists think people will
volunteeer to do that work without being paid. They want people to be free
to do whatever they want. Their ideas having nothing in common with the
world of reality.
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"Ron Allen" <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3C33B4A5...@bellsouth.net...
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> In my opinion, if you can make a mess, then you can also
> clean it up. If you have a share in making a mess in a
> public restroom, then you can have a part in cleaning up
> the mess. I we all do our share, then no one will have
> to do it all the time, and doing it will not seem beneath
> any of us.
What if someone smashes the toilet, takes a turd on the floor, and pisses
all over the sink? Who will clean that up? That is why we have laws. That is
why we don't have anarchy.
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
<tribal...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:i5q53ug7ou8h5p2bi...@creamy.legs...
Your system lacks fairness for one thing. People who would play all day,
or spend their day in bed (which would be most of the people) would still
get to go to your movie theatre, and drive on paved roads, and leech off the
labor of the few that would do all the work.
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
<tribal...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:l5q53u8vv3oh4c7e3...@creamy.legs...
> In news:alt.philosophy.debate, "Alex Vange" <va...@i1.net> did make a wise
.
> >
> > You are a liberal.
>
> Yes. I typically agree with Alan Colmes far more than I agree with Sean
> Hannity.
I never heard of either of them.
> Funny, though. I'm typically like the Republican stance on
> corporate issues and I like the liberal stance on societal issues.
You are a libertarian.
Moral law examples -- outlaw heroin, outlaw prostitution, outlaw abortion
Economic law examples-- have a minimum wage, have laws regarding retirement
and overtime
Conservative - For Moral Laws, Against Economic laws
Liberal - Against Moral Laws, For Economic Laws
Libertarian - Against Moral Laws, Against Economic Laws
Fascist - For Moral Laws, For Economic Laws
>
> I think we've already been over this. I suspect it's a copy & paste from
an
> earlier message of yours.
>
>
> Homosexuality is already legal in the United States. Would you prefer to
> see it outlawed?
Yes
Should we have a death penalty for practicing or
> proclaiming homosexuality as they do in some countries in the east?
Maybe
>
> Should Wiccans, pagans and Satanists be punished for their beliefs?
Not for beliefs. Only for practices.
You
> know, I have always found those three types of people to be more honest,
> loving and sincere than most Christians;
Wiccans are feminists. That is very bad.
THE REAL GOAL OF FEMINISM: TRANSFORMING SOCIETY
Antonia Feitz
Speech delivered at the Inverell Forum 2000, 2/3/00
1. The Problem
Ladies and gentlemen, my topic is feminism and some of you may be wondering
why, given our country's parlous state. Our national sovereignty is being
destroyed by the the over-riding of our domestic laws and the signing of UN
treaties - with no consultation and with no public or even parliamentary
debate.
So why feminism? Because feminists are at the vanguard of the phalanx of
fools, the useful idiots, the ideologues, who are destroying our hard won
rights and our national sovereignty.
We live in an age of ideology. God has been pronounced dead, and
Chesterton's witticism has proven true: when people no longer believe in
God, they'll believe in anything. And the post-Christian people of the West
are proof, holding beliefs which their grandparents would have dismissed as
absolute nonsense, and contrary to all common sense let alone morality.
Take extreme environmentalists. Apart from literally worshiping trees, they
exalt the welfare of frogs and even insects over that of people. Believe it
or not, there's even a Voluntary Human Extinction Movement [1]. Homosexuals
demand their relationships be accorded equal status with marriage, including
the 'right' to adopt children. And under the banner of multiculturalism,
Australian children are either kept ignorant, or taught to be ashamed of
their own heritage and history, while simultaneously being taught to value
ethnic and especially indigenous cultures.
But arguably, feminism is the most pernicious of the ideologies that plague
us, simply because the relationship between men and women affects all of us.
I must stress that modern feminists are not the heirs of the suffragettes
who fought for equal rights such as the right to vote and property rights.
Modern feminists are not seeking equal rights for women. They want to
transform society, and that's no conspiracy theory because they freely admit
it.
Take CEDAW. It's the acronym for the Convention on the Elimination of all
Forms of Discrimination against Women. (You can discriminate against men
till the cows come home). This convention's goals are not reformist, but
revolutionary. It openly calls for the elimination of traditional sex roles,
and the re-writing of text books to purge them of alleged sexual
stereotypes. The UN's call for the total disarmament of the world's people
is embedded in CEDAW's preamble.
According to the feminists who constitute the CEDAW Committee, until nations
achieve a 50-50 sexual split in everything - in occupations, in public life,
and even in the domestic sphere - they are discriminating against women. Now
that might sound far-fetched, but article 5 of CEDAW advocates "a proper
understanding of maternity as a social function." Note the socialist
bullying in the word, 'proper'.
This "proper understanding" demands that child-rearing - universally! -
should be "a fully shared responsibility ... by both sexes." It also insists
that society has an obligation to extend child care services to "allow
individuals to combine family responsibilities with work and participation
in public life."
The message to women is: you will participate in work and public life
whether you want to or not. In a now notorious interview with Betty Friedan,
Simone de Beauvoir said: "No woman should be authorised to stay at home and
raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not
have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many
women will make that one." [2]
So much for freedom of choice. These bully-girls demand "a change in the
traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in the
family ... to achieve full equality of men and women". Their version of
equality is complete identity. It's reminiscent of communist China in Mao's
time. The communists were all feminists too. Remember?
To achieve the goal of sexual identity, Article 10c mandates the revision of
textbooks, school programmes and teaching methods with a view to eliminating
stereotyped concepts. This must be why one of my children's French textbooks
showed Dad in an apron washing the dishes while Mum, dressed in a chic suit
and carrying a briefcase, waved ta-ta to the baby in the high-chair. A
French textbook! Textbooks in all subjects are being used to indoctrinate
children in our schools. It's just too bad if individuals prefer the
traditional roles when they have young children - as most people actually
do.
According to CEDAW's Preamble, all nations are "obliged to work towards the
modification of social and cultural patterns of INDIVIDUAL [emphasis added]
conduct in order to eliminate prejudices and customary and all other
practices which are based on ... stereotyped roles for men and women."
These intolerant ideologues who so loudly criticise Christian evangelists
are far worse. At least religious conversion is voluntary! But incredibly,
the CEDAW Committee has instructed Libya to re-interpret its sacred book,
the Koran, in ways that are permissible under CEDAW. The Algerian government
was castigated for "using religion as an excuse" for failure to comply with
CEDAW. The Committee has also instructed China to legalise prostitution. [3]
Whatever happened to national sovereignty? And how hypocritical is the UN?
On the one hand it supposedly values the diversity of the world's nations
and cultures. But on the other hand, with CEDAW, it demands that the world's
nations and cultures must conform to the deranged and frequently immoral
opinions of Western feminists who themselves are a minority in their own
countries...
The first lie is that men and women are interchangeable, and that there
aren't any differences between the sexes apart from anatomical ones. In
fact, feminists claim that there aren't two sexes at all but at least five
genders, which are socially constructed. They regard heterosexual men and
women as being hopelessly repressed in gender stereotypes forced upon them
by society. Their life's mission is to liberate us from these imposed
stereotypes.
To achieve the interchangeability, feminists at first tirelessly promoted
the traditional male life pattern of un-interrupted full-time work as the
norm for women. Creches and childcare were demanded to free women from
domesticity, whether they wanted to be 'freed' or not. In Australia, groups
such as the Women's Electoral Lobby fought to change Australia's tax system
from a family-friendly one to a profoundly unjust one where a married man
with a family pays virtually the same tax as a single man. They won, and
their victory clearly shows the contempt for ordinary women that is the
hallmark of feminism.
But seeing as ignoring babies doesn't go down too well with most mothers,
feminists have changed tack. If they can't force women to be like men, then
they'll force men to be like women. The sexes MUST be interchangeable for
their gender theory to work. This is behind the increasingly hectoring calls
for men to avail themselves of the 'opportunity' of part-time work and to do
more domestic work out of 'fairness'. Australian academic Ken Dempsey
deplores the fact that most of the women in his surveys on domestic work
perversely fail to see they're oppressed [5]...
The first lie was that there are no differences between the sexes. The
second and contradictory lie is that women are in fact superior to men.
Increasingly, feminists claim that maleness is some sort of pathology, in
need of a cure. And so there is a widespread demonization of men in our
culture, with disastrous effects on young males who are made to feel ashamed
of their sex and to scorn the manly virtues. And then politicians, academics
and social commentators have the hide to express concern about male suicide
rates.
Increasingly men are being regarded and treated as second class citizens,
being freely discriminated against in employment via affirmative action
programmes. Feminists contemptuously dismiss the achievements of Western
civilization as the product of 'dead white males'. And they're doing their
best to overthrow it and replace it with their own socialist hell where
every facet of life will be regimented, even down to doing the housework.
It's already happened in one German state [7].
There are some chilling prospects in store for men if they win. For instance
the president of the Center for Advancement of Public Policy in Washington
DC, has proposed that men's fertility be controlled by mandatory
contraception beginning at puberty. Boys would be forced to have
contraceptive implants along with compulsory DNA fingerprinting. Doctors
would have to report anybody who refused the implants or sought medical
attention after trying to remove them himself [8]. This is not sci-fi,
folks, this is now...
Only feminist ideologues could fail to see that the presence of women on a
battlefield weakens combat readiness. But for feminists, national security
comes second to ideological purity. The sexes must be identical, and it look
like Britain is set to jetison its military heritage and join the Americans
in having women in combat.
5. Education
In education, the transformation starts with unsubtle brainwashing in
pre-schools B. Believe it or not, Australian pre-schools have banned
Cinderella and Superman.
Yes, the National Childcare Accreditation Council's handbook states that
"anything that emphasises men and women in traditional masculine and
feminine roles" is outlawed [20]. Along with Superman and Cinderella,
favourite authors like Hans Christian Anderson and CS Lewis have also been
given the boot. Staff are discouraged from telling little boys and girls
that they look handsome or pretty respectively, and from providing
'stereotyped' toys. When the council's General Manager was challenged about
promoting views so contrary to community standards she defended the
guidelines claiming that they were voluntary . Well yes, I suppose if a
childcare centre is happy to risk its accreditation and hence funding, it
can choose to flout the 'recommendations'. Soft totalitarianism indeed...
1. www.vhemt.org
2. Quoted in Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism
and American Decline, New York : Regan Books, 1997, p. 204.
3. Kathryn Balmforth, "The Optional Protocol to CEDAW: an Open Invitation to
Radical Attacks on Sovereignty", Endeavour Forum Newsletter, no. 96, October
1999, p.2.
4. Christina Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed
Women, New York: Touchstone, 1995, chapter 4.
5. Dempsey, Inequalities in Marriage: Australia and Beyond, Melbourne :
Oxford University Press, 1997, p.11
6. The Weekend Australian , 3-4/7/99.
7. Sun-Herald (Sydney), 30/5/99
8. http://members.tripod.com/~adviser1/medusa/ch07.html 9. Hoff Sommers,
p.211
10. Ibid, p.199
11. Karen Brownlee, "Men Can be Victims of Domestic Violence as Well",
Regina Leader Post and Saskatoon Star Phoenix, 22 October 1999
12. The Australian HES, 8/6/97.
13. Robert Pool, The New Sexual Revolution, London : Stodder and Houghton,
1994, p. 267.
14. Bettina Arndt, "Jobs For the Girls", Melbourne, The Age, 21/4/98.
15. Shirley Robin Letwin, "Law and the Unreasonable Woman", National Review,
November 18, 1991, p. 35.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Bork, p. 219-220.
19. David H. Hackworth, "Why the troops are hanging it up", 15/11/99
20. (Sydney) Sun-Herald, 18/5/97.
21. Hoff Sommers, p.58
22. Kathy Kersten, "A New Heaven & a New Earth", First Things, March 1994,
p.10.
23. Margaret E. Mills, Woman: Why Are You Weeping, North Melbourne: News
Weekly, 1997, p.106
24. Ibid, p.108
25. Kenneth Minogue, "The Goddess That Failed", National Review, 18/11/91,
p. 46.
> plus they don't preach and tell me
> everything I'm doing wrong unless I start trying to tell them how to live
> their lives. I think that's how we're supposed to live. I think that's
the
> spirit of loving your neighbor, as the Bible says.
The Bible is against homosexual perversion.
By David M. Bresnahan Š 2000, WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.
"You shouldn't have done it. It ruined our lives," cried one of several boys
from the back row of a Medina, Ohio, courtroom last week. Michael Maggy, 35,
a former Boy Scout leader, had just pleaded guilty to rape and sexual
battery, and the poignant comments from his victims were brought home by a
sentence of life in prison issued by Medina County Common Pleas Judge
Christopher J. Collier. "I know what I have done to you," Maggy said to his
scout victims, as reported in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. "I can't apologize
enough." Confessing that he too had been sexually molested as a boy, Maggy
said he had lacked the courage to seek help. "I did not get counseling or
even talk about it. Look where it got me," he said.
Crafting 'gay' children
Many homosexuals are attracted to young boys, they fantasize about young
boys, they frequent websites about young boys, they cruise the streets for
young boys, and they volunteer as Boy Scout leaders in an attempt to have
sex with young boys, according to a world-renowned researcher and author.
Dr. Judith Reisman, formerly a research professor at American University,
veteran pornography researcher and expert witness before the attorney
general's commission on pornography, is the author of "Kinsey: Crimes and
Consequences." Having extensively researched the homosexual lifestyle,
Reisman and other experts have reached some disturbing conclusions. Contrary
to the popular view that there is little crossover between homosexuality and
pedophilia, she says homosexuals are anxious to recruit young boys -- a
practice that is becoming easier thanks to sex education and "diversity
programs" in schools that teach children to consider homosexuality as both
acceptable and normal.
In one of the major cultural battlefronts of the year, the Boy Scouts of
America has taken the legal challenges to it before the Supreme Court and
won the right to deny avowed homosexuals entrance as adult leaders.
Nevertheless, ever since the BSA's founding early last century, it has been
plagued with a constant undercurrent of pedophile scout leaders preying on
the vulnerable, trusting boys they "lead."
Greg Shields, Boy Scouts of America's national spokesman, says homosexuals
cannot serve as examples to young boys because they do not live by the Scout
Oath to be "morally straight." Although painfully aware of the problems BSA
has had over the years of men preying on boys, Shields takes a somewhat
corporate and elusive line in separating the organization's homosexual
policy from its child sexual abuse policy.
"Unfortunately, child molestation can come from anyone. We are teaching boys
character values. Everyone knows where we stand on this. We have never
accepted homosexuals as leaders and we never will," said Shields. But
Reisman says what 90 years of police blotter statistics prove -- that young
boys are in real danger of sexual molestation, and that the BSA has sound
reasons to ban homosexuals.
Reisman conducted two recent scientific studies that challenge the popular
mantra of homosexual activists who insist that: 1) they are "born that way,"
2) homosexuals make up 10 percent of the population, and 3) youths should be
able to have sex at an early age.
"Crafting 'Gay' Children: An Inquiry into the Abuse of Vulnerable Youth Via
Establishment Media and the School Room" and "Partner Solicitation Language
as a Reflection of Male Sexual Orientation," are continuations of the work
Reisman began with her study, "Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences."
(Regarding her book, Charles E. Rice, professor of law at Notre Dame Law
School, notes, "Dr. Reisman's study supports the conclusion that Alfred
Kinsey's research was contrived, ideologically driven and misleading. Any
judge, legislator or other public official who gives credence to that
research is guilty of malpractice and dereliction of duty.")
Since the Supreme Court's June 28 decision in favor of the Boy Scouts,
activist attacks on the 90-year-old organization have increased
dramatically.
Homosexual political organizations have gone into overdrive, lobbying and
threatening corporate sponsors to discontinue their support; President
Clinton has been urged to step down as honorary president of BSA; a few
members of Congress even tried -- unsuccessfully -- to revoke the
organization's honorary charter. And Clinton even signed an executive order,
which was followed in lockstep by a Justice Department memo designed to
evict the Boy Scouts from federal lands and facilities -- on the grounds
that the organization illegally discriminates against homosexuals. All this,
in spite of the Supreme Court's favorable decision three months earlier.
Although homosexual activists claim they are no more likely to sexually
molest children than heterosexuals are, Reisman says research proves the
opposite. "They're claiming that homosexuals are not looking to have sex
with boys, yet you have this massive number of boys out there prostituting
themselves. And how do you have all these Internet sites if they're not
looking for boys? This is not heterosexual. By definition, when you're
having sex with someone of your own sex, that's homosexual," Reisman said.
Based on data from a study of non-incarcerated child sex offenders, Gene G.
Abel, M.D., has found that homosexuals "sexually molest young boys with an
incidence that is occurring five times greater than the molestation of
girls."
A professor of psychiatry who has taught at several medical schools,
including Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, Abel is
currently affiliated with Emory University School of Medicine and Morehouse
School of Medicine. He has been a research scientist in the field of sexual
violence for 25 years, and the National Institute of Mental Health has
awarded him funding for six long-term studies to investigate sexual violence
and to design new ways to stop it.
Specifically, Abel's report provides data to show that, on average, 150.2
boys are molested per homosexual pedophile offender, whereas only 19.8 girls
are molested per heterosexual pedophile offender. Incredibly, homosexual
offenders admitted between 23.4 and 281.7 acts of molesting boys.
Reisman's research in "Crafting 'Gay' Children" determined that the total
population of homosexual men in America was no more than 2 million in 1991.
During the same year, "U.S. Population, Statistical Abstracts" show that 6-8
million boys under age 18 were sexually abused.
Meanwhile, the population of heterosexual men in the U.S. was approximately
86--88 million in 1991, and an estimated eight million girls were sexually
abused that year.
Based on the government's own statistics -- the "Statistical Abstract of the
United States, 1992, Data on Boys and Girls," published by the U.S. Commerce
Department -- Reisman cited the following for that year:
Of 86 - 88 million heterosexual men, 9 percent of them victimized 8 million
girls under age 18, which constitutes 25 percent of all girls.
An uncertain percentage of the estimated 2 million homosexual men victimized
6-8 million boys, under age 18, amounting to 17 - 24 percent of all boys.
Therefore, considered in the aggregate, 3 to 4 boys are sexually molested
per homosexual adult male.
Only .09 girls are sexually molested per heterosexual adult male, which is
to say that, on average, 1 in 11 heterosexual males victimizes a girl under
18.
Within the child protection establishment, sexual abuse is defined simply as
an adult having sex with a juvenile under age 18 -- whether "consensual" or
not. When dealing with children, "consensual" is not the legitimizing
criterion it is for adults. Indeed, almost invariably, sexual predators
defend their "loving" physical relationships with children as being
"consensual," when in reality the seduction and manipulation of children --
resulting in their "consent" -- is both an art form and the stock in trade
of pedophiles. The Simon and Schuster book "Homosexualities," by Alan Bell,
reports that 25 percent of homosexual men admit to having had sex with boys
who are 16 or under.
Further corroborating this well-hidden homosexual proclivity for targeting
younger males are the following findings published in the Journal of the
American Medical Association:
50 percent of male AIDS victims reported having sex with an adult male by
the age of 16. 20 percent of male AIDS victims had sex with an adult male by
age 10.
"The Advocate," a popular homosexual newsmagazine, conducted a survey of its
readers. Of the 2,500 responses obtained, 21 percent admitted that an adult
man committed a sexual act with them by the time they were 15.
'The ideal situation' Boy Scout camping trips provide a perfect setting for
homosexuals to pursue their forbidden desires, according to Reisman, who
added that any organization that provides opportunities for homosexuals to
spend time with young boys will become a magnet for homosexual child
molesters.
Of all the various youth groups today, "the Boy Scouts provide the ideal
situation" for men to find young boys to molest, according to Reisman.
The BSA has strict rules designed to prevent child abuse of all kinds, said
Shields. Rules include "Two-Deep Leadership," which requires a minimum of
two adults to be present with boys at all times. Another basic rule is that
adults may not be in the same tent as boys (except their own children).
Shields told WorldNet that when the rules are followed, there are no
problems. "Each incident (of abuse) took place when the leaders were not
trained or the rules weren't followed," he said.
Despite the BSA training and rules, the incidents of reported child
molestation have been on the rise. The scouting organization attributes the
increase to greater awareness because of the training given to boys and to a
record number of boys in the program -- about 5 million. BSA statistics and
various media reports over the past 20 years show a near-tripling of sexual
abuse cases -- from about 70 cases a year then to about 200 annually now.
Reisman expressed concern that the BSA rules may not go far enough. The
ideal situation, she said, is for fathers to go on camping trips with their
sons. Fathers should stay in tents with their own sons, and boys who are not
related to them should not sleep in their tent. She recognized, however,
that not all boys have a father to go with them. She also advised that
young, single men should never be permitted to camp with boys, but that it
would be ideal, rather, if leaders are married and have children
participating in the program.
The 'helping hand'
In Gilbert Herdt's book, "Gay and Lesbian Youth," Douglas Feldman, a medical
anthropologist and a member of the homosexual activist community, is quoted
as saying, "These kids are our future and we must invest in them." Feldman
states that teen-agers are "very susceptible to sexually transmitted
diseases," and that sexually abused boys "have about a 1 in 4 chance of
developing AIDS in approximately five years."
Herdt speaks of adult male homosexuals as "coaches" and "guides" who should
help young boys overcome their heterosexual "victim" status by "coming out"
into homosexuality.
Reisman blames the nation's public schools and lawmakers for granting
various protections to such "coaches" and "guides" within the nation's
schools. "They teach confused children about tolerance, sexual diversity and
such. They like to tell young boys that 'at least one in 10 of you are gay.'
Anyone who objects is immediately labeled homophobic," she said.
In his study, "The Role of Adult Advisors" (as quoted from Herdt's "Gay
Culture in America"), homosexual advocate Frederick Lynch says, "What has
not been brought out fully in some other coming-out studies is the role of
the guide, teacher or 'helping hand' in either the signification state, the
coming-out stage or both ... the often benign and helpful role that older,
more experienced homosexual men play with regard to younger (males)."
Reisman is concerned that educators have embraced the homosexual agenda and
now encourage boys to have sex with each other at an early age. One of the
places such experimentation could easily take place is in a tent during a
Boy Scout camping trip, she said. Boys who have been told that
experimentation is acceptable may also be willing to accept the advances of
an adult male or older boy, she added.
"They tell these impressionable kids that if they feel different, confused,
strange, or if they are questioning, that they may be gay," she said. "What
child isn't confused at that age, anyway? These kids don't know what to
think, and then they're told it's OK to experiment to find out."
> If you love your
> neighbor as yourself, do you want people coming to you and punishing you
for
> doing things that others disagree with? Of course not. So why would you
> want to force such experiences on others? Would that mean that you love
> yourself more than others?
I am for outlawing homosexual perversion, prostition, herion and other
bad things. I am for having a good nation to live in.
>
> Forced patriotism?
No, forced to obey good laws.
>
> So you want to live in a society where forbiddances and restrictions are
> placed upon people to make them all behave in ways that you find
appropriate
> and which fall in line with what you think is moral? What if 50.01% of
the
> people do not agree with you? Would you accept defeat and admit that most
> of the people want a more liberal society, or would you use force against
> the will of the majority?
I am for winning fairly, by the vote, and with a political party.
> I don't see why. God gave us ten commandments. I don't see why that
isn't
> enough. If everyone lived by the ten commandments, society would be a
> paradise. Why do you want to continue the damage that's been done by
man's
> laws which throw natural order out of alignment?
There is a law that you have to drive on the right side of the road in
America. There would be chaos if people could drive on any side they want.
That is just one example, but it is enough to show that your ways are wrong.
>
> Prostitution is already outlawed except in Nevada. Drug laws will
> eventually soften, too.
>
After liberalism makes society terrible enough, hopefully people will
turn to the right.
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"Ron Allen" <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3C3270D2...@bellsouth.net...
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Who decides which of us is the best of us, and how is this
> decision made?
People should be appointed from above. Once we have a great leader he
would select good and talented people to make decisions they are good at. We
should come to power legally so the leader would be a president.
>
> Are you better than me?
In what way?
> If I decide democracy is better
> than plutocracy, does that decision make me less a person
> than you?
No
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Chess moves do not influence or concern -- help or harm
> -- people; and the chess game was created precisely to
> challenge the players. Most public choice matters of
> social concern are not as difficult as a chess move, if
> any such matters can be compared to a chess move.
>
> Besides, there is nothing in democratic theory which says
> the people cannot elect smart people to make the hard
> decisions for them. I just don't think political choices
> can be as difficult as a chess move.
>
They would elect smart people to make the hard decisions. They would
also elect strong people to stop the murderers. They would take up a
collection so everyone pays to have the roads paved.
They would have a government, or the same thing with a different name.
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"Steve Harris" <SBHar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:a0u3q0$3gi$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> "Alex Vange" <va...@i1.net> wrote in message
>
> Well, that's a nice statement of the Jeffersonian argument for a "natural
> aristoi" (vs. one supposes, the "natural hoi polloi"). And it's one
reason
> why historically we have a republican form of democracy.
>
> You can't push this too far, though. With a thousand chess games going at
> once, even Kasparov will be outclassed by 1000 "merely good" players
> operating in parallel. And when you get to 10,000 or a million, it's no
> contest. These situations are more like what we have in economic or
> political life. The second-class intellect who is closer to the problem
and
> more more time and information, is going to do a better job than the
genius
> in Washington, thousands of miles away.
I agree with that. The genius in Washington would not run everything but
would appoint people to head many different projects.
>
> That was the problem with Bill and Hillary, don't you know. They were both
> smart people and knew it. Their problem came in the next step, which was
> believing that since they were smart people, they should be running many
> aspects of your lives for you, since they're smart than you are. However,
> that's not necessarily true, even from a pure efficiency point of view,
and
> even if there wasn't any objection to it from the "right to autonomy"
point
> of view. The communists, and in fact the Left in general, have never
quite
> gotten this.
>
I have my reasons for being strongly against Bill and Hillary. But your
reasons are not clear.
They were running aspects of our lives? In what way?
Pat Hines
>
> http://stormfront.org
> www.spearhead-uk.com
> "Pat Hines" <fas...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3C3116D0...@attbi.com...
> > Alex Vange wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Mussolini was a leading Marxist who became disenchanted with it, he
> > founded Fascism in 1919.
> >
> >
> > They may do that, it's irrelevant. Sociofascism, today's melding of
> > socialism and fascism in the modern liberal, is what is eating away at
> > the American culture and society.
> >
> > Capitalism is being used to finance modern sociofascism in the same way
> > the Fascists used it.
> >
> > As Von Mises and Hayek stated it over 80 years ago, capitalism is the
> > only economic model capable of being successful.
>
> Capitalism and Communism are both evil. The problem with capitalism is
> that it is materialistic and puts no special value on people. Capitalism is
> based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that made potato chips for
> example would need--X number of potatoes, Y amount of salt, and Z number of
> human beings for labor. The human beings have no more value than the
> potatoes or the salt.
<gutter philosophy snipped>
The main thing is not what ends of the spectrum we put things on. The
> main thing is for us to all be on the same page and speaking the same
> language. Only when we can agree on the meaning of words can there be
> communication.
>
> > National socialism is still equally the gutter philosophy is always
> > was,
>
> I will stop reading now. You have your beliefs because your only source
> of information is the Jewish controlled media.
Nope, no cigar. I don't watch television, nor read the newspapers,
particularly those owned by sociofascists.
> There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of Their
> Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran Hollywood.
>
> Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment". It is
> subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are from the Aug
> 1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So What?":
It makes no difference to me that Jews control some or even most of
those entities known as the media, it's not relevant to the citizenry.
What's important is that humans always trend towards freedom and that
spells doom for antique, gutter philosophies such as communism and fascism.
Read "Democracy - the God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of
Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe for the
way of eliminating government totally.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0765800888/qid=1009936670
Pat Hines
tribal...@earthlink.net
decision to post:
> <tribal...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> > Yes. It sounds wonderful, doesn't it? People can get together and do
> > things for their own community without government rule.
>
> It sounds like nonsense. Who would get their way if people didn't agree
> on things?
It's not a matter of getting one's way or not. If you want flowers on the
square, go plant them. Since I don't care anything about them, I won't try
to stop you.
Damaeus
tribal...@earthlink.net
decision to post:
> "Ron Allen" <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:3C3270D2...@bellsouth.net...
>
> > Who decides which of us is the best of us, and how is this
> > decision made?
>
> People should be appointed from above. Once we have a great leader he
> would select good and talented people to make decisions they are good at. We
> should come to power legally so the leader would be a president.
Um... that's how Hitler came to power -- legally. Then he appointed people.
He was considered a great leader until people found out what he was really
doing. So what you really want is a dictatorship. And it's strange, too.
You said in another post that you wanted laws which are voted on by the
people, yet you want public officials to be appointed. It just doesn't make
sense. I can only assume that you must be a Russian immigrant. I think
they like having great leaders who will take care of them and appoint other
great leaders.
> > Besides, there is nothing in democratic theory which says the people
> > cannot elect smart people to make the hard decisions for them. I just
> > don't think political choices can be as difficult as a chess move.
>
> They would elect smart people to make the hard decisions.
But sometimes very smart people don't have much compassion. They come up
with perfect world solutions without considering how the people would feel
about it. So while their solution may solve a problem, it would lower the
morale of the people because everyone would be treated like lab rats without
feelings.
> They would also elect strong people to stop the murderers. They would
> take up a collection so everyone pays to have the roads paved.
They do that already. I pay for roads I don't even travel on and the one
leading up to my house is so bumpy that my shock absorbers foam up and the
low-track light comes on.
> They would have a government, or the same thing with a different name.
A dictatorship.
Damaeus
tribal...@earthlink.net
> <tribal...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> > In news:alt.philosophy.debate, "Alex Vange" <va...@i1.net> did make a wise
> >
> > > You are a liberal.
> >
> > Yes. I typically agree with Alan Colmes far more than I agree with Sean
> > Hannity.
>
> I never heard of either of them.
>
> > Funny, though. I'm typically like the Republican stance on corporate
> > issues and I like the liberal stance on societal issues.
>
> You are a libertarian.
>
> Moral law examples -- outlaw heroin, outlaw prostitution, outlaw abortion
Those are already outlawed. Do we live in a perfect world? No. Would
repealing those laws make things better? Maybe and maybe not. But by
changing the laws we have, we can get new problems that may have more easily
attainable resolutions.
> Economic law examples-- have a minimum wage, have laws regarding retirement
> and overtime
Overtime laws suck because they're mandatory. I cannot, even if I want to,
have my employer work me for 60 hours a week at my regular wage. It is
illegal for them to do so. As a result, I either don't make as much money
as I'd like, or I have to get a second job I might not care so much about.
> Conservative - For Moral Laws, Against Economic laws
>
> Liberal - Against Moral Laws, For Economic Laws
>
> Libertarian - Against Moral Laws, Against Economic Laws
>
> Fascist - For Moral Laws, For Economic Laws
Well, at least we all know that you're a fascist.
> > Homosexuality is already legal in the United States. Would you prefer to
> > see it outlawed?
>
> Yes
>
> > Should we have a death penalty for practicing or proclaiming
> > homosexuality as they do in some countries in the east?
>
> Maybe
Well, that is an interesting perspective. Maybe we should all dress in
bearskins and beat our wives over their heads with clubs and drag them
around by their hair.
> > Should Wiccans, pagans and Satanists be punished for their beliefs?
>
> Not for beliefs. Only for practices.
Hmmm. So if a Wiccan, as a practice of their belief system, choose not to
make moral judgment against others, they should be punished? In other
words, do you think people in society should always be on the lookout for
opportunities to make moral judgments against others in society?
> > You know, I have always found those three types of people to be more
> > honest, loving and sincere than most Christians;
>
> Wiccans are feminists. That is very bad.
Huh? I've never heard Wiccans refered to as feminists, but I do believe
they're "equalists" if I may coin a new term. Males can be Wiccans, too,
you know.
> We live in an age of ideology. God has been pronounced dead, and
> Chesterton's witticism has proven true: when people no longer believe
> in God, they'll believe in anything. And the post-Christian people of
> the West are proof, holding beliefs which their grandparents would
> have dismissed as absolute nonsense, and contrary to all common sense
> let alone morality.
This is not a bad thing. Even if one changes from one unproven belief to
another, it's better than holding the same one for generation after
generation. At some point you have an experience which tells you, "Hmmm...
that must not be it." People have personal experiences that defy
traditional doctrines, so they change. To continue to hold the same beliefs
in the face of your own personal experiences proving otherwise is foolish.
> Take extreme environmentalists. Apart from literally worshiping trees, they
> exalt the welfare of frogs and even insects over that of people. Believe it
> or not, there's even a Voluntary Human Extinction Movement [1]. Homosexuals
> demand their relationships be accorded equal status with marriage, including
> the 'right' to adopt children.
Nothing wrong with that one. But I don't think anybody under 45-50 years
old has any business raising kids in the first place.
> Take CEDAW. It's the acronym for the Convention on the Elimination of all
> Forms of Discrimination against Women. (You can discriminate against men
> till the cows come home). This convention's goals are not reformist, but
> revolutionary. It openly calls for the elimination of traditional sex roles,
> and the re-writing of text books to purge them of alleged sexual
> stereotypes. The UN's call for the total disarmament of the world's people
> is embedded in CEDAW's preamble.
There are pros and cons to disarming the world. For one thing, I'd hate to
find out that some crooked cop sold a bunch of guns to a gang of criminals
who then unleash terror on an unarmed populace. And if the gun were stolen,
it would be even worse. I'm all for these new non-lethal forms of policing.
If the world is going to be disarmed, then I don't want any cops or armies
to have guns, either. In fact, I don't think we should have militaries at
all -- none of us should. If these governments want to fight over policies,
let the people responsible for making these policies get out in the
battlefield and duke it out with their bare hands instead of getting
innocent civilians to do their fighting for them. Leave me alone. I don't
care what you guys do, but I want nothing to do with your foolishness.
> According to the feminists who constitute the CEDAW Committee, until nations
> achieve a 50-50 sexual split in everything - in occupations, in public life,
> and even in the domestic sphere - they are discriminating against women. Now
> that might sound far-fetched, but article 5 of CEDAW advocates "a proper
> understanding of maternity as a social function." Note the socialist
> bullying in the word, 'proper'.
I have no problem with a 50-50 sexual split. But I don't think employers
should be "forced" to have half women and half men. Maybe no woman wants
the job. Maybe the woman's breasts would be so large that they become a
violation of OSHA standards because they could get caught in some machinery.
And what about kids? Kids seem to have fewer rights than anybody in the
world, and yet with their fresh insight on the world, they often ask the
simplest questions and can come up with solutions that the tired brains of
Congress can't figure out. If kids can build million dollar web companies
at 13 years old, then they should be free to have jobs if they want to have
them, and not for just two measly dollars per hour. Give them a real wage!
> This "proper understanding" demands that child-rearing - universally! -
> should be "a fully shared responsibility ... by both sexes." It also insists
> that society has an obligation to extend child care services to "allow
> individuals to combine family responsibilities with work and participation
> in public life."
Allowing the retired folks of the community to raise the kids would take the
burden off the people who still work, and what better wisdom can be given to
kids than that of their grandparents? Have your kids at a young age. Give
the responsibility of raising them to the whole community, not just your own
grandparents. Give your kids the knowledge and experience of the whole
community, not just the things experienced by your own, narrow family. It
must be natures way because our elders typically always beg for grandkids
right after their own kids get married. And if all the elders had the
variety of being able to raise all kinds of kids, the kids would broaden
their understanding of different types of people, and I think crime would
drop drastically as a result. I mean, who would want to rob or murder
someone who has been a part of their life since they were babies?
> The message to women is: you will participate in work and public life
> whether you want to or not. In a now notorious interview with Betty
> Friedan, Simone de Beauvoir said: "No woman should be authorised to
> stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally
> different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if
> there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." [2]
I thing that's going too far. If a woman *wants* to stay hom and raise the
kids, she should be able to. She shouldn't be forced to, however.
> To achieve the goal of sexual identity, Article 10c mandates the revision of
> textbooks, school programmes and teaching methods with a view to eliminating
> stereotyped concepts. This must be why one of my children's French textbooks
> showed Dad in an apron washing the dishes while Mum, dressed in a chic suit
> and carrying a briefcase, waved ta-ta to the baby in the high-chair. A
> French textbook! Textbooks in all subjects are being used to indoctrinate
> children in our schools.
Probably Christians had something to do with this brainwashing.
> These intolerant ideologues who so loudly criticise Christian evangelists
> are far worse. At least religious conversion is voluntary!
No it isn't. There is much Christian influence on many of the laws we have
now. So whether you join them willingly or not, you still must live under
their at least partial rule.
> The first lie was that there are no differences between the sexes. The
> second and contradictory lie is that women are in fact superior to men.
> Increasingly, feminists claim that maleness is some sort of pathology, in
> need of a cure. And so there is a widespread demonization of men in our
> culture, with disastrous effects on young males who are made to feel ashamed
> of their sex and to scorn the manly virtues. And then politicians, academics
> and social commentators have the hide to express concern about male suicide
> rates.
The rise and fall of the white man. IIRC, there was a time when all white
men were slaves to a dominating female power; sex slaves, too. It would be
horrible for me to be forced to have sex with a woman. :-(
> There are some chilling prospects in store for men if they win. For instance
> the president of the Center for Advancement of Public Policy in Washington
> DC, has proposed that men's fertility be controlled by mandatory
> contraception beginning at puberty. Boys would be forced to have
> contraceptive implants along with compulsory DNA fingerprinting. Doctors
> would have to report anybody who refused the implants or sought medical
> attention after trying to remove them himself [8]. This is not sci-fi,
> folks, this is now...
What's in the works is mandatory contraception *coverage* in health
insurance policies in hopes that it would lower the demand for abortions.
Another legislative proposal is for contraceptive implants for drug-addicted
mothers. Still another, which would probably never get off the ground if it
were not for capitalism, is this mandatory contraception as part of an
effort to reduce teen pregancy. Unfortunately, one vaccine maker (Merke &
Co.) would stand to profit from such mandatory laws, so they support it.
State health departments would make money, so they support it.
And here's a quote from http://www.crowmagazine.com/ms-sperm.htm
So how do we control men’s fertility? Mandatory
contraception beginning at puberty, with the rule
relaxed only for procreation under the right
circumstances (he can afford it and has a willing
partner) and for the right reasons (determined by a
panel of experts, and with the persmission of his
designated female partner). This could be easily
accomplished with a masculine version of the
contraceptive implants some judges are now trying to
force on some women by court order.
I guess I should be glad I'm gay. I'd hate to have to have one of those
implants stuck off in me because you will *not* find me around some skanky
fish. No offense to the ladies here. I get along quite well with women.
Just don't expect to get me in bed because I will run out of the room
screaming.
But anyway, why only force the males? Why not tie the woman's tubes? If
you're going to do one, you've got to do both. I have Charlton Heston's
view on guns in this case. You can pry my balls from my cold, dead hands.
The article continues:
Controlling men’s fertility would not be a hard
restriction to enforce. The fertility authorities
could use a combination of punishments for men who
failed to get the implants and for doctors who removed
them without proper authorization. The men could be
required to adopt one orphan per infraction and rear
her or him until adulthood. The doctors, could lose
their licences or, in extreme cases, go to prison.
Oh, this is great. There are already enough kids out there who feel
unwanted and unloved without forcing men to take kids they don't necessarily
want. This could result in the abuse of innocent kids. I think their idea
sucks. Whatever woman dreamed this article up should receive a hot Crisco
douche because she does not deserve to reproduce.
Anyway, I can't imagine any Christian going along with this idea since it
defiles Creation.
> > plus they don't preach and tell me everything I'm doing wrong unless I
> > start trying to tell them how to live their lives. I think that's how
> > we're supposed to live. I think that's the spirit of loving your
> > neighbor, as the Bible says.
>
> The Bible is against homosexual perversion.
No, it isn't. Here are a couple of passages from the Bible that show how
God sees such immoral practices:
I'm always amused when people like to quote these verses from Romans. Let's
"analyze" this.
ROMANS 1 - 27 - Likewise also, the men leaving the
natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one
toward another; men with men working that which is
unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence
of their error which was meet.
People like to see what they want to see in these passages, but let's have a
closer look, first by getting some definitions:
- unseemly: adj. 1. Not in accord with accepted standards of good taste;
grossly improper. See note at improper. 2. Not suited to the circumstances;
inappropriate. (note at improper: What is unseemly or indelicate is in gross
violation of good taste;)
- recompence (recompense): n. Amends made, as for damage or loss.
- meet: adj. 1. Fitting; proper: “It seems not meet, nor wholesome to my
place”
So just in the first verse, we see that the men left the natural use of the
woman, burned in their lust for one another, working that which was unseemly
or not in accord with accepted standards of good taste. However, Our God,
Our Awesome God from Heaven Above, in his infinte Grace and Mercy, gave
recompense to the men. God made amends for the damage and the error of the
men was meet -- made fitting and proper. This verse is saying that God gave
the men the right to be gay without his punishemnt. What was once an error
has now been recompensed to normality, made fitting and proper.
ROMANS 1 - 28 - And even as they did not like to retain
God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a
reprobate mind, to do these things which are not
convenient;
A few more definitions. Also, keep in mind that the sentence contains
"reprobate mind" and "reprobate" would be the adjective and "mind" is the
noun as the object of the prepostion:
reprobate: adj. 1. Morally unprincipled; shameless. | Theology 2. Rejected
by God and without hope of salvation.
Now, as for "mind", something interesting happens. As with any word, there
are a number of definitions that can be used. But the one that's most
interesting to me is this one:
mind: A person or group that embodies certain mental qualities: the medical
mind; the public mind.
Given that definition, these men were given over to a "reprobate mind" or a
"public mind" that is shameless and morally unprincipled. If God is a
respecter of no one, as you say, and none are worthy except by the grace of
God, then God has simply made homosexuals equal with all others, worthy of
death, capable of being saved. We are all reprobates. We are a collective
reprobate mind:
ROMANS 3 - [9] What then? are we better than they?
No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and
Gentiles, that they are all under sin; [10] As it is
written, There is none righteous, no, not one: [11]
There is none that understandeth, there is none that
seeketh after God. [12] They are all gone out of the
way, they are together become unprofitable; there is
none that doeth good, no, not one.
So for straight people to judge gays is nothing more than the pot calling
the kettle black.
ROMANS 1 - [29] Being filled with all unrighteousness,
fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness;
full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity;
whisperers, [30] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful,
proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient
to parents, [31] Without understanding,
covenantbreakers, without natural affection,
implacable, unmerciful: [32] Who knowing the judgment
of God, that they which commit such things are worthy
of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in
them that do them.
The whole of the human race has been described here. Not all people have
all of these qualities, but not one person has less than at least one of
those qualities. So those verses cannot be used for the condemnation of
only homosexuals, but of everyone. At the very least, I've proven that all
are equal before God.
> Crafting 'gay' children
>
> Many homosexuals are attracted to young boys, they fantasize about
> young boys, they frequent websites about young boys, they cruise the
> streets for young boys, and they volunteer as Boy Scout leaders in an
> attempt to have sex with young boys, according to a world-renowned
> researcher and author.
>
> Dr. Judith Reisman, formerly a research professor at American
> University, veteran pornography researcher and expert witness before
> the attorney general's commission on pornography, is the author of
> "Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences." Having extensively researched the
> homosexual lifestyle, Reisman and other experts have reached some
> disturbing conclusions. Contrary to the popular view that there is
> little crossover between homosexuality and pedophilia, she says
> homosexuals are anxious to recruit young boys
That is utter nonsense! What we will not do is punish boys for doing things
that are "gay," such as playing with dolls, dressing up as girls or baking
muffins. That is not recruitment. It is allowing people to be who they are
naturally. Many boys go through a stage of curiosity about other boys and
most happily move on to heterosexual lifestyles. Only about 10% of the
population is gay.
> -- a practice that is becoming easier thanks to sex education and
> "diversity programs" in schools that teach children to consider
> homosexuality as both acceptable and normal.
Since the alternative may be to teach kids that it's normal to tie people to
a fence and beat them because they're gay, I'd gladly accept what is being
taught in sex education classes.
> "Crafting 'Gay' Children: An Inquiry into the Abuse of Vulnerable
> Youth Via Establishment Media and the School Room" and "Partner
> Solicitation Language as a Reflection of Male Sexual Orientation," are
> continuations of the work Reisman began with her study, "Kinsey:
> Crimes & Consequences."
Kinsey sounds like a complete quack to me.
> Homosexual political organizations have gone into overdrive, lobbying
> and threatening corporate sponsors to discontinue their support;
> President Clinton has been urged to step down as honorary president of
> BSA; a few members of Congress even tried -- unsuccessfully -- to
> revoke the organization's honorary charter. And Clinton even signed
> an executive order, which was followed in lockstep by a Justice
> Department memo designed to evict the Boy Scouts from federal lands
> and facilities -- on the grounds that the organization illegally
> discriminates against homosexuals. All this, in spite of the Supreme
> Court's favorable decision three months earlier.
Bravo to Bill. Equality for all!
> Specifically, Abel's report provides data to show that, on average,
> 150.2 boys are molested per homosexual pedophile offender
I find that hard to believe.
> Reisman's research in "Crafting 'Gay' Children" determined that the
> total population of homosexual men in America was no more than 2
> million in 1991. During the same year, "U.S. Population, Statistical
> Abstracts" show that 6-8 million boys under age 18 were sexually
> abused.
But nowadays, patting a kid on the back or ruffling his hair is considered
sexual abuse. If that's the case, I was abused hundreds of times as a kid.
> Within the child protection establishment, sexual abuse is defined
> simply as an adult having sex with a juvenile under age 18 -- whether
> "consensual" or not. When dealing with children, "consensual" is not
> the legitimizing criterion it is for adults. Indeed, almost
> invariably, sexual predators defend their "loving" physical
> relationships with children as being "consensual," when in reality the
> seduction and manipulation of children -- resulting in their "consent"
> -- is both an art form and the stock in trade of pedophiles.
I've never read any of those materials and I don't want to. But as one who
has had a 13-year-old come on to me, and as one who has heard the stories of
others who have had similar things happen to them, I can say without a doubt
that often it is the boys who are seducing the men who may indeed have a
weakness when it comes to boys, but who could, under normal circumstances,
control it and live comfortably in society. I resisted when an attempt was
made by a boy to seduce me and I explained to him quite simply that it was
illegal. He looked crushed, I felt like crap for having to be the one to
tell him, and he just sat there for a few seconds with a blank expression on
his face, but looking somewhat like he wondered what went wrong and whether
he thought that I thought he was unattractive or unworthy or what. After
talking to him some more about it and explaining why nothing could could
ever happen, he seemed disappointed, but satisfied with the answer, and
thanksfully, nothing else ever happened again.
I think the authorities may be aware that boys do indeed seduce men, but all
the responsibility lies on the adult to resist the seduction. I think the
argument from pedophiles is that both persons in the relationship are
clearly willing and able, and that trust should be given to the adult to
make sure no harm comes to the minor. Certainly, injuries can occur, but
injuries can occur from rollerblading, bike riding, playing football and
otherwise being a human. But I've never actually met anyone who was injured
by having an orgasm. And when you talk about the murder and rape of
children, that could very well be caused by age of consent laws themselves.
If a man "desires" a child, but he doesn't want to get caught, well, dead
men don't talk, and that goes for boys, too. Once a man has finished his
secret sexual affair with a minor, to keep himself out of legal trouble, he
may off the kid and leave him in a ditch. He's much less likely to get
caught that way. So people don't really seem to think these laws through
when they're made up.
I'm sure someone is going to call me a pedophile sympathizer or even a
pedophile, but I assure you, physical sex disgusts me and I'm not interested
in it in the least. I've had sex about three times in my 31 years of life.
First with a girl when I was 17 and she was 16, and I didn't particularly
care for it. Then with another guy when I was 19 and he was 18, which I
also didn't like. Then when I was 25 I messed around with a 32-year-old and
didn't like that, either. So I'm through with sex. I like the contents of
my imagination much more than I like having sex with anything on this
planet.
> The Simon and Schuster book "Homosexualities," by Alan Bell, reports
> that 25 percent of homosexual men admit to having had sex with boys
> who are 16 or under.
>
> Further corroborating this well-hidden homosexual proclivity for
> targeting younger males are the following findings published in the
> Journal of the American Medical Association:
Targeting? That's a little harsh. I guess straight men target straight
women for intimate relationships.
> 50 percent of male AIDS victims reported having sex with an adult male
> by the age of 16. 20 percent of male AIDS victims had sex with an
> adult male by age 10.
When I was a young boy, I always wished some man would take me out in the
woods and "do things" to me. Unforuntately it never happened. I have
talked to someone who it did happen to, though, and he said he always wanted
the same thing until it actually happened, but from the way he was talking,
the man who did it to him wasn't particularly gentle and wasn't
"lubricated".
> "The Advocate," a popular homosexual newsmagazine, conducted a survey
> of its readers. Of the 2,500 responses obtained, 21 percent admitted
> that an adult man committed a sexual act with them by the time they
> were 15.
But you find that some of those are adults now and have no regrets about the
relationships they had. Clearly there is a difference in some of the
relationships. Just like you have wife beaters in straight marriages, you
will have abusers in relationships between adults and teens or children.
But there are also loving marriages, just like men retell stories of affairs
they had with adults from a very young age, and there were good experiences
to be told.
I only get involved in these types of discussions in hopes of circulating
ideas to build a society based less on hatred and misunderstanding. People
need education in these areas because to arbitrarily label all adult-youth
relationships as detrimental to the youth is foolish without knowing all the
facts.
> Reisman expressed concern that the BSA rules may not go far enough.
> The ideal situation, she said, is for fathers to go on camping trips
> with their sons. Fathers should stay in tents with their own sons,
> and boys who are not related to them should not sleep in their tent.
> She recognized, however, that not all boys have a father to go with
> them. She also advised that young, single men should never be
> permitted to camp with boys, but that it would be ideal, rather, if
> leaders are married and have children participating in the program.
Damn, that's almost as bad as that feminist push to sterilize all males at
puberty.
> Herdt speaks of adult male homosexuals as "coaches" and "guides" who
> should help young boys overcome their heterosexual "victim" status by
> "coming out" into homosexuality.
Yeah? I know one kid who constantly asks me for advice because he knows I'm
gay. I don't suggest anything to him that he doesn't come up with himself.
He asks me for web links to gay sites, and I give him links to gay youth
communities. And no, I'm not the least bit interested in "having sex" with
him. He may have nobody in his life he can turn to besides me and I don't
want to be his "last hope for advice" and then turn him away by shaming him
for asking such questions.
> Reisman blames the nation's public schools and lawmakers for granting
> various protections to such "coaches" and "guides" within the nation's
> schools. "They teach confused children about tolerance, sexual
> diversity and such. They like to tell young boys that 'at least one
> in 10 of you are gay.' Anyone who objects is immediately labeled
> homophobic," she said.
When sex education classes start covering homosexual topics and telling kids
that it's okay to be homosexual, it's all about building a more peaceful
society. If some kid grows up thinking he has to live in the closet, the
stress can be overwhelming. It is these kids who often go on shooting
rampages or commit suicide. By making society a comfortable place for ALL
people, we can reduce the liklihood of another Columbine High School
incident and we can reduce suicides among all age groups.
> Reisman is concerned that educators have embraced the homosexual
> agenda and now encourage boys to have sex with each other at an early
> age.
I've never heard of that before. I don't necessarily think it should be
encouraged, but it certainly shouldn't be punished.
> "They tell these impressionable kids that if they feel different,
> confused, strange, or if they are questioning, that they may be gay,"
> she said. "What child isn't confused at that age, anyway? These kids
> don't know what to think, and then they're told it's OK to experiment
> to find out."
That's a good thing. If a kid needs questions answered, experimentation is
nature's way of answering those questions. This goes with anything. Do you
like the looks of what's on your plate at dinner? It all looks good. But
will you like the taste? How do you figure that out? Do you ask your
parents? Your parents may say that your boiled spinach tastes wonderful,
but if you taste it, you're experimenting to see how it suits you. If it's
nasty, you don't eat it again. If you like it, you do eat it more often.
If a boy doesn't like a sexual experience with another boy, he won't do it
again. But sometimes when one boy A advances on boy B, boy B will say, "Hey
don't do that! That's gay!" This is a conditioned response because all
things being natural an uninterfered with, boys do not know the difference
between gay and straight. It is taught by society. Somewhere along the
line, boy B might have done something around his father or around another
boy who responded with "Hey, that's gay and you shouldn't do that!" So boy
B has been taught to resist things that are gay, like the advances from boy
A.
> > If you love your neighbor as yourself, do you want people coming to
> > you and punishing you for doing things that others disagree with? Of
> > course not. So why would you want to force such experiences on
> > others? Would that mean that you love yourself more than others?
>
> I am for outlawing homosexual perversion, prostition, herion and other
> bad things. I am for having a good nation to live in.
What about outlawing all heterosexual perversion? Is it okay to be a
pervert as long as you're not a gay pervert?
> > I don't see why. God gave us ten commandments. I don't see why that
> > isn't enough. If everyone lived by the ten commandments, society
> > would be a paradise. Why do you want to continue the damage that's
> > been done by man's laws which throw natural order out of alignment?
>
> There is a law that you have to drive on the right side of the road in
> America. There would be chaos if people could drive on any side they
> want. That is just one example, but it is enough to show that your
> ways are wrong.
No they're not. If there is no stripe on the road, I drive in the middle.
When I see a car coming, I move to the left and he moves to his left. We
avoid each other. These little nitpicky laws are not necessary because as
humans, we have the intelligence to notice that all the cars on one side of
the highway are moving in one direction and all the cars on the opposite
side are moving in the opposite direction. If you wiped that law off the
books today, people will continue to drive on the right side of the road.
People who do get a wild hair on their asses and decide to drive on the left
side of the road could be cited with public endangerment.
> > Prostitution is already outlawed except in Nevada. Drug laws will
> > eventually soften, too.
>
> After liberalism makes society terrible enough, hopefully people will
> turn to the right.
I can see it going either way. If we go to the right, society will be much
like the vision of some moviemakers: a place where audio sensors detect the
speech of everyone and when profanity is detected, a voiceprint is acquired.
Since no two people have exactly the same voiceprint, whoever spoke the
profane word will have X number of credits deducted from their account. If
your hair is too long, you will have credits deducted for every day you go
without cutting it. If beards and mustaches are outlawed, then you will be
fined for those infractions, too. Is that really the kind of society you
want to live in? I don't. I like variety and you can have variety with a
leftist approach to society. People on the right want LAW AND ORDER at all
costs because they don't trust people to be intelligent enough to rule
themselves. After that would probably come a plutocracy. The rich people
in the world would rule the poor people.
I'll take the left, thank you.
Damaeus
tribal...@earthlink.net
decision to post:
> <tribal...@earthlink.net> wrote
>
> > Your statement does point out some concerns, but that would only
> > happen if we all wake up tomorrow and find that we have no central
> > government. If anarchy is implemented slowly, people will eventually
> > grow more tolerant of different kinds of people. It takes a *mature*
> > society to live under anarchy. The infantile, whining, griping and
> > vindictive society we have now would indeed destroy itself under
> > anarchy because there is too much intolerance of varying viewpoints.
>
> If you take away the fear of the police you take away civilization
> itself. Some people might not kill and rape and loot. But other
> people would.
So you're saying we should all be forced to live in fear of punishment just
to be civilized? Are you saying that YOU need this or just everyone except
you? One of the reasons anarchy will eventually work is because people will
understand the nature of death better than they do now, so it won't be so
much of a loss.
> Capitalism and anarchy are the same. They are both against having
> laws to help people. They are both bad.
Capitalism and anarchy are not the same. Certain tenets may be similar, but
they are not the same.
> > You're not talking about anarchy. You're talking about living on a
> > planet full of assholes. Anarchists are typically not assholes
> > because as long as you don't try to force them to do something they
> > don't want to do, they'll be your best friend.
> Laws are made for the assholes. The good people should not mind the
> laws. The laws are to keep the assholes from ruining our lives.
Consider Planet of the Apes. Suppose it was considered good smoke pot, but
considered bad not to smoke pot. Would you want a law forcing you to smoke
pot if you didn't want to? I predict you will answer "no". Well, I don't
want laws forcing me not to smoke pot because I think it's good. At the
same time, I don't think it's bad for you not to smoke pot and I respect
your decision. Unfortunately you do not offer the same respect in return.
You simply think I'm a bad person, for some strange reason.
Damaeus
Ron Allen
> In my opinion, if you can make a mess, then you can also clean it up.
> If you have a share in making a mess in a public restroom, then you
> no one will have to do it all the time, and doing it will not seem
> beneath any of us.
Alex Vange wrote:
> What if someone smashes the toilet, takes a turd on the floor, and
> pisses all over the sink? Who will clean that up? That is why we have
> laws. That is why we don't have anarchy.
Ron Allen answers:
We can have all the laws you want, but if some imbecile
does what you describe, what good is the law if the
identity of the guilty person is unknown?
Besides, anarchism is not the absence of moral and civil
law; it is the absence of an authoritarian state with
its statutory laws. Anarchism is possible because there
are universally agreed upon moral and civil laws.
Also, in an anarchy, people who are immature adults,
anti-social -- i.e., dishonest and dishonorable --
in their social dealings/practices can be punished for
this by the community. There can be punishment for
criminal acts, even if there is no totalitarian police
state doing it.
<><><><><><><><>
"It takes a long time to bring excellence to maturity."
-- Publilius Syrus
Ron Allen
> I know that it's not beneath me to scrub toilets. I would like to be
> a musician, but while I'm studying or perfecting my technique, I would
> have no problem hanging out at the mall all day to clean up the
> bathrooms. Plus I think society currently creates some kind of negative
> image around janitors and custodians and people treat them like they
> might want to do something more with their lives, but they're unable to.
> I think some people enjoy being custodians. The only reason they may
> look depressed is because some of them are treated like it's all their
> worth, even though they enjoy the honest work.
Ron Allen answers:
Being a career janitor does not enable one to fully and
freely engage and employ every talent and ability. If
every person did some fair and equal measure of the menial
work, then there will be no class of menial workers, and
all will be free to engage their more interesting talents,
and to employ their more noteworthy abilities. Doing the
menial work all your life simply does not allow one to
fully realize and employ one's best and full potential as
a complete person.
It's not beneath my dignity to clean up whatever mess I
make, or whatever mess I help to make. But it is beneath
my dignity and my freedom to keep me from being fully able
to engage my more interesting qualifications and to
express my more excellent aptitudes.
Alex Vange wrote:
> They do that work because they are paid.
Ron Allen answers:
Yes, that is true. But also because they cannot get a
better job given the circumstances of their individual
lives.
Alex Vange wrote:
> Communists think people will volunteeer to do that work without being
> paid.
Ron Allen answers:
Wrong. Communists believe no person will elect to do
menial work as a career, if they are truly free to enter
a more interesting profession. "From each according to
ability" means that every person ought to be free to
pursue other work than doing menial work only. "To each
according to need" does imply some form of reward for
work done.
Alex Vange wrote:
> They want people to be free to do whatever they want. Their ideas having
> nothing in common with the world of reality.
Ron Allen answers:
Anarcho-libertarian communists are fully aware of the
reality that exists now -- a reality that does not
allow people full freedom to do what they will. And it
is this very reality we wish to do away with.
Capitalism is a reality created by a ruling class élite,
and can be done away with. We can create a communist
reality to replace and supersede capitalist reality.
<><><><><><><><><>
"History is a pact between the dead, the living, and the
unborn."
-- Edmund Burke
Ron Allen
> Yes. It sounds wonderful, doesn't it? People can get together and do
> things for their own community without government rule.
Alex Vange wrote:
> It sounds like nonsense. Who would get their way if people didn't agree
> on things?
Ron Allen answers:
People can agree on some public choice things; and if
there is not sufficient agreement, then society can elect
to leave undone whatever cannot be sufficiently agreed
upon.
tribal...@earthlink.net wrote:
> It's not a matter of getting one's way or not. If you want flowers on
> the square, go plant them. Since I don't care anything about them, I
> won't try to stop you.
Ron Allen answers:
I agree. It's only those actions which imperil the
freedoms of another person, or of other people, or that
impinge on another person's rights, or other people's
rights, that ought to be determined by a democratic
method of decision making.
<><><><><><><><><>
"Not believing shortens down horizons."
-- Hans Holzer
Ron Allen
> Who decides which of us is the best of us, and how is this decision
> made?
Alex Vange wrote:
> People should be appointed from above.
Ron Allen answers:
Should? By what law? By what right?
Alex Vange wrote:
> Once we have a great leader he would select good and talented people
> to make decisions they are good at. We should come to power legally
> so the leader would be a president.
Ron Allen answers:
How is the führer elected? How does the führer determine
the good and talented people for all those decision-making
positions of power?
If practice makes perfect, perhaps more exercise of
democracy, more applications and rehearsals of democracy,
will serve to improve society's democratic practice.
Ron Allen answers:
> Are you better than me?
Alex Vange wrote:
> In what way?
Ron Allen answers:
Are you better than me at making public choice decisions,
at making prudent political decisions?
Ron Allen wrote:
> If I decide democracy is better than plutocracy, does that decision
> make me less a person than you?
Alex Vange wrote:
> No.
Ron Allen answers:
Then why do you believe some people are better than other
people? Are believe in a fascist oligarchy? You are an
élitist? Why?
Ron Allen wrote:
> Chess moves do not influence or concern -- help or harm -- people;
> and the chess game was created precisely to challenge the players.
> Most public choice matters of social concern are not as difficult as
> a chess move, if any such matters can be compared to a chess move.
> Besides, there is nothing in democratic theory which says the people
> cannot elect smart people to make the hard decisions for them. I
> just don't think political choices can be as difficult as a chess
> move.
Alex Vange wrote:
> They would elect smart people to make the hard decisions.
Ron Allen answers:
Again, assuming there are hard decisions the people can't
prudently make because of their mental inabilities, the
people could choose to elect those with better abilities
to decide the best way to achieve what all the people
desire. The people can choose the best social objectives
they favor, and if necessary the people can choose the
best minds to determine the best possible method by which
to realize that social objective.
To use an example, the people could decide if they want
to use atomic energy as a source of power, and the people
can elect Einsteins and other scientists who can determine
the best possible ways to achieve a safe use of atomic
energy. In a real and true democracy, the people decide
social ends, and they elect qualified peers to decide the
best means to make a social objective fully real.
Alex Vange wrote:
> They would also elect strong people to stop the murderers. They would
> take up a collection so everyone pays to have the roads paved. They
> would have a government, or the same thing with a different name.
Ron Allen answers:
In a capitalist democracy, the people elect politicians to
positions of personal political power; but in a socialist
democracy the people elect delegates and deputies to
representative positions of political/public agency. The
delegates are agents of the people's will; they are not
empowered to do their own will. This is why a genuine and
socialist democracy is anarchism. The means of government
are no longer separated from the people, no longer
alienated from society in the form of a political state,
an entity over and above society, ruling over society,
and over ruling the democratic will of society.
<><><><><><><><>
"With our thoughts, we shape the world."
-- Buddhist proverb
Ron Allen
> Anarchy is hell on earth.
Ron Allen wrote:
> To paraphrase Milton's Satan, it is better to rule one's own self in
> hell than serve in heaven.
Alex Vange wrote:
> For one thing who would pave the roads in an anarchy?
Ron Allen wrote:
> There is nothing in anarchy to prohibit free people from organizing
> themselves together for some cooperative and collaborative projects,
> such as the paving of roads.
Alex Vange wrote:
> People do it now because they are paid.
Ron Allen answers:
That does not mean people will not pave roads in a non-
cash economy that does not involve a system of wages.
Free people will freely do whatever needs to be done.
If we now lived in an anarcho-libertarian commonwealth,
I certainly would feel some sense of responsibility to
do my fair share of what needs to be done for the good
of the community of which I am a part.
Alex Vange wrote:
> And they are paid because there are taxes.
Ron Allen answers:
Communism is not a wage system, just as it is not a tax
system.
Alex Vange wrote:
> Why would people do it in your system?
Ron Allen answers:
People will need to work less in an industrialized and
technologized system of production that does not include
private profiteering and wage servitude.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"Satisfaction consists in doing the things we were made
for."
-- Marcus Aurelius
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
<tribal...@earthlink.net> wrote in message >
> It's not a matter of getting one's way or not. If you want flowers on the
> square, go plant them. Since I don't care anything about them, I won't
try
> to stop you.
>
I want a large swastika flag on the square.
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
<tribal...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:aud83u0c54rl8e9vb...@creamy.legs...
>
> So you're saying we should all be forced to live in fear of punishment
just
> to be civilized?
If you don't break the laws there is nothing to fear.
Are you saying that YOU need this or just everyone except
> you? One of the reasons anarchy will eventually work is because people
will
> understand the nature of death better than they do now, so it won't be so
> much of a loss.
The criminals could also torture people before killing them. I am for
having law and order and not anarchy.
>
> Capitalism and anarchy are not the same. Certain tenets may be similar,
but
> they are not the same.
>
>
> Consider Planet of the Apes. Suppose it was considered good smoke pot,
but
> considered bad not to smoke pot. Would you want a law forcing you to
smoke
> pot if you didn't want to? I predict you will answer "no".
True.
Well, I don't
> want laws forcing me not to smoke pot because I think it's good.
First, I don't like laws that you have to do something. I like laws
that say you can't do things.
Secondly, laws should be based on reality. Either pot is harmfull or it is
harmless. If it is overly harmfull (which I think it is) then it should be
outlawed.
> At the
> same time, I don't think it's bad for you not to smoke pot and I respect
> your decision. Unfortunately you do not offer the same respect in return.
> You simply think I'm a bad person, for some strange reason.
>
The person selling the pot is the bad person. That is assuming that pot
is harmfull.
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"Ron Allen" <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3C3494D9...@bellsouth.net...
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> We can have all the laws you want, but if some imbecile
> does what you describe, what good is the law if the
> identity of the guilty person is unknown?
The good of the law is that they might get caught and it is not worth the
risk. And without anarchy someone would be paid to clean up the mess. With
anarchy probably no one would clean up the mess.
>
> Besides, anarchism is not the absence of moral and civil
> law; it is the absence of an authoritarian state with
> its statutory laws.
There is no difference.
Anarchism is possible because there
> are universally agreed upon moral and civil laws.
Will you have policemen or not?
>
> Also, in an anarchy, people who are immature adults,
> anti-social -- i.e., dishonest and dishonorable --
> in their social dealings/practices can be punished for
> this by the community. There can be punishment for
> criminal acts, even if there is no totalitarian police
> state doing it.
>
Who exactly would do the punishment? How would this be an improvement
over finding the person guilty in court? What is the difference between
totalitarian police and non-totalitarian police?
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"Ron Allen" <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3C34C840...@bellsouth.net...
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> That does not mean people will not pave roads in a non-
> cash economy that does not involve a system of wages.
> Free people will freely do whatever needs to be done.
> If we now lived in an anarcho-libertarian commonwealth,
> I certainly would feel some sense of responsibility to
> do my fair share of what needs to be done for the good
> of the community of which I am a part.
Most people would play all day and not much work would get done. Suppose
your "fair share" of the work is 1% of it. If 80% of the people chose not to
do any work at all you would have to do a lot more work to make up for them.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Communism is not a wage system, just as it is not a tax
> system.
It is not a sane system I think.
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> People will need to work less in an industrialized and
> technologized system of production that does not include
> private profiteering and wage servitude.
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
<tribal...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8be83uopfoopimcdr...@creamy.legs...
> >
> > Moral law examples -- outlaw heroin, outlaw prostitution, outlaw
abortion
>
> Those are already outlawed. Do we live in a perfect world? No. Would
> repealing those laws make things better? Maybe and maybe not. But by
> changing the laws we have, we can get new problems that may have more
easily
> attainable resolutions.
Lets talk about over-population. Suppose having no laws regarding
reproduction would lead to a Soylent Green situation? In that case we should
definately have some laws. Prostitution and legal heroin would also make
society bad for the good people. The good people should band together and
outlaw the things we don't like.
>
> > Economic law examples-- have a minimum wage, have laws regarding
retirement
> > and overtime
>
> Overtime laws suck because they're mandatory. I cannot, even if I want
to,
> have my employer work me for 60 hours a week at my regular wage. It is
> illegal for them to do so. As a result, I either don't make as much money
> as I'd like, or I have to get a second job I might not care so much about.
The laws are designed to help people. If they don't do that they are bad
laws. If there were no laws companies could make profits in the billions
while paying you fifty cents an hour.
>
> > Conservative - For Moral Laws, Against Economic laws
> >
> > Liberal - Against Moral Laws, For Economic Laws
> >
> > Libertarian - Against Moral Laws, Against Economic Laws
> >
> > Fascist - For Moral Laws, For Economic Laws
>
> Well, at least we all know that you're a fascist.
>
>
> Well, that is an interesting perspective. Maybe we should all dress in
> bearskins and beat our wives over their heads with clubs and drag them
> around by their hair.
Beating wives should be a crime.
>
> Hmmm. So if a Wiccan, as a practice of their belief system, choose not to
> make moral judgment against others, they should be punished?
No.
> In other
> words, do you think people in society should always be on the lookout for
> opportunities to make moral judgments against others in society?
No, we should have reasonable laws and make new ones if they become
necessary.
>
> Huh? I've never heard Wiccans refered to as feminists, but I do believe
> they're "equalists" if I may coin a new term. Males can be Wiccans, too,
> you know.
There are male feminists too.
>
> This is not a bad thing. Even if one changes from one unproven belief to
> another, it's better than holding the same one for generation after
> generation. At some point you have an experience which tells you,
"Hmmm...
> that must not be it." People have personal experiences that defy
> traditional doctrines, so they change. To continue to hold the same
beliefs
> in the face of your own personal experiences proving otherwise is foolish.
>
>
> Nothing wrong with that one. But I don't think anybody under 45-50 years
> old has any business raising kids in the first place.
>
>
> There are pros and cons to disarming the world. For one thing, I'd hate
to
> find out that some crooked cop sold a bunch of guns to a gang of criminals
> who then unleash terror on an unarmed populace. And if the gun were
stolen,
> it would be even worse. I'm all for these new non-lethal forms of
policing.
> If the world is going to be disarmed, then I don't want any cops or armies
> to have guns, either. In fact, I don't think we should have militaries at
> all -- none of us should. If these governments want to fight over
policies,
> let the people responsible for making these policies get out in the
> battlefield and duke it out with their bare hands instead of getting
> innocent civilians to do their fighting for them. Leave me alone. I
don't
> care what you guys do, but I want nothing to do with your foolishness.
>
>
> I have no problem with a 50-50 sexual split. But I don't think employers
> should be "forced" to have half women and half men. Maybe no woman wants
> the job. Maybe the woman's breasts would be so large that they become a
> violation of OSHA standards because they could get caught in some
machinery.
>
> And what about kids? Kids seem to have fewer rights than anybody in the
> world, and yet with their fresh insight on the world, they often ask the
> simplest questions and can come up with solutions that the tired brains of
> Congress can't figure out. If kids can build million dollar web companies
> at 13 years old, then they should be free to have jobs if they want to
have
> them, and not for just two measly dollars per hour. Give them a real
wage!
>
>
> Allowing the retired folks of the community to raise the kids would take
the
> burden off the people who still work, and what better wisdom can be given
to
> kids than that of their grandparents? Have your kids at a young age.
Give
> the responsibility of raising them to the whole community, not just your
own
> grandparents. Give your kids the knowledge and experience of the whole
> community, not just the things experienced by your own, narrow family. It
> must be natures way because our elders typically always beg for grandkids
> right after their own kids get married. And if all the elders had the
> variety of being able to raise all kinds of kids, the kids would broaden
> their understanding of different types of people, and I think crime would
> drop drastically as a result. I mean, who would want to rob or murder
> someone who has been a part of their life since they were babies?
I consider the family unit to be a good thing. I would vote against
systems where "the whole community" raises the children. The grandparent
thing doens't sound as bad but children should be close to their mothers
and fathers.
>
> I thing that's going too far. If a woman *wants* to stay hom and raise
the
> kids, she should be able to. She shouldn't be forced to, however.
Being a mother should be a paid government job. They should get a check
like anyone else who is doing good for the nation.
>
> Probably Christians had something to do with this brainwashing.
>
>
> No it isn't. There is much Christian influence on many of the laws we
have
> now. So whether you join them willingly or not, you still must live under
> their at least partial rule.
>
>
> The rise and fall of the white man. IIRC, there was a time when all white
> men were slaves to a dominating female power; sex slaves, too.
No, there wasn't.
> It would be
> horrible for me to be forced to have sex with a woman. :-(
>
>
> What's in the works is mandatory contraception *coverage* in health
> insurance policies in hopes that it would lower the demand for abortions.
> Another legislative proposal is for contraceptive implants for
drug-addicted
> mothers. Still another, which would probably never get off the ground if
it
> were not for capitalism, is this mandatory contraception as part of an
> effort to reduce teen pregancy. Unfortunately, one vaccine maker (Merke &
> Co.) would stand to profit from such mandatory laws, so they support it.
> State health departments would make money, so they support it.
>
> And here's a quote from http://www.crowmagazine.com/ms-sperm.htm
>
> So how do we control men's fertility? Mandatory
> contraception beginning at puberty, with the rule
> relaxed only for procreation under the right
> circumstances (he can afford it and has a willing
> partner) and for the right reasons (determined by a
> panel of experts, and with the persmission of his
> designated female partner). This could be easily
> accomplished with a masculine version of the
> contraceptive implants some judges are now trying to
> force on some women by court order.
>
> I guess I should be glad I'm gay
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
<tribal...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:i6o83uof7nj4nfvth...@creamy.legs...
>
> Um... that's how Hitler came to power -- legally. Then he appointed
people.
> He was considered a great leader until people found out what he was really
> doing.
During World War Two the Germans put Jews and Communists in
concentration camps. The USA locked also up the Japanese and their political
opponants and for less reason. At the end of the war there was a lot of
deaths in the German camps from disease and starvation because Germany was
being bombed to rubble. There is no evidence that the Germans had gas
chambers or an extermination plan.
Newsweek magazine May 15, 1989 says on page 64:
"the way the Nazis did things: the secrecy, the unwritten orders, the
destruction of records and the innocent-sounding code names for the
extermination of the Jews. Perhaps it was inevitable that historians would
quarrel over just what happened"
The real reason there are no records of an extermination plan is
because there was no extermination plan. The Germans planned to deport the
Jews out of Germany. The records show that they planned to move them to
Madagascar.
Here is part of the Leuchter Report:
"Thirty-one samples were selectively removed from the alleged gas
chambers at Kremas I, II, III, IV and V. A control sample was taken from
delousing facility #1 at Birkenau. The control sample was removed from a
delousing chamber in a location where cyanide was known to have been used
and was apparently present as blue staining. Chemical testing of the control
sample #32 showed a cyanide content of 1050 mg/kg, a very heavy
concentration. The conditions at areas from which these samples were taken
are identical with those of the control sample, cold, dark, and wet. Only
Kremas IV and V differed, in the respect that these locations had sunlight
(the buildings have been torn down) and sunlight may hasten the destruction
of uncomplexed cyanide. The cyanide combines with the iron in the mortar and
brick and becomes ferric-ferro-cyanide or prussian blue pigmentation, a very
stable iron-cyanide complex.
"The locations from which the analyzed samples were removed are set out
in Table III.
"It is notable that almost all the samples were negative and that the
few that were positive were very close to the detection level (1mg/kg); 6.7
mg/kg at Krema III; 7.9 mg/kg at Krerma I. The absense of any consequential
readings at any of the tested locations as compared to the control sample
reading 1050 mg/kg supports the evidence that these facilities were not
execution gas chambers. The small quantities detected would indicate that at
some point these buildings were deloused with Zyklon B - as were all the
buildings at all these facilities"
Critics of the Leuchter report have tried to explain this by saying it
takes more cyanide to kill lice than humans and the "gas chambers" were in
ruins. But 1050 mg/kg is still a lot more than the max of 7.9. And they have
admitted that the "gas chamber" which is shown to the tourists at Auschwitz
was actually built by the allies after the war was over. This is what they
wrote:
Brian Harmon <har...@msg.ucsf.edu> wrote in article
<080620000051136373%har...@msg.ucsf.edu>...
"You're confusing Krema I with Kremas II-V. Krema I is a
reconstruction, this has never been a secret. Kremas II-V
are in their demolished state as they were left."
Charles Don Hall <cdhall...@erols.com> wrote in article
<8F4CB71B...@news.erols.com>...
"Certainly not! The word "fake" implies a deliberate attempt to deceive.
"The staff of the Auschwitz museum will readily explain that the Nazis
tried to destroy the gas chambers in a futile attempt to conceal their
crimes. And they'll tell you that reconstruction was done later on. So it
would be dishonest for me to call it a "fake". I'll cheerfully admit that
it's a "reconstruction" if that makes you happy."
They admit that the "gas chamber" shown to the tourists at Auschwitz was
built by the allies after the war was over. There is no physical evidence
that the Germans had gas chambers. No bodies of people who died from gas
have been found. The Communists were the first to enter the camps. How do
the other allies know the Communists didn't blow up the buildings? Then they
could claim that these demolished buildings used to be gas chambers.
But then the believers will say the Gemans confessed. Their main
confession is from Hoess. Here are the details:
"In the introduction to Death Dealer [Buffalo: Prometheus, 1992], the
historian Steven Paskuly wrote: "Just after his capture in 1946, the
British Security Police were able to extract a statement from Hoess by
beating him and filling him with liquor." Paskuly was reiterating what
Rupert Butler and Bernard Clarke had already described.
In 1983, Rupert Butler published an unabashed memoir (Legions of Death,
Hamlyn: London) describing in graphic detail how, over three days, he and
Clarke and other British policemen managed to torture Hoess into making a
"coherent statement." According to Butler [Legions of Death, p. 237], he
and the other interrogators put the boots to Hoess the moment he was
captured. For starters, Clarke struck his face four times to get Höess to
reveal his true identity.
<quote>
The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of Jewish sergeants in the
arresting party whose parents had died in Auschwitz following an order
signed by Höss.
The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjamas ripped from his
body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where it
seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless.
Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: "Call them off, unless
you want to take back a corpse."
A blanket was thrown over Höss and he was dragged to Clarke's car, where
the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whisky down his throat. Höss
tried to sleep.
Clarke thrust his service stick under the man's eyelids and ordered in
Geffnan: "Keep your pig eyes open, you swine."
For the first time Höss trotted out his oft-repeated justification: "I
took my orders frorn Himmler. I was a soldier in the same way as you are
a soldier and we had to obey orders."
The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The snow was
swirling still, but the blanket was torn from Höss and he was made to walk
completely nude through the prison yard to his cell.
</quote>
An article in the Britsh newspaper Wrexham Leader [Mike Mason, "In a cell
with
a Nazi war criminal -- We kept him awake until he confessed," October 17,
1986] following the airing of a TV documentary on the case of Rudolf Hoess
included eyewitness recollections by Ken Jones:
<quote>
Mr. Ken Jones was then a private with the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery
stationed at Heid[e] in Schleswig-Holstein. "They brought him to us when
he refused to cooperate over questioning about his activities during the
war. He came in the winter of 1945/6 and was put in a small jail cell in
the barracks," recalls Mr. Jones. Two other soldiers were detailed with
Mr. Jones to join Höss in his cell to help break him down for
interrogation. "We sat in the cell with him, night and day, armed with
axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to help
break down his resistance," said Mr. Jones. When Höss was taken out for
exercise he was made to wear only jeans and a cotton shirt in the bitter
cold. After three days and nights without sleep, Höss finally broke down
and made a full confession to the authorities.
</quote>
The confession Hoess signed was numbered document NO-1210; later revamped,
as document PS-3868, which became the basis for an oral deposition Hoess
made for the IMT on April 15, 1946, a month after it had been extracted
from him by torture...
Since what people confess to after they have been captured by the
Communists and their liberal comrades is not proof of anything, this leaves
only the stories of survivors. These contradict each other and not
believable. One professional survivor said that he could tell if the Germans
were gassing German Jews or Polish Jews by the color of the smoke.
The fact that there are so many "survivors" is not proof of an
extermination plan. There may be six million survivors. Just about every Jew
that is old says he is a survivor.
The real "holocaust" was when the Communist Jews murdered millions of
Christians. Communism was Jewish. Here is proof:
Lev Trotzky wrote a book called "Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and
His Influence", Harper Bros., New York and London, 1941, translated by
Charles Malamuth.
In this book he told who the principle members of the October Central
Committee were. This group was the leadership of the Bolshevik Party during
the October Revolution. This is what he wrote:
"In view of the Party's semi-legality the names of persons elected by
secret ballot were not announced at the Congress, with the exception of the
four who had recieved the largest number of votes. Lenin--133 out of a
possible 134, Zinoviev--132, Kamenev--131, Trotzky--131."
Of these four top leaders of the Bolshevik Party the last three were
known Jews. Lenin was thought to be a gentile but he was married to a
Jewess. It was later proven that he was one quarter Jewish, London Jewish
Chronicle April 21, 1995, Lenin: Life and Legacy.
The communists took over Hungary in 1919. Their leader was the Jew,
Bela Kun (Cohen).
The leaders of communist Poland were the Jews Minc, Skryeszewski,
Modzelewski, and Berman.
The leader of communist Roumania was the Jewess Anna Pauker
The leader of communist Chechoslovakia was the Jew Rudolf Slansky.
The leader of communist Yogoslavia was not a Jew. He was Tito,
however he was tutored by a Jewish mentor named Mosa Pljade.
Communism in America was also Jewish.
In 1945 the FBI arrested six individuals for stealing 1700 highly
confidential documents from State Department files. This was the Amerasia
case they were:
Philip Jaffe, a Russian Jew who came to the U.S. in 1905. He was at one
time the editor of the communist paper "Labor Defense" and the ringleader of
the group arrested.
Andrew Roth, a Jew.
Mark Gayn, a Jew, changed his name from Julius Ginsberg.
John Service, a gentile.
Emmanuel Larsen, nationality unknown
Kate Mitchel, nationality unknown.
In 1949 the Jewess Judith Coplin was caught passing classified
documents from Justice Department files to a Russian agent.
The highest ranking communist brought to trial in the U.S. was Gerhart
Eisler. He was a Jew. He was the secret boss of the Communist Party in the
U.S. and commuted regularly between the U.S. and Russia.
In 1950 there was the "Hollywood Ten" case. Ten leading film writers of
the Hollywood Film Colony were convicted for contempt of Congress and
sentanced to prison. Nine of the ten were Jews. Six of the ten were
communist party members and the other four were flagrantly pro-communist.
One of the top new stories of 1949 was the trial of Eugene Dennis and
the Convicted Eleven. This group comprised the National Secretariat of the
American Communist Party. Six were Jews, two gentiles, three nationality
unknown.
Also in 1949 the German-born atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs was convicted
for passing atomic secrets to the Russians. Acting on information obtained
from Fuchs the FBI arrested nine other members of the ring. All of them were
convicted. Eight of the nine were Jews.
Here are some quotes from a very pro-Jewish book that was first published
in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis Browne.
"But save for such exceptions, the Jews who led or participated in the
heroic efforts to remold the world of the last century, were neither Reform
or Orthodox. Indeed, they were often not professing Jews at all.
"For instance, there was Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne, both
unfaltering champions of freedom. And even more conspicuously, there was
Karl Marx, one of the great prophetic geniuses of modern times.
"Jewish historians rarely mention the name of this man, Karl Marx,
though in his life and spirit he was far truer to the mission of Israel than
most of those who were forever talking of it. He was born in Germany in
1818, and belonged to an old rabbinic family. He was not himself reared as a
Jew, however, but while still a child was baptized a Christian by his
father. Yet the rebel soul of the Jew flamed in him thoughout his days, for
he was always a 'troubler' in Europe."
"Then, of course, there are Ludwig Borne and Heinrich Heine, two men
who by their merciless wit and sarcasm became leaders among the
revolutionary writers. Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Johann Jacoby, Gabriel
Riesser, Adolphe Cremieux, Signora Nathan- all these of Jewish lineage
played important roles in the struggle that went thoughout Europe in this
period. Wherever the war for human liberty was being waged, whether in
France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Italy, there the Jew was to be found.
It was little wonder that the enemies of social progress, the monarchists
and the Churchmen, came to speak of the whole liberal movement as nothing
but a Jewish plot."
The following quotes are taken directly from documents available from the
U.S. Archives:
State Department document 861.00/1757 sent May 2, 1918 by U.S. consul
general in Moscow, Summers: "Jews prominant in local Soviet
government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population...."
State Department document 861.00/2205 was sent from Vladivostok on
July 5, 1918 by U.S. consul Caldwell: "Fifty percent of Soviet
government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type."
From the Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia on
March 1, 1919, comes this telegram from Omsk by Chief of Staff, Capt.
Montgomey Shuyler: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the
United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since it's
beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type"
type."
A second Schuyler telegram, dated June 9, 1919 from Vladivostok,
reports on the make-up of the presiding Soviet government: "...(T)here
were 384 `commissars' including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen,
22 Armenians, AND MORE THAN 300 JEWS. Of the latter number, 264 had
come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the
Imperial Government.
David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a
January 1918 dispatch to Washington: "The Bolshevik leaders here, most
of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care
little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and
they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."
The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, confirmed this:
"Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to
spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is
organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one
object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."
"The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of
Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a
new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in
Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction
and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental an
physical forces, become a reality all over the world." (The American
Hebrew, September 10, 1920)> "There is much in the fact of Bolshevism
itself, in the fact that so
many Jews are Bolshevists. The ideals of Bolshevism are consonant with
many of the highest ideals of Judaism." (Jewish Chronicle, London
April, 4, 1919) "Some call it Marxism I call it Judaism." (The
American Bulletin, Rabbi S. Wise, May 5, 1935).
"In the Bolshevik era, 52 percent of the membership of the Soviet
communist party was Jewish, though Jews comprised only 1.8 percent of
the total population." (Stuart Kahan, The Wolf of the Kremlin, p. 81)
Interestingly, one of the first acts by the Bolsheviks was to make
so-called "anti-Semitism" a capital crime. This is confirmed by Stalin
himself:
"National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic
customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as
an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of
cannibalism...under USSR law active anti-Semites are liable to the
death penalty." (Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13, p. 30).
Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried to
read articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous stuff.
From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I recalled to mind the
names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then I realized that most of
them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social Democratic representatives in
the Imperial Cabinet as well as the secretaries if the Trades Unions and
the street agitators. Everywhere the same sinister picture presented
itself. I shall never forget the row of names- Austerlitz, David, Adler,
Ellonbogen, and others. One fact became quite evident to me. It was that
this alien race held in its hands the leadership of that Social Democratic
Party with whose minor representatives I had been disputing for months
past."
Solzhenitsyn named in his book the six top administrators of the
Soviet death camps. All six of them were Jews.
> So what you really want is a dictatorship. And it's strange, too.
In America we could keep the checks and balances. But it is not bad to
have a leader. Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"Human progress and human cultures are not founded by the multitude.
They are exclusively the work of personal genius and personal efficiency."
"Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in the
composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the individual
personality?"
"The devastating influence of the parliamentary institution might not
easily be recognized by those who read the Jewish Press, unless the reader
has learned how to think independently and examine the facts for himself.
This institution is primarily responsible for the crowded inrush of mediocre
people into the field of politics. Confronted with such a phenomenon, a man
who is endowed with real qualities of leadership will be tempted to refrain
from taking part in political life; because under these circumstances the
situation does not call for a man who has a capacity for constructive
statesmanship but rather for a man who is capable of bargaining for the
favour of the majority. Thus the situation will appeal to small minds and
will attract them accordingly."
"One truth which must always be borne in mind is that the majority can
never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance but also
cowardice. And just as a hundred blockheads do not equal one man of wisdom,
so a hundred poltroons are incapable of any political line of action that
requires moral strength and fortitude."
"It is not the aim of our modern democratic parliamentary system to
bring together an assembly of intelligent and well-informed deputies. Not at
all. The aim rather is to bring together a group of nonentities who are
dependant on others for their views and who can be all the more easily led,
the narrower the mental outlook of each individual is. That is the only way
in which a party policy, according the the evil meaning it has to-day, can
be put into effect. And by this method alone is it possible for the
wirepuller, who exercises the real control, to remain in the dark, so that
personally he can never be brought to account for his actions."
"Such people would raise an outcry, if, for instance, anyone should
attempt to set up a dictatorship, even though the man responsible for it
were Frederick the Great and even though the politicians for the time being,
who constituted the parlimentary majority, were small and incompetent men or
maybe even on a lower grade of inferiority; because to such sticklers for
abstract principles the law of democracy is more sacred than the welfare of
the nation."
"the best form of government is that which makes it quite natural for the
best brains to reach a position of dominant importance and influence in the
community."
> You said in another post that you wanted laws which are voted on by the
> people, yet you want public officials to be appointed.
I am in favor of laws that would make the nation better. It would be
good to outlaw tobacco. But I am not for having laws that are unpopular with
the people. So we could vote on whether tobacco should be outlawed. I did
not say that every decision would be put to a vote. The officials would have
better opinions than the majority vote of the beer drinkers and football
fans.
It just doesn't make
> sense. I can only assume that you must be a Russian immigrant. I think
> they like having great leaders who will take care of them and appoint
other
> great leaders.
Communism was Jewish.
Lev Trotzky wrote a book called "Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and
His Influence", Harper Bros., New York and London, 1941, translated by
Charles Malamuth.
In this book he told who the principle members of the October Central
Committee were. This group was the leadership of the Bolshevik Party during
the October Revolution. This is what he wrote:
"In view of the Party's semi-legality the names of persons elected by
secret ballot were not announced at the Congress, with the exception of the
four who had recieved the largest number of votes. Lenin--133 out of a
possible 134, Zinoviev--132, Kamenev--131, Trotzky--131."
Of these four top leaders of the Bolshevik Party the last three were
known Jews. Lenin was thought to be a gentile but he was married to a
Jewess. It was later proven that he was one quarter Jewish, London Jewish
Chronicle April 21, 1995, Lenin: Life and Legacy.
The communists took over Hungary in 1919. Their leader was the Jew,
Bela Kun (Cohen).
In Hungary, IIRC, the head of their VERY bloody communist secret
police, Farkas (Wulf) was a Jew. In fact, nearly all the highest ranking
communist officials in post-war Hungary were Jews.
The leaders of communist Poland were the Jews Minc, Skryeszewski,
Modzelewski, and Berman.
The leader of communist Roumania was the Jewess Anna Pauker
The leader of communist Chechoslovakia was the Jew Rudolf Slansky.
The leader of communist Yogoslavia was not a Jew. He was Tito,
however he was tutored by a Jewish mentor named Mosa Pljade.
Communism in America was also Jewish.
In 1945 the FBI arrested six individuals for stealing 1700 highly
confidential documents from State Department files. This was the Amerasia
case they were:
Philip Jaffe, a Russian Jew who came to the U.S. in 1905. He was at one
time the editor of the communist paper "Labor Defense" and the ringleader of
the group arrested.
Andrew Roth, a Jew.
Mark Gayn, a Jew, changed his name from Julius Ginsberg.
John Service, a gentile.
Emmanuel Larsen, nationality unknown
Kate Mitchel, nationality unknown.
In 1949 the Jewess Judith Coplin was caught passing classified
documents from Justice Department files to a Russian agent.
The highest ranking communist brought to trial in the U.S. was Gerhart
Eisler. He was a Jew. He was the secret boss of the Communist Party in the
U.S. and commuted regularly between the U.S. and Russia.
In 1950 there was the "Hollywood Ten" case. Ten leading film writers of
the Hollywood Film Colony were convicted for contempt of Congress and
sentanced to prison. Nine of the ten were Jews. Six of the ten were
communist party members and the other four were flagrantly pro-communist.
One of the top new stories of 1949 was the trial of Eugene Dennis and
the Convicted Eleven. This group comprised the National Secretariat of the
American Communist Party. Six were Jews, two gentiles, three nationality
unknown.
Also in 1949 the German-born atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs was convicted
for passing atomic secrets to the Russians. Acting on information obtained
from Fuchs the FBI arrested nine other members of the ring. All of them were
convicted. Eight of the nine were Jews.
Here are some quotes from a very pro-Jewish book that was first published
in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis Browne.
"But save for such exceptions, the Jews who led or participated in the
heroic efforts to remold the world of the last century, were neither Reform
or Orthodox. Indeed, they were often not professing Jews at all.
"For instance, there was Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne, both
unfaltering champions of freedom. And even more conspicuously, there was
Karl Marx, one of the great prophetic geniuses of modern times.
"Jewish historians rarely mention the name of this man, Karl Marx,
though in his life and spirit he was far truer to the mission of Israel than
most of those who were forever talking of it. He was born in Germany in
1818, and belonged to an old rabbinic family. He was not himself reared as a
Jew, however, but while still a child was baptized a Christian by his
father. Yet the rebel soul of the Jew flamed in him thoughout his days, for
he was always a 'troubler' in Europe."
"Then, of course, there are Ludwig Borne and Heinrich Heine, two men
who by their merciless wit and sarcasm became leaders among the
revolutionary writers. Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Johann Jacoby, Gabriel
Riesser, Adolphe Cremieux, Signora Nathan- all these of Jewish lineage
played important roles in the struggle that went thoughout Europe in this
period. Wherever the war for human liberty was being waged, whether in
France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Italy, there the Jew was to be found.
It was little wonder that the enemies of social progress, the monarchists
and the Churchmen, came to speak of the whole liberal movement as nothing
but a Jewish plot."
The following quotes are taken directly from documents available from the
U.S. Archives:
State Department document 861.00/1757 sent May 2, 1918 by U.S. consul
general in Moscow, Summers: "Jews prominant in local Soviet
government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population...."
State Department document 861.00/2205 was sent from Vladivostok on
July 5, 1918 by U.S. consul Caldwell: "Fifty percent of Soviet
government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type."
From the Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia on
March 1, 1919, comes this telegram from Omsk by Chief of Staff, Capt.
Montgomey Shuyler: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the
United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since it's
beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type"
type."
A second Schuyler telegram, dated June 9, 1919 from Vladivostok,
reports on the make-up of the presiding Soviet government: "...(T)here
were 384 `commissars' including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen,
22 Armenians, AND MORE THAN 300 JEWS. Of the latter number, 264 had
come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the
Imperial Government.
David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a
January 1918 dispatch to Washington: "The Bolshevik leaders here, most
of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care
little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and
they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."
The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, confirmed this:
"Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to
spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is
organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one
object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."
"The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of
Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a
new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in
Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction
and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental an
physical forces, become a reality all over the world." (The American
Hebrew, September 10, 1920)> "There is much in the fact of Bolshevism
itself, in the fact that so
many Jews are Bolshevists. The ideals of Bolshevism are consonant with
many of the highest ideals of Judaism." (Jewish Chronicle, London
April, 4, 1919) "Some call it Marxism I call it Judaism." (The
American Bulletin, Rabbi S. Wise, May 5, 1935).
"In the Bolshevik era, 52 percent of the membership of the Soviet
communist party was Jewish, though Jews comprised only 1.8 percent of
the total population." (Stuart Kahan, The Wolf of the Kremlin, p. 81)
Interestingly, one of the first acts by the Bolsheviks was to make
so-called "anti-Semitism" a capital crime. This is confirmed by Stalin
himself:
"National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic
customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as
an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of
cannibalism...under USSR law active anti-Semites are liable to the
death penalty." (Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13, p. 30).
Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried to
read articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous stuff.
From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I recalled to mind the
names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then I realized that most of
them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social Democratic representatives in
the Imperial Cabinet as well as the secretaries if the Trades Unions and
the street agitators. Everywhere the same sinister picture presented
itself. I shall never forget the row of names- Austerlitz, David, Adler,
Ellonbogen, and others. One fact became quite evident to me. It was that
this alien race held in its hands the leadership of that Social Democratic
Party with whose minor representatives I had been disputing for months
past."
Solzhenitsyn named in his book the six top administrators of the
Soviet death camps. All six of them were Jews.
>
> But sometimes very smart people don't have much compassion.
True, but who is to say the majority vote would have compassion? We should
have leaders with intelligence and compassion.
>They come up
> with perfect world solutions without considering how the people would feel
> about it. So while their solution may solve a problem, it would lower the
> morale of the people because everyone would be treated like lab rats
without
> feelings.
If the problem is a big problem then solving it would be more important
than peoples feelings. If someone thinks they have a better idea they should
say what it is. The professionals would not have to follow the advise if
they thought it was all wrong.
>
> They do that already. I pay for roads I don't even travel on and the one
> leading up to my house is so bumpy that my shock absorbers foam up and the
> low-track light comes on.
>
> > They would have a government, or the same thing with a different name.
>
> A dictatorship.
>
If you had your liberalism that would be a dictatorship to me. You are
for having a liberal society that I totally oppose.
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"Ron Allen" <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3C34C667...@bellsouth.net...
>
> Alex Vange wrote:
> > People should be appointed from above.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Should? By what law? By what right?
A general in an army can choose who should be corporals and captions
better than the average vote of all the soldiers. It is the same in a
business and it the same in government.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> How is the führer elected? How does the führer determine
> the good and talented people for all those decision-making
> positions of power?
>
We should come to power legally by whatever voting process exists in a
country.
> If practice makes perfect, perhaps more exercise of
> democracy, more applications and rehearsals of democracy,
> will serve to improve society's democratic practice.
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> > Are you better than me?
>
> Alex Vange wrote:
> > In what way?
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Are you better than me at making public choice decisions,
> at making prudent political decisions?
Yes
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
> > If I decide democracy is better than plutocracy, does that decision
> > make me less a person than you?
>
>
> Alex Vange wrote:
> > No.
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Then why do you believe some people are better than other
> people? Are believe in a fascist oligarchy? You are an
> élitist? Why?
The average person cares only about drinking beer and watching
football. If he thinks about anything else it is only at the prompting of
his TV set. The people who run the TV are the real rulers now.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Again, assuming there are hard decisions the people can't
> prudently make because of their mental inabilities, the
> people could choose to elect those with better abilities
> to decide the best way to achieve what all the people
> desire. The people can choose the best social objectives
> they favor, and if necessary the people can choose the
> best minds to determine the best possible method by which
> to realize that social objective.
>
> To use an example, the people could decide if they want
> to use atomic energy as a source of power,
I think an expert on energy should decide that.
and the people
> can elect Einsteins and other scientists who can determine
> the best possible ways to achieve a safe use of atomic
> energy. In a real and true democracy, the people decide
> social ends, and they elect qualified peers to decide the
> best means to make a social objective fully real.
OK I agree with that.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> In a capitalist democracy, the people elect politicians to
> positions of personal political power; but in a socialist
> democracy the people elect delegates and deputies to
> representative positions of political/public agency. The
> delegates are agents of the people's will; they are not
> empowered to do their own will.
I don't agree with that. Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
This is why a genuine and
> socialist democracy is anarchism. The means of government
> are no longer separated from the people, no longer
> alienated from society in the form of a political state,
> an entity over and above society, ruling over society,
> and over ruling the democratic will of society.
>
The Jews rule society now. Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"Thus another weapon beside that of freemasonry would have to be secured.
This was the Press. The Jew exercised all his skill and tenacity in getting
hold of it. By means of the Press he began gradually to control public life
in its entirety."
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
"Pat Hines" <fas...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3C3267DE...@attbi.com...
>
> It makes no difference to me that Jews control some or even most of
> those entities known as the media, it's not relevant to the citizenry.
We have terrorism against America because of the Jews for one thing.
"Nearly all the world has access to less biased information than residents
of the
US.
In recent votes on sanctions of Israel in the General Assembly of the UN,
the
votes have ranged up to 153 to 2, the 2 being the US, and Israel."
RLA
>
> What's important is that humans always trend towards freedom and that
> spells doom for antique, gutter philosophies such as communism and
fascism.
>
There are two schools of thought in the world, the right and the left.
The right is guided by what was known as Christian principles. It is for
outlawing homosexual perversion, prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other
bad things. It puts the good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom
of individuals to corrupt the culture of the nation.
Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it harm
none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple that the
witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of Witchcraft is the
Bible of liberalism. It would legalize the homosexual perversion,
prostitution, drugs, etc.
The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only about
individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make the nation
better. There are beaches where normal families will not go because
homosexual perverts practice their perversion on the beach. This is fine
with leftists. This is what they want. They are like children who only care
about their individual selves and are oblivious to what should be done to
make the nation great. Their philosophy for example would not allow the law
that drivers have to stop at the red lights. Their philosophy would result
in chaos and degeneracy.
Today there are some libertarians who pretend to be rightists because
they are for the freedom of the Ebenezer Scrooges to be as greedy as they
want. That group has a lot of money and they can pretend to be right wing
on TV, but what they really do is serve mammon (money). The real right wing
was not for legalizing drugs, or for using this same liberal philosophy of
the Rede of Witchcraft to legalize greed. People should not be side-tracked
into serving money if they really want to fight liberalism. Fighting
homosexual perversion with libertarianism is exactly the same as fighting a
fire with gasoline. Most libertarians know they are liberal. Anyone who
would legalize prostitution and heroin is a leftist.
The Communist were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and the
anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The Communists
were for having government but only temporarily. They said that their
government was necessary only until the whole world was Communist. After the
world was Communist they wanted to disolve the government and have an
anarchy.
What liberals want to be liberated from is Christianity, or what used
to be Christianity. Capitalists want freedom for their greed, other liberals
want freedom for degeneracy, and Communists wanted to be free to burn down
churches. They had their differences but they all joined together to fight
against the real right wing during World War Two.
The right wing cares about the future. Leftists only care about having a
good time in the present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare future
like in Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are not
interested and insist that nothing could be more important than the freedom
of individuals to be as decadant as they want. They are like the children in
the old black and white movie "Lord of the Flies".
Alan Whipple
> > > Alex Vange wrote:
> > > > Anarchy is hell on earth.
> > >
> > > To paraphrase Milton's Satan, it is better to rule one's
> > > own self in hell than serve in heaven.
> >
>
Not sure if I believe either actually, if we got rid of all the people, it would
be anarchy, and I doubt the animals would complain. Satan on the otherhand is not
well known for his honesty, and his reasoning is ragged enough to get him torn
apart on these boards with that comment...
Al
>
tribal...@earthlink.net
decision to post:
> What if someone smashes the toilet, takes a turd on the floor, and
> pisses all over the sink? Who will clean that up? That is why we
> have laws.
Laws don't prevent any of those things from happening.
> That is why we don't have anarchy.
Anarchy is not about smashing toilets and dropping turds on the floor. That
is assholery. You base your ideas on the premise that men are ignorant,
brutal and uncontrollable beasts who would become savages if it were not for
the power of laws, fear and punishment keeping them in line. I don't think
you realize how idiotic that premise is. When I'm in the confines of my
home, I don't take off all my clothes, smear my body with pig fat and chase
the cat around the house with a spear in hand. I wear clothes, work on the
computer, cook dinner, clean house, exercise a little and watch some
television. Yet if I choose to do the former, nobody would know. But I
don't because I'm not a savage.
Damaeus
tribal...@earthlink.net
decision to post:
> <tribal...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:i5q53ug7ou8h5p2bi...@creamy.legs...
>
> > I think it's a very simple structure that would work because people
> > would get involved in things they care about and people who don't care
> > about those things would not be forced to contribute as they do now in
> > the form of taxes.
>
> Your system lacks fairness for one thing. People who would play all day,
> or spend their day in bed (which would be most of the people) would still
> get to go to your movie theatre, and drive on paved roads, and leech off the
> labor of the few that would do all the work.
First, I think you're wrong that most people would stay in bed all day. I
think people would have more ways to find work doing what they enjoy,
instead of having to find just any old job to make money to pay bills. Most
people would work. And if a few don't, who cares? Forced labor is not the
answer. Just let them be. You really can't tell what a person may
contribute to society. For example, let's say a man never does anything
like plant a flower bed, build a house, pave a road or clean a window. But
he likes going out on the town and he likes talking to people and people
like talking to him. He has a knack for making people feel better just by
being talkative. He has contributed to society, even though he may have no
office to work out of, and even though he may not even realize the effect he
has on people. Just existing in society and interacting with others is
contributing. Ever been smiled at while walking through the mall? Ever
made a friend? Those two actions do affect your life in positive ways. But
would you demand money for those services? I hope not. Similarly, if
someone does those two simple things in society, they've contributed in a
fundamental way.
Damaeus
tribal...@earthlink.net
decision to post:
> <tribal...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> > That's true. I know that it's not beneath me to scrub toilets. I
> > would like to be a musician, but while I'm studying or perfecting my
> > technique, I would have no problem hanging out at the mall all day to
> > clean up the bathrooms. Plus I think society currently creates some
> > kind of negative image around janitors and custodians and people treat
> > them like they might want to do something more with their lives, but
> > they're unable to. I think some people enjoy being custodians. The
> > only reason they may look depressed is because some of them are
> > treated like it's all their worth, even though they enjoy the honest
> > work.
>
> They do that work because they are paid. Communists think people will
> volunteeer to do that work without being paid. They want people to be
> free to do whatever they want. Their ideas having nothing in common
> with the world of reality.
Because I think there are enough people in the world who have enough
variation in their interests that we can all do what we enjoy to advance
society as a whole. I enjoy writing, working with graphics and video
editing. I have skills that could be used to advance mankind, and I would
gladly contribute those skills freely. But instead, under capitalism, if I
want to work in any of those fields, I must compete with people who may not
necessarily want this kind of work, but they want the money that can be
made. People who want to do the work they're doing will produce much better
results than people who do not enjoy their work.
I'm not even proposing a bartering system. I'm simply proposing that if we
all do what we enjoy, society will be complete and we won't have to worry
about the guy down the block doing nothing at all because we have plenty of
people to have some who just want to goof off. And if someone enjoys what I
produce, I get satisfaction in knowing that my work is appreciated by
someone. Even in a capitalist society, I feel guilty charging someone for
building a website or typing some papers. But I'm forced to. No matter how
much I give freely to society, the utility companies will still demand that
I pay for their services, so I'm forced to charge money. So many of us are
unwilling slaves to capitalism, so in that way, we already live in a
plutocracy because the wealthy people in Corporate America are the ones who
keep the money flowing. They will never stop charging money for their
products, so unless we have worldwide civil disobedience to destroy
capitalism, we will always be forced to give our productivity to these
companies in order to have money which we then give back to Corporate
America to acquire the things we need or want. Cutting out the corporate
money pumps would mean that we could simply keep what we produce instead of
giving what we produce to a corporation so they can sell it back to us for a
fee. And that is why we're nothing more than paid slaves.
The only change wealthy capitalists want is more plutocracy. The closer we
come to communism, the closer we come to putting an end to the money pump
that keeps the wealthy swimming in money. The wealthy plutocrats do not
want this because it means they have to live on the same level as everyone
else. It means they can no longer control the means of production to
maximize their profits at the expense of progress. It means that progress
comes more quickly because there is no longer a concern for profit, but a
concern for advancing society as a whole. It is any wonder that the
profit-loving characters on Star Trek are portrayed as greedy, ugly
individuals with sharp fangs? The Ferengi only do things that bring them
profit. I think the symbolism of American capitalism is Star Trek is
uncanny.
Damaeus
tribal...@earthlink.net
decision to post:
> <tribal...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> > Moral law examples -- outlaw heroin, outlaw prostitution, outlaw
> > abortion
> >
> > Those are already outlawed. Do we live in a perfect world? No.
> > Would repealing those laws make things better? Maybe and maybe not.
> > But by changing the laws we have, we can get new problems that may
> > have more easily attainable resolutions.
>
> Lets talk about over-population. Suppose having no laws regarding
> reproduction would lead to a Soylent Green situation? In that case we should
> definately have some laws.
If America wasn't hell-bent on spreading capitalism throughout the world,
population growth would not be a problem. Under capitalism, research only
gets done if there is money available to fund the research. We hear stories
all the time of projects or research that go unfinished due to the costs.
If we eliminate the costs, research can continue indefinitely. Remove the
possibility of profit from inventions and you get better inventions because
new inventions would not be sequestered to give old products a chance to
generate their optimal financial returns. If we have the best tools society
can produce, and we eliminate the cause of stalling and cutbacks in
research, we can learn more, do more and advance more in less time. This
means that we could easily come up with technologies that will allow us to
easily colonize the moon, Mars and the natural satellites of nearby planets.
Given the vast amount of space in the solar system to spread our wings, it
is extremely foolish to continue this insane and wasteful system of
capitalism. If capitalism continues very far into the future, we will
indeed have a Soylent Green situation on our hands and there will be no easy
way out at all. The sooner we give up capitalism in favor of putting the
full power of the world community toward advancing society technologically,
the sooner we can build a better quality of life for *all* people, including
the starving people in third world countries. But I don't think we'll see
any steps in that direction until after we have a one world government.
> > Overtime laws suck because they're mandatory. I cannot, even if I
> > want to, have my employer work me for 60 hours a week at my regular
> > wage. It is illegal for them to do so. As a result, I either don't
> > make as much money as I'd like, or I have to get a second job I might
> > not care so much about.
>
> The laws are designed to help people. If they don't do that they are
> bad laws. If there were no laws companies could make profits in the
> billions while paying you fifty cents an hour.
How much we're paid versus how much is charged will always be balanced.
Every time the minimum wage goes up, the price of groceries and general
merchandise goes up. If we all made fifty cents an hour, bread would cost
ten cents a loaf. Why? Bread companies want people to be able to afford
their products. If everyone made fifty cents an hour, but bread was $2.50 a
loaf, many people would simply give up eating bread, so the bread companies
wouldn't sell as much volume. They *could* raise the price so high that
only the wealthy could afford it, but still there would be competition. The
best strategy is to try to produce products as inexpensively as possible,
while still getting decent quality and sell it at about a 20% - 25% profit.
Wal-Mart is successful mainly because it shoots for about a 22-25% profit
margin doing high volume sales. Wal-Mart had over $190 billion in sales in
2000, topped only by Exxon doing $232.7 billion. Wal-Mart is expected to
open at least 365 stores in 2001, including 170 to 180 Supercenters. They
could easily top the Fortune 500 list and never move from that position.
They were #2 in 2001. Exxon was #1 and GM was finally dethroned as they
slipped to third place. They'll probably move even lower if the merger of
Echostar and Hughes Satellite Corporation is approved by the FTC. Hughes is
currently owned by General Motors.
> > Well, that is an interesting perspective. Maybe we should all dress in
> > bearskins and beat our wives over their heads with clubs and drag them
> > around by their hair.
>
> Beating wives should be a crime.
Beating wives is already a crime. Beating *anyone* is already a crime.
> > Huh? I've never heard Wiccans refered to as feminists, but I do believe
> > they're "equalists" if I may coin a new term. Males can be Wiccans, too,
> > you know.
>
> There are male feminists too.
I'm not one of them.
> > Allowing the retired folks of the community to raise the kids would
> > take the burden off the people who still work, and what better wisdom
> > can be given to kids than that of their grandparents? Have your kids
> > at a young age. Give the responsibility of raising them to the whole
> > community, not just your own grandparents. Give your kids the
> > knowledge and experience of the whole community, not just the things
> > experienced by your own, narrow family. It must be natures way
> > because our elders typically always beg for grandkids right after
> > their own kids get married. And if all the elders had the variety of
> > being able to raise all kinds of kids, the kids would broaden their
> > understanding of different types of people, and I think crime would
> > drop drastically as a result. I mean, who would want to rob or murder
> > someone who has been a part of their life since they were babies?
>
> I consider the family unit to be a good thing. I would vote against
> systems where "the whole community" raises the children. The
> grandparent thing doens't sound as bad but children should be close to
> their mothers and fathers.
But when it comes to how people raise their own kids, you shouldn't have a
say in it. It's none of your business unless the kids are getting smacked
around a lot. And why would exposing kids to many different people be a bad
thing?
> > I thing that's going too far. If a woman *wants* to stay hom and
> > raise the kids, she should be able to. She shouldn't be forced to,
> > however.
>
> Being a mother should be a paid government job. They should get a
> check like anyone else who is doing good for the nation.
Only in capitalism would you need a paycheck to raise a child.
> > Probably Christians had something to do with this brainwashing.
> >
> > No it isn't. There is much Christian influence on many of the laws we
> > have now. So whether you join them willingly or not, you still must
> > live under their at least partial rule.
> >
> > The rise and fall of the white man. IIRC, there was a time when all
> > white men were slaves to a dominating female power; sex slaves, too.
>
> No, there wasn't.
Hmmmm. Perhaps not. White men have been slaves, however, but perhaps not
to women. But then nobody really knows how far back the civilized history
of Earth really goes. They keep moving it back further and further.
Damaeus
tribal...@earthlink.net
decision to post:
> "Ron Allen" <ral...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:3C34C840...@bellsouth.net...
>
> > Ron Allen answers:
> > That does not mean people will not pave roads in a non- cash economy
> > that does not involve a system of wages. Free people will freely do
> > whatever needs to be done. If we now lived in an anarcho-libertarian
> > commonwealth, I certainly would feel some sense of responsibility to
> > do my fair share of what needs to be done for the good of the
> > community of which I am a part.
>
> Most people would play all day and not much work would get done.
Why would they do that? What would it serve? That's like saying that
people would crap on the sidewalk if we had no public decency laws. Do you
think anyone wants to walk through feces? I don't. So everyone would do
their part by using the bathroom in designated areas.
Damaeus
tribal...@earthlink.net
wise decision to post:
> To use an example, the people could decide if they want to use atomic
> energy as a source of power, and the people can elect Einsteins and
> other scientists who can determine the best possible ways to achieve a
> safe use of atomic energy. In a real and true democracy, the people
> decide social ends, and they elect qualified peers to decide the best
> means to make a social objective fully real.
And we'd definitely have to remove all the capitalist incentives for picking
one method over another or else scientific findings will be tampered with to
give favor to a particular group looking to profit from the venture.
Damaeus