| Author |
Message |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 388
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 10:09 am: | |
Colleagues, if we are going to talk politics here, let us centralize that into one thread, so the others do not meander off-topic into non-germane or dubiously-germane fields -- and thornbushes. I do not object in principle if we do talk politics. However, our Webmaster might; and whereas the site is his property, whereon we post with his permission, his objection, if he did object, would be material. (Perhaps there should be a smiley-face at the left margin; but the selection does not offer one denoting puzzlement.) |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 417
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 09, 2005 - 5:24 pm: | |
I see your point Robert. But I also think politics is an inextricable part of every human activity. The current back door censorship (affecting all US based CB sites) shows why one can never take liberty for granted; I feel sure that you understand that, and why it is so important.
Yesterday my article on Alterboy was intact; today it has been striped of images due to US legislation enacted by an administration I would never support; and politicians I can’t even vote against.
The maintenance of liberty is fundamental and universal; but to America it is “Ground Zero.” The people, who founded your nation, went there quite specifically to get it. Generations of Americans have died to preserve it; it is the heart of your constitution. The USA exists today because Americans still believe that liberty IS a big deal.
I believe that Liberty is the fabric of western society; our tiny threads are just part of it, each posting is one infinitesimal stitch. So I’m not suggesting that the LMU DF should become a political arena; but this political act has blinded the arena we had; which cannot be ignored! |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 175
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 12:32 am: | |
Susan;
You can't vote against our politicians, but what you don't realize is NEITHER CAN WE !
Termy |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 420
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 1:01 am: | |
You can vote for others, campaign for others, stand yourself and if all eles fails shoot the SOBs. |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 178
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 3:43 pm: | |
I was just in the Chaos thread. I agree that we should keep politics in this thread, and non CB related science in the Chaos thread.
If we're in agreement let's do it.
Susan, we need alot more than just that, and we can no longer shoot the SOBs. We need one, just one candidate. I would consider trying to get Ron Paul to run for President. He knows better. Remember JFK ? Do you know WHY he was killed ? All these theories and crap who did it, but the reason is not usually mentioned.
A Man such as Ron Paul would be assasinated his first year in office, and I know, and he knows just who would be behind it.
NCY |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 424
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 4:53 pm: | |
Regarding the assassination of John Kennedy: many people, organisations, movements and even some countries might have wanted him gone. But, if you know who actually organised it, please tell me, in private if you wish. We all have theories, but as yet I have not encountered conclusive proof.
I well remember the morning after his brother John was assassinated. A newspaper in Denmark had a cover illustration of a huge revolver in the presidential chair (draw your own inference on that). With the deaths of John, Martin and Robert, it seemed the very soul of America was tainted. Those were terrible days.
I don’t normally support political assassinations. But far too many corrupt and evil leaders have survived after sacrificing their citizens or robbing their people. If such leaders believed that their neck was on the line, they might think again.
Susan |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 389
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 9:31 pm: | |
Susan, I think this is the hidden root-agenda of the dishonorable campaign to disarm the general American public.
Robert Pinkerton
heresiarch@en.com |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 179
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 12:50 am: | |
Susan;
A Jew born Christian named Mordechai Vanunu betrayed Israel and revealed the weapons plans as well as the considerable stockpiles at the time. They have grown, no doubt.
He spent over a decade in prison and a good piece of that in solitary confinement.
David Ben-Gurion did a show resignation from the post of Prime Minister of Israel, citing that JFK's attitude was endangering Israel's very existence. Once gone, what do you think
Ben-Gurion did, take a job at a car wash ?
No, bruthas an sistas, all of the intrigue was engineered into it at the beginning, why ? If you have to ask, it might be hard to explain, but it boils down to this : so that the movers and shakers behind it don't get discovered.
Yup, all that Cubans/Mafia shit is shit. Yes the Mossad operated with those entities, but only to provide a trail, in the wrong direction of course .
Anyone without a brain please do not read beyond this line
_________________________________________
Just what is a stockbroker, but more explainably, a commodities trader ? The latter is easier to use to make my point, so here goes.
Here's a guy who attempts to buy up all the things you need to survive, and sell them back at a profit when these things come into short supply. This is what I would call a financial thug. Currency speculators aren't far behind. Money for nothing.
People who take real risks investing deserve the profit if they hit, no problem, but that is not usually the case.
Now let's break it down even farther, why is there even a commodities market in the first place ? Who started this ?
Empirical logic and morality tell me that the participants in such an activity might not have the well being of their fellow humans foremost in their mind, to say the least.
There is another possibility, that they simply never thought of it, OK now they have, now what ? Get rid of the business and start selling tires ? Until I have that choice I can't even expect myself to do that.
I used to think of myself as the main lodestone when it came to morality, but I lived and learned.
Please don't bore me with the concepts and principles (if any) of the modern stock exchange and the commodities market. I am well aware of those things.
The commodities market was purported to be great, because farmers could now be paid for what they have not yet produced, what happened to the money you got last time ? Spent. On interest from the time before.
The vicious cycle goes on until it breaks down, and folks, we are riding on flat tires right now.
Rant over.
Have fun.
NCY |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 426
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 3:10 am: | |
Dear Robert.
Well, it is an attack on freedom of communication – but then no administration in the last 50 years has been in favour of that. I rather like the fact that the US constitution gives the citizenry the right to “bare arms” in case a tyrannical and unpopular faction size power. Unfortunately most gun use in America is by criminals, in the course of crime. I just don’t see how one can get around this paradox over guns.
--------------------------
Dear Termy.
When General Marshal tried to argue against Truman’s recognition of Israel in 1949 he got the sack. Truman’s recognition led to very fast world acceptance of the new state.
The 1949 declaration of the state of Israel was an understandable event; but it was just the take over of land by an armed faction through violence – almost by definition this was the recognition of a state formed through terrorist action.
Now I’m not blind; the Arab states wanted Israel wiped off the map, fast! But I can understand why; a new bunch of Europeans had turned up in Palestine (then a British protectorate) and set up a new state through terrorist action. If those newcomers had been anything other that Zionists, NOBODY would have recognised the new state.
After (ex terrorist) Ben-Gurion resigned from office, he subverted his own government and effectively crippled his successors initiatives (for a more moderate and pluralistic state) by directing policy through his old friends in the army. He instigated military action against Jordan, to cripple the Palestinian refugees attempts to get their homeland back, through attacks on Israel. These events, almost guaranteed that Israel would exist in a permanent state of conflict with its neighbours for decades to come.
Mordechai did a brave thing. He blew the whistle on Israel’s covert atomic bomb program. But, ask yourself how a tiny country like Israel got the money and technology to build such a program (granted, they already had the brains) – Uncle Sam; probably via the CIA or NSA.
Granted MOSSAD are a loose cannon on the world intelligence stage; but the CIA always wanted them “inside the tent pissing out” (to appropriate JFKs words). Which is why Israel “can do no wrong” in the eyes of US administrations. Every UN resolution against Israel is simply ignored, because of American support for Israel. Yet the USA attacked Iraq on the basis of just two.
Your thesis, that MOSSAD were behind (or at least involved in) the assassination of John Kennedy, may have some merit; but I have yet to see any proof of that. The Warren Commission WAS a smoke screen. But the real reasons for Dallas are probably more complex.
I think the intro to your (below the line bit) is unnecessarily patronising. As for the economics, I’m unwilling to comment.
Regards - to all.
Susan |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 181
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 7:12 pm: | |
As regards my post of July 11, 2005 - 12:50 am, I would like to make a comment.
It has been pointed out to me that certain parts might be construed as patronizing.
I never intended that, but now realize saying "Those without a brain" is just that.
Also "bruthas and sistas" is also something I'll not use again.
The latter was an attempt to be "colorful", the former has no place here. I don't apologize for the words, but I do sincerly for using them here.
Last but not least I didn't portrat the timeline concerning Vanunu partly becaus eI can't be sure of what happened when. The word decade was wrong.
From what I've seen I think JFK might still be alive today if he hadn't known about Israel's arsenal. I think he felt that a monster had been created. I'm not saying Vanunu provided JFK with the information, I don't think any proof exists, and it doesn't matte. Realistically one could search news archives and find enough, if you think you can believe anything at all from them.
Thing is Executive orders, and alot of the spoken word of the US President is available somewhere. When JFK was dead, the whole US policy in this matter did a complete turnaround.
This is documented fact, well enough of it to make it a bit beyond plausible.
Susan, I will respond to you next, this was more for the group.
Termy NCY |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 182
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 6:58 pm: | |
Susan;
"Unfortunately most gun use in America is by criminals, in the course of crime."
You can say that again, but those criminals are in the government. The media refuse to report when an old Woman shoots a rapist or burglar in self defense.
Termy |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 427
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 8:54 pm: | |
Dear Termy
Please explain what you mean by the above.
Perhaps it is best to repeat that in the UK there are NO legal handguns in private hands! They are not even permitted within the confines of secure, and purely sporting, clubs; say for people training for competition in the Olympics.
However in Leads, Manchester, Birmingham and London illegal handguns, in the hands of serious criminals and drug dealing gangsters, HAS been widely reported.
I realise that most (probably all) police officers in the USA carry guns; but here it is still far from normal. We do have two man armed response teams; always very experienced officers with specialist training. They are only called to suspected firearms incidents, however our system is not perfect; serving officers have shot innocent people.
A few years ago, a firearms officer shot some poor man (of Irish origins), because the man was carrying a bag home from the pub. The bag contained a chair leg made for him by a friend! The officer concerned was briefly suspended; but he is now on duty again, despite a pending prosecution for the killing.
Then a man living on an isolated farm shot a teenager, part of a mob of travellers that broke into his home one night. He had been terrorised people from this group for years; but the police seemed powerless to help or respond effectively. In the end he snapped and turned his shotgun on one of the people raiding his house that night. The man was prosecuted and imprisoned for some years.
We also had two incidents of properly licensed gun owners, who went crazy and shot a lot of innocent people. The last of these caused widespread public outrage, which led to the current legislation.
The prospect of an old lady, or man, holding off a burglar or rapist with a dusty handgun, in shaking hands; does not inspire confidence. However some form of balance HAS to be struck in any society between personal liberty and broader safety issues. In the UK, the view was taken that any handgun, however stored or licensed, is more likely to increase danger to civilians, so they have banned them ALL. This probably seems harsh to any American; but it may be the best decision in our cultural milieu; personally I think it goes a bit too far.
Susan |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 391
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 11:26 pm: | |
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/commentary.htm
http://www.rationalreview.com/news/
http://www.nraila.org//armedcitizen/
Susan, three months after my fourth birthday, in the dark of a November morning in 1948, my Dad shot it out with a burglar in our living room. Dad was a (mustang) officer veteran of World War Two, he was a cripple on crutches due to polio (he was being treated on an outpatient basis), and he was armed with a war-trophy P-08 Luger. The burglar emptied his revolver in Dad's general direction, all misses. Dad fired once, non-fatally gut-shooting the burglar. When the Police came to haul the burglar (whose subsequent confession cleared several previous unsolved burglaries), the physical evidence was so blatant that they made no move toward either arresting Dad nor confiscating the Luger. A year before that, he had taught me to read, to amuse himself in his bedriddenness and to dampen some of the energy emitted by the perpetual-motion machine that I was at age three; in consideration of context, that is absolutely the most valuable gift -- and it was a gift of himself, his time and energy -- I have ever received. After the way he so handily disposed of the burglar, my attitude toward him was boundless awe. (And by the time I was six years old, I could recite the nomenclature and functional sequence of the P-08 Luger, and verbally demonstrate that I knew what I was saying.)
When I was seven years old, in 1951, I read my very first adult science fiction book, The Weapon Shops of Isher, by A. E. Van Vogt. Dad read it, worn down by my enthusiasm. He debunked those parts thereof that were clearly fantastic; but he used the slogan of Walter DeLany's Weapon Shops, "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free," as a hook whereby to inveigle me into my first reading of my country's Constitution of 1787, and the Bill of Rights added to that Constitution by due process of law in 1791. In so doing, he made a Libertarian of me.
I embraced mainstream Conservatism later on, for reason of a structural and systemic antipathy to the political system of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Many people far more highly-placed in society than I, believed that a war of final settlement of outstanding issues between the United States and its allies on the one hand, and the Soviets and their allies on the other, would be World War Three; that that forthcoming inevitable war would be nuclear, that it would be chemical, that it would be biological, and that it would be characterized by widespread atrocity. To this day, I cannot understand why simple consistency should not demand that, if one is antipathetic to the Nazis, one should be equally antipathetic to the Soviets: The two were competitors rather than antinomies, vending the same poison but with a different formulation of the coating, the packaging, and the advertising campaigns with which the product was sold to the unwary. But the underlying reason for that through-and-through antipathy to the Soviet system, was my libertarianism versus their anti-freedom system of "justice." I never forgot that the Russian People were Communism's first and worst-battened-upon victims. Say what you will of President Reagan -- and he was a human being, like the rest of us sometimes all-too-human -- the fact that he started the push which toppled the Soviet system earns him a high and honored place, despite his human failings, in history; and the fact that that was accomplished without a war, earns excuse of those human failings. (They still left messes needing to be cleaned up, but that is a hare to be pursued later, elsewhere.)
The Soviet Union having fallen and its threat removed, I re-assessed. I had always held it an irony beyond an individual person's capacity to manufacture, that the conservative political tendency should be the party of war and war-preparedness. Threat of war no longer screening this, I saw that mainstream conservatism in the United States had evolved into an unholy alliance between the Religious Right and mono-maniacal short-sighted tunnel-vision economo-maniacs whose individualism had a narcissistic turn to it; and was becoming progressively more contemptuous of individual freedom -- although, because the gun-culture was still part of the coalition, not as contemptuous of individual freedom as the Left has always been.
Cutting out a lot of dry greedle, I see the bedrock on which individual freedom rests, as a tesselated floor: One color is the common equal private adult citizen's right to arms, and the other color is that bane of lawyers, the nullifying jury backed by the prohibition on double jeopardy.
The practical expression of arms as a civil right, is resistance to interpersonal criminal aggression; the links cited at the top hereof, will give examples galore of just how common it is -- even in noxiously authoritarian parts of this country like New York City or Chicago or Los Angeles or San Francisco.
Too, in this country, usually the law allows the citizen use of deadly force in only two circumstances, defense of self and defense of another person (who would be entitled to, but lacks the means of, self-defense). Outside of New York, the law of self-defense does not generally impose a duty of retreat. (In your country, Susan, one may submit and one may try to run away; but if one resists, one is in a deeper kettle of hotter soup, than is the aggressor. I can no longer cite chapter and verse from the Gulag Archipelago, as my copy went walkabout when I last moved my residence, but your country's law of self-defense soulds nothing less than Stalinist.) One may use deadly force here if one has reasonable grounds to believe that one is in immediate danger of deadly attack or G. B. H. And, yes, claim of self-defense is an affirmative defense, in which one assumes that burden of proof that normally lies with the State. (BTW -- to bring this tirade both back on track, and to bring it to an end -- [1] I flatly endorse the battered-woman theory of justification of homicide. [2] The ideal congratulation gift for a newly-fledged Steel Angel is a girl's-hand-size large-caliber handgun and proficiency training therewith; and ideally this should come from her Key-holder.)
Robert Pinkerton
heresiarch@en.com |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 428
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 2:25 am: | |
In my opinion - no single view of, or legislation to regulate, the civilian ownership of guns; can work everywhere. Cultural heritage, existing conditions and the relationship between citizen and state, all play a part in shaping practical legislation. It is somewhat surprising that post war Europe (with millions of unused firearms on tap) gradually restricted civilian gun ownership as it did.
In Pre-war Britain gun ownership was very loosely regulated; yet after the war, when so many had become familiar with guns; a legislative loop gradually reduced ownership. By the late 70s even un-restored 17th and 18th century pieces had to be kept in locked metal security cases, separated from ammunition.
I think the American perspective (when constitutional and historic factors are understood) seems reasonable, in America. But you have guns fired in anger almost every day in most cities; even relatively minor crimes usually involve guns. When I was in Florida this June; an old jeweller was robbed and killed over a few hundred dollars, in some tiny roadside shop.
The constitution originally guaranteed the citizens right to bare arms, so that citizens could oppose and remove a tyrannical government. Frankly any citizen well enough armed to do that these days could equip the army of any nation on earth; so the constitutional reasoning seems utterly outdated. The real reason Americans want to retain civilian gun ownership seems to be protecting themselves against well-armed criminals. As a result your ER surgeons are as experienced at treating gunshots as any army MASH unit in active war zone! Your logic may be sound, but the results are appalling.
Consider Canada; which has a relatively similar history and widespread civilian gun ownership. How come they have less than 10% of your death by gunshot figures, even in large cities! Could it be that America’s real reason for civilian gun law is deeply rooted paranoia? The NRA seems to be a bunch of WANABE gunslingers in European eyes; we would scarcely believe their rhetoric in a film, yet it’s all quite real and many Americans support them.
Sorry Robert, I still feel the American attitude is crazy. If there is one country on earth that needs to take guns out of civilian hands, that country is America.
Susan |
Not Specified (Me1)
New member
Username: Me1
Post Number: 33
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 2:25 am: | |
quote:The man was prosecuted and imprisoned for some years.
I think we should clarify that this man did not have a license for his shotgun, and also he shot the boy in the back while he was running away.
|
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 429
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 8:05 am: | |
Dear Not Specified
I did not know that the shotgun was unlicensed; but I don’t really care much.
Would you dispute that, he was terrorised for years by a bunch of local travellers; who had broken into his house repeatedly, wrecking his home, his farm and stealing things? Or that he did try to get help from the police and found that they were a waste of space, on the rare occasions when they bothered to turn up? Or, that he woke up in the dark with strangers in his house (again) and decided to do something about it?
I grant you he is a more than a little weird and completely unrepentant about the 17-year-old thug he shot. But he HAD tried to deal with it legally and the system let him down. I tend to agree with Robert on this one; when someone breaks into your house they should loose the right to be treated as a decent human being; they have crossed the line.
After being burgled; I lost most of the trust I had in police competence, and our legal systems ability to deal with crime. I missed being attacked by a whisker and was very lucky my insurance records were up to date (they tried to cheat me too). Perhaps if more burglars died “on the job”; house insurance and crime rates would drop. I don’t favour privately owned guns, because I believe that criminals are more likely to use them (and get away with it) than ordinary people. |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 392
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 3:21 pm: | |
"... breaking and entering an inhabited dwelling in the night season...," is first degree -- colloquially, "hot" -- burglary, regardless of whether or not anything is taken. In most jurisdictions in the United States, it is a Grade 1 or Grade 2 felony, which means that the perpetrator is guaranteed a minimum (presuming both he behaves himself in prison -- time off the sentence for "good behavior"; and is paroled to relieve congestion in the facility, meaning he has learnt the appropriate psychobabble)-- which gives quite adequate incentive to the perpetrator to remove witnesses.
"Hot" burglaries and home invasions hover around ten percent of all such committed here. The figures for that offense in Britain are significantly higher.
Robert Pinkerton
heresiarch@en.com |
Not Specified (Me1)
New member
Username: Me1
Post Number: 34
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 2:23 am: | |
Susan,
You and many others fell for the media hype on that case. Always read the small print. The authorities were awkward about that case because it was so blatant - shooting a burglar in the back with an illegal weapon while he is running away cannot be stretched to self defense. In the UK the law works by fudge - what THEY didn't want to over emphasize is that in genuine cases of householders defending themselves with bad outcome for the burglar, the result is just no prosecution. But if you make it so it's definitely always OK to attack burglars (what folks think they want) the results are much worse. Robert has mentioned one consequence. The other is that it provides a convenient way to murder people you don't like. So you need a nice ambiguous law that means that only when a person is truly desperate will they use lethal force, at which point it is regarded as OK.
The problem that law makers are up against is the so-called "system behaviour" of large things like countries. You tend to get the opposite outcome to what you expect, and also influences that work on a small scale tend to reverse on a large scale. This is why "knee jerk" legislation is always such a bad thing. Politicians must stick to making policy and hope that there are still enough experts left to work out how to actually achieve it.
Of course, if you don't like burglars then all you have to do is legalise drugs and make them cheap. This would massively cut crime, overnight. (It's not as if some addictive drugs are not legal already).
|
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 430
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 4:00 am: | |
Dear Robert
Not for the first time, my perplexed inner voice mutters: "What does all that actually mean?" Please could you repeat it in colloquial English?
Perhaps "hot" burglaries are more common here; but very few burglars here, carry guns. Here, the most common use of users of illegal handguns are Drug dealers; because they fear attack by others of their own kind.
Dear Me1
As you pointed out, most burglaries are drugs related; many are actually committed by children, who are almost immune from prosecution. Some are working in highly organised gangs; led by an adult, using this legal loophole. The Police have effectively given up on burglary; and they have almost given up on drugs. Very few burglars get arrested, charged, or serve time; so there is almost no deterrent force.
Organised crime lives off the drug trade; which is the only compelling argument for decriminalising drugs. One might well starve out top-level criminals for a time; but the systemic consequences would be terrible.
What age limit would you set for OTC heroin? When a 15-year-old gets hooked on (or dies from) “legal” heroin what would your response be? Presumably legal OTC drugs will cost something, so burglary will probably continue to feed the “legal” habit. And, if illegal drugs are cheaper than the legal stuff, where do you think kids will buy it? It’s quite simple to imagine how organised crime would respond to legalisation; they will laugh all the way to the bank. Legalisation often seems a viable solution; but in practice it’s not.
Burglary and car theft are the two biggest routes into a life of crime; most career criminals started at that level as teenagers, and moved on up; so this IS a very important issue. It isn’t just the stolen property or psychological damage that bothers me. The massive cost of insurance, maintaining a police force and providing free legal support for the few who get caught is much more crippling. Minor criminals ARE the biggest problem we have; they are the reason organised crime can flourish here.
I am not disputing the self-defence position of Mr Martin’s case. As you know we have the concept of reasonableness in such matters; and this was not a reasonable act. I just don’t think people should be obliged to behave reasonably when being robbed! If young would be criminals lost all rights to protection under the law, from the moment they start; they might think twice; I don’t think they deserve them anyway.
I’m not in favour of giving every homeowner a 38, and telling them “Blast away dude! Treat them like vermin.” Mainly because more guns will end up in criminal hands that way; and they WILL use them. But I do think any thief who gets killed or injured during a crime deserves it.
What are your real proposals for preventing, or even reducing the impact of, Burglary and car theft?
Susan |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 393
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 4:24 am: | |
For my country, the United States of America, Cannabis ought to be flat lawful to cultivate, to sell, to buy, to possess, to smoke or otherwise ingest,
[1] Under concurrent Federal and State tax control, in a manner like unto alcoholic beverages. Government at all levels screeches and b----es and p---es and moans about too sparse a revenue stream now. To add insult to injury, monies expended enforcing cannabis prohibition, an appalling sum in aggregate, are monies diverted from worthier purposes; and the demand of the prohibition establishment is insatiable. The prohibition grew up initially as an entree for disruptive intervention, absent a more solid pretext, in marginal out-group subcultures. Hence its legitimacy is gravely questionable.
[2] Under the same regime of responsibility as is presently applied for alcoholic beverages, to wit: One shall not handle firearms, operate a motor vehicle, operate heavy equipment, etcetera by logical extension, while under the influence; and one is responsible for not being under the influence, on pain of the law, while performing duties necessitating the foregoing, also subject to the sack for showing up for work under the influence.
Perhaps a dogmatically doctrinaire, evangelically fundamentalistic hater of cannabis might have a problem with the above proposal; but many of the "arguments" adduced to support that mere malum prohibitum -- not malum in se -- are garbage.
Advocates of repeal should develop defensible budget projections with these tax-revenues interpolated, and the costs now expended upon maintaining prohibition diverted to worthier purposes, to argue the case. |
Ewart Higgins (Ewart)
New member
Username: Ewart
Post Number: 61
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 4:30 am: | |
I don't mean to pour cold water on some of the theories, but I know a lot of the judges and barristers in East Anglia personally. We have often discussed the Tony Martin case over a drink or to as it is a very unusual case.
What is almost unique and certainly is in East Anglia, is that it the only case, where the jury has convicted somebody of killing a burglar.
This was probably because, Martin deliberately set a trap and was determined to teach the burglars a lesson. He also shot one of them in the back when he was running away. Of course, no-one knows for sure why the juries did convict him, but Martin was also closely linked to the far right National Front, which never goes down well in court.
Several lawyers have said to me that he was very lucky that he didn't get life.
In all other cases, I've heard of in the UK, the jury has never convicted because under UK law, you are allowed to use reasonable force to remove someone from your property.
Ewart |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 431
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 4:43 am: | |
Thing is Ewart. How ever unpalatable Martin is. The bunch that terrorised him was worse; and they went there to attack him.
The trouble with the test of "reasonableness", in self-defence cases; is that it leaves the victim in doubt of his rights. The law is arbitrary, a matter of judgement based on that courts attitudes, balanced by case law. |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 432
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 5:06 am: | |
In case your wondering:
My solution is a 10x20 meter cage in each town centre, with 6 meters high vertical smooth bars, at 12 cm intervals; exposed to all elements, with one water tap and one open toilet. A tower at one side will be used to throw in minimal food; and hose down the inmates every two days. Escape should be made lethal.
Relatives or friends can throw extra food to inmates; but the strongest will take it from them. People who have been robbed or attacked can throw non-lethal missiles (all day if they want). Some towns might separate the sexes in two cages, but congeal visits should be allowed (if they dare). In towns that can only afford one cage, the women can elect to be fitted with chastity belts before entering (some boys might want one too).
Sentences would be: 10 days for burglary or car theft, 20 for repeat offences, 40 for robbery with violence. Survivors, if any, will be released; but electronically tagged for one year. If they remain drug and crime free that the tag comes off. In any third offence category, the cage also has hungry lions or large crocodiles in it; one could sell tickets to maintain the cages.
The cages system should be self-financing; and would be shown on a Pay-for-View television show (it would Big Brother look like a joke) perhaps we could have a national vote, and evict one inmate each day.
Just call me Caligula and be done with it. |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 433
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 5:09 am: | |
Sorry: (it would MAKE Big Brother look like a joke) |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 394
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 5:12 am: | |
Susan, your last post crossed mine as I was replying to Me1. I do not profess to have a solution for the hard-drugs problem suitable for mundane advocacy. Nonetheless, I had to address the problem in constructing the background of the private world of my novel; that solution was civil rather than criminal, and at the user level: Alcoholism, addiction to a mind-altering recreational drug, and compulsive gambling are all made grounds for divorce with fault, distraint of the faulty spouse's share of marital property in favor of the non-faulty spouse, and debarment from child-custody. Further, such adjudication results in termination of employment -- with an audit if one had had a responsible position -- and such social consequences as result from one's world being collapsed (say, all of one's debts called at once).
While I cannot cite chapter and verse, as this study was long ago, I remember that Aristotle took a position that intoxication, rather than being considered any kind of mitigation for a crime, ought to be considered an aggravating circumstance. I endorse that position.
(Try on a law making Driving Under the Influence, first offense, a Grade 1 misdemeanor, calling for a mandatory three-year revocation of driving privileges after the perp gets out of jail; and any subsequent offense a Grade 5 or Grade 4 felony, followed by mandatory no recourse lifetime revocation of driving privileges. I am on record in several places as advocating precisely that. Should I call myself Draco?)
Robert Pinkerton
heresiarch@en.com |
Not Specified (Me1)
New member
Username: Me1
Post Number: 35
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 8:55 am: | |
My solution to crime is to reduce all the penalties very considerably, except for the worst crimes, like murder (there isn't enough differential at present). Then simply add an exponential component. Each time you are convicted your penalty factor is doubled.
(It may be necessary to have a factor for each broad class of offences for more reasonable effect.)
This has various advantages:
1) Rich people cannot abuse the system for very long (I am thinking of parking fines and the like).
2) Hopelessly persistent criminals will eventually end up with near-life sentences.
3) Honest people who make an rare error of judgement will not be over penalised.
4) It becomes really worth while for the police to take persistent criminals to court because the payback will come in time.
Susan, I think something like your suggestion was tried in medieval times. Not sure how well it worked. |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 434
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 12:37 pm: | |
A well considered solution Me1, but still quite costly. The biggest problem with burglary, car theft and petty crime is catching the crooks. Consider this: all major stores employ detective agencies to catch shoplifters. Why? Because the police wont do it.
About my “CAGE” solution: The cages would be very modern; they would have stainless steel bars, bomb proof fixtures, digital video cameras and movement sensitive automatic lighting; but most offenders won't want a second visit to check that out. It would probably work quite well: local people will know local thieves by sight; very few criminals will survive repeat trips to the cage (thus eliminating “hopelessly persistent criminals” cheaply) and the new version of “Big Brother” will actually be worth watching!
The problem with medieval justice was the method of determining guilt; trial by ordeal was unreliable. Our system is slightly better at that; but it’s incredibly costly and repeat offending is the norm. I want thieves to be terrified of being caught and repeat offending to be virtual suicide . . . in a nice way.
Regards
Caligulina |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 395
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 12:44 pm: | |
http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy83.html
And I repeat: [1] I flatly endorse the battered-woman theory of justification of homicide. [2] The ideal congratulation gift for a newly-fledged Steel Angel is a girl's-hand-size large-caliber handgun and proficiency training therewith; and ideally this should come from her Key-holder.
For a Steel Angel, there is no such thing as being "over"-protective -- but the beginning of protectiveness, is teaching the person to be protected, to protect her- (or him-) self. A lass who gives consent to the Belt under strict rule, presumably intensely trusts her designated Key-holder. Still, misadventure can happen, whereby he becomes deformed in spirit, and predicting the future is a faculty not given to us Humans. Too, the gift of a suitable handgun and proficiency training therein, is a clear, distinct and univocal S I G N -- rather than a mere polyvocal symbol -- of the Key-holder's implicit pledge that he will not abuse her. ("Symbolic," said Cynthia Anne, "is a word adults use when they play at make-believe, to pretend that what they do has real effect, when in fact it hasn't.")The gift of means of self-protection, even from himself, enables her to see that his first act of abusing her, is his last. (Indeed, if he is deepo-down basically still honorable despite deformity in spirit from maladaptation to adversity, probably he would agree he deserves whatever she does.)
English colleagues and other hoplophobes, I do regret if you are shocked by this. I am an American -- perhaps all-too-American? (I would not entertain the low opinion I have of my country's current administration, if I did not love my country. Just remember, pace democratic pietism, that State and People are not the same.)
Robert Pinkerton
heresiarch@en.com
|
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 436
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 2:28 pm: | |
Robert
What are hoplophobes? |
The cynic (Cynic)
New member
Username: Cynic
Post Number: 109
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 5:54 pm: | |
Based on a brief glance at some International Hoplology Society literature, I'd wager that an hoplophobe is one who shies away from combat, perhaps to the point of neglecting "training." |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 437
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 11:04 pm: | |
I thought it might be an irrational fear of “pogo-sticks” they always worried me. But context told me that it was not. |
Ewart Higgins (Ewart)
New member
Username: Ewart
Post Number: 63
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 11:24 pm: | |
Can't find fear of "pogo-sticks" on the list.
http://www.phobialist.com/index.html
Pogonophobia is fear of beards.
Hoplophobia is fear of firearms.
Ewart |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 396
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 8:26 am: | |
A psychiatrist has written an interesting paper on hoplophobia: http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm
Robert Pinkerton
heresiarch@en.com |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 438
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 5:45 pm: | |
Around 1978ish a friend at college showed me a religious tract “A biblical interpretation of Christian views on beards”. This purported to be a serious document, but was a satirical joke; some rather ridiculous ideas were doing the rounds in Evangelical circles, and I think this was an attempt to lambaste them. To the initiated in our circle it was hilarious.
More recently; the symbolic value of beards has become associated with Islam; and, as recent events demonstrate, a tiny minority are misusing Islam to justify their callous and brutal actions; principally the murder of innocent civilians all over the globe. So beards are no longer the stuff of acceptable comedy; the symbol has become a threat, and now it inspires very real fear.
Symbols are a human defence system. We use them for identity; as badges of racial, religious or secular group loyalty; we also use them to express our individuality and our philosophical attitudes to society in general. It is very important to realise that Symbols are the way we cover up our deepest doubts; the place we hide our real fear of each other; and our deep longing for mutual understanding.
In that way Pogonophobia is very different from Hoplophobia. A gun is a real threat to us; but beards (even used as symbolic defence systems) only indicate the vulnerability of our self-image; and our fragile sense of shared human community. So I can’t laugh at beards as I did in 1978; I try not to fear people who wear them, or to forget their reasons for doing so.
The key to peace between us; is a listening ear; open eyes, a lack of certainty and the compassionate nature normally associated with children. These remain our best chance to seek and find mutual understanding. The power of modern symbolic language, to inspire fear and foster hate, show how desperately we need the compassionate uncertainty and openness of a child. We are more complex than symbols suggest; our finest hopes and aspirations start to die when we can’t see beyond them.
Susan |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 397
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 8:57 am: | |
A commonplace vernacular proverb in my country's lawful gun-culture is, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Before the English Establishment destroyed England's lawful gun-culture, it included John Harold Higginbottom, a true blue Old-school educated Englishman whom the greybeards among us all revere as our Grand Old Man: He was no outlaw (Indeed, I think the Firearms Act of 1997 might have been a contributory cause of his death, adding a broken heart to the physical ailments that plagued his last years). In lawful gun-culture, one's lawfulness is the pedestal whereon one's honor rests; absent that, one is not honorable. Britain destroyed its lawful gun-culture. And now? http://www.jpfo.org/alert20000325.htm |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 184
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 11:24 am: | |
US Constitutional Language;
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Note the placement of the commas. When you go to English school you learn that the statement seems to mean that since the government needs guns, so do the People, but apparently if you "advance" to Law school you learn that all those words have a fluid meaning, as if there were a new dictionary.
They also seem to teach that the goverment is actually the People and the People are ???, well we're not worried about that.
This ridiculousness has, much to my dismay, spread to Austrailia. I once dreamed of going down under, perhaps retire there, but they got crocs, but no guns.
Every politician who bans guns should have something bad happen to them, something which could've been prevented had they a firearm. Anything from a knife wielding burglar to a mad dog chewing up one of their kids will do, it depends on their attitude.
Funny, a city council member's Wife was arrested for illegal handgun possesion a couple of years ago, you see, they only make rules for others.
In all contemporary societies, step one in getting fair and sensible laws would be to make them apply to the lawmakers as well. Also, no more seperate retirement for politicians would beget quite a stable social security system don't ya think ?
How about this one, ALL emloyees of the public school system MUST enroll ALL their kids in the same system. Guess what, all the sudden Johnny CAN read !
More and more it seems it's them against us.
NCY |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 402
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 11:41 am: | |
Roberto Michels devotes significant space in his Political Parties: An Enquiry into the Oligarchic Tendencies of Modern Democracy, to the phenomenon of psychological metamorphosis of the leadership. (Too, let us not forget Heinlein's aphorism: "In a mature society, 'civil servant' is semantically equal to 'civil master.'"
Also see Gaetano Mosca's The Ruling Class on class separation.)
Lawmakers who place themselves above the law, seem to forget that above the law also means outside the law.
Robert Pinkerton
heresiarch@en.com
|
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 194
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 12:20 pm: | |
Robert;
The American Bar Association is a subsidiary of the Bar Association. The original Thirteenth Amendment was the Titles Of Nobility act and it's lawful ratification probably happened right before the Civil War. These records were mostly destroyed during the war and the subsequent "reconstruction" which actually means carpetbagging.
A researcher named David Dodge found actual copies of the Constitution including this amendment. This would mean that lawyers couldn't even be dog catchers let alone "lawmakers". This would probably mean that legislation would be written in English instead of legalese.
I assume you are referring to Robert Heinlein with who's works I'm largely unfamiliar. Is he the one with the saying that goes something like:
A Man should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, con a ship, give orders, take orders, cook a sumptuous meal . . . . . specialization is for insects.
?
One day I plan to read some of his works, but I got that from a MAM newsgroup member who signed every message with that statement. I see the point, in this country I'm sure there are automotive industry design engineers who cannot change a flat tire. I'm not talking about having enough money to pay someone to do it, I mean never done it and would literally have to learn as he goes in the absence of cellphone service or whatever else it takes to avoid having to DIY.
As far as the servant/master idea, for example Ron Paul is a leader who thinks of himself as a servant and acts accordingly, George W. Bush is a servant who thinks of himself as a leader and, unfortunately, acts accordingly.
Thomas Jefferson stated that he believed there should be a revolution about every twenty years, and now that we have missed about ten of them I'm starting to think he was right. The bloodshed would be much more than tenfold at this juncture in history. Actually in a society that deals in gold instead of government "backed" fiat currency the impact would be much less severe to the People, but with a stranglehold on the money, the government inherently discourages the middle and mid-upper economic class from revolting.
The tide will turn however, eventually they will no longer be able to prop the dollar up and even if our internal ecomony can be made workable somehow, foreign goods will be alot more expensive. Now comes the good part, just about everything is or contains foreign goods since free trade has destroyed most of the manufacturing base in this land. Free trade with countries that use near-slave labor after devastating their own economy for their own ends is bad business for a nation such as ours.
Sure there were abuses, such as people making $18 an hour to sweep the floor in the 1980s, but the the elite have stolen way more then that.
Y'know, Susan declined to comment on my remarks about commodities speculators and other "leaks" in the economy. Perhaps that's how she makes her money and in no way do I expect her to stop if it's true. The problem is that the system is setup so big money has the advantage, and they use it. If someone learns the intricacies of that market and can manage to make money without getting stepped on it is an accomplishment.
In that light I say again, at least damn me for what I am. If there are any politicians reading this, tell me about yourself and I will "undamn" you if you state a good case. If you prefer to avoid the subject that's fine too, but it would be encouraging for many to find that there are more than a scant few good representatives. If there are more, this would ironically, no, more like unusually, no I need a word with even less strength than that. Boiling it down, this might be a good place to find them. Even if you are not charged with representing me, are you representing those who you a supposed to represent instead of taking bribes (contributions) or kickbacks ? If so that would be good news, at least to me.
NCY |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 404
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 2:05 pm: | |
In several places in his Trattato di Sociologia Generale, translated into English as The Mind and Society, Vilfredo Pareto argues that -- to shorten things considerably -- the democratic republic is the metamorphic precursor of the plutocratic oligarchy. (Classical Greek: Plutos = wealthy man; archein = [to] rule; oligos = few)
The Left may react to this with "Ecreasez l'infame [Erase the infamy]!" For myself, I believe that the voice of the Bourgeoisie must never be absent from the councils of State; but that they are psychologically unsuited for uncontested supremacy. The problem of the United States is that here no social force can contest with the Bourgeoisie strongly enough to check them.
Robert Pinkerton
heresiarch@en.com |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 195
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 7:00 pm: | |
If I read my history correctly, and the present with all these new options there will soon be no bourgeoisie.
With the advent of the internet I see more and more people actually communicating, rather than being communicated to, like watching TV. "They" invented the internet to make money, but now it has come to bite them in their greedy, avaricious and needing killing little asses.
Slowly but surely. This new law in the US, do you think it was REALLY to protect from kiddie porn ? HELL NO. I have known some politicians and let me tell you they are the most disgusting motherfuckers you'll ever meet. Lawyers are nowhere near as bad on the whole. With politicians the new joke is "Why do 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent of politicians give the rest a bad name ?
FUCKIN COME ON, the mayor of the city in Florida where they busted these old Men for playing penny a point pinochle, charging them with GAMBLING, actually was condoning gambling houses at the time, and might have even been running one.
Jerry Springer who prosecutexd Larry Flynt was drummed out of office when he got caught in a brothel. This is typical of this society and notice I do not call it my society. This is not my country, but for the land and birthright, this government has to go, to HELL.
Armand Mastin of Lynndale Ohio eventually got busted for running gambling houses, but he didn't go to jail long. That would be inhumane. What about MY BILLS ? What about the fact that when you put ME in jail for a victimless crime I lose my home because I can't make the payment from jail. Do the EVER think of that ? FUCK NO ! ! ! ! ! !
Like I said, you WILL NOT get fair and just lawmaking from lawmaker who are above, or outside the law.
I run my house, if I decide to break a law I've made pertaining to my house, anyone who doesn't like it can go somewhere else. I don't do it often but thusfar nobody is complaining.
I am not running the country, but if I were, the laws would apply to me as well as the midlevel enforcers as well as the common Man.
Our country is so infested now that I'm not sure it can survive the eventual cleansing.
So much will probably be lost, what a shame.
NCY |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 441
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 4:02 am: | |
Dear Termy
You wrote: “Y'know, Susan declined to comment on my remarks about commodities speculators and other "leaks" in the economy.” Sorry luv, I’m not involved in the financial sector. . As If!
There are however, some “leaks” in my economy that need fixing; so I’m a bit busy for the next few weeks fixing them; I may be absent for a while.
Take Care |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 196
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 6:15 pm: | |
Susan; (and everbody I guess)
I guess I'll "see" you when you get back.
When we got into the gun control end of this discussion Robert put a link to a very interesting article. The link is in his post of 17 July, it's from jpfo.org and was written by a pschyatrist (as far as I know, but it does read as such so I'm inclined to believe it, what's more jpfo is pretty big and probably checked but I can't be sure). It's good reading when you get around to it and I'm not even through with it yet.
You will have a different perspective on the article and I'd be interested to hear about it.
I am adamant about every Citizen being armed. I give example, Lynyrd Skynyrd (spelling ugh) has a song called Saturday Night Special. Within are the words "why don't we dump them (guns) people, to the bottom of the sea, before some ole fool comes around here,want to shoot either you or me". I think the article to which Robert provided the link expresses it to some extent.
A few years ago I became a bit more enlightened and I did stop watching and listenenig to the media. I have resumed some media content in my life, but very little.
Saturday Night Special resulted in the fact that there is not one single song from that band on my PC, or in my possesion in any form and there never will be.
I have quite a collection of vinyl (records) and all the Skynyrd was destroyed, even if it was valuable or rare. The record album sat like a doostep in my front entrance doorway and I admonished my guests to wipe their shoes off before they went outside.
That group turned traitor to any and all of us true patriots. The whole Constitution of this land was written in response to the hubris of the English government. The founders may have been rich, and possibly not the most moral Men around but they knew where they were coming from. Even with money, they knew that they needed guns to throw off the shackles of English rule. They also knew that Colonial rule may eventually become corrupt (they were right) and tried to give future generations a chance to succeed doing exactly what they had done.
The goverments will start the wars, and will probably do so until the military is dessimated, that will be the right time. I suggest as many countries Citizens revolt as possible at the same time. This is the only way to succeed.
It probably won't happen in our lifetime, but I live to keep the dream alive at the moment. Just think if the English join us they won't have to purchase a license for the television set anymore.
Once the People have no means by which to oust a bad government that government has no incentive to truly represent anyone but themselves.
Look up free speech zones in the US and see something. There used to be a joke:
An American and a Russian were talking about their countries when the American said "Well I can walk into President Nixon's office and yell Nixon is a nut". So the Russian walks into the office of (was it Gorbachev ?) and yells "Nixon i a nut".
You can't do that anymore, as if you ever could. When GW visits a city now there what's called "free speech zones" to which any dissenting signholders of anybody they say is directed to, these places are typically over ¼ mile away.
This makes GW think he has total support, at least in his own little world. Actually his "advisors" and other staff are at fault for this. But then again I can't be sure. His own hubris might have something to do with it, maybe he wants to look good for the TV cameras.
Either way, enjoy.
Susan, I hope your problems are solved expedtitously and to your satisfaction.
NCY |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 442
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 8:15 pm: | |
I just came back from seeing a friend, and watched a taped program called “The New al-Qaeda” (on BBC2 in the UK 21.00).
Some of the things said there were new to me but I do feel that some elements touch issues of perceived censorship regarding the CB sites in the USA. The things I am going to say now are widely known and in the public domain, so revealing them here will not breach security.
I was told four or five years ago, that the major intelligence services in the west have direct back door back access to every ISP in the world. They can automatically observe whatever (and whoever) they like, in fact it’s almost free; analysing and filtering it all is not free, but is quite cheap.
All international, and much national voice traffic has been observed and filtered automatically for at least two decades (despite the massive processing power required in the early days). One can now have pretty good voice recognition software in a cell phone; but the technology in them, began in surveillance labs decades ago.
Filtering and searching data streams, is an almost infinitely easier task. Encryption is only a side issue (it’s rare, and draws attention). Sending someone an encrypted file is like saying “read me first please!” A remaining issue is the volume of traffic, and the minute fraction of it, that is of significance to intelligence services. Another is actually deciding “what to look for?” and this is less simple than you might think. Data analysis is now completely automated; but deciding “WHAT to look for” is hard to automate. If you want to see “Expert systems” merging into true “Artificial Intelligence” ask the NSA. In fact don’t bother, they wont show you.
-------------------------------------
But all of that is the sideshow distraction of this diatribe. The interesting bit comes now; and it’s all about BRANDS!
If you have contact with any form of marketing you will already know that BRANDS are the only real commodities in the world. Everything else is temporary! Products can be made elsewhere, and they are simply replaced when obsolete; markets flow and change like a cloud landscape, which the marketers strive to navigate; even the rules governing the western economic model are fluid. What remains, is the manipulation of human motivation through the mechanism of brands.
Have you considered a brand like YAMAHA, which covers everything from pianos to motorbikes? Or DOW, with its vast range of chemical industry divisions? Such economic powerhouses can endure for centuries; consider Guinness.
A sustainable BRAND is the ultimate building block of all enterprises and political movements. Building and maintaining a successful worldwide brand is the economic “Gold Standard” of our age. It’s also the mechanism which underpinned every empire in human history. If people really “believe” you are powerful; you ARE.
al-Qaeda is the new brand on the worlds west side. Its first big product (actually more of a marketing device) is TERROR. Like any product, terror has several tactical effects. It has key launch events; like the twin towers, Madrid or London; which are used to “builds awareness”. This must not be confused with strategic or long-term objectives. Like adverts; they are designed to motivate us, and to build awareness.
9-11 means many things to us in the west. It was the symbolic “Pearl Harbour” of the coming conflict; a war we are coming to see as “Terrorism verses the secular western model of society”; effectively World War Three. But wars have complex origins; they have deep roots and usually generate unforeseen giants in the closing stages.
Don’t confuse al-Qaeda with Ossama; he slapped its bottom at birth, but he is almost irrelevant now. The real threat is the capacity of the BRAND, to motivate disaffected young Moslems anywhere on Earth. Education, background, wealth, host culture and even gender; are irrelevant side issues. Its current marketing tool, the web; and key marketing events (like 9-11), are not the real problem. Al-Qaeda plans to profoundly influence 1.2 Billion Moslems, and change the path of world history through them. This must be understood, if we are to defeat it.
So what does this Brand want? What are its aims? One aim might be to shift the balance of future power in the world, from the secular western economic model, to a less secular, rather authoritarian eastern model. It’s not spiritual folks, that’s just window dressing. Another aim might be to bludgeon out the rather obvious bias of the west, in favour of Israel. I think key figures of the movement see Israel as a convenient sideshow; or product placement opportunity.
Its difficult to “reverse engineer” the true motivations behind an organisation that has no centre. Historic analysis may inform us, but we oppose them BECAUSE we are manifestly so unlike them. For example can a liberated western woman understand a religious Moslem woman by wearing a Burka? I don’t think so. The mindset is not just alien to us; it’s invisible – internal and profound.
It is now 4am here, to late to continue. I must add that I oppose and detest the al-Qaeda brand; but feel it must be understood, so it can be opposed effectively.
If you have feelings or ideas about all this, please bounce back. But pleas take this seriously and don’t just see it as a racial issue; race is almost totally irrelevant here. This is the theatre of VERY dangerous ideas; just understanding them a bit better will be huge step forward.
Regards
Susan |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 197
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 10:48 pm: | |
Chopping block
__________ ____________
my neck >
Terrorism in the US and England is CAUSED by our antagonism of those people. There is no question. I CAN supply proof. The US's entry into WW2 was CAUSED by US ANTAGONISM of Japan, and FDR KNEW about Pearl Harbor beforehand, it's a matter of record now since the Freedom Of Information Act, (FOIA). He DELIBERATELY not only let it happen, he ordered the dismantling of the RADAR equipment at that base. Even during 9-11, the Airforce couldn't scramble because they had certain orders, that is that they would take no action unless authorized by "our" Vice President. They never needed it before !
If I ever met your Tony Blair I would gladly wipe his needing to die ass off my planet, he is every bit as bad as GW and the same applies to him as well. These people are the scum of the Earth and need to go where they belong, in the gutter, NOT in the seats of government.
You asked.
NCY
P.S., all you governement snoops reading this, have at it, I am using someone else's internet account HAH !
You bust him for what I said (no freedom of speech) I will simply find someone else. Money does wonders especially among your kind. I'll make sure the NEXT one is loyal to you as well. Happy hunting. Attack your own, it makes me happy.
Susan, I have it under control. I can sign into here on ANY PC. Let them read, I hope they learn something. Read the Turner Diaries when you get a chance, unless you need a license for that as well.
I wanted to come up with a good closing line, but the words are not forthcoming, thus I say this, to all, GET OBJECTIVE. You MUST learn to see things from a new point of view or we are all doomed. We MUST stop attacking countries for no reason. Iraq NEVER, EVER, NOT once used a weapon against ANY US or English Citizen or facility until we did it to them FIRST.
My people say that revenge is a dish best served cold, and that scares me. We Americans may bear the brunt of revenge for things we never condoned nor caused.
I will stop now, but these are very important issues, we may die over this shit.
NCY |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 443
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 5:04 am: | |
The history bit:
The US roots of WW2:
The USA blocked Japanese trade development by strangling the oil supply chain; this is well documented. It is also clear that since 1847 when a US warship sailed into Tokyo bay, the Japanese pretty much modeled their development path on America and the west. By the First World War they felt like a full-blown member of the industrialized western club; unfortunately, the west saw them as interlopers and acted accordingly. This led to the radicalization of Japanese politics between 1920s and 1940; which led to the trade conflict with America over Pacific “spheres of influence”, which in turn led to the Pearl Harbor attack.
Like Germany in Europe, Japan wanted an imperial future with all the trimmings. By 1900 both were building large naval forces and aspired to having colonies in Africa and the Far East, mainly to provide cheap sources of raw materials for industrial expansion (this had been the British path to empire status in the 19th century). In 1903 the Japanese proved they could beat the mammoth Russian navy, through better tactics and engineering. In 1916 the German navy finally took on the British navy at Jutland, but neither won. Germany had better gunnery but the British had more ships; so the British fleet remained effective; but the Germans changed tactics and virtually invented modern submarine warfare. This in tern led to US involvement in the western front and the eventual defeat of Germany.
In WW1 Germany was defeated by blockade more than military might; tactically, they were clearly far more effective. It was the starving of German civilians (at home) and the German solders of resources (at the front), which actually defeated them. This, and the treaty ending the war, pretty much guaranteed German economic collapse in the 1920s. And those conditions gave the Nazis the perfect platform for a successful take over.
In WW2 - Both Japan and Germany repeated the old mistake. They wanted more resources, and a wider power base to exploit them, in order to continue industrial expansion. Both Germany and Japan hoped that a short “lightning war”, with superior tactics; would leave their opponents so back footed that they would sue for peace on their terms; both lost that bet. Both entered the conflict with aspirations based on a 19th century economic model; pursued with very modern trade and military tactics and equipment. This paradox led to the failure of both plans, and both systems.
Post WW2 both adopted a more modern economic model, and became very prosperous and successful. In fact so successful that it only began to fail in the late 80s.
--------------------------
Dear Termy
I don’t know if FDR in 1941 or Bush in 2001 had any foreknowledge of the attacks; does anyone have real proof?
In 1941 it was extremely fortunate that 4 US aircraft carriers were at sea on December 7th; but did FDR have the incredible foresight to realize that carrier forces would swing the day in the Pacific war? That thesis seems farfetched to me. Consequently, every step of your reasoning that stems from that preposition is flawed. How could FDR KNOW that letting the Pearl Harbor attack succeed, would have positive consequences?
The case for your 2001 hypothesis is slightly more compelling; but it implies that GW is one hell of a cool gambler. What if those hijackers had possessed a dirty bomb, or even a live nuke from Russia? In response terms; the thesis that he deliberately blocked USAF defensive capability, with foreknowledge of what was coming; seems a bit of a stretch. Possibly others did, to promote military and intelligence spending.
As for the personal security issues: Talkers like us are irrelevant to the security services; they have bigger fish to fry. And don’t think that the boys in Fort Mead cant track you dude; they can!
-------------------------------------------
The big issue for the last 30 years, and probably the next 40, will be: How can nation states deal with the non-national, decentralized powers like al-Qaeda? A nation state has almost limitless defensive vulnerability, whereas non-national powers like al-Qaeda have very few. In WW2 The US was able to defeat Japan and help defeat Germany because it could out produce them by a huge margin. America’s sheer quantity and speed of response it made the opposition’s tactical superiority almost irrelevant.
Sixty years on: Al-Qaeda’s vulnerable bits are very hard to infiltrate and degrade; furthermore they are in almost exponential growth right now; its members are quite willing to die for the cause, so they can replace any loss 2 for 1 in short order. This is the repeated paradox from history, which will shape our future and affect all our lives. Consider this: What kind of response from nation states could possibly eliminate such a threat? Because just degrading it is not good enough, only a 100% removal will do the job.
The chilling enemy move is the success of the al-Qaeda BRAND. This is a paradigm shift in terror politics; like the change over from the imperial economic model, to the industrial free trade model. It’s going to be profound and requires us to think about things in an entirely new way. Sadly, that is the Terrorists objective! To make us change the way we think and live. Perhaps now you can see why I am prepared to give this matter so much thinking time.
Susan |
Not Specified (Me1)
New member
Username: Me1
Post Number: 38
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 12:23 pm: | |
The chilling enemy move is the success of the al-Qaeda BRAND... and all the advertising supplied free of charge by our media.
he ordered the dismantling of the RADAR equipment at that base.... the radars were working just fine - the problem was simply that an attack was not expected so when they saw it on screen they just didn't believe it until the bombs started to fall. |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 405
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 1:51 pm: | |
http://www.lewrockwell.com/young/young25.html
Termy Nator, in reply to yours of 25/07/05/2248: If you are not bad, then you are mad; but in any event dangerous to know -- and I do not mean that in the ironic complimentary sense in which that was applied to Lord Byron.
What is a political security service, if not a spy service targeted domestically, against the State's own citizens? These, like external spy services, are morally foul institutions, which befoul those associated with them by contact. (I thank the Jewish people for their gift of loan-words with connotations that escape natural usage of English: The connotation I want is that of beschmutzen.)
Do not be surprised if you progressively acquire a circle of false "friends," who hang on your every word and encourage you to go further and further out on a limb of rhetoric -- and action. Every spy service has its uses for the ilk of Marinus van der Lubbe; and an aspirant to such position must be nurtured by provocateurs while kept in reserve.
Over the last two centuries, at least, political assassination has had effect of canonizing the assassinated politician as a martyr.
Robert Pinkerton
heresiarch@en.com |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 198
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 3:30 am: | |
I am dangerous to know ? I take that as a compliment. There have been others who were dangerous to know, Washington, Hitler, Rober E. Lee etc.
I am very careful about friends and I appreciate your concern, but I can usually see a "false fiend" coming. I have not done it here, but to avoid this you need to throw something into the discussion field once in a while which should elicit a response similar to "you are full of shit".
Actually, I think my next step is to find and present some documentation for the more radical statements I put forth. Warning, you too may become dangerous to know.
I know I'm a bit of a target and as such I no longer do certain things such as smoke illicit substances or clean my gun outdoors. My neighbor cleans his gun out on his front porch, but he is not a target.
Actually I am proud to be disliked by the evil ones. While it's not the most comfortable position in the world it is something I can live with. I am just as bold in person.
I see the danger you point out about false friends and am always looking out for it.
Even meeting new people I'll wait for the cue, and will flatly say that Diem was taken out because he wouldn't come to a satisfactory agreement concerning phosphorous. Milesovic had to go for the same reason relating to cadmium. These are elements which cannot be created, therefore the powers that be must have control over who gets them.
Dangerous ? How about a look at my reading list, The Turner Diaries, Mein Kompf, Fame Of A Dead Man's Deeds, most of the entire website jewwatch.org. The Spotlight, and it's contemporary American Free Press. The original Start Freedom Project (which is proven to my own eyes to work for people to gain non-taxpayer status with the IRS).
When people are found not to be false friends I admonish them not to become a target. I know a Man who did become a target. I actually saw the notice from the IRS to him confirming that he is classified a non-taxpayer. Once this status is gain EXTREME care must be taken to keep it. One signature can blow it, and it only works once. I read the whole thing and I know how and why it works.
Anybody can fall, after ten years of being a non-taxpayer this guy did something stupid, he sold something illegal to an undercover cop. His organisation had been infiltrated just like in the case of James Trafficant. Trafficant got taken down because somebody was sending $1,500 a month to a lawyer he did not even know, nor was he aware of said payments. The evidence is supported by the lack of certain evidence, in his own words (close anyway) "in the ten years they've been after me they don't have one single wiretap or financial record in court. I have not even bought a pencil with cash, yet they have nothing".
Questions can provide eveidence that indicates something is hidden. Seismic activity related to the OKC bombing. Come on, federal buildings have self destruct mechanisms so that if the government falls nobody else will have them. I would certainly take that step if I were a member of the cabal running this country, wouldn't you ?
My own Father who is very skeptical of my views even questioned why the day care was located in the Murrah building. As many of these "radical" views he might dismiss, he still postulates that the daycare center was there so that an attack would move the public towards outrage against any attacker. As unradical as he is, he also believes that Waco was intended to cow certain people into submission.
He is nowhere near dangerous to know, but he's not a sheeple.
I think my next step is to gather hard evidence of some of my views/statements. I'll upload to my own FTP space and you can lament in less doubt of my sanity.
Dangerous to know ? Thank you Sir for that very high compliment. One day you too may become dangerous to know.
NCY |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 444
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 3:32 am: | |
Regarding tactics.
After looking up a picture caption for a recent posting, I started to re-read parts of the book it was in.
Some of you already know about J F C Fuller & Liddell Heart who (after 1918) inspired others (like Heinz Guderian) to build the first modern Panzer Divisions. The ideas Heart and Fuller proposed in 1918, as a counter to the stalemate of trench warfare, evolved into the tactical approach later called Blitzkrieg.
By 1939, Heart was expressing serious doubts about his 1918 thesis; he said: (forgive me paraphrasing them here) “That the aggressive approach of engorgement following a breakthrough; in which speed of movement is paramount and one reinforces success, not the failure to take strong points; will probably always fail. Even a badly organized defensive force will be able to stop it.” As Heart was saying this, the German army was advancing into Poland, and proving that his original ideas worked perfectly.
The reason for this preamble is; that tactics must always change to reflect new situations. However, when a nation (or group of nations) loose in a war they learn from it; the wining side seldom does. The secular western position has dominated the world since the 19th century. Now it is faced with an opposition it barely understands; using tactics it cannot appropriate. To successfully oppose and defeat such opponents; it must set aside the preconceptions we inherited from international military conflicts; and formulate a new tactical approach.
Nation states have certain strengths and weaknesses; so have non-national cellular forces. In Afghanistan and Iraq western forces have used conventional tactics to seek and destroy concentrations of terrorists and their host militias. As you can see, this simply recruited a new generation of terrorist cells, based inside western society.
Conventional invasion followed by seek and destroy missions is not an option here. Our intelligence systems (honed to fight transnational enemies) can’t provide accurate target data for an assault; and even block removal (as in Afghanistan) would cause unacceptably high “collateral damage” which would automatically recruit more terrorist cells.
The options:
1. One could simply designate every member of the host community as an enemy, giving you a huge soft target. But almost 99.99% of them are innocent bystanders and net contributors to the success of western society. So this tactic would be counterproductive, even if it was practicable - and its not!
2. One could amend national policy to starve the terrorist cells of recruit-able members; then create specific covert forces (recruited from within the host community) to seek and destroy the terrorist cells. Essentially this seems to be a better option.
So: what changes in western policy would be needed to starve terrorist groups of recruits and funds? And, once we have done that, will it be possible to recruit urban covert intelligence agents and death squads, from within the Muslim community, to wipe out terrorist cells? I think both items will encounter substantial obstacles, especially the second one.
I’m unable to devise a third approach. Can you?
Susan |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 445
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 3:41 am: | |
Robert, I’m sorry to say, that personal censure is probably not a good idea. This is a political rostrum within the forum and as such one need not respond, or even listen, if one does not wish to.
It is like Speakers Corner in London; anybody can say anything; but hectoring is seen as encouragement; that is the “Little England” solution. |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 406
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 6:09 am: | |
I see I must follow up the link I posted at the head of mine of 26/07/05/1351. Well before, far and away before, he ever partnered with our President in the misconceived and misbegotten misadventure in Iraq, I considered Mr. Blair a Department of Agriculture certified-choice scumbag. It would please me beyond possibility of words to convey to see him and those co-responsible with him for the Firearms Act of 1997, die slowly of bone-marrow cancer in a state of immunity to narcotics. But may all Gods that Are, jointly and severally protect him from assassination by firearm, or even from ever being momentarily menaced with a firearm (likewise in this country both Clintons, Senators Schumer and Boxer and Feinstein and Lautenberg, and the Brady bunch): [1] One does not want to see them made martyrs. [2] One does not want to give them the self-righteous feeling, or the image, of pseudo-martyrdom. Would it be desirable for these to be taken down? Unconditionally and beyond all question, Y E S! But in order to be certain that they jointly and severally stay down, it is necessary that their deliquium be accomplished only and in no other way than by due process of law.
Robert Pinkerton
heresiarch@en.com |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 446
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 7:09 pm: | |
Dear Robert and DF in general.
I’m not a fan of Tony Blair; he often seems hypocritical. He allows expediency and focus group thinking, to shape national policy, and then he re-shapes his morality around that policy; boldly proclaiming that: “Nothing has changed!”
This is the shape of modern politics. The politics of principals and deeply held convictions was banished long ago; and we, the voters, did it. We did not support the men and women of principal; we chose those who dealt in short term “fixes” and told us the lies we wanted to hear.
I think it is incumbent on political commentators and critics, of governments and leaders alike; to at least consider what they would have done in their place. So how would we deal with the heritage of these problems in the Middle East, the Oil supplying nations, and (most of all) the consequences of a growing multicultural electorate at home?
-------------------------
The roots of current western and Arab thinking about the Middle East go back to colonial, even biblical times. Europeans came to the Middle East; and pretty much wrenched control from native principalities (and even national governments). In the 20s Britain and others used force and guile to keep local independence movements, in this region, impotent.
Then came WW2!
The Nazi holocaust fuelled the fires of Zionism; this led to the foundation of a new state – Israel. A state built on land, taken, at gunpoint, from people who had every right to remain there. Perhaps Truman deserves the blame, for recognizing and supporting Israel; but the BIG question is: if Truman had said no, would Israel have survived? Indeed, if he had said no, would he have survived?
The tiny state of Israel is a fulcrum in international politics. Upon this axis spins the conflicts between the Moslem and Western worlds; current (and past) terrorist threats; the price and supply of oil and the end of European colonialism. Even the post war European recovery to prosperity, and its current decline, was deeply shaped by the events of 1948.
In 1948 General Marshal almost demanded that Truman NOT recognize the new state; he felt the situation would spin out of control, and lead to a major conflict. But Truman was angered by Marshals intervention; he promptly fired him and recognized Israel. Over the 55 years that followed American (and European) support for Israel escalated, to it’s current level.
At least part of the technology that built Israel’s atomic bombs came from America, much of the funding certainly did. The impact of that single fact has been incredibly significant, in shaping Arab-v-Israeli politics over the last 20 years.
------------------------
The Islamic world can look back to a time when their culture and learning swept through Europe between the 8th & 10th century, effectively kick-starting the birth of modern Europe. Even the Renaissance, can trace it’s roots back to that period. Yet now we belittle their culture and achievements; pompously strutting our military might, as we have since the Crusades. In fact GW idiotically spoke of a “Crusade” not long after 9-11, which didn’t help matters much!
If you were an Arab, Palestinian (or Moslem anywhere in the world) considering this history, how would YOU feel about it? Wouldn’t your blood boil with frustration, at the manifest unfairness and immorality of it all?
------------------------
I think many of our well-educated leaders, and some diplomatic representatives, have a clear grasp of this. But getting elected and staying in power means telling people what they WANT to hear; so it is OUR grasp of all this, that actually counts. And, for the vast majority of voters, this historical context is a total blank!
Many people construe Islamic militancy, as innate to their creed, they even consider it a form of religious mania; most see it as a very recent development, and totally irrational; if so; there could be no clean solutions to all this. As it is, the most promising diplomatic options would mean political suicide for any leader in the democratic west. These background facts may seem tangential to you; but they are the basis of all that HAS already happened to us; they WILL also shape our future, for good or ill.
When Caesar documented his Gallic wars “for the senate and the people of Rome” he did the incredible. He won the military conflict, through masterful tactics; and the political struggle, with ingenious propaganda. His mastery of both roles later made him Emperor. But he was a Dictator not an elected leader; so he only had to do it once.
In 1948, General Marshall knew part of the history; he also understood political and military tactics very well. He had learned much it from the ancient sources, during his tactical studies at West Point. He foresaw today’s conflict, if not its format, and tried to stop it; so he was sacked.
If we ask people like Tony Blair, or George Bush, to lead us with wisdom, in a democracy; we must either understand the past better, or trust them far more. Sadly those leaders have never known a time when the Electorate WAS sufficiently educated; nor have they any means of regaining our trust now. So; if you were in their place, would you commit political suicide by dong the right things? Or would you follow the focus groups, make the popular moves; and get re-elected.
Many thanks
Susan (Builder) |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 202
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 8:45 am: | |
You speak of an uneducated electorate, and I'll tell you nowhere in the world are they more uneducated than in the US.
The guy says slowly and firmly "But he has weapons of mass destruction".
I reply slowly and firmly "So what, he hasn't used them, and so does everybody else".
Out the other ear.
Then there's another guy "I voted my concience, for Bush, I can't vote for a baby killer". Ignorance is bliss and lemme tellya this guy is pretty damn happy. I wonder if he knows about depleted uranium. Of course he is so uneducated that I doubt he even knows what uranium is, let alone what it can do. You could drive a car into a brick wall at 100 MPH after drinking a bottle of whiskey and he would say it's the Lord's will. You could win the lottery and he would say it's the Lord's will. To him, all the work he does means nothing, the Lord bestows his money upon him because he has faith.
This is the way a good part of the American public thinks, I truly wonder what the average intelligence of people suffering from depression is, I'd bet it's higher than average. That's OK, they advertise prescription drugs to treat it on TV now. "Talk to your Doctor about the new killyoustine". In some cases they don't even mention what the drug is supposed to cure ! They find this effective ?
I can't go on too long, this is too aggravating and depressing. No sane enlightened person can go through life without getting depressed once in a while, and maybe even permanently, but the strong shrug it off long enough to function and get whatever joy out of life they still can.
Sometimes those with backbone want to rebel. I'd sometimes like to say fukit and setup a website hosting all the removed images, falsify documents and go on as long as possible until I fall. Then defend on a sovereign immunity principal, that even though the server was on American soil, national law is of no effect outside of 12 miles of Washington DC and government institutions. Laugh, but it has been done successfully, just not on this particular issue.
There are insidious twists and loopholes in US law, mostly designed for the rich to take advantage of, but some of us untervolks have been discovering them. That's why my buddy isn't being sued by the IRS for about a million dollars, and why they didn't clap him in irons when he declared in court "You simply don't have jurisdiction over me" and walked out.
Yes my friends there are pretty much two sets of laws in the US. Actually it's more like three.
Remember, I have seen it.
Susan, I understand what you said, and in that light let me redirect you to the words and actions of Ron Paul, the Texas Congressman. That guy should be President. He continually suicides himself out of that office by actually representing the People, and he knows he would probably be assassinated if he ever got elected.
Ron Paul and I, and many others know exactly who would be behind the murder, and we also know the true culprits would never be prosecuted, just like with JFK.
Tony Blair and George Bush cannot lead with wisdom for they do not have it, and even if they did, using it would, as you say, be political suicide.
Looking at it logically, find a reason. Think backwards from the problem for a while and you will see that much of what I state is true, and not all that radical to those with open minds.
Fifteen years ago I was defeatist, and saw absolutely no way out. I was also dealing with some physical disability. I learned, I learned the ideals of our nation's founders, and I learned that they, along with my Parents and anyone else I might have considered a mentor, were not perfect. I learn that the medical community is not perfect and learned how to heal myself.
I went from not being able to walk down a flight of stairs to being able to rise from akido without support of hands or anything else. (and I'm not that light) I lost weight and I learned what it takes to keep your bones, teeth and hair into later life. They won't tell you.
Money money money money.
Psychology tells us that those who can't get enough of something aren't being satifisfied by it. Everybody from a megalomaniac to a tycoon to a crack addict has the same affliction. It just manifests itself in a different way.
The system is weakening. We must be ready to kick it when it's down, not that this is a nice thing to do, but we must return the favor. When you find a good part of your military quelling an insurrection in the US, that is the time for you to strike. We will keep them busy.
I think since we all have brains here we can agree, we can't vote our way out of this mess.
And Susan, please don't call the likes of George Bush or Tony Blair leaders. They are not. Both of them need to be hacked to pieces with a very dull instrument. I wish them and most politicians the worst.
On the other hand I wish you all the best.
With that I yield the floor.
NCY
PS I'm thinking of changing my handle to "Dangerous To Know". DTN
NCY |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 447
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 10:39 am: | |
Who said: “those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it”?
In schools we leaned “national history”; like the sequence of English monarchs, American presidents or even the sequence of Danish Kings since Gorm the Old. But this does not constitute “an understanding of history”; in fact it probably puts people off it for life.
Serious academic historians focus on tiny periods, or specific events, in minute detail: such as “the development of the Springfield rifle works (1858 – 1867). These are often crucial, but the scope of such enquiry is too limited. It’s often best to browse the conclusions of the great historians, like A J P Taylor; and use them as starting points. They aren’t always right but they do clarify things. They point the way to more detailed sources, and alternate conclusions by other experts.
Taylor’s talks on the great commanders of WW2 were so tight and clear to me. He once said:
“In as much as any one event causes another, the First world war caused the second. More specifically, how WW1 was ended, made WW2 inevitable.”
What a statement! Ten seconds of pure clarity. Naturally, he goes on to explain WHY, with a matrix of events, documents and the personal actions of key players. But one is already aroused and seeking the truth; because it IS interesting.
Schoolbook history is a tragic way for people to encounter the subject for the first time.
Take your six year old to the Tank Museum instead. Show them a T34 and tell them why the tracks were so wide; and that the brilliant young designer died testing it. Then, show them a German Tiger or Panther; explain how the diesel fuel froze in Russia’s extreme cold, and that its parts sized up because the tolerances were too tight. Show them Kursk on the map; and explain “it was here that Hitler really started to loose the war!” Sit them down with a book and explain that the first British models were called “Water Tanks” to disguise there true nature; that Leonardo designed one 300 years before that; and that Romans solders had a formation called “the turtle” which inspired Leonardo to do that.
There are possibilities like that everywhere; in over 5000 years of recorded human history. Anything from a Chinese porcelain dish (2500 years old), to George Washington’s wooden false teeth, can make history come alive for a child and open their mind to the landscape of time; it teaches people why great things happened; and how the future is shaped by the past.
Try it.
Susan |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 203
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 12:22 pm: | |
Are Taylor's works available anywhere ? Sounds interesting.
I totally agree with you about how to teach, I did a bit of math tutoring in school and I know the most important thing is to take the subject out of the abstract. I also taught a friend some electronics to aid in his studies as he went to trade school. Same deal, even with words and pencil and paper only, you need to solidify ideas in reality for many to learn.
Years ago a friend and I were doing alot of business, we were self employed and this freedom afforded him charge of his children, who were never in day care in their lives. Sometimes their questions were met with direct answers, other times that would be inappropriate.
"Do you think that his---"
"No"
"Then why would---"
"Oh"
We sometimes made them postulate, finding their own answers. The elder graduated from one of the toughest (academically) private schools in town, the younger is doing even better. Unfortunately, they were also taught that sometimes the right answer isn't what they are looking for, and they must sometimes set aside their beliefs and figure out just what answer is required. The grade is the important thing, and if they were to contradict the curriculum they need solid evidence and it shouldn't even be done in most cases. He understood and his 3.8 GPA from that school is considered to be over 4.0 by the colleges. He is now in his third year of college, again at one of the tougher universities. He attends The University of Wisconson at Madison. At first he had a double major but dropped one because, quite frankly it was just too hard. "I'm hurting myself doing this" He said. He is very goal oriented and it shows.
Let's open up a school, you and Robert handle languages and history (the two should be taught together almost anyway) and I'll handle the science and technology. Perhaps by the end of our lives we will see good engineers and true leaders. Of course they exist, but less and less in the US. In fact, in case the media hasn't alerted you, foreign enrollment in US universities has plummeted in the last few years, and indeed if I had children they would probably take their higher education at a foreign university.
In the US we attend school compulsorily from the ages of five to eighteen. If you look it up on the internet, there is a resume of Lewin A.R.W Edwards. He is from Austrailia. He quit college at sixteen so he could work full time instead of part time. He goes on to state that his continuing education thereafter has been on an as needed basis. Someone taught him to learn.
That is by far the most important lesson.
NCY |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 448
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 1:52 pm: | |
Dear Termy (or DTK)
AJP Taylor (Just a quick Reference)
See http://www.gotterdammerung.org/books/authors/taylor-ajp.html for a quick run down on his work.
See: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jtaylor.htm for a bit more of his thinking.
See: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/103-9370196-1604616 (some of his books)
http://print.google.com/print?q=by+A+J+P+Taylor&oi=print and
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=Books+by+A+J+P+Taylor&hl=en&lr=&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2005-18,RNWE:en&sa=N&tab=ff&oi=froogler gives you some more of his books.
His book “The Origins of the Second World War” may interest you; if so see. http://www.gotterdammerung.org/books/reviews/o/origins-of-the-second-world-war.html
It was published in 1962 (and we know much more about some things today).
He also did a series of talks to camera for the BBC and they are very GRIPPING. But I doubt they are available on tape or disk.
-------------------------------
I’m afraid I can’t help with Languages. I don’t even have an English O level, because I am dyslectic, and can’t spell. Danish is not very useful (and I have not lived there since 1970) so that is out.
Personally I think we are all too opinionated to teach History safely. Nonetheless, I do try and inspire people about it and suggest books that might sustain an interest.
I could teach Photography or video production and a bit of practical engineering. You see I am interested in almost everything, but not much actual use in the world. Perhaps I should run a country (but then I’m not a good liar either; so that would be a major problem). If only I could shoot straight, I could at least remove one idiot from office; but they have an endless supply, so why bother.
Besides I only like children, if well cooked with fresh garlic and pasta.
Regards
Susan |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 449
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 2:06 pm: | |
Dear Robert & Termy
If A J P Taylor (I think his first name was Alan) interests you; see his articles at:
http://www.brugesgroup.com/mediacentre/index.live?article=115
They say “He was VERY good at predicting the future” A good historian can do that. |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 205
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 5:59 pm: | |
Susan;
You are dyslexic ?, it's kinda hard to tell. You seem to express yourself quite well.
As an analytical person I'm putting your particular grammatical errors into a special folder in my mind for future reference. They are few, but could be enlightening in the future. Whoever taught you to overcome and become as literate as you are deserves quite a bit of praise. I'd have never guessed.
I guess some of your typos are not typos, but who's aren't ? There are times when I'm on my third editing of a post and just say screw it, they'll know what I mean.
Don't worry about your English, you have a better command of it than about 75% of the US population, and I mean that NOT including illegal immigrants.
I'll check out that article soon, right now I'm working on part six of Future Shock : The Appliance. Actually that means part five is done, discard the part five you have now and I'll email you the finished part five very soon.
NCY |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 207
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 31, 2005 - 9:36 pm: | |
Hmmm;
Omnidirectional thinking, and that means backwards, or more aptly, reverse. Think of your car, if it didn't have reverse you would have a problem.
Think of what has become, and then think of what it took to get it there.
See the big picture. If you don't, you'll never see the problem. By studying the micromanagement of wars you won't see it.
Charlie Reese and others have written about what true wealth is, and that it's pretty much gone from the US. If we adopted a policy the Founders would have agreed with say last year, we would be in worse shape than the worst third world nation now. True wealth is food, water, weapons, shelter, vehicles and last but not least intelligence. Then there are those intangible tangibles. Strength of spirit, Heart, Courage, Soul. Not to mention Smith And Wesson.
And then there's true leadership, not the TV kind.
NCY |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 450
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 01, 2005 - 2:43 am: | |
Education V Inspiration:
Does anyone remember the opening sequence of Kubrick & Clarke’s “2001 a space Odyssey?” The understanding inspired in the humanoid primates by the arrival of the monolith; which leads to the use of a bone as a weapon, and its magical transformation into a spaceship?
My point being that people learn through study, and study due to interest. My notion is that: inspiration is the key to all learning; people seek understanding once they become interested; so inspiring interest is the core task of educators and the root of all knowledge.
My desire to learn and understand things often came from television; British TV really was better in the 60s and 70s. Possibly because the idealists, entertainers and creatives were directing and making it, the accountants remained in their offices back then. Once you have accountants leading script meetings, then running production units, and finally the whole BBC, you quickly loose the quality of content and inspiration that made things worth watching.
Skimpy budgets can limit creativity; but the denial of inspiration, mostly by accountants, is the main reason for poor programs. Today most British programming is made by smaller outside companies, usually started by creatives (or “artists”), but often run by accountants, which explains the creative weakness of much modern programming.
Because of 60s and 70s television I began to read SiFi, studied science and literature, began to write creatively, got the history bug and became fascinated by bridges, went to polytechnic, worked in heavy Civil engineering, where I started to take photographs and finally ended up producing AV and video. All this stems from inspirational programming on the BBC. Our man Tony says “Education, Education, Education!” but I think inspiration is the true essential; without it people don’t learn. So inspiration and creative entertainment is one of the primary keys to meaningful Education, the keys to the future; and they should not be left in the hands of accountants and marketing moguls.
I would have loved to be at the design meeting when Kubrick proposed that the flying bone become a spaceship; taking the viewer from prehistory to future in one elegant moment. People like Clarke and Kubrick had moments like that; accountants don’t. Inspired entertainment is a wonderful thing in a society; it can liberate the mind and thus free ones inner dreams. The inner voice whispers, “If other mortals can do this, what could I do?”
So if you never quite understand 2001, Kubrick and Clarke succeeded; because you will continue to try, which IS the message of 2001. The search for understanding, and discovering how to do new things, is our true purpose here on Earth, and perhaps beyond it.
-----------------------------
A true story: Once, working in a creative company, we kept loosing the scissors we used to cut 35mm film. So the accountant became frustrated, and point blank refused to buy any more. We shared and borrowed, but finally slide production ground to a halt. So I suggested he reclassify scissors as “a consumable!” before he bankrupted the company. Two months later they did go bust, owing me thousands.
Consider the word “Downsize” which makes utter economic failure “look good in the books”. Inspiration and inventiveness, driven by the dreamers, built our civilization; but the rise to power of accountants in western companies, society and government, has done more to damage them than we usually realize. Worse still it is damaging our future, by limiting the minds of growing children. All this eats away at our economy and destroys the wealth we invented accountancy to record and manage.
Perhaps we need one of Kubrick’s “monolith moments” to inspire us again.
Susan |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 408
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 11:36 pm: | |
A new question before the House:
Whereof I would speak is the relationship between individual personal indebtedness and individual vulnerability to social -- or anti-social -- control. I have put this question to webmasters of libertarian web-sites, and these have ignored it; but many libertarians are first and foremost economo-maniacs. I put this question to my Marxist friend, and he ignored it, for what reason I do not know.
Briefly, my proposition starts here: [A] If a person who is both free from indebtedness and possessed of savings, is sacked from a job, that person may suffer in a small way from hurt pride; but he or she will pick him/herself up, dust him/herself off, and forthwith begin searching for a different situation -- and is able to hold out for better, for a time. [B] If a person free from indebtedness but with minimal to nil savings is sacked, perhaps more hurt pride (as he or she might be forced to subsist on bounty of relatives or friends until he or she is employed again); but once again, he or she will pick him/herself up, dust him/herself off, and begin searching forthwith for other employment, although lack of savings dictates a shorter search and undermines his or her ability to hold out or search more widely. [C] The person with no savings and debts to his or her hairline or worse (And how many Americans does that describe today?), wears a collar with a chain attached; and that chain can be jerked: If he or she is sacked, he or she is set scrambling desperately.
It is the poor soul in situation C to whom the boss can turn if that boss wants something done that may be dubiously-lawful or outright unlawful, or perhaps lawful but offensive to conscience. Too, there is the situation of a few old Westerns, in which the villain twirls his mustache while saying to the heroine (rancher's widow or young daughter whose parents have just died), "I've just bought up your mortgage and I'm callin' the note right now." Too, there is the situation of the dvitch who has gotten indebted to organized-crime loan-sharks: If he does a criminal act, the debt will be cancelled, but if he does not the loan-shark will make an example of him in guresome ways.
I am sure that many of us, in our younger days, have had at least one situation in which he or she thought the boss would actually prefer a literal slave -- and in which aforesaid boss would be the kind of master that would drive an actual slave to suicide. (The bourgeiosie's actual problem with a literal slave, is that [1] A slave must be purchased, which ties up capital right there. [2] A slave must be housed, guarded, clothed, fed, and medicated -- whether or not productive. [3] A slave presents the danger of injuring free employees by rebellion and/or capital loss through death or successful escape. [4] The quality of slaves' work, outside of gang stoop-labor situations, always has left much to be desired. The rest of it, from Lord Wilberforce on forward, is simply ethical top-dressing.) The poor soul who is base-over-apex in debt gives the despotic employer all the "advantages" of a literal slave, without the concomitant drawbacks. If the poor soul in question is female and the boss is male, she presents the possibility of his getting away with sexual harassment.
Because the heroine of my novel is a literal slave-girl, I had to research both slavery in the world from classical antiquity to the present (The slave trade today is the third largest unlawful commerce in the world, after. first, recreational drugs of "abuse" and, second, gunrunning.) and the slave trade today. (What is exoteric is outdated information and useful information is highly esoteric.) When you subtract that minority of the world's slave population who were born into slave status, a majority of the remainder fell slave because of indebtedness.
Robert Pinkerton
heresiarch@en.com
|
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 453
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 9:55 am: | |
Dear Robert
I am not sure how to reply to your last post.
Broadly, one either has a moralistic viewpoint, or one does not. A purely logical viewpoint of these issues (outside our historical context) simply can’t make a valid distinction. So it all comes down to feelings, opinions and one’s personal values. In my opinion, these cant be divorced from a preexisting historical context.
Slavery is, almost by definition, the ultimate mode of capitalist exploitation. Granted some others exhibit, as much cruelty and gratuitous, selfish violence; but at least these are illegal acts in our societies. I would say that historic Slavery is the proof that capitalism is basically immoral; but also, that democracy tempers that immorality (or at least tries to) and will tend to end legal slavery.
I don’t think one can legitimately use a failing in one system; to justify another system that contains a basic negation of freedom, such as slavery. If one can legally withdraw the individual freedom of any person in a society, nobody in that society is safe from such oppression; so such a society will tend to self-destruct; and historically most did.
So if that answers your proposition in any way, OK. If I have missed your point, please clarify.
Susan |
Not Specified (Me1)
New member
Username: Me1
Post Number: 39
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 1:48 pm: | |
quote:The poor soul who is base-over-apex in debt gives the despotic employer all the "advantages" of a literal slave, without the concomitant drawbacks.
We might call this a "logical slave". And this is not the only situation. I was once what I consider to be a logical slave, in that I was in the situation of having to work for an organisation or else a whole workforce (many of whom were friends) would be fired. Of course I was technically free to quit any time I wanted. |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 409
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 1:54 pm: | |
Susan, imprimis I do not seek to justify slavery. However, when one is in debt, the product of one's labor is not entirely one's own; to the extent one is in debt, the product of one's labor belongs to one's creditors. Law gives one's creditors means of taking possession, irrespective of one's will. These lawful creditors' remedies, may not be the same in degree as the overseer's lash; but I respectfully submit that they are, though in lesser degree, the same in kind. One is dependent upon one's creditor's (or creditors') mercy for what equanimity one possesses.
Now I grant you that I was raised "old fashioned," by the words of the Bard: "Neither a borrower nor lender be." Indebtedness for any purpose other than starting one's own business, was esteemed either the consequence of folly, or nothing less than a tragedy; but in any event, a condition to be left behind by every lawful means, absolutely as soon as was possible to do so. (And gambling on credit, "markers," passed simple foolishness to no-question perversity.) Everything I possess that was not a gift, has been paid for in full at point of sale; and I have been invariantly consistent in that throughout my sixty-one years.
Too, while I do not know how standard sales-finance contracts read in Britain, here in the United States they all begin, "This indenture witnesseth... [emphasis supplied]" Veterans of BDSM that we all are here, who does not know just what an indenture is?
From a stranger one does not "borrow" money, save by courtesy of semantic inexactitude: In fact one rents a stranger's money, and the rental fee is what we call "interest." That rental fee continues to accumulate for as long as one is in tenancy of the stranger's money; and it constitutes an additional, growing, claim against one's assets. (Too, many American sales-finance contracts contain a prepayment penalty clause, preventing the fool who comes to prudence, from diminishing his total obligation by paying the balance due off ahead of schedule.)
I first became aware of lawful creditors' remedies at a kaffee-klatch of my mother's sisters when I was fourteen. One of my aunts was bookkeeper-personnel for a small business whose labor-force was mostly underclass males; and she was kvetching over the extra work of responding when one of the laborers had his wages garnisheed (attached and diverted by order of a court). (I already knew some of the gruesome ways loan-sharks enforced collection, and about repossession.) I thought that would be excessive humiliation even for a child; but how any adult could stand the shame without committing suicide, I could not understand.
Oh, I learned more as I grew older. And when, in my early twenties, I became a bill-collector for a finance company ("My creditor's a predator."), I had a large amount of residual hostility to work off: I used those creditor's remedies on my employer's behalf, with abandon and with diligent investigation, leading to awards for creativity! They were all fools, and I was the Avenging Angel. Only later did a dormant conscience awaken: The deadbeats in my caseload -- and most of that caseload was case-hardened deadbeats -- may still have been fools -- but why did they get the opportunity to get anywhere near my caseload in the first place? What business did these dvitches have getting the loan in the first place? What business did anyone responsible have, signing these poor souls to sales-finance contracts (with confession-of-judgment notes appended)? Every one of these poor souls was, on close examination, N.B.C., No Basis for Credit, not a sound prospect.
The answer? C O N S U M E R credit.
(HEINLEIN. Robert A., Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Aphorism #101. Sovereign ingredient of a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity.
COMMENTARY: http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnwell/barnwell49.html)
Seen from one angle, it is expression of a human flaw of immaturity, that transcends the boundaries of Bourgeoisity, the idea of "Something for nothing." One partakes then and there of the illusion of getting something for nothing, afterward paying more than the ticket-price for the privilege. Is it worthwhile?
Seen from another angle, it is to the Body Politic, what cocaine use is to the individual. (For the record, I depend only upon the self-report of friends and friendly acquaintances who have used cocaine recreationally. Even in depths of rebelliousness, that foolish I never was.) Purportedly it gives a buoyant -- exclusively subjective) -- feeling of universal well-being and increased power in all faculties. (My own informants, to a person without exception, report that their creative work done under the influence, was uniform crap, their ideation more full of holes than a sieve.) How many firms would be in straits without the extra income generated by interest owed on sales-finance contracts they hold? But the advantage to the merchant, is that it seems to "lubricate" sales. Those of you who do sell for a living, to whom is it easier to sell? The prospect who pays cash out of savings? (Perhaps he remembers what each dollar cost him in terms of his labor to earn it, or in terms of possible immediate gratification foresaken.) Or the carefree dvitch in pursuit of immediate gratification ("Buy now, pay later."), who is all too willing to make believe then and there that he is getting your product for no more than his signature on a dotted line. (Yes, of course that is extreme -- for an heuristic purpose.)
Seen from still another angle, it promotes greater tolerance within the electorate for inflationary policies (and their sequelae? The sequelae are in the future, but gratification is now). Inflation is seen as a way to diminish one's obligation through diminution of the value of the units in which a pre-fixed sum is to be paid: One is getting away with something -- or is allowed to think he is getting away with something -- dishonest. All history is inflationary, you say? Granted this is so; but one need not give the runaway vehicle a push to make it go faster.
What I submit to you, Colleagues, are:
[1] The degree to which higher social forces promote use of C O N S U M E R credit -- which is, let us never forget, a vice -- constitutes disloyalty downward from above to the general mass of the citizenry. Consumer credit promotes profligacy: How can one be provident of one's Beloved or oneself, or generous with them whom one loves, if one has been profligate with strangers? (The State will provide? Do not bet on that.)
[2] The degree to which those selfsame high social forces desparage -- or fail adequately to promote -- that virtue which is the antinomy of profligacy, thrift, is itself disloyal, again downward from above, to the general mass of the citizenry. (And, yes, I include in this condemnation semantic sleight-of-hand which mislabels as "investment," something which intrinsically cannot be an investment; in pursuit of selling that "on time.")
[3] Debt does restrict your freedom, by curtailing the resources available to you to exercise your lawful freedom.
Robert Pinkerton
heresiarch@en.com
|
Not Specified (Me1)
New member
Username: Me1
Post Number: 40
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 1:32 am: | |
In the UK there is an unusual aspect of debt and that is house purchase. A couple of decades ago the tax discount combined with high inflation combined with even higher house-price inflation meant that buying a house on credit actually made a net profit and so anyone who could obtain a mortgage did so, and for as much as possible. The situation is not quite so favourable now but still it's the cheapest source of credit available. This fosters the idea that credit is OK when, as you say, it may not be.
But being in debt is not always bad. All commercial organisations run on debt. Any situation where having up-front money allows you to become more profitable (e.g. an artisan buying his tools) is actually a good thing. But you are right that credit is often offered to people who just can't deal with it. |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 454
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 3:10 pm: | |
Dear Me1.
Forgive me if I go all “historic analysis” again, but I just cant stop myself.
I think one underlying consequence of Thatcher’s “property owning society” was to increase peoples underlying level of debt. By taking on a mortgage one is locked into a virtually lifelong commitment; property ownership also imposed pressures that Thatcher believed would increase peoples natural conservatism. For her party, it was a “Win – Win” option, with no direct government costs, it even gave them a new revenue stream. It also made it virtually impossible for later governments to reverse the policy.
People who bought council houses at massive discounts in the late 70s and early 80s, inherently denied such affordable housing to people beginning family life on a restricted income after them. The climate of exponentially rising house prices, we have known ever since, was (at least in part) due to this policy. Some see this policy as liberating and principled; but I believe it was a politically sly move, designed to lock in Tory support for the next 25 years, and it succeeded.
The post war social experiment often called “the cradle to grave Welfare State” had taken decades to build; but Thatcher both demolished and discredited it, in her first 6 years. Today, British attitudes tend towards the American model, not the European one. Our employment regulations and support systems became the weakest in Western Europe; and multinational companies built production plants here for that reason, so it looked fantastic. All this could be seen as strategically sound; but (much like our houses) we mortgaged our future for a short-term economic gain.
Looking rich does not mean living well, but that is the deal we made, and will probably be paying for till the 2050s. Thatcher’s Britain (and we still are) is often presented abroad as an economic success story; but its ordinary people have paid (and will continue to pay) a massive price for that grand façade. Our economy still benefits the few who were already wealthy in the 1960s; everyone else is just working harder, when they can find meaningful work!
In Britain, Robert’s economic “slaves without the benefits”, was the product of following the American economic model that Nixon exemplified. America’s equivalent to the Welfare State (the Democratic policy initiative exemplified by Johnson’s “Great Society”) was lost on the rocks of escalation in Vietnam. A parallel disenchantment with idealistic social thinking in Britain occurred when extreme left wing union militancy wrecked productivity here, which led (in the end) to the three-day week in Heath’s time.
Britain in the 70s, felt rudderless and lost, possibly because we were slowly moving from the European social model to the American one. Bizarrely, we were simultaneously struggling to enter the EEC. A group of nations, which America and Britain had recently saved from Hitler’s idealized super-state (Greater Germany).
The roots of a society in which “slavery without the benefits” (as Robert summed it up) seems to be thriving, run really deep. All the little steps along the way LOOKED logical and safe; but they still brought us here.
---------------------------
Today a British prime minister (in the Labor party) stood up and told us that: “Foreigners who express undesirable religious views, may in future be expelled from the country.” Does any of this sound familiar? Pilgrims, Plymouth Rock, Land of the brave, Home of the Free etc? Have we even one thread of liberty left in here?
When I heard Tony say all that, I thought: “just what western democratic and libertarian principals are we still defending here?” If we still represent a set of social and democratic ideals, which we want the world to respect, how CAN a British government act like this?
I seriously thought of packing my bags tonight, before I’m thrown out for thinking. Not necessarily “thinking like this”, just thinking at all! Surely, it will soon be illegal to do so. It is this trend in western thought that inspires people to take up arms against an oppressive system; or to oppose what that oppressive system is doing to other sovereign states. Terrorism is insidious, and extremely hard to fight effectively; but Tony baby – this is NOT the way to do it!
Sorry – got into my Bill Hicks state of mind there.
Tell me; are there any British people out there who feel shocked to see how far this nation has fallen? I am.
Susan |
Not Specified (Me1)
New member
Username: Me1
Post Number: 41
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 1:56 am: | |
quote:Tell me; are there any British people out there who feel shocked to see how far this nation has fallen?
Yes, I am.
quote:just thinking at all! Surely, it will soon be illegal to do so.
You are wrong. Not "soon" because there are already "thought crimes" on the books, that is to say, there are things that you can do that are illegal or not depending on what you were thinking at the time. Check the smallprint on some of the recent legislation. |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 455
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 4:47 am: | |
I do agree with you; but what legislation are your specifically referring to?
|
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 410
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 12:18 pm: | |
When I put the question of the relationship of individual personal indebtedness to individual vulnerability to external control (02/08/05/2336), I was aiming at laying a foundation for ventilation of an abiding suspicion that I have nurtured for forty years. You English Colleagues have given me material whereon to enlarge that suspicion. (Where are my fellow Americans in this debate? Are they afraid to speak out, either pro or con?) This suspicion is that American employers, by and large but not an across-the-board uniformity, do not really want free employees, and the more power any position wields, the less they want free employees. This leaves aside the desire of a sales manager that his straight-commission employees be "hungry." Independence is the foundation whereon freedom rests; freedom being the clear space between the outer boundary of the compulsory and the outer boundary of the forbidden, within which one can act or not as one wills, insofar as one has power to do so. A person up to the hairline in debt is not free, because his indebtedness gives his employer the "stick" of an instrument of blackmail over him or her: The indebted person must meet a "nut" every month, and the larger the aggregate debt, the harder that "nut" is to crack. If he or she fails to crack that nut? Forget anti-Sicilian ethnic slurs about the loan-shark's collector and his baseball bat: The law gives the creditor all the tools needed to take a delinquent debtor apart.
(In a society wherein custom holds that one "is" the sum of one's possessions and the visible level of one's income, application of the panoply of creditor's remedies becomes the psychological equivalent of skinning the debtor alive. That the custom is so much [expletive deleted], is a valid issue, but a hare to be pursued elsewhere.
(Too, this leaves aside the mafiose methodology of modern slavers -- excuse me, illegal immigrant labor brokers: "It cost us good money to smuggle you here. You must work that debt off, or we will turn you in to la Migra.)
If indebtedness is the "stick," pensions are the "carrot," perpetually held out on teasing terms to the donkey. ("Be a good little donkey, and when you retire, you will get your pension." This is its own can of worms, in consideration of activity by businesses to divest themselves of pension obligations.) This has the additional effect, beneficial to those desiring to curtail employees' freedom and detrimental to the employees in question, of discouraging individual thrift through damning it with faint praise ("You don't have to cut yourself by saving a third of your pay each month; we will do it for you, at much less cost")
Freedom at home starts with free men and women. One is less free in proportion as one is in debt.
Robert Pinkerton
heresiarch@en.com |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 456
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 3:19 pm: | |
The basic thesis of any real employer is: that an employee begins the relationship with an employer in a state of moral indebtedness. "I gave the SOB a job, didn’t I!"
But they conveniently ignore the fact that they actually NEEDED someone to do that job for them, so they could make more money for themselves. However well they’re businesses prosper, their morality starts off and ends up bankrupt. The drive behind a successful business is pure greed.
Susan |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 411
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, August 07, 2005 - 12:55 pm: | |
Greed restrained by conscience is useful both to the individual so motivated, and to the community in which he or she lives. Greed without conscience is anti-social. Computer-driven corporate greed, by definition without a conscience as a computer is not a human brain and a corporation is a legal fiction, is exponentially anti-social; jointly to the society, severally to each individual therein.
One of the major wrong turnings in the life of the American Body Politic, was that Supreme Court decision which held that a corporation is a person at law and entitled to the rights of a person.
Robert Pinkerton
heresiarch@en.com |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 214
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 07, 2005 - 4:26 pm: | |
"One of the major wrong turnings in the life of the American Body Politic, was that Supreme Court decision which held that a corporation is a person at law and entitled to the rights of a person. "
What rights ? They will violate rights at will, which intrinsically identifies them as mere priveledges. What priveledges does a corporation have ? Answer: Whatever it can buy. (hint, more than you or I)
Yes I think you've hit upon something, the very structure of society is antisocial. Thanks for the truth, at least I know enough so that it didn't wreck my day. In my case tolerance does not breed acceptance, it breeds the desire for more weapons, just in case the shit hits the fan in my lifetime.
NCY
|
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 412
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 6:49 am: | |
The ordinary citizen of a country which is dominated by a multi-national corporation, is in a position like that of a straight boy in a boarding school where the biggest bully in the student body (that country's government) is also the headmaster's (the M-NC's) catamite.
Robert Pinkerton
heresiarch@en.com |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 215
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 5:26 pm: | |
Dammit Robert you sent me to the dictionary AGAIN !
catamite eh ?
NCY |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 413
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 7:38 am: | |
Susan, re. yours of 25/07/05/2015, about Brands in marketing: There are social micro-climates in this country wherein the photocopier, regardless of its actual manufacturer, is "the Xerox machine." In that vein, what you say about al Qaeda, "... Osama slapped its bottom when it was born...," is accurate: If he were captured or slain tomorrow, it would make little difference. What we will see as Islamic anti-Western mischief develops, is that phenomenon known to the lunatic-fringe of my country as "leaderless resistance," a.k.a. the "lone nut;" yet what the higher social forces will call it, is "... another al Qaeda outrage..." Loners perhaps, or tiny bands of little folk -- "... Too little to love or to hate..." (Thank you to the second-best of all poets in the English language) -- creating infernal machines in their basements or garages, placing them, and dispersing to melt away back into the woodwork, not even claiming "credit(?)" for their deed.
Conspiracy implies at least a mutual feeling of functional linkage between the perpetrators of a deed (Latin: cum = [prep.] "with;" spirare = [v. int.] "breathe"), if not pyramidal top-down direction from a single or small collective leadership and coordination to act in concerted sequence. Political security agencies and pedestrian prosecutors alike love conspiracy: It is comparatively easier to monitor and track, and it enables roping more people into an indictment for better headlines in the media. But it is far and away more difficult to deal with an amorphous climate of opinion, especially when thinner versions of the same opinion are broadly shared among a large group of people.
Robert Pinkerton
heresiarch@en.com |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 466
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 3:52 pm: | |
Dear DF
A recent article in Time magazine "Closing down LONDONISTAN" (Time Europe 22Aug 2005, page 22) made me cross even before I read the text. You can see part of it here: http://www.time.com/time/europe/html/050822/story.html. I even composed a letter to the editor about it; and began to wonder if my own feelings were any less biased or more balanced that those expressed in the article.
It seems to me that Britain’s mix of nostalgic conservatism (not the Conservative party) and hopeful, if rather dogged, liberalism; is its greatest strength. Following our recent local experience of Terrorism, dramatic media coverage, and rushed government actions may upset that balance.
In attempting to control and catch the tiny groups planning acts of terror, the government may (in practice) alienate the very groups whose help they most need, to defeat those fanatics. Not just by alienating 2.5 million moderate and peaceful Moslems, but also those who are actively liberal or libertarian in their outlook; which is both very dangerous for, and destabilising of, our national character.
Western society is pluralist, cosmopolitan, outward looking and generally optimistic; it embraces technology and development, but balances it with (at least some) environmental and humanitarian concerns. As such, all societies are becoming like ours. The massive Chinese experiment with “enterprise culture” is transforming their politics in ways that people power never could; this trend is visible in India and other cultures. In the long term, the western social model may become the global one.
Inequality, unfairness, biased foreign policy and protectionism; mesh together and increase global human divisions. The western model, applied with sensitivity to human and environmental matters, could push things the other way. I hope that this trend will slowly drain power from the supporters of extremism, in all its forms.
Our survival depends on unity and peace, but peace is so fragile. It depends on that shared outward view, which sees us as one species living on a small vulnerable planet with diminishing resources, and no place to run.
Do you on the DF agree?
P.S. If you find my connection to the Time article tenuous, I apologise; a lot of thinking went on after I read it.
Susan |
The cynic (Cynic)
New member
Username: Cynic
Post Number: 113
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 8:03 pm: | |
Concerning hoplophobia:
I find it terribly amusing that the word hoplophobia is used to describe "fear of firearms." Apparently, it's derived from hoplon, which refers to the armor worn by a hoplite-- a greek soldier armed with a sword and spear. Note the lack of missile weapons. Perhaps bows were considered cowardly. Note also that the hoplite's equipment was designed for battle, and not for self defense-- it would have been far too bulky to wear on a constant basis. |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 236
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 11:24 pm: | |
Susan;
No hard feelings, but your reference has ousted me from this thread. To justify ?, by what ? words ?.
I understand and I already knew. I must recuse myself, I simply can't take anymore. I know much, and have known too much for too long. I told people this shit was coming decades ago, but they were busy with their cars and kids and vacations.
I didn't even get into CBs until I gave up on the world. Now I think EVERYBODY, no exceptions, should be belted or somehow prevented from reproducing, not just kids. The problem will solve itself.
Some supposedly devout Christians I know fuck everybody they can, but it's OK because they are forgiven. It is not for some external being to forgive what has been done to me, that is MY perogative.
Until the rest of us can concieve plans in a multi-generational form, we will never beat the powers that be. Mark those words, they are the truest words you have ever read. The people who really control the world did not get there overnight, that is, in one generation.
That is the reason that it was in their best interest to destroy the nuclear family. Things come clear. Why else ? Please tell me, convince me that I'm wrong, and PUUUUULLLLLEEEEAAAAZZZEEE DO NOT ask me who "they" are. If you don't know, go on and read some other thread.
We know who they are, but I know HOW they are.
T |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 237
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 10:43 am: | |
After reading a certain email I'm prompted to state:
Nothing has offended me here but I just need a break from politics. I'll be back, but for now I'd like to think about something other than politics/religion/society.
I'm hoping something comes to me with which to start an interesting thread, or maybe I'll resurrect some old thread. Failing that perhaps I'll work on my book.
I'll be baaack.
Best to all.
T |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 419
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 10:39 am: | |
Hand-grenade with the safety-spoon sprung away?
I respectfully propose that a reasonable regimen of abortion is [1] the patient's unexamined discretion up to the end of the first trimester of her pregnancy; but [2] once into the second trimester et seq., only and for no other reasons than [A] to relieve a physical threat to the patient's life if her pregnancy were carried to term or [B] if prenatal tests indicate overwhelming probability that the resultant child would be born severely deformed (not excluding mental retardation). This was the judgment of my late second fiancee's father for whether or not he would do an abortion, before Roe vs. Wade. Further, he would not do an abortion unless all his patient's faculties were aligned in favor: The slightest reservation on her part was an insuperable contra-indication on his part. He recognized that probably he was killing a human being by aborting the pregnancy of the girl or woman who was his patient. His sole peg whereon to hang justification, was compassionate homicide.
Now compassionate homicide may seem a bloody-handed contradiction in terms to those who postulate that hope is an unconditional virtue. He knew there existed hopeless situations, and he believed that sending an uninformed and unconsenting person into such was on the bottom of the abyss of cruelty. Indeed, the vilest cruelty that can exist among sentient beings, is to raise false hope.
(It was his second wife who persuaded him to begin doing the occasional abortion, with harrowing imagery.
([1] There existed an obstetric delivery room at Auschwitz. Although it was in the camp laundry building rather than in the camp clinic, it was kept in the degree of surgically sterile sanitations one would expect of any German medical facility. But when a pregnant female inmate delivered, the infant was immediately thrown alive into the laundry-boiler furnace. Would not an abortion be kinder all around?
([2] Both the Doctor and Erika were devout cat-people. Erika asked her husband to consider the all-too-common case in which a veternarian euthanized every kitten in an unwanted litter directly it was born. Again, would not abortion be kinder, the earlier the better?)
Persuasion needs a substrate to which to connect. In his case, before he even became a physician, the Doctor did his Second World War in the Office of Strategic Services, as a field officer behind Nazi lines. OSS field personnel were issued suicide pills, and for the best of reasons. If the GeStaPo had caught him, after they had wrung out every secret their torturers could reach, he would have been burned alive in a furnace -- and this last is all too literal. (IMHO, the CIA should have issued "final friends" to Pyotr Semyonovich Popov and Oleg Vladimirovich Penkovskii. The KGB and the "Political" [internal security] Department of the GRU had taken over as successors in business to the GeStaPo.) Now granted, the above cases are heuristically extreme. For something more mundane, consider the enduring pain of a child who must grow up under the cloud of being unwanted by one parent or both parents. Consider the pain both experienced by, and caused by, an illegitimate child. As much as the tender-minded might object and/or deny, there do exist cases, in mundane, quotidian Western life, in which death is the preferable alternative.
Still, it is essential to bring out front, blatant enough that only the self-blindered can deny it, that he H A T E D doing abortions. He categorically refused to take any payment for those that he did, considering such payment to be blood money. Too, he and his wife carefully followed up every abortion with comprehensive post-operative counseling aimed at preventing repeat business. Simply extrapolating from what I learned of him, I believe that if he were alive today he would be appalled and disgusted by "partial-birth" abortion, condemning it as infanticide.
The problem is political, between a "Religious Right" that unconditionally condemns all abortion (Do they want to use fear of unwed pregnancy as a chastity device?) and the opposite extreme that wants to sanctify all abortion. These extremes are in white-hot contention, each fearing that any concession to reason is the other side's "camel's nose in the tent."
Robert Pinkerton
heresiarch@en.com |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 253
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 11:38 am: | |
"The problem is political, between a "Religious Right" that unconditionally condemns all abortion (Do they want to use fear of unwed pregnancy as a chastity device?) "
I don't think so. The religious are too hung up on death for anything like that. Fire and brimstone are the tricks of their trade, almost universally.
Those who support abortion on demand, almost to the point that they would like to see it dispensed from vending machines on every corner, are just as bad.
Neither side is seeing the big picture. Feminism is as much an oxymoron as multiculturalism, that is it destroys it's roots. Feminists want the sexes to be the same, except in cases where it suits them. The people who shove multiculturalism down others' throats are the most racist and xenophobic on the planet (and for good reason).
The article referred to by Mr. Pinkerton was most enlightening on the issue of gun control, but it's content has, I believe, a much broader context. The article explains how people can hold irrational views so dearly and how to go about trying to enlighten them. The "Religious Right" crowd, however, poses a much greater challenge. Believe me I have tried. Fighting people's misconceptions of the world is bad enough, but when you have to fight their displaced and misguided faith the job is practically insurmountable.
Frustrating to say the least. The Time magazine article was not harmful to me, but thinking of the millions of sheeple who read it and embraced it's reasoning for global conquest is disturbing to me. Those of you who have read me and read me as a hard Man who makes judgements and is capable of looking someone right in the eye before blowing their head off have read me correctly. I do care a great deal about the world though, and those blown off heads must be chosen very carefully. Drastic ?, take a look at Iraq and Afganistan.
By order of the US government dead soldiers' photographs can't be shown in the media. Why ? I see the manipulation and while I admire it's execution, it is the most vile and nasty thing on this planet.
I have some interesting pictures and articles which I will soon make public in my FTP space, perhaps they can help people understand why I took a hiatus from this subject. I'm back now, I'm OK you're OK. It really is the world that is all wrong.
I'll put the links to said articles here as soon as I get them uploaded, have a look and perhaps you will need a hiatus from the subject.
These articles will be scans of newspaper clips, and I guess I'll be violating some copyrights, but I seriously doubt the owners will prosecute, most of the articles were written by people who care about the state of the world.
Sometimes I wish I didn't.
T |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 421
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 12:17 pm: | |
All that abortion is, is only and nothing other than a last-resort necessary evil -- equal accent on both necessary and evil. Contraceptives can and do fail, even when the user thereof perfectly understands the method of application for the contraceptive used. It must always be lawfully accessible to those who are unconditionally airtight certain that absolutely they do not want to bear a child -- within that window of opportunity that closes and bricks over at the end of the first trimester.
-------------------------
In reply to Termy Nator (in Machette [sic] for the thornbushes, initial post in the thread), "... we must spread intelligence," I offer the two links below:
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/index.htm
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1153
But it begins earlier than that: The beginning of education is literacy. Too, Western and Western-Asiatic languages are alphabetic rather than ideographic (e.g., including but not limited to: Chinese and Japanese). The beginning of learning to read, is learning one's letters. This requires memorization drill -- "Drill and kill," say advocates of "Progressive" "education(?)," and/or the "whole-language" ([simper] "But that word isn't on the grade-approved vocabulary list.") method.
(Educate comes from the Latin "e" [preposition meaning out of or from] and "ducere" [transitive verb meaning (to) lead: to lead from. From what, you say? From or out of the darkness of ignorance. I think that, at street -- useful idiot -- level, most advocates of so-called "Progressive" "education[?]" believe that "[simper, eyes shining with dewy tears of joy] Oh, the fweedom of the natch-u-wal child ith jutht tho beau-u-utiful!" [I wish that were a parody, but I did hear that sentiment, in that tone of voice, delivered by a female whose mind was totally scrambled by "progressives" in her university.] And above street level, in lofty panelled boardrooms?
(Too, let us look for a moment at this adjective, "progressive." It, too, derives from Latin, specifically the intransitive deponent second-conjugation verb, "progradior," which means [to] go forward. At least three possible construals arise:
[1] Toward a goal. [This raises the question of, "Why that goal?"]
[2] Away from a point of departure. [Which raises the question of "Why leave?"]
[3] Continued motion in the direction wherein one's nose is pointing. [indifferent to blind alleys and/or pitfalls? It is "politically 'correct'" to pass in silence over the role of self-identified "Progressives" in getting Prohibition enacted, and the immensity of the debt owed by Hitler's eugenic legislation to American "progressives."] The word was a trendy buzz-word in many departments of public life in the early part of the last century; and it was appropriated by the political Left as a replacement label for other, truer, labels that had acquired widespread negative connotation in the public at large [e.g.: Communist, Socialist, etcetera].)
It begins with the parents: Do they intellectually stimulate the child? Do they encourage the child's intellectual growth -- and at the child's own speed, rather than according to an ulterior agenda predicated upon arbitrarily-determined age-norm or "peer adjustment" considerations? If the child is intellectually precocious, let his or her peers grow up to him or her. I have advocated elsewhere in this forum, that sex-education courses for adolescents should include broad and deep instruction in the craft of parenting. Carrying forward from that, I now respectfully suggest that instruction in the craft of parenting should include instruction in recognition of reading readiness and instruction in teaching another person how to read. Literacy is the beginning. Without it, in today's society, one is equivalent to an ambulatory quadruplegic cretin.
Robert Pinkerton
heresiarch@en.com |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 254
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 5:27 pm: | |
Robert;
I must admit, you would do well in the 25th century, at least in my book alot more people would understand you. You use the English language so precisely, I'm sure many read you slowly. Those who move their lips are lost. On to brass tacks.
There is a special talent some Parents have, they almost exploit the child's inquisitive nature. My Parents had such talent, and even though I'm engaged in an argument with my Father, I do not reconsider my respect for him. This will pas, but what won't is my knowledge.
I am almost totally self educated, when I asked Mom what a word meant I was given the finger, pointing to a bookshelf with a couple of dictionaries and a science encylopedia.
This thing was called the Young People's Science Encyclopedia. It is by far the best thing I've ever seen. I have a later version I bought at a garage sale, sans the first three volumes. If I took over the world I would insist that such books were in the home for every child.
More later.
T |
TM (Tom)
New member
Username: Tom
Post Number: 93
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 9:01 pm: | |
"Fighting people's misconceptions of the world is bad enough, but when you have to fight their displaced and misguided faith the job is practically insurmountable."
... hmmm... Wouldn't this equally apply to a humanist view of the world? At what point do any of us become entrenched in our views? And wherein is the source of our certainty of righteousness and / or "correctness"?
As I've mentioned off-line to Mr. Pinkerton, regrettably (for me) I've been way too busy of late to commit time to this particular dialog. But I did want to at least weigh-in on this point; it seems that as we age we all become susceptible to "hardening of the strategies"... irrespective of our value base.
TM |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 255
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 2:16 pm: | |
"And wherein is the source of our certainty of righteousness and / or "correctness"? "
Results. For example those who support the war in Iraq. I respect and support the troops but the war is dead wrong.
Actions. Who is lying, the government. The war mongers.
Profit. Who is gaining through the use of these lies ?
I don't consider my views humanist or anything-ist except maybe real-ist. The direction the world has taken is not good. That is a judgement. I agree with what you say, hardening of the strategies is upon us all, but I have stood corrected and eaten a bit of crow.
Years ago I tried to be a Christian, but not now. Not to quote Mr. Pinkerton, but to reliterate something he said, I am not a child nor a sheep. I make judgements. They may say judge not lest ye be judged, well judge me. If there is indeed some sort of judgement day after my corporeal life I welcome this judgement and will have some hell to pay, but I will be fine with that as long as the rich neoconservative plutocrats get theirs.
I would also like to see as many of them get theirs here too, let their children grow up in an evironment that's been polluted with depleted urainium, like it will be in Iraq for quite some time.
Ground troops do what they gotta do, but I wonder how well bomber pilots sleep at night after attacking civilians from a plane in a country with practically no defense against air strikes. Notice whenever a politician get to a high office, if they were in the military they were either a pilot or in a militia, rather than being the guy that has to dodge bullets. Maybe a General or something, anything. I'd actually like to see a President who was a seargent. In battle that is, not a DI at a training camp.
I could be wrong, but I doubt very many of our politician's sons are in Iraq. These people are so isolated from the consequences they cause, no wonder they do what they do. I'm thinking now about my ex-boss, who I hung up on twice during a political discussion. Kerry is a baby killer. Shit, look over in Iraq if you want to see baby killing, don't bother, HOPEFULLY they'll send YOUR son to help out. Then he can come back with lung cancer after never having smoked a cigarette.
He was the one who asked me who was filling MY head with this crap. This from a guy who payed me more than himself to do a highly technical job. The crap in my mind made him alot of money. But the preacher told him so I am wrong, actually he didn't verbally accuse me of being brainwashed, but I could hear it coming.
So who is brainwashed ? YOU be the judge. Guess what, doesn't it seem that those who support the "do not judge" doctrine are sometimes doing something wrong ? After you find out several similar judgements have been correct, then you are prejudiced, and this is why I think that "they haven't all been caught YET". Unfortunately I am probably right.
T |
TM (Tom)
New member
Username: Tom
Post Number: 94
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 10:47 pm: | |
TN,
We are agreed that there is much injustice in the world. And I agree that it is an issue worth being angry about... perhaps more than all others.
So where do we find "justice"? Who is the keeper of it? Who defines it? Is it within us, or outside of us?
Personally, and it is only my view-- one among many-- I see little value in placing my hope in humanity. That is not to say that many individuals or groups of individuals do not do great things; clearly they do. But at the same time, we repeatedly see our institutions-- created and run by individuals-- come up short. It would seem that there is a message in this.
Susan often talks of "greed" being the root cause of many of the world's ills. I, and I'm sure most others, would agree with her on this point. But in various ways, expressed on an individual basis in each person's own unique way, is this not a common trait that we all share?
If the yardstick by which we measure is "results", then who's definition of "results" shall we use? And... only for the sake of argument... what if there exists a peaceful, thriving, democracy in Irag 10-years from now? Would that suggest that, in hindsight, the cause was dead right?
Please note, I am neither promoting a Christian perspective nor any other religious or humanist perspective. Nor am I promoting a "do not judge" doctrine. We all have our views, including me, and the beauty of being a part of a free nation is that we are then both entitled and allowed to hold those views.
I was simply calling attention to the seemingly implicit irony and contradiction in the comment:
"Fighting people's misconceptions of the world is bad enough, but when you have to fight their displaced and misguided faith the job is practically insurmountable."
For society to function, people must be heard, in that context, such views must cut both ways.
TM |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 258
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 6:46 pm: | |
"what if there exists a peaceful, thriving, democracy in Irag 10-years from now? Would that suggest that, in hindsight, the cause was dead right? "
Saddam wouldn't have been there without the US meddling. Also, do you mean that the end justifies the means ? Even if that means is against our own law ? Then I propose a real solution.
1. Kill all the politicians except Ron Paul and maybe Tom Tancredo.
2. Establish a free state and execute or banish everyone below a certain IQ level, as judged by our tests, not the standard ones.
3. Aim our bombs and temporarily sever all ties with the outside world and work together to build a good society for our progeny. This means reviving the industrial sector and becoming self sufficient.
That is exactly what people THINK our tax dollars are doing in Iraq, but it is light years from the truth. Therefore the ends that even the least optimistic on the subject of Iraq wil never see.
Show me a Presidential candidate with jeans and a T shirt, not too good looking. He should swear and fart at least once during a speech. Politicians claim that they don't have to represent those who don't vote, but should they not represent those who voted against them ? If so, non voters are only ½ as bad right ? NO they should represent all of their constituents, but sadly today they represent almost none.
That result is death, death of our soldiers, death of Iraqi children, death of our economy, death of our former level of international respect and ultimately the death of our society.
Those are the type of results of which I wrote.
"For society to function, people must be heard, in that context, such views must cut both ways. "
The quoted paragraph above that was in referral to a discussion with one who said to me "Who has been filling your head with this crap". Absolute refusal to hear me. It went against what his preacher told him. I was not heard. Recalling parts of this discussion at times proves that he was heard, and I know this guy, he put everything I said straight out of his mind and probably prayed for the strength to do it. I've known him well over a decade, and I have no problem with his method of dealing with hard stress, which is to pray. This is also someone who believes that he was blessed with every dollar he earns, all credit goes to God.
I submit this, if you can externalize (or project) your successes, you will of course do the same with your failures and mistakes. This is a recipe for extinction.
OK let's assume the country goes on the way it has for the past few decades. A few decades from now 44% of all girls between the ages of 10 and 17 have more than one child, and their Parents are very young and uneducated.
Would you vote for FGM or chastity belts ?
Would you favor opening an abortion clinic with one with one mandatory feature, free tubal ligation with every abortion except in the case of rape. Not even incest ! I would literally work more to be able to donate to such an organisation.
I guess I'm admitting that in some cases the end justifies the means, but what ends are we after ? Iraq could never attacked us and never tried, although our "ally" Israel attacked one of our recon ships in 1967 simply to prevent it from reporting what they were doing. (the USS Liberty)
Our ally Russia, when they were the fulcrum of the Soviet empire looked like an enemy, but what really was going on is they fooled the People into supporting massive military spending. I think there is a definite possibility that the US and Soviet governments were in collusion on this.
Ever wonder what screwed up the industrial base of the US economy ? I don't, foreign money, old money, BIG BIG money. They or their agents bought the US. Come on, at least we used to export weapons, now our military is using foreign made weapons in some cases.
When was the last time you saw an American made product with all American made parts ? We invented the transistor for ______'s sake !, now we can't build a TV (which we are first or second in inventing), even a radio, they are even importing paint stirring sticks !
Robert's post above has two links, the second one is pretty good. It reads pretty fast and explains what happened to academia in this country and links to the author's books and other articles. It's worth a look. This completes the picture that BIG BIG, old money is trying to destroy this country, when taken with everything else you've had to swallow about the shortcomings of this once great nation.
The People of this great nation used to know the value of a dollar (about a nickel now) and a day's work. They were taught and knew that if you wanted job security you had to give the boss an honest day's work or get fired, or worse cause the company to fail and cause everyone to be out of a job. Strange, It's almost as if people cared about each other isn't it ?
How we got here is essential for future leaders to know, to effectively reverse the process (as much as possible), but plans and strategies are way more important. We don't have 40 miles of bad road, we have 40 centuries of bad road, and we have to drive in reverse.
I think some, not all, Christians pray for selfish reasons. If I believed, I would pray for something else. Now, I don't have delusions of grandeur, but I was thinking a long time ago, on a few beers, what if I were Christ and this is the second coming ? I don't pretend that it's true but I'm thinking of Him (capitalisation out of respect for Christians) meeting with the People of one nation and them telling Him about their troubles with their neigbors. He might say "What would you have me do ? They're people just like you, yes they are different, but I imagine they would want me to kill you, why don't I do that instead ?".
What would you have me do ? If I were a fictional character from the 25th century, but had come back and brought all kind of superior technology and take over the world in a few hours, what would you have me do ? Before I did anything I would have to destroy my link to my own time, but then it's asskicking time.
What do you think I would do ? I know exactly what I would do in a position of such power, and the morality of doing so is at issue. If I have the technology obviously the world righted itself somehow, The elimination of the enormous human suffering in the interim could be the only moral justification.
If we had people in the goverment who thought this way we wouldn't be in this mess. Cause and effect. This fantasising is just that. We can control the future, but we must do it from the present. Those with their own agenda take the ability to make significant changes from us more and more, wouldn't you ?.
Conspiracy theory ? Look at the results and think backwards.
Robert called this "Path Into The Thornbushes", and now I know why.
T |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 438
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 10:09 am: | |
The logical sequelae of buying into conspiracy theory, are either
[1] attempting by all means to adjoin oneself to, and fall into step with, the high conspirators, in order to reap whatever earthly rewards that may entrain; or
[2] abjectly to surrender and retreat into political nonexistence, hoping that one's head is far enough down that, when the shit hits the fan, one will not get splattered.
Where TN, http://www.savethemales.ca, and others of like ilk see conspiracy, I see the accumulation of human error and the decay-byproducts thereof over many decades, some of it malignant, to be sure, but much of it well-intentioned as it is ill-conceived and vice versa. A sincere fool can do greater damage than a conscientious saboteur; and when aforesaid sincere fool is under stress? Katy, bar the door! Likewise when like-minded sincere fools gather to act in concert.
I believe the demise of the United States as a corporate entity, shall occur in this century. After that? The Gods might know; but They are notorious for keeping Their Mouths shut, or speaking in the vaguest ambiguity -- provided the claimant at hearing Them, is not psychotic in the first place. I count myself fortunate that my present incarnation is due to expire by natural causes within the forthcoming twenty years; and I wish to stay discarnate for many years to come after that. The kindest thing that could happen to a child today, is not to be conceived in the first place; second-kindest after that, is to be aborted in utero directly the pregnancy manifests.
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@en.com
|
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 500
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 3:21 pm: | |
Dear Robert (and other DF members)
Despite my innate pessimism, I can’t share Robert’s last negative sentiment. Humanity has misused this planet in numerous ways; driven by natural desires to create a technology, which far exceeds our wisdom in using it. But that is not the end of the process or the story.
A child born several hundred years ago, at the time of the Black Death, might well consider itself cursed. Yet if it survived, or even contributed to other people’s survival, it opened the way to some positive human progress. That great plague led, in some measure, to better social and economic systems. Eventually their descendants ventured beyond our atmosphere and opened the road to the stars.
So what? One might well say. Well, I humbly submit, that Life (possibly any kind of life) is of greater value to me, because it overcomes our fragility and weakness to prosper and strive for understanding. Our very mortality drives us to understand, to know and enjoy, in the process of discovery, the many wonders this small planet has to offer us. From this tiny place, we have sought to plum the depths of time and space; to rejoice in the way that light reveals living things to us. In paint, words, sculpture and philosophy; we continually express our yearning for the new, and the newly revealed eternal things, of our universe.
Sure, America may split into component states, human greed may kill off 60% of those now living and leave us with undreamt of challenges to our survival. But our fragility and fallibility IS both our greatest teacher, and our most profound lesson. Should humanity survive to live among the stars in peace (or conflict) with other species from other stars; our story will still only be at the beginning. A child born now may play a part in reaching out to that future; or recording our current misdeeds. Either way, that child’s future is not empty, or without benefit; the future IS our home; and better still for being unknown and strange to us. Basically I would not want it any other way; would you?
Susan (Builder) |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 287
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 9:54 pm: | |
"Sometimes that which is the most hard to say, is the hardest to say, and might be the most important thing to say".
Jeffrey Thomas Urban
It doesn't mean that in racialist or racist terms, I mean the human race. We must all face facts, forget the dream of having five kids. If it keeps up we are all doomed. That is the way it is.
Chastity.
If that doesn't work, abortion.
If that doesn't work, infanticide.
If that doesn't work, execution or genocide.
And when that all doesn't work, euthanasia.
We can all see it's not a pretty path. The path to survival has always been through death. Death of what you eat or death or your emenies, doesn't matter. The path to survival is the death of anything but you. Has been from the dawn of time and will be until the dusk of time. No question about it.
In a way I guess I go along with Crowley and his crowd, as long as it hurts none, do as thou wilt. Now some people take that fearfully, as witcraft or some other nonsense. It is clear to me that ANY witchraft or sorcery that actually works is something we have not fully tapped in our own minds, clairvoyance is as simple as having good insight. There is nothing supernatural. Never was.
If indeed you get to the "pearly gates and St. Peter is indeed ther waiting for you to answer for your sins, it is still not supernatural. I wonder what he says to Buddists. Never hurt anyone but going to burn for not believing. IfI was next in line I would get out of line. I would want to go to the other place.
Higher technology has often been mistaken for the supernatural throughout history.
People in general will do this again, mark my words. They totally disregard what makes, and has made their lives possible in the first place.
Genocide ? Fuck that, how about idiotocide !
Or is that too politically incorrect, now ??
That will change my friends, that will change. And people wonder why I recused myself from this thread for a time.
Tough times require tough action, and it ain't coming soon. Enjoy the ride. Down.
T |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 585
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 03, 2006 - 5:58 pm: | |
The thorn bushes are back!
In Europe a new conflict is rising. Recently, a cartoon in a Danish paper depicted Mohamed in a derogatory way. This image was reprinted in other European newspapers (though not in Britain). Protests and threats of violence from Moslems all over Europe and the Middle East followed.
Today Europe is largely secular, almost totally democratic, embracing freedom of religion, freedom of speech as well as freedom from racial, religious and political oppression. All of this came the hard way; a big chunk of it was due to the allied defeat of Hitler in 1945. Peaceful protest is generally accepted here, but violence, and the treat of violence, is somewhat discouraged.
Ever since the war, migrants came to Europe to obtain the kind of personal freedom and economic prosperity that was established here. Though I understand the Islamic sensitivity we see today; such threats of violence should never be tolerated; events have shown us that they can be quite real. A minority of political activists are fostering racial and religious divisions, in order to build personal power and progress their own political causes. Religion is just a tool for them; and disillusioned youth is their cannon fodder.
These events may seem pathetic and transient; but I assure you, they are not! Unresolved divisions from Europe’s distant past are being reawakened, driving us into bloody conflict. Thirty years of economic problems, the importance of oil in our economy and the ecological damage we have done, will all play a part in this; but at its heart is the battle for ideas and freedom that made, and sustained, the modern world.
I know Americans look to 9-11 as starting point of this conflict, but it probably started over a century before that. Sometime during the 19th century, the decreasing value of raw materials and the impact of mass production, transformed our world. Europe and America are no longer shaping the future; China and resurgent Islam are. The Chinese have a curse “May you live in interesting times.” I think they have begun.
Susan |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 455
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 1:20 am: | |
Susan, I could not agree more with you. You present the point from a different perspective than mine, and you presented it with admirable eloquence.
The allotment of years of the Body Politic that is the United States of America, is approaching its natural-cause termination, "death," degringolade (a slow, slithery coming-apart). That Body Politic is debilitated right now, the cumulative effect of several different life-shortening vices beginning to catch up with it more than one chicken coming home to roost at the same time. It is not now equal to world-historical conflict; and it cannot be made equal to world-historical conflict in time to prevail against this century's coming turmoil. The Body Politic shall perish in this century; although whether it shall perish through its several regions becoming its separate regions, or through its Elite giving up sovereignty to some world governing body, is anyone's guess.
The United Nations is a schoolboys' masturbating club with fancy clubhouses in a few fashionable venues. It is an assemblage of governments, which means of State personnel and the socio-economic elite of its member States. At least some, if not most, of these governments would not be in power if their citizens had the right to keep and bear arms. Too, a significant minority of those States practice criminal jurisprudence of a nature abhorrent to anyone conversant with Anglo-American civil liberties. I do believe that one can trust the United Nations abidingly and implicitly -- to nurture a plethora of indecent designs on the lawful and customary liberties of us common citizens, in every area of life it can reach. Appropriation of sovereignty of the separate States of the world by that organization, would be a world-historical tragedy for centuries to come.
Fortunately -- or at least so I believe -- my present incarnation is due to expire from natural causes between ten to fifteen years hence. I have never engendered a child, and I have been clinically certain of my own sterility for the last thirty-one. This means that the chaos of this century, shall not touch flesh of mine.
But as long as I am still alive? Life is serious and it is earnest: Because we are adults, let us enjoy it for squarely that reason. However, just because life is serious and earnest, that does not mean it needs to be grim.
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 586
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 5:12 am: | |
In a tiny place (even by British standards) called Coalbrookdale several things came together in the 1760s. Easy access to coal, iron ore, timber, waterpower and water borne transport (along the river Severn to the sea). This place is often called the cradle of the industrial revolution. At that time, Britain was becoming a modern Imperial power. It adopted the Roman model of inclusiveness, trade and local infrastructure development; which opened up new markets; suddenly there was an explosive demand for goods and the cheap raw materials needed to produce them. This trend soon spread throughout the world; transforming it, through international trade and rapid industrial growth.
Coalbrookdale was a brief flowering. It’s limitations in resources and transport caused it to be abandoned only a few decades later. At its centre stands that symbol of progress “the Iron Bridge”. Completed by Abraham Darby in 1779, to prove it COULD be done. Its dovetail and pegged joints would have been familiar to any carpenter from the previous three millennia; but its material, changed the world. Within 70 years, cast and wrought iron were replaced by steel. A new breed of engineers and inventors transformed the way people lived, worked and died.
We stand at the endpoint of that chain of events; industrialisation has profoundly shaped our history. Humanity is now faced with cleaning up the mess those events have made; but we are not doing it. In China, industrialisation is alive and well, feeding on the last outpouring of consumer culture, and wricking the environment in the process. Mao once told Stalin that atomic war did not worry him: “Why worry about the death of millions?” he said, “I have billions to spare.” That “imperial” mindset remains today; in fact it is widespread in the corporate world. They don’t care about future generations; humanity itself means nothing to them. That failure of morality and vision is the last nail in our cultural coffin; the people in charge don’t care about us any more; but we follow them anyway.
Resurgent Islam (the current secular western bogyman) clouds our thinking. Napoleon predicted that China would one day arise and dominate the world; it is already beginning to. Every resource that maintains the western secular outlook, and way of life, is under threat. Half your technical possessions carry the “made in China” label; soon they all will. China is already becoming the worlds’ greatest energy consumer and its biggest polluter.
America is often blamed for the failure of Kyoto; but I see the vast increase in Chinese owned US treasury stock; and wonder who is really pulling the strings NOW. Iran and others have threatened to start trading oil in Euros, ending the petrodollar monopoly on oil. If that happens Americans may see their currency drop like a stone, as the pound did when it dropped off the gold standard.
My friends in British Engineering feel that this country is finished! Even its potential in technological development is being thrown away. North sea oil and gas covered the cracks for a time; but soon our gas will come from Russia and our economy will be enslaved. The same problems beset most of Europe; our paper based trade barriers are not going to protect us. The new world powers will probably prop us up, as a market to be preserved, not as a power in our own right.
Reagan and others spoke of “a new world order” in which America was the only superpower. I really think that was very misguided. Real wealth, trading power, manufacturing dominance and fiscal solidity are absolute requirements for long-term military strength. America’s military and intelligence spending is unsustainable; just look what it did to Russia, and be afraid. A few favoured sons of right wing politicians are rolling in cash right now; but the cash WILL run out. In time, that spending will be seen as a criminal swindle, the deceiving of a generation. It will transform American politics in the generation that follows, but they will be poor and powerless.
Long ago a new people came to America, bringing with them the technology of the Clovis Point. This tiny technological “edge” (sorry, cant resist it) may have caused the extinction of several species. Those people thrived, dominating their continent, then came 1492 and another change. Nothing is permanent, cultures come and go; great ideas are lost and new ones found. Survival is a matter of flexibility, clear thinking and the sizing of opportunity. As successful cultures, we have all done this in the past; we must learn how to do so again.
Susan |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 587
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 9:59 am: | |
Please see this link regarding the attack on the embassies in Syria. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4681294.stm
There are also links covering most of the issues (from a BBC perspective).
I think the Danes were naive about those cartoons; but I also think Moslems who behave this way don’t belong in a civilised society.
|
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 351
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 3:51 pm: | |
The Salmon Rushdie death warrant is another point on which we probably totally agree.
I give great pause before judging Arab actions. I am the first to question how those pushing a button are heroes while suicide bombers are cowards. I have a problem when they try to apply their standards to us. I admit that the US and England have been pushing their standards down the Arabs' throats for quite some time, and foist Women's sufferage down their throat as well. This is wrong, the Rushdie warrant is just as wrong, and attacking in any way for some cartoon depicting something offensive to them fits right in there.
The irony of it is (there's that word again) you can't really fault the Arabs for certain things they do, and if there wasn't so much animousity they could possibly be made to understand tolerance, that is if they got any tolerance from the US, England and Israel. To speak to them about this I would mention something to the effect that they had "stooped to the level".
If they want to control the media in their country, so be it, but this is not.
Don't ge me wrong, I'm not trying to sell you on Arabs. They are just as imperfect as their enemies, but IMO, a shade more moral. The people depicted on the bbc (above) were radicals no doubt, and any religion taken to zealousity is bad, and that definitely includes Judeo-Christian faiths as well.
One can only hope that what goes around comes around.
T |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 588
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 05, 2006 - 4:06 am: | |
Creating and maintaining a practical moral balance in society is very difficult.
The problem with all "human rights" is that enforcing some of them often means contravening others. In other words, the process of civil government calls for value judgements, which can never be absolute. Defending the majority may well offend a minority; but reversing this makes major long-term conflict inevitable.
In America; the Bill of rights and constitution attempt to set limits on these judgements; but even these limits get moved, as the world changes. In Britain (which has no written constitution or bill of rights) the government has repeatedly bowed to minority pressure, because that minority was militant, religious and racial. In America, a hard line religious minority are setting the public policy agenda; governing a broadly secular majority. If this trend continues, the liberty and freedoms of the majority in both countries will suffer. Prospective tyranny is never announced; so it must be constantly opposed.
Susan |
Martin S. (Rabiator)
New member
Username: Rabiator
Post Number: 1
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 05, 2006 - 1:33 pm: | |
Delurking after quite a long time...did not expect to do it in the political thread ;-)
In answer to Susan's long term predictions:
I think you are correct in assuming that China has to be taken far more seriously than Islam radicals in the Arab countries. The latter will pose a moderate threat as long as they are in power and the Middle East Oil remains important, but China is a far greater power, both in economic and military terms.
In the long run, I think the most pressing problem will be finding a substitute for the dwindling reserves of fossil fuels. Nations that do that successfully will have quite an advantage in the global power game. I think the most likely candidates among the great players to make it first are the EU, China and the USA, in that order. All of them have a sufficient technology base to tackle the technical problems, with China maybe being a bit behind.
Politically, I see the USA hampered by the large influence of the oil industry. As a result, they might fall behind and have to buy the tech from others when the oil is really running out, despite their current position as high-tech nation.
|
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 352
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 05, 2006 - 9:11 pm: | |
Martin;
Welcome to the thread, and the world I guess.
Yes there is a problem with the Islam radicals, but NOW there seems to be a growing problem with the the Islam non-radicals. Go figure.
As far as China goes you said a mouthfull. With Moskit 2 missiles (or possibly better) we have no defense. No "coalition" force does, even the posessors of this weapon cannot defend against it, it flies faster then Mach 2 at 60 feet altitude.There are even better missiles now, but you won't hear about it on the evening news.
China owns enough Tbills and US securities to almost kill us with the stroke of the pen. This is because our politicians sold us out.
The lack of fossil fuels will hit us hard, but we will survive.
Nations that are owned (properly referred to as ogliarchies) generally have governments opposed to alternative energy.
Your last sentence says it all. When you realize the war in Iraq was not for oil, then you might begin to understand. I don't mean to say that you don't, but there is a much more sinister and nasty reason for why the world is the way it is.
Most people are not ready for it.
T |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 589
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 06, 2006 - 1:41 am: | |
History, Tactics, Technology and Terror
World War 1 introduced the element of air combat and ground support to industrialised warfare. Together with the development of tanks, air power was seen as a way to break the deadlock of trench warfare; in some measure it succeeded. During the interwar years, military planners believed that “the bomber will always get through”; making conventional war obsolete. During WW2 Guderian proved that a combination of armour, air support and the principal of reinforcing success could overcome a superior force. Superior numbers and even superior weapons COULD be beaten, if its reactions were slow and uncoordinated. Attitudes to air power got a serious bashing in WW2; the bomber did not “always get through”, nor could it take and hold territory. The mixed economy of Guderian and Liddell Heart has predominated ever since; for example, overwhelming air superiority failed to win Vietnam for America.
Guided anti-ship missiles, from the Henschel 293 onwards, have proved effective; but winning wars ultimately depends on economic endurance and national resolve. A common dictum in military procurement is “don’t rely on components you can only buy from one source, unless you own it!” As western (coalition) technology starts to lag behind the Far East (especially in microprocessors) its dominance in air power may be lost; if so, ground forces will find things MUCH harder in the years to come.
On the other hand:
Terrorism has shown that an almost infinitely weaker force can prevail, through stealth and guile. The Bali and London Bombers were little more than delinquent teenagers; the organisers and bomb makers were all “low grade”, by military standards; yet their impact was substantial.
A nation state under terrorist attack has an IFF problem; to defeat an enemy you really need to find them first. Host communities are usually very visible, but the vast majority are innocent bystanders. Short of widespread and heavy repression, intelligence led resistance is the only option. This is very costly, and it takes years to develop an effective capacity. Clearly, in Terrorism, the weaker force dominates the situation with ease. So, why do nation-states choose to operate at such a tactical disadvantage?
I wont go on. Those that can see the next step and its logical consequences won’t want me to; those that can’t won’t be reading this. My metaphorical finger points in the vague direction of the future; and boys, it’s looking worried.
Susan |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 591
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 06, 2006 - 5:34 am: | |
Further details of unrest http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4684652.stm
Words fail me; but the facts speak for themselves. |
Eugene Samuels (Bdsamm)
New member
Username: Bdsamm
Post Number: 40
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 8:17 am: | |
Dear Susan,
If you believe that the US is saving/conserving energy in any way you are badly mistaken. Except for brief periods when the price spikes or there is a visible shortage the citizens generally continue to increase energy consumption at a rapid rate.
Almost everything we do wastes energy. Most of our society uses the automobile as the fundemental means of transportation. The US has almost no passenger train service and no high speed rail service. People use airlines for long distance travel but that is generally only for trips longer than 400 or 500 miles. The security hassle at the airports consume so much time that is is generally faster to drive than fly for trips shorter than that, especially considering that airports are generally located some distance from the populaton centers.
Much of our freight is transported by truck. Our highways are clogged by very large trucks consuming enormous amounts of fuel.
Even the railroads are primarily power by oil. We have few electrified railroads. The public transit systems in larger cities are mostly powered by oil. We use oil in enormous quantities for all kinds of transportation and we do not use it efficiently.
Our governments decided that de-regulation was the way to go for our electric power suppliers. Now instead of the electric power suppliers building very expensive but extrememly efficient power plants that cost more in the short term but are very cost effective over their 30-40 year life, they build low cost, inefficient plants that provide the lowest unit cost in the first five years but waste energy and will not last more than 15 years or so.
Our homes get bigger and bigger and that vast space is heated and cooled to the perfect temperature. People want to run around in scant clothing in the winter time so they heat their homes to 78 degrees F and then whine about their high heating bills.
The government decided that we should reduce fossil fuel use so they are encouraging wind electricity generation and the production of ethanol from corn. The wind generators I have seen so far require more energy to manufacturer and install than they will ever produce in their lifetime in most locations (most have marginal wind). Ethanol production uses enormous amounts of electricity and natural gas. The production of corn requires fertilizer (made from oil) and oil to fuel the tractor and corn picking machinery. It requires more energy (including the fertilizer) to produce a gallon of ethanol than the ethanol contains.
As to the by-products of nuclear fission, yes the spent fuel is a concern. However, if we look closely, the quantity of spent fuel is very small (speaking of volume) therefore it doesn't require a lot of space to store. The US has vast uninhabitable desert areas where it should be possible to store the waste forever without it bothering anyone.
Sure, I would rather avoid that problem but we either have to deal with it or quit using energy. I don't think the latter is a viable solution.
We need to reduce energy consumption which is certianly possible but I also think we need to reduce population growth on this planet. It would appear to me that we are headed the other way.
The Arizona legislature now has pending legislation that will prevent teens (under 18) from obtaining birth contol pills without their parents consent. They believe that will reduce the number of teens having sex. They are out of their minds of course but I bet it passes. Now we will get lots more babies.
Eugene |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 632
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 10:14 am: | |
As someone on Python once remarked: “Do you want the 10 minute argument or the full half hour?”
No! The US wastes far too much energy, we all do; especially on big thirsty petrol driven road vehicles. At one time, big American cars were slightly justified on distance and safety grounds; but today using cars over 2.5 litres is stupidly unnecessary.
We have the same truck problem in Europe; though they are more efficient here; it’s a market driven distribution and packaging issue, which needs legislation to reduce it. Can’t see the Republicans doing that, can you.
Aircraft are the BIGEST issue in climate change; but then America is big, so air travel is essential. As in England, the US national rail system seems to have been bypassed; which is a shame. I can’t see that changing for some years. The cost of conversion and renovation to make it efficient (and effective) is just too high. In terms of energy and greenhouse gasses, it might not be a good move anyway.
Electricity generation is a real problem. Hydro, environmental (wind, wave etc) and Atomic are neutral; but building them isn’t. I wish there were great answers but the best one is always “use less energy”.
Personally I can’t stand a cold house; perhaps you should meet a friend of mine called Nick. His house is so cold in winter that I avoid going there between September and March; one needs arctic clothing in his place, it’s often warmer outside. His thermometer says 12C, but I think the “-” is frozen solid; the ice on the coffee is a dead giveaway.
Bio-renewable fuels are OK (if they can be carbon neutral); they work well in Brazil. But the real answer is smaller cleaner cars. Cleaner electricity generation and electric cars, especially in cities, would help; but Americans will only do that at gunpoint; and you need very BIG guns to persuade Americans these days.
I agree. American attitudes to birth control, sex education and “intelligent design” make me think of Homer Simpson as “Americas Intellectual class” these days. Perhaps this IS Darwinism at work; the fittest survive; and most Americans aren’t that fit. But then I do like Pepperoni Pizza, so perhaps I should look to my own survival first. |
sarahjane (Strawberry)
New member
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 57
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 10:34 am: | |
Dear Robert,
In respect your opinion which you make clear in your first point on your latest post in the thread "William Jones Chastity Belt Cheap Imitation?" It is an indication of the freedom of speech and expression which we all enjoy.
I feel that this links to your second point regarding the question of whether progress is positive. If we did not live in this modern society having progressed in so many ways, none of us may have had the opportunity to discuss this topic, or indeed many others in any forum.
The mere fact therefore that people have expressed their enjoyment of anal sex, and you have answered with your view on this, is (to me) a huge positive indication of the positivity of progress.
The other major positive impact of social progress is freedom of choice which we now enjoy in so many aspects of our lives. This is demonstrated clearly by my own and others' choice to submit our bodies to those who wish to hold our keys. The traditional use of chastity belts was (as I understand it) not with necessarily any consent from the wearer.
Women now hove the choices to do whatever we wish with our lives; men too do not not have to conform to any set standards or pre-conceptions. Surely these alone are proof of progress, and the positivity of it.
Kind regards,
strawberry.x |
Alison Lockt (Alison)
New member
Username: Alison
Post Number: 49
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 2:05 pm: | |
Strawberry
You put it well.
I don't know what it is, but since I submitted my body, I have been so much at peace with myself. My relationship with the belt is definitely not traditional, although I suppose you could say that I was coerced originally by my late husband. But as I said, we discussed it all rationally after my indiscretion.
Alison |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 483
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 4:10 pm: | |
In point #2 of mine of 17/03/06/0827, I asked, "Is all social change ipso facto 'progress?'" In mine on this thread, 04/09/05/0017, I gave a bare-bones etymology of "progress." What else needs saying is that, in natural usage of English (and, at least, other European languages), the word has a connotation of improvement, amelioration, making better.
"Better" (Latin, [adj.] melior m. & f., melius n.) is the comparative form of the adjective, "good" (Latin, bonus, -a, -um). Leaving aside Plato and his (boomed out in hieratic and incantatory style, as befitting an archetype) "the GOOD," that adjective has two meanings that concern this discussion:
[1] "This pleases me; I like it." (subjective)
[2] "This pleases the Powers That Be" -- not excluding the impersonal authority of reality, simply the way the World works -- "therefore you must do this." (Objective? Or, rather, subjectivity manipulated by an external influence, sometimes completely affirmatively, sometimes completely negatively, and with varying shades of effectiveness between the two poles.)
Obviously meaning #1 and meaning #2 can conflict with one another.
Into which this roundabout discussion leads, is the question of emancipation of sodomy aut per os aut per anum from confinement to the subculture of homo-erotic males (No, I do not buy into the subtext of the word, "homosexuality.") and its importation into the practice of folk who identify themselves staunchly and exclusively heterosexual. Is this "progress" -- rendering "more good," improvement? To those who answer in the affirmative, I would ask Ayn Rand's upper-case-"Q" Question: By what standard? (i.e.: In pursuit of what goal?)
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net |
The cynic (Cynic)
New member
Username: Cynic
Post Number: 137
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 10:24 pm: | |
It is sheer folly to try to understand a cultural idiom through translation. If you want to understand progressive politics, you'll have to read up on the various party platforms and manifestos. Stripped down to it's idealistic core, it's the desire to replace traditional centers of power-- the church, wall street, smoked filled rooms-- with more democratic ones.
|
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 484
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 4:59 am: | |
In many places in his The Mind and Society, Pareto states that the democratic republic is [condensed paraphrase] the metamorphic precursor to plutocratic oligarchy.
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 488
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 02, 2006 - 2:31 pm: | |
Termy Nator, Susan, Me1, and Colleagues in general, here is something more on the question of indebtedness as disguised involuntary servitude: http://www.strike-the-root.com/61/blow/blow13.html
Susan, in yours of 04/08/05/0955 supra, you called slavery the ultimate mode of capitalist exploitation. Yet slavery existed before mankind ever even dreamt of capitalism. Slavery is a constant of the human (? at least) condition (the very sentient condition per se?). (That we shall find out when finally we contact extraterrestrial intelligence.) It can survive without any justification whatsoever. Indeed, in the earliest times of our race, slavery was actually an advance in treatment of captives, over eating their flesh or torturing them to death for the edification of the victors' patron deity -- maybe both at once, roasting the captives alive and fully conscious. If societies wherein the bourgeoisie are Rulership of the State claim to have abolished it, they are only squeezing the balloon in their localities: Squeeze a balloon in one place, and it becomes larger elsewhere. And I repeat, stripped of "ethical" top-dressing, the bourgeoisie's major objection to slavery is that it raises the cost of labor; that could cut into executive and managerial compensation.
I value my liberty: The liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution of 1787 and the first ten Amendments (Our Bill of Rights of 1791), are jointly one of the two pegs whereon my patriotism hangs. I will not "compromise" (read: Surrender) my liberties for any reason that I do not on my own recognize as a higher purpose still. When I was much younger, that was a lifetime career in the armed forces. That was not to be. Later, I recognized the condition of Key-holder to a Steel Angel with whom I was sexually involved, as a condition of servitude, even though downward from above: The driver is responsibility (duty, see Heinlein infra), and the power-source is love; the rewards are honor and a larger quantity of higher-quality sex. Now that is irrelevant: Between respiratory issues and circulatory issues, I can no longer uphold my end of it sexually -- and that is now a matter of indifference to me. I should surrender my freedom to the partnership of Huckster and Usurer, for planned-obsolescent "good"s? Have you ever heard this anonymous commonplace? "'Prosperity' is spending money you don't have for goods you don't want in order to impress people you don't like."
Huckster and Usurer have my permission to sodomize one another, first per anum then per os, afterward to gas themselves to death with their own flatus, drown in aspirated vomitus, or choke on too forceful intromission of each other's glans, irrumation. While they do that, I will save my money for goods that are the heartful best their makers can do. If that choice means I live a sparsely-furnished life, so mote it be: A sparsely-furnished life is easier to keep clean and in order for purposes I choose, rather than those chosen for me by the herd.
("Do not confuse duty with what others expect of you; they are utterly different. Duty is a debt you owe to yourself to fulfill obligations you have assumed voluntarily. Paying that debt can entail anything from years of patient effort to instant willingness to die. Difficult it may be, but the reward is self-respect.
("But there is no reward at all for doing what other people expect of you, and to do so is not merely dfficult, but impossible. It is easier to deal with a footpad [archaic term for street assailant or sneak-thief - RP] than it is with the leech who wants "just a few minutes of your time, please -- this won't take long." Time is your total capital, and the minutes of your life are painfully few. If you allow yourself to fall into agreeing to such requests, they quickly snowball to the point where these parasites will use up 100 percent of your time -- and squawk for more!
("So learn to say No -- and be rude about it when necessary!
Otherwise you will not have time to carry out your duty, or to do your own work, and certainly no time for love or happiness. The termites will nibble away your life and leave none of it for you.
("[This rule does not mean that you must not do a favor for a friend, or even a stranger. But let the choice be yours. Do not do it because it is 'expected' of you.]"
-- HEINLEIN, Robert A.: Notebooks of Lazarus Long.)
A worker of legal free status can be separated, the obligation of paying him rigidly linked to productivity, and replaced. A slave injured at his or her tasks, has just either increased unit labor costs or even incinerated capital. So the problem of the bourgeoisie is partial, incremental diminution of the worker's liberty; and the solution is selling indebtedness. They have done a bang-up job of that. Now what?
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 659
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 02, 2006 - 4:19 pm: | |
Dear Robert
In my posting - 04/08/05/0955, I framed a definition of slavery in modern terms.
History repeatedly shows that slavery and oppression doom the societies that embrace them to inefficiency and stagnation. They are the precursors of economic failure and cultural annihilation.
Capitalism is an analytical label describing an almost prehistoric relationship between people, productivity, wealth and power. For example: the economics of Roman society was based on slavery, as a means of gain and capital growth; long before the term Capitalism was applied to such relationships. Slaves were to the Romans, what steam power and machinery were to the Victorians, a means of multiplying the productive capacity of a free subject, with capital to employ. Hence the term we use today.
The American constitution embodied the capacity of a free individual to improve their lot, though productivity and vision; and through that productivity and vision, to shape the very society in which they lived. This abolished the old order of “subject and ruler” in society, making a democratic government the servant of a free people, imbued with inalienable rights.
I hope this one great idea will be remembered and maintained forever, the core of all individual freedom and human dignity. Nothing America has achieved, or embodied, since that time, has been so crucial to human development. If we one day encounter a superior interstellar culture, that one simple notion may be our ticket to infinity, or the epitaph of our species; either way we will be remembered for it.
Susan |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 489
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 09, 2006 - 7:59 pm: | |
In three of his books, Gordon Rattray Taylor has proposed a theory of historical analysis in which social morality in general and sexual morality in particular oscillate between one pole and another, like the swinging of a pendulum or a child's see-saw. These books are:
[1] The Angel Makers,
[2] Sex in History, and
[3] Rethink - A Paraprimitive Solution.
Elaborating on Rattray Taylor's theory, Philip Atkinson has produced A Study of Decline, http://www.ourcivilisation.com/study.htm. As I independently became convinced that Rattray Taylor's theory is more accurate than not, I respectfully recommend this to all Colleagues, notwithstanding my reservation about some of Atkinson's phraseology (I wonder whether he is antipathetic to the patrist outlook and expresses his antipathy by over-the-top selection of descriptors).
At this writing, we, the "Boomers," are collectively pre-eminent in the West, and the values of the loud minority of us -- self-anointed as "enlightened" -- inform public policy. Will this continue? Writing in Foreign Policy, Philip Longman says, No: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3376&page=0. Patriarchy will return -- relatively soon, in historical scale. So shall the patrist outlook (http://www.ourcivilisation.com/whatis/chap12.htm) return to pre-eminence in informing public policy.
Elsewhere in this Forum, I have acknowledged that I am patriarchal in social orientation, and more patrist than not in outlook: Obviously the sources I have cited, and others of like ilk, give me hope -- tempered by the fear that religious maniacs might gain access to the "levers and keyboards" of public policy. Too, I agree with Myron Magnet (The Dream and the Nightmare), that upper-middle-class "Boomer" Dionysiac behavior and nostalgie de la boue during the late 1960s to middle 1970s set an example ruinous to the poor: That flock of chickens is still in process of coming home to roost, and that will continue down to an irreducible minimum (which is what? When? Your guess is as good as mine).
At the same time, while the average age of women at first marriage rises, the age of menarche is falling. Sexual precocity is on the rise (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/406126p-343777c.html), shown by progressive lowering of the age of ending virginity. When two inexperienced adolescents, one male and the other female, end the lass' virginity, the likelihood of an out-of-wedlock pregnancy is high; and the least tragic outcome thereof is that the child be adopted out to a married couple. Conservative extrapolation from these and other trends, convinces me that mundane use of the female Belt has a future. Alison, in yours of 06/04/06/2356, in the thread, Visiting the Doctor, you tell us your GP friend knew a few cases of actual use of the Belt by parents: I suggest that more shall occur in future, as more and more parents decide they have a problem, and that the "politically 'correct'" response is not practical because it does not work.
(If religious maniacs gain a much larger ascendancy than they have now, we might even see the male device peripherally enter the mainstream, as I rely on some of the farther-out fundamentalists to try bringing back masturbation insanity. These have already done damage by sponsoring "abstinence [mis-]'education'" [read: Indoctrination]. I even suspect that, after their antipathy to abortion, they wish to outlaw contraception in order to use fear of illegitimate pregnancy as a chastity device [see, inter alia http://www.counterpunch.org/cassel03252006.html].)
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 412
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 4:31 pm: | |
Robert;
There has been a question or two on my mind for some time now. The time has finally come this Saturday afternoon to actually try to iterate it properly, no easy task.
What if a Man is caught flirting or cheating and his Wife want's him to wear a CB ?
What if your Steel Angel asked you, for whatever reason, to give her the gift she gave you, that is to accept the rule of a CB ?
As much as I believe Men should dominate (but not domineer) the household and indeed, society in general, that domination should not mean relinquishing all the burden for one's self control. In your case, you remove the burden of self control for your Steel angel, and for any males or Men who might be in her presence without you.
You could, however, have several concubines on the side while she is kept chaste. I don't read you that way and I am not trying to accuse, but then you have never mentioned any flirting, promiscuity or anything on the part of your Steel Angel that would indicate that she should wear a CB.
On the good side of human nature, most of us think that the world would be a better place if more people followed our example. This is a basic human trait, and when not legislated does not cause a problem. Then some make the mistake of thinking others actually are like them when they are not, that can cause big problems. Not being a thief, I didn't think about enhancing the security of my car,,,,,until it got stolen.
Now it has a Lokit steering column shield, and I must say, this is a chastity belt for my car. Nobody is going to drive her without my keys. Folowing that analogy, "her" chastity belt was installed in response to an incident, basically a "rape" of my particular rights as the owner/controller of that vehicle.
The car did nothing wrong, but it could have been damaged, and/or used to cause damage or injury.
OK, I can't get much more out of that analogy. Back to this reality. Is your Angel's Steel to protect her from rapists or her own desires ? I suspect you will say both, but which is more prevalent ? Which is, indeed, more important ?
You may say that Men do not relinquish control and therefore should not be wearing CBs. While I agree with the former part of that, the latter is out of tune with me. I see no reason whatsoever that a Man cannot give his Wife what your Steel Angel has given you and not lose one iota of stature or respect because of it.
To give her the peace of mind she gives you. I simply don't understand what would be wrong with that. Unless your secretary is a real hottie and you have prostitutes at the golf club on Saturdays or something, it should not be a problem. I say again, I don't read you that way.
Another scenario, I meet a Woman and we really start hitting it off. She has been married four times and each and every Husband has cheated on her. She is insecure and would like for me to wear a CB. I can have sex anytime I want it within reason, but only with her. Don't leave home without it.
Could you see yourself in that position saying "Well, I have something for you too darling" ?. Or is it simply "No, you wear one and I don't".
I can't pussyfoot around this all day, to be blunt (do not take this badly):
Your Steel Angel consented to the belt because of her devotion to you, do you have that degree of devotion for her ?
Please Sir, do not read anything into that, don't read between the lines, just the lines. I said everything I meant and I meant everything I said in that question. I am not questioning your morals or desires, I want to understand your position against male chastity.
Using a CB on a Woman who doesn't enjoy it is like putting anti theft devices on your car, but using a CB on the males would be like putting the car thieves in jail.
In writing this, a thought just occurred to me. My car was "raped". What if it wasn't a car, what if it was my beloved ? OK, we are on the same page here, but then what about the Man ?
I see no reason I should not lock up, get comfy and adjusted and give her the keys. A monumental occasion like when you got the keys to your Steel Angel. I think I would be willing to do it even if I weren't kinky. I would be her Steel Devil I guess. Say I don't have to earn release or anything, but don't leave home without it.
No denial, no D/s nothing like that at all, I would do it for the same reasons she did it for you. Peace of mind.
Since this is your thread, I will jump into another subject now. I was never a big student of history, but it has started to seem as if some of us think like the founding Fathers of this country.
I have thought about the history of Europe, which is history for many of us. I have discovered Odinism, mostly dismissed as a pagan, even retarded religion. If you read the Nine Charges Of Odinism you'll find them quite interesting. The ninth is the one I cannot subscibe to, as my belief is that there is nothing supernatural. I didn't say there is nothing after death though.
Anyway, if you compare the fist eight charges of Odinism with the original intent of the founding Fathers there is a remarkable similarity. Trade and friendship with all nations, but entanglements with none. (they use the word nor in a different way, it actually means not and or at the same time, we have no proper word for it)
Then I remember about the holy wars. People forced to accept Christianity. Then I remember religious freedom as a big part of why the settlers came here in the first place. Never mind that England wanted to build prisons here, but England was Catholic. They did not want to be Catholic I guess.
Just what did they want to be ? Protestant. The word is easily disected, that means alot of things. I guess it was one hell of a protest.
I think if one would study all of the sub religions of Christianity they would find different interpretations and, eventually find some that are slewed towards the old beliefs. Indeed Christian holidays are based on those "pagan" celebrations. Simple reinterpretation, just like Constantine when he changed Saturday to Sunday. See they give you this robe and a funny hat and then you are allowed to do that. The word of God means nothing.
That is how the world got to be so wonderful.
Be well and RSVP.
T |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 490
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 10:54 am: | |
Termy Nator, sexual isonomy (Classical Greek: "iso" = same, as in identical or closely similar; "nomos" = rule) works to a point; but after that point, it becomes absurd. You enthusiasts of the male device, carry sexual isonomy past the point of reductio ad absurdum; therefore I believe that your question is a fallacy from beginning through middle to the end. When distributing burdens for people to carry, it only makes sense to give each person that burden easiest for him or her to carry. On the other hand, the identitarian fallacy so beloved of the political Left, construing equiality as human fungibility in all things, leads to "one size fits all."
In sexual structure and in sexual function, males and females of the same species are different from one another. (Ideology of sexual isonomy anathemizes this difference, and directs its adherents to overlook it and/or pretend it does not exist: Clear address to this difference, and/or failure to join wholeheartedly in the prescribed pretense, is "politically 'incorrect'" and cause to excommunicate the perpetrator.) The difference between the sexes leads to difference in behavioral standards for males and females. In a healthy society these differences are organized to reciprocity in the generality of society; and the end-goal, telos, is complimentarity within the nuclear (dyadic) family.
Different behavioral standards, example in point of your argument: Adultery, or behaviors which are suggestive, or are actual precursors of adultery, are readily forgiveable in a wife. An alien pregnancy can -- and should -- be surgically aborted when and as discovered; the only circumstance I can envision, in which forgiveness should unconditionally be denied, is if the wife bears her adulterous paramour's child. Forasmuch as the wife is politically subordinate, her transgression does less damage. Because the husband is politically superior, the same transgression on his part is exacerbated by his higher position. The wife should divorce him cold, and clean him out financially; thereafter instructing and child(ren?) that his/her/their father had been disloyal to the family in treasonable degree (Yes, a hard word: Chosen with care and held to the very curl of my DNA).
(Try on the proposition that it is possible for one in position of rule, to commit betrayal analogous to treason, against those over whom he has privilege of rule. The other side of that coin, is the proposition that privilege of rule carries loyalty downward from above, as one of its corresponding and countervailing obligations, obligations whose discharge is the cost of the privilege. Is that heresy?)
As a practical matter, given two healthy young people, man and woman, who love one another absolutely; give them a time and place of temporary freedom from quotidian cares, and plenty of rest, right nutrition, right exercise beforehand so each is in tip-top condition -- just how many acts of intercourse can you expect of these in a day? Maybe half a dozen, if the young man is really fit and well-rested: After that sixth act of intercourse, he shall be dead-tired; but the lass will still be ready for more. And when the man gets older, among other possible factors, that outer maximum ability will decrease. (In times when the lass' Belt needs must be released, if her husband is temporarily not up to it, let her have a Sybian [http://www.sybian.com] and her wildest fantasy.) It is we men who get "---ked-out."
In innumerable times and places elsewhere in this Forum, I have acknowledged (not "confessed," not "admitted") without shame nor guilt that I am patriarchal in social orientation. The social pendulum is swinging back, slowly now, but it will gather momentum. In order for that coming patriarchy to last, it must work comfortably -- not necessarily identically -- for both men and women; and it must be seen to work comfortably for both men and women.
Unless one complicates the idea with irrelevant rubbish about masturbation, the dyadic burden of chastity simply is easier for a man to carry alone, than it is for male and female to carry jointly. It does help if the wife has a healthy and robust sexual appetite. However, autonomous female chastity prerequisitely requires that the lass be crippled either surgically (FGM) or by childhood conditioning that is a mixture of lying to her, misleading her, and denying information -- or both; fear and/or loathing of sex, this tolerated solely as basest means to the noble end of motherhood, is the goal. If the conditioning is penetrated and has dissipated, it impairs her trust in her parents and other entities quasi in loco parentis. If the conditioning takes firm hold and endures, the lass will be gravely impaired in that time and place wherein sexual activity is fully lawful. If the conditioning of a sex-negative childhood takes firm hold but partially breaks down, the results will be bizarre. Yet, there is good reason why chastity is a duty for both sexes.
I advocate teaching chastity to boys in a different way (One which incorporates Robert Anton Wilson's dictum: "Masturbation is the consolation of the celibate." In its proper times and places it has authority's full approval; but it is like unto bread, where intercourse with a loving and enthusiastic lass is like unto a USDA-choice steak perfectly broiled to preference and accompanied by all the trimmings.), which tells the truth about both the pleasures and the responsibilities of sexual activity. I further advocate that boys, immature male human beings, not be admitted to sexual relationship with girls and women, that eligibility be limited to men -- A D U L T male human beings; that to be admitted to sex with a girl or woman, one must not only have grown up but one must have grown all the way up, i.e.: Irrecoverably outgrown the boy one was as a child. To an adult, responsibility is the coin with which pleasure is bought; and it is better to pay in advance: In that way, one is enabled to give oneself wholeheartedly and without reservation to one's chosen pleasure. Awareness of payment due after the fact, adversely impacts one's enjoyment.
Yes, the father tells his son, it is possible for you to have intercourse with a girl whose parents are careless. You incur a reasonable chance of catching a S.T.I. if you are not her first. Too if the lass becomes pregnant and for whatever reason declines to abort, if you were her only partner, or you are of all partners the one perceived to have the deepest pocket, you will be on the hook for child-support for eighteen years, and in this you will be on your own: Ready or not, you are responsible. Further, if she consents of an evening and changes her mind after the fact on the morrow (which is called "date rape"), you might just find yourself charged with a particularly heinous and dishonorable felony.
However, to "cut to the chase," I must first repeat that I am not of the BDSM/fetish-interest subculture. Although it was born in "masturbation insanity," when this petered out, the male device's exclusive habitat became that subculture. As I am not about casual sex, let alone "hook-ups," the likelihood of my becoming involved unawares with a girl or woman of such a tendency, is minimal to the vanishing-point. At least I, but probably also she, would recognize an hypothetical sexual relationship between us, to be a hopeless non-starter; for which reason a sexual relationship would never in the first place occur between us.
(Because I do not know whether you would accept an attached file in e-mail, and better safe than sorry, the next e-mail you receive from me will be 'mother of all e-mails' long.)
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 414
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 11:29 am: | |
Robert;
I am not sure to what extent I agree with you. Patriarchy is natural and normal to me, and to most Men. I think we agree on the definition of a Man though, a Man does nt cheat on his Wife, nor mistreat----ANYONE without just cause. Even though much of this ideology is extremely politically incorrect, it is, in my opinion, natural. There are very few real Men among the males who have reached the age of majority.
It is hard to disagree with you though, having seen Maury Povitch and Jerry Springer. I do not prefer such garbage, but it is foisted upon me at work where I repair largescreen-home theater units. Time and time again they have paternity tests, or revelations that a Woman has been cheating on her Man, sometimes with his close friends or kin. One wonders just how close those friends were. Actually such shows are a brilliant advertisement for chastity belts. Tears of regret flow time and time again along with pleas of "I love you", to the Man who she has betrayed in the most egregious way.
This should be enough to convince any bon-bon eating Woman on the couch not to cheat, but perhaps it is like you say, they are too weak in the flesh. Indeed inherently Women think in the here and now, along with those adulterers she may have had sex with. Unless these males were totally in the dark as to her marital status I believe they should share in the guilt.
Indeed your way would put Maury and Jerry right out of business.
One thing on which I don't think we can agree is this "crippling" of which you speak. Teaching girls to resist their sexual urges is not crippling in my opinion. Rather it is more enabling, that is that she can have her teen years and finish school unfettered by a baby. (or STD for that matter). Of course the way in which some Parents go about this is wrong.
Using religion is the biggest mistake they make, as well as expecting the school to parent, they now have another surrogate to relieve them of their responsibility. This falsehood is held closely by the masses. The idea that they are children and not responsible for their actions is the worst damnable heresy ever embraced by the church. Universal forgiveness is universal crapola in my opinion.
As another girl, not really a Woman despite eveidence of her reproductive abilities, shedding tears of regret on national TV brings to my mind the question "Why did you do it ?". At present, your answer would appear to be because it is natural for a Woman of otherwise high standards and morals will have those "weak moments", which are exceedingly more costly for a female than a male. But cheating on the part of the male is no less base or egregious in my opinion.
I really enjoy exploring this subject. As part of the BDSM community I find certain things hard to understand, but will continue to try. In my world, having a foxy vixen, horny as an alley cat but all locked up in a steel chastity belt would be the ultimate balltingly for me. (I knew eventually I would use that word) I would exercise tease and denial for times, but of course followed by release. People who practice total denial are a mystery to me, but perhaps one day I'll understand. Not practice, but understand.
The world's perception of the world is slewed to say the least. We are clear on the physiological differences in the sexes, the male has a limited resource, even if not severely limited, it still is limited. Thus in BDSM play, there is a difference between how a Man might "handle" a Woman in such a "compromising" situation in contrast to the reverse situation.
"Reverse situation" has just cropped up here, and now I must say; as good a case you may make for the wearing of CBs by Women, you have in no way proven to me that a Man should not be similarly "adorned". If a Woman cheats on her Man, just who did she cheat with ?
So in your view, while you might even agree that a male might need to be belted after getting caught cheating (as opposed to taking a walk penniless and disgraced), so be it, but Women are to be summarily belted even if no impropriety exists. Supposing I agree totally with the latter, the former is still in contention.
This is not going to the BDSM genre, I am speaking of the Men or males being belted. It seems somehow you believe that this is not proper. As articulate you may be, you have not made the case to me.
She: I love you so much for doing this, it must be harder for guys
He: Only if one looks at the forbidden fruit my dear
One possibility would be that he indeed holds the key to her sexuality, an honor we agree, but the key to his sexuality might be stowed on the inside of her belt so his relief can only be with her, or under her auspices.
You may say that she doesn't need that, but then why would you need that type of security. Realities and attitudes of old have been mentioned, and it was clear in the past that the Woman's assets needed protection, lest your Kingdom could be left to a bastard son. But then what if the King goes whoring around ? That is OK ? Then can all these "half-princes" proclaim some sort of stature ? If it is indeed blood that matters then they should be able to, as much as an illegitimate son of the Queen could be denied the throne.
One thing I have found in life, as I "post-matured" is that almost everything cuts both ways. Authority begets responsibility, tort law means if you damage my property you must pay me, but then if I damage yours the opposite is true. Having a child is a right and priveledge granted by the maker of all things, but comes with enormous responsibility, long term responsibility. Even a promotion at work, to being a boss or foreman brings with it the responsibility to make sure that those in your charge are productive. This comes from "above", there is also a measure of responsibility that comes from "below", that is to amicably settle minor disputes, solve problems and the daunting task of discharging those who are unsuitable for the tasks at hand. You must sometimes send a good Man to the unemployment line for the good of the company.
My Father has been offered supervisory positions many times and has always turned them down. My Mother on the other hand got sucked into it, and learned the hard way. A Man who was very good, helped her work on her house and did favors for her, not out of cowtowing to her just of of "niceness", had to be fired. His work at the job was not acceptable. You can sugar coat it all you want, but he still wound up fired.
The concept of true authority is always blurred. At work I am told that I replaced a guy they describe a "Hitler". It was "My way or the highway". The owner of the company said to me "I can't even say that, even as the owner of the company". He realizes that you need voluntary cooperation, and possibly obedience. Then again he is from Austria and was not raised on Barney or Sesame Street and didn't have the chimes of "you're the most important person" drummed into his head. The latter was a lame attempt to instill self worth in children who had no self esteem. This is a crime.
In my world if you have a child who is down because of a lack of some certain ability, the trend nowadays is to make them feel good. I consider this a total abdication of our responsibility as adults. What is needed is to teach the child what they need to know and let their self esteem come from where it should come from, inside.
Speaking of children, in raising a girl I see nothing wrong with teaching her right, and that she shouldn't let anyone in her "nookie" can't be a bad thing. If it works out right she should not need a chastity belt. Of course the church's teachings are that any pleasure is bad is wrong. We need a strong willpower against having sex.The ability to orgasm was provided by the maker of all things, not the Parents or church, and therefore is not to be taken away by same. This FGM is a crime worse than murder and I'll never condone it.
This brings us to something on which we almost agree. Now it gets complicated. I have a different standpoint than you but I agree, lock up the daughters. It's not that the boys are back, they were always here. But then what would warrant a CB for a girl ?
People have a tendency to think others are like them, to wit, that others should be like them. This innate trait means that most think that if everybody lived like them the world would be a better place. In your case I do not disagree.
But then is it your contention that all girls be belted, or is there some sort of yardstick based on her position in society or something ?
Also, without the BDSM interest, you don't see the effect a CB has on the wearer. Any Woman in a CB must go through times when her KH is not around and she wants to scratch a certain place. Just forget about if she lusts after other Men, to submit to the presence of the CB is either a very strong indication of her devotion, or a bit of submissiveness. Nobody can say which component of her psyche is prevalent.
Misogamous pregnancy is rampant in the US, and I could see where an improvement in the world would come about by belting all the young Women, but the core question is, why the Women ?
Imagining a scenario that would fit your ideology, Women are belted because A. It protects the assets directly, B. We don't need to build as many belts and they are simpler in design.
OK I will stipulate to the, but then the mechanics of human physiology put yet one more burden squarely on the fairer sex. Where is our chivalry Man ?
OK, I can see the possibility, all the boys in the area are belted and she is free. Of course a male traveler could happen by who is free.
This is one really wierd argument, in which I sometimes make your point. Chastity for the girl is akin to a bulletproof vest, chastity for the boys is like having trigger gaurds on all the guns. I understand.
While bulletproof vests are a good idea for all those who may be "shot at", what is wrong with the idea of trigger guards ?
This is a wierd subject, great, that's why I'm here.
T |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 491
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 9:27 pm: | |
TN, during the switchover between ISPs I lost your e-mail code. Please send to the eddress below.
To the contrary of popular culture (which today is shaped by the pro-dominant influence of commercial advertising), all that childhood is, is only preparation for adulthood. (If I were King and there was no First Amendment in the Constitution, two things: [1] An unconditional requirement that any and all commercial advertising contain, in the largest typeface used in the ad, the out-the-door price for the item: The Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price, plus all "hidden costs." [2] An unconditional flat ban upon any and all advertising directed at children under thirteen years, enforced on a principle of, when in doubt, kill the ad. Advertising is, at base, seduction. Measures like this -- I have a few others on my hypothetical, impossible-to-enact, agenda -- put the ring in the seducer's foreskin.) Teaching law-abidingness, and the consideration for one's neighbor which underlies that, is more important than teaching causeless "self-esteem." Teaching a child to read fluently, and to express himself or herself in -- as it was said of Andrew Jackson -- "clear and forcible" English, is more important than teaching that child to play -- and such frou-frou as poetry, and recondite criticism of oeuvres of sophisticayed literarity (You know it is sophisticated by the dense impenetrability of the writing.), can wait for much later, perhaps the last two years of high school. Most important, however, an intellectually precocious child should be allowed to grow up faster than a schedule postulated by a consensus of educationists (N.B.: That is not necessarily the same as educators.) specifies.
I advocate teaching the handgun for a reason far deeper than its practical utility as an instrument of self-protection or the pleasure of practice: A firearm is absolutely never -- never ever -- "kidding;" always, and with no exceptions whatsoever, it is only and nothing other than finally serious: To play with a firearm is the nadir of dumbness, at bend-over-backwards charitable best. Children should learn, from earliest onset of consciousness, that life contains things beyond humor; respect for these things demands one possess the ability to take something finally -- i.e.: Reverentially -- seriously.
And while we are speaking of humor, I take issue with your statement that, if you had a lady who was a practicing Steel Angel and had a high static-burn level of sexual energy, you would practice teasing and denial with her. I have said elsewhere that many practices current in the BDSM/fetish-interest subculture would be abuse in the mundane realm; and are saved from abusiveness only by the rubrics of the venue. To me teasing and denial are actual cruelty; but then, I experienced them over my adolescence, from figures in loco parentis, in matters having nothing to do with sex. It hurts; and it teaches not to trust. If you want to gain her loyalty, or keep it if you have gained it, your word must carry the weight of steel: N O excuse for falsehood, by commission or by omission. (The idea of humor as an excuse for falsehood, which is what "kidding" is, makes me wish for the return of the schoolmaster's cane.)
Patriarchy puts the burden of responsibility squarely upon male shoulders. I put to you that it is an error debilitating to a patriarchal Body Politic, to accept "Boys will be boys." Likewise, a demand for autonomous female chastity an error gravely debilitating to a patriarchal Body Politic. Forgive the straying wife: Hell, once the Belt clicks home for the first time, write off her trip off the reservation as "no offense taken in the first place," a manifestation of spirit merely misguided in its application. The straying husband is a traitor, to be treated accordingly: His was the superior responsibility, so his dereliction is the graver offense.
(However, while we are on the subject of cheating, consider: [1.a] The wife who cuts her husband off in bed, all the while adamantly refusing him a divorce. [1.b] The wife who refuses intercourse until her husband buys her a visibly expensive car or its equivalent. [2] The wife in a marriage financially precarious but not fatally so, who unilaterally and surreptitiously discontinues contraceptive protection, then decides to keep the result, crashing the family financial structure. Do you, or does any other Colleague who reads this, consider that the wife has cheated in either case or both cases?)
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net
|
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 689
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 4:25 am: | |
Hi All
I think there are many problems, which can arise within relationships and marriages. Not least of these is the tendency of both parties to assume they agree on things, which they don’t even speak the language about; let alone agree on. People frequently maintain a view of their partners, which is unsupported by experience or facts. We keep those illusions going as a mental defence mechanism; it protects the basket containing all our eggs; our hope of transcendent mortality, through children.
Sex is a basically mechanism for procreation, which also forms and maintains the social cohesion of our lives. This often works by making us deceive ourselves, about the value and functions of our supporting institutions; and today those institutions are failing us; or perhaps, we are failing them!
For a woman (whatever she may say about it) the drive to have a child is primal. The drive to get the best support in raising a child and the best genetic input to insure its success; is so basic that it can set morality aside. Love, often binds our (conflicting) needs together in one person; but if it takes two to get there, a woman may well choose that option. Her input will be precious reproductive time, physical risk and the very extensive commitment of bringing that child to self-sufficiency. For some reason, women can often ignore the fact that a man’s commitment is often even higher; and so is there risk.
For men, the desire for mutual acceptance and love is very powerful. The proof of such a bond (and often personal completeness as well) lies in producing and raising a child. Men also face a very serious commitment (socially, legally and morally) in deciding to produce a child. Whatever we think is going on, the decision to build all that hope into one relationship, with one woman, is really a very risky one. All the more so, since he only has trust to base that "high risk" strategy on. As you see above, such trust is often misplaced.
For the last several thousand years, we - as a society - have welded these disparate hopes and needs into the frustrating institutions of tradition marriage and law. But the last 80 years has seen the bond between legal rights and monogamy fatally compromised, especially for men. So now trust bears all the weight in our social structure and it just cant take the weight. This change came out of the (very justifiable) women’s movement for equal rights. Yet I often feel, that women today want such rights, without the attendant extra responsibilities. The generation who won those rights accepted the responsibility that came with the rights; but their beneficiaries often ignore that.
Marriage was set the unenviable task of taming the conflicting male and female drives; to bring order and prosperity, through security, within the institution; and within society as a whole. Once the security of that institution is compromised, so is our society. It may even be the force degrading our prosperity. Basically, weak social boundaries (be they walls, traditions or laws) make bad neighbours and worse partners
Perhaps, in our new century, we will find ways to repair those damaged institution of marriage; or restructure our society around new and better ones. If so, I think it will take a long time, probably several generations; and a lot of people will get hurt in the process, indeed they already are. Perhaps, most of all, it is the children of this age who feel rudderless and (at best) fuzzy about their social obligations.
Chastity belts are perhaps appropriate for those with clear moral and social ideas (on both sides); but will they ever be acceptable to those without that moral framework? I’m simply not convinced that a bit of metal can substitute for a moral framework based on thousands of years of human development - “nature will out” as they say. The only device that has ever had an impact on that, was people with clear social and moral beliefs, who also had love to guide them.
Susan
|
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 416
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 02, 2006 - 11:30 pm: | |
Robert;
I understand what you say about loyalty from below or above, the heirarchy of things. In BDSM things can go both ways, but as I said I am patriachal to the core. Even though I switch, something that may be repugnant to you, I have some knowledge of each side. In the pariarchal society, the Men never abuse their power. It seems that many many large males do however, they still have the "gimme gimme" attitude of toddlerhood.
In a BDSM relationship, as you said, there is sort of a license, to wit a contract, including limits and safewords. Whether this is verbal or written is of no consequence.
Your marriage to a Steel Angel would also be considered a contract. You agree to fidelity and loyalty on all levels, though few actually do it.
As I glean it, you profess that wearing a CB is the greatest gift she could give you.
Also, she does this willingly, chiefly for you, and per a private agreement with you. She must want to, or surely the marriage would be over.
This is so close to BDSM that you should be able to catch a whiff of it on a calm night. What you do may be totally natural, BDSM is like an amplification of it, to the point of not being normal. While you may be in normal bounds, many are not. I am starting to think the major difference is in degree more than kind.
Unlike Mel Brooks' "It is good to be King", I am sure anyone who is in authority would want to stay there. If the authority is never to be abused, he has no personal gain from it. He actually serves as ruler. While large males lack the capacity to do this, Men can do it.
Kings have ever and only been Kings because the People said so. At least in the days of yore when people were a bit more feisty. Things settled down and the People became complacent. Cities formed and met the needs of those who could not otherwise survive. My Father said it more than once, cities are people living off of each other.
Would CBs for Women be needed in a rural community ? If CB wearing is not to be universal, where do we draw the line ?
If you lived on a farm and one day marauders came while you were near a mile away tilling a field, it would still be good for your Woman to be an armed Steel Angel and a judo expert.
If you are at your job in the city and are away, there seem to still be some marauders around. Protection is not bad in any case.
I do firmly believe that your initial intention is for her to be protected. If you ever abuse her with it, refuse to let her out she can shoot you and take the kwy. This is an adult Woman who has done this of her own free will.
Now picture this (these are the things that make them call me the teminator) :
A young girl of eight walks into a shop, a metal shop, thewy ask "Are you lost ?", no .
She says "I am looking for someone to make me a belt thing, to protect my nookie". Imagine the response.(you have to bring your Mom with you) Remember to respond to this question when resonding to the paragraph in which it was embedded : Why should your Wife wear a CB and not mine ?
Is she of more value than other Women ? (she might well be).
And you Sir, may take partial credit for awakening me up to something in my past, just now.
Before I ever came to the BDSM community I was in love, and jilted. More like mutually jilted actually. She wanted me and I wanted her, but she was a very popular girl. Oh yes, and fine too. On the wild side but not kinky yet. We had a natural attraction and I actually had the desire for her to bear my children.
I figured it out, I was in partenership in a business with my Dad, I could get bought out, sell most of my stuff and we could move away. That is how I wanted her, or so I thought. Now that you (all) mention it, I could've lived with her in a CB with the "don't leave home without it" plan.
We could stay in town, and with the CB she can see anyone she likes. She was always a people person, and in retrospect, she would probably become popular in a new community, but then so would I, hopefully. But then I have no idea who I can trust. Of course that was the problem at home.
She was not a loose Woman, and I doubt that she has entertained more than a dozen Men at 40. But my assuredness was not there. It was not the current insecurities I had in those years, it was literally fear of future insecurities, or would that be unsecurities ?
If I had known modern CB were available it may have changed my life. She is a forcefvul, driven Woman who now makes more money than me. I have known her very well as a friend and I know if I get the idea of a CB for her up and going she is going to say "What about you ?".
To have her, for my very own; would be an equitable trade. Agreeing with 'don't leave home without it' would be fine with me. Why not ?
With all that's been said, I can still find no discernable reason why I should refuse.
You have never said that those in a position of power should not have any protection.
T |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 417
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 03, 2006 - 1:24 am: | |
Susan;
This may not seem coherent as a response right away, but bear with me.
(again, remember I did not dub mine own self the "terminator")
Image is everything now. The Woman to which I refer in the previous post, I love when she is stank right off of work, ugly lookin in the morning, AT ALL TIMES.
Many out there think a Woman needs a bit of jewelry etc., I do not. Perhaps for certain occasions. Normally I want those earlobes at my disposal (pie hole that is).
All attracted by looks alone, the masses follow one another into the abyss of not knowing and caring for their young.
Now we have generations of males influenced solely my Women. This is not good.
Even girls need the influence of a Man to grow up well rounded.
As for the institution of mariage, it is gone. As long as most people get married and then just have sex with anyone they want there is no such thing as marriage. People are base, animaqls at best, destructive devils at worst, and we have seen it.
People are children, the 'gimme gimme' attitude is prevalent. I can see it ont the freeway, 1 second of my time is worth my life, your life and all these people around us, so I will drive like an asshole and get in front of you all. I don't care how much I slow the traffic down behind me, as long as I am in front of it.
I hope none of them are masochists, because I want to see them in hell.
Anyway, I think the best solution is found in FSTA, when I marry the both of them, it is a simple comtract, sexual fidelity a few other things and the kids can get the inheritance, paternity wasn't tested, it was declared.
If nobody can trust anybody, what else would work ?
We can continue this, the basis of my opinions and my anti-Cristianity. Actually I am not anti-Christian, like some would think. I just cannot adopt their views. I am like a brick on this, I am not a child nor a sheep. I do not choose the 'adversary' either, I am stronger than both, if I call upon it. With Christians, we can discuss almost anything but religion. They go nuts if you don't accept it, and I think there are alot more important things to talk about.
Anyway, this "legal" marriage thing is just about out of style, now we will have paternity tests, eventually every male will have to go it and find out if he is ruined financially. With the lack of rights we slaves have we will have no choice, they will take our driver's lincense, house, car, stereo, anything they can sell, and then make a few bucks on it before the money actually gets to our kids.
You see, they charge us to do every fucking thing they do in the taxes, then they charge us again out of our pocket. No wonder none of the people in the good countries are coming here.
I really did not want to be so negative, but the truth is the truth, I can't go against Thomas Jefferson; "There is no truth I wish to be unknown". OK there is more.
Could this be leading up to another thing like what happened to the Incas ? If you learned about them in school forget all that. What happened to them is that the powers that were commandeered the intellect and they couldn't survive the cataclysm. Whatever that was.
Do not ask.
Let me say this: At some point in each country's history there was a time when intellect ruled. Since that time things have changed, to say the least. There was a time when the powers that be were challenged by the strong, and the strong were usually led by those who were strong, with intellect.
Don't think this was all tribal wars in some dark continent out of sight and out of mind. It has been right in front of your eyes.
You (all of you) had better think long and hard about whether you want to know what I think will happen next. It is not pretty.I don't even think I should ever express it here, it is too discouraging to those who think normally.
my email is (you there Robert ?):
zzyzzwicky2@aol.com
if anyone can't get that,
zzyzzwicky2
at AOL
dot com
Sorry, right now you have to send to me first, I can't pickup an email addy like that right now, my AOL is screwed up.
Anyway, if anyone want's to know what I think is going to happen, say so, otherwise I will avoid it.
T |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 690
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 03, 2006 - 2:28 am: | |
Pondering That |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 492
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 03, 2006 - 6:51 am: | |
Harbinger of the Shape of Things to Come:
http://theedge.bostonherald.com/lifeNews/view.bg?articleid=137636&format=graphic
Anyone here have a spare airsick/seasick bag? This is one of many reasons why I thank my Gods from the bottom of my heart whilst on bended knee, that I have been permanently and irreversibly reproductively sterile since I was thirteen: No flesh of mine shall be affected by the coming corruption.
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net |
sarahjane (Strawberry)
New member
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 71
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 03, 2006 - 10:09 am: | |
Dear Robert,
You have firm views, for which I have great respect. Even while holding differing opinions to your own, it is refreshing to read your postings in which you most certainly do not sit on the fence.
In your most recent post here, you are clearly glad not to be siring offspring who would be corrupted by society.
My view is that I am endeavouring to raise my children to be tolerant and balanced in their thinking. I teach them to question and think for themselves, to reach their own conclusions where appropriate, but also to respect and accept authority.
I teach them that there are many ways in which to make their feelings known, and indeed to influence others without resorting to negative means to their and others' detriment.
In working with young people, many of whom are troubled, I hope to make the proverbial difference, even in a small way.
I must confess to feeling saddened that someone as eloquent as yourself would take this negative view of the next generation... is it not possible that with influences such as yours, they may become ambassadors for a positive way of thought and behaviour, and not necessarily succumb to corruption around them?
Kind regards,
strawberry.x |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 692
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 03, 2006 - 4:34 pm: | |
Causal relationships often are counterintuitive; and widely assumed ones occasionally prove to be totally coincidental. So, one has to test ones assumptions, even the ones that seem obvious.
“Adults” denigrated the styles of teenagers in the1960s; it seems to be an eternal thing. I find myself making the same “judgements” about current styles and trends. Wild said that fashions changed so fast because they were ALL ridiculous; and I find myself in total agreement (as a scan my clothes rail for something “up to date” to wear). Our views and opinions are seldom coherent, or logical; but I think we do acquire taste in the longer term.
Society will progressively evolve, on several levels; “fashion” is usually on the transient and illogical level – much like politics. Meanwhile the wave of significant social change runs deeper and means more; even when the events that trigger it seem transient and fleeting.
I doubt that one could have seen a “Live Aid” event in the 1930s, based on media revealed mass starvation. Was that change in our sensitivity due to evolving media, or had we evolved a better attitude to other humans?
After Punk questioned our cultural assumptions with a three-cord riff, we seemed to become more cynical; yet I think “God save the Queen” was a more sincere song then “I am the Walrus”. Perhaps Punk explained something we really needed to understand about our society and our attitudes; it made us wiser people. Perhaps that is why Live Aid happened after Punk; we realised our leaders were lost too.
Even that which seems trivial, perverse or transient, can play a part in making us better people. Flairs and Beatle bangs did not ultimately corrupt me as a child, but Martin Luther King’s dream of ending racism, Bob Geldof’s call to save the starving in Ethiopia and Neal Armstrong landing on the Moon probably made me a better person. I think that which is positive endures and that which is negative fades away; human society acquires taste and positive sensitivity gradually; however stupid we look at the time.
Dear Robert - Please don’t let one T-shirt convince you that we don’t have a future on this planet, when there is so much good stuff out there to experience and learn from.
Susan (Builder) |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 419
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 05, 2006 - 12:04 am: | |
Perhaps I should explain myself.
The exact words I used about the fall of the Incas were incorrect.
My words may imply that I have some specific knowledge of their disappearance, but that is simply not so. When I said intellect no longer ruled though, that stands.
Intellect does not rule amymore. Money does. When intellect rules, people thrive.
When intellect ruled Rome she was healthy and thriving. Her "leaders" are who screwed it up. Hello America.
In the US, Hoover was presented with the option of signing up for fractional banking, debt service and who knows what else. He was faced with the alternative of the US population living in poverty.
So to provide a chicken in every pot he mortgaged every blade of grass, every piece of slag or steel, and every person. I would not have done it.
Every THING of any value is mortgaged, whether you owe money on it or not. You really never own it. In the eyes of the government you are property, so how can property own property ?
It is about the same as when you buy your dog a toy, you bought it and it is yours, but you have conveyed use of it to the dog. You can take it away at any time.
Mr. Pinkerton, you might come in handy here. Look at the title to your car. It reads "Certificate of Title". Have a house, I don't say own, because we are chattel. Look, it reads "Title Deed". Your literary skills are considerable, and you can see that what these documents say is that you really do not own these things.
On an automobile, there is a manufacturer's statement of origin. A person can go to the factory and really buy a car and have no certificate of title issued by a state. I know someone who did this, and when it got towed, well, since he had the MSO they could never get title to it, since it never went through Ohio's system. He fought them until the day he died and they still can't scrap nor sell this vehicle. (forever)
If you buy a house you get a "title deed". Why are two words needed there ? It is Title, to a Deed which they own. There is a Deed, to which they issue you "title". Revocable at any time.
Eventually they will abolish inheritance, which is an important plank of their manifesto. They have this partially completed in the probate system and the fact most people die with at least some debt.
That gives them access to all "your" property if you owe anything anywhere. Since 1991 if you miss a credit card payment they can foreclose on your house. If you apply for more credit, even a Lowe's card after retired, they can reposses your car if you owe money on it, unless you have the money to pay it off right now. It is called "option to accelerate at will". There is no defense, nothing actionable either. The lienholder needs not give any explanation at all, it is his option under the uniform commercial code.
So just what does anybody really own ? Nothing.
T |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 493
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 05, 2006 - 1:33 am: | |
To my English friends:
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_05_08/article.html.
We in the handgun-interest community have always known, gut deep -- even curl of the DNA deep -- that restrictions on firearms ownership were harbingers of indecent designs upon other liberties of the common people.
Civil liberty begins with criminal procedure. The accused must be presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt to a moral certainty. No person may be compelled to bear witness against himself (In England of old, these were the Cautions of Judge's Rules that a police officer was obliged to tell a person he had arrested. What emasculated parody thereof is in use now?).(Also source of a line quintessentially American: "I respectfully decline to answer on grounds that to do so might tend to incriminate me," something that can be said only in an environment known by all to be free from the threat or fear of torture.)
Confessional jurisprudence, the proceedings of the "Holy(?)" Inquisition and its successors in business down to the KGB and the internal security section of the GRU, is one of the vilest abominations mankind has ever created. As it requires participation of the defendant, sooner or later it opens the door to torture. Its equal is the drumhead mockery of condemning whole categories of people, found in including but not limited to the French revolution ("aristocrats"), the Russian revolution (the Bourgeoisie and classes above them), and the Nazi revolution (Jews at the top of a long list of ethnic groups to be annihilated, vernichtet). The first beacon of real antinomy to either abomination, was England -- at home, at peace. (Now, in the colonies, that was a different matter, likewise when the realm was at war.)
(Indeed, our family split was the result of a mule-stubborn King trying to treat America as his forces had got away with treating Ireland. All we asked for, were the rights of Englishmen. And when the quarrel did lead to a split, much of our law was a direct copy of England's.)
For a one-minute summary, Imperial Methods Come Home. For the full argument, read the second part of Hannah Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism. When imperial methods do come home, civil liberty shrinks; eventually it shrinks to the vanishing point, and one has an oppressive state of affairs for Joe and Jane Citizen. Keeping imperial methods out of the Metropolis, is disesteemed as hypocrisy by the rest of the world. Likewise, keeping imperial methods out of the Metropolis is disesteemed by rulers (individual or collective) who feel threatened in their tenure on power, and by Civil Service types in quest of ever greater scope for their departments. It is like the deposit of cholesterol on the wall of an artery: Unless the process is kept slow, whether by wise tastes or by medication, sclerosis eventually supervenes.
Poor Old Mother England.
----------
TN, IMHO, you are correct about not owhing land, or the edifices thereon situated. Whoso thinks he actually does own land, is invited to try the experiment of not paying real-estate taxes on it: He will be dispossessed in short order. The so-called real-estate taxes, are in fact rent -- to the municipality, or to the County, or to the State. This, too, comes from English practice of old, whereunder the Crown owned all the land.
Kevin Phillips makes a persuasive case that ascendancy of the financial sector over all the rest of a World Power's economy is the beginning of the end of that country's pre-eminence. It is the regime of the hautes et grandes Bourgeoises as Rulership carried to its corporate equivalent of senile dementia in a natural person -- reductio ad absurdum.
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net |
TM (Tom)
New member
Username: Tom
Post Number: 120
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, May 07, 2006 - 9:13 pm: | |
Robert, et. al.:
Thus far I've succeeded in NOT stepping into all of the cowpies to be found in this thread... but alas, you've drawn me in...
I am reminded of Karl Marx's line, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."
In providing this response, I'm doing what most of my "relativistic" friends do (and which I do not generally support): that is, tossing out "what ifs" or "barbs", but offering no great solutions. So recognizing that up front, forgive me please.
Recently in our city--- a nice upper Midwest city--- a young professional and his wife were walking to their car in a parking garage in the city after a dining out. He was shot in the head by a thug, and died in front of his young wife. It was 10:30p at night, it was in a generally-regarded-as-"safe" nieghborhood. What a great waste... and a great personal tragedy for that family, and another blemish on society and humanity.
The problem it seems is that that there is always a gap between the "thoughts and ideas" that are drafted in smoke filled rooms, or on college campuses, or in Washington, etc., and the reality of what the average guy (or gal) does in the world.
I don't pretend to know the answer; but I do know that what philosophically sounds good, makes perfect sense, ought to be the way things work... often just doesn't pan out that way in reality. As Marx "stood Hegel on his head", so too I think that we sometimes need to start in "the field" and work our way backward to a theory about functional practice... as opposed to vice versa.
But then, it seems that there are two sides [at least] to every story... I guess that is where the thornbushes come into play.
Cheers,
Tom |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 695
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 4:02 pm: | |
This subject has been done to death for 25 years or more. I believe that record violent civilian deaths in the US (mostly due to handguns), show how “beneficial this policy has been.
A criminal will shoot you before you get to shoot him; after which he or she has an additional gun.
The only “legitimate” targets for civilian handguns are undemocratic domestic governments (which basically means all of them) and their supporters (well, take your pick). All such targets are VERY well armed, above the law anyway, superbly trained and mainly use psychology to keep us repressed; very few bullets are fired in this critical conflict.
The American love affair with civilian guns is rooted in an inspired piece of induced paranoia. It keeps US backed despots in place, all over the world. Most importantly, it has kept despots and their supporters in the white house for decades. No such despot has EVER been removed by civilian held arms – not even ONE.
The key civilian weapon against repressive government is non-compliance with taxation. A government without reserves or income is dead; stop feeding them and they just die. Which is why every state surrounds its revenue raising bodies with its strongest laws and most brutal force. Civilian handguns are almost irrelevant.
Susan |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 421
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 11:03 pm: | |
Susan;
We have a problem. This is not a simple problem, as we agree firmly on certain points, but I must digress post haste on some of your thinking.
I must poke at your first statement, OK, civilians have not overthrown governments using weapons. Agreed, we need to get a sponsor for a revolution nowadays. It will be one of their buddies and they will be whisked away from danger, while the end result is that they caused a bunch of our blood to be shed, but not theirs. Sound familiar ?
Now, guns in civilian hands have not overthrown an ogliarchy or dictatorship. Stipulated.
Then why do they want to take them ? I don't mean just the US. In Austrailia, what do you do now if your child is being attacked by a croc ? Don't tell me the outbackers can still have guns, that is not how I read it. I saw their proud piles, and I saw alot of rifles and shotguns in there, not Saturday night specials. Gun crimes have also gone up after the ban.
"It keeps US backed despots in place, all over the world"
No, this government only wants itself armed. The gun thing should not even be an issue. Our Constitution says that we need guns to control the government, and now would be a good time.
Thing is, you need to understand true POWER. Oil, in the present day is POWER. Overthrow any government you want, then walk around, no gasoline.
You know Susan, you are one of the less abundant people in the world who really understand the wealth involved in petroleum. Extreme wealth that is not publicized, but is true.
Most people think of petroleum and envision gasoline (petrol or benzine) but you and I know there is alot more to it than that. Plastic is made chiefly from petroleum. Look at all the products around and see the plastic.
They want to make everything plastic. By definition the word plastic means not set. It does not quite mean molten, but it is not very far from it. I have had plastic coffeemakers droop until their own decanter would no longer fit. What, the money I spent on it was still good !
There are two fairly radical sets of scientists, one says oil renews itself and will never run out, the other says we are about to run out. I am rooting for the latter, because once the oil is gone, the oil money will quickly evaporate.
Without money the rich have no power. Even if they have money and we don't want it, they have no power, except for the guns. The Founding Fathers of this country saw pretty clearly into what would most likely be the future.
That is why every Ameican needs a gun. They slew and slant your information from the time you are born to get you to forget this, but Susan, your "they" used to be our "they", that is why we know them so well. And had a revolution.
Our countries have no business being allies, unless the US is under seige. That is what the Law says.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the secutiy of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That is the Law here, whether or not the government obeys it. Period.
Let me put it this way, one who wants to take your gun away is frequently the exact person at whom it should be aimed.
We do not have access to the reins of power, and without guns we can never fix that problem.
T |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 696
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 1:35 am: | |
Dear T
The trouble with revolutionary “sponsors” is that their agenda takes over. US sponsored, or covertly arranged, events like this dominated the 1960 to 1990 period. If you need a current one, US intervention in Iraq was “for regime change”, which is about as public as “external government intervention” gets.
One could say that the Taliban “effect” in Afghanistan was a public movement; but it grew out of a US “sponsored” resistance to Soviet rule. After 9-11 the US government felt the need to “break” with their old friends; and perhaps some US agencies rather wished they had stayed out of the original conflict.
In a way, the last REAL revolution was the overthrow of Batista by Castro, in Cuba. But, historically, the USSR “sponsored” the take over of around 40% of Europe after WW2; and arranged or supported many lesser “revolutions” in Africa and elsewhere after that; even Castro got his guns from someone.
External Governments are behind most national revolutions; truly independent revolutions are a very rare breed. The armaments needed to oppose a tyranny, or remove an unwanted Democracy, usually come from an external government. I agree that control of critical resources is often a secondary reason for such interventions; but the concentration of power in the hands of the few is always the main reason. Control of oil and water rights will dominate and inspire most of the military action in the next 50 years, because they have value, provide revenue to governments; and their denial can damage other economic units. The same few hands will control and shape the world as before; and our very limited personal freedoms will probably continue to diminish.
There are still areas of the world where non-human predators can be a threat; but the human populations of such areas are tiny. The human predators in cities from LA to Nan King are the usual reason put forward for civilian held guns; the problem being that such predators are more willing to kill then you are; so private guns seldom help much.
The “right to bare arms” enshrined in the US constitution was enacted so that the citizenry could support a militarily weak government. Today so many Americans see the government as the enemy, that their government want these privately held guns withdrawn. They do this largely to placate uniformed officials like the police; no US government since 1820 has been as serious risk of civilian overthrow. The civil war was a war between states, over economic dominance; not a true revolution, in which a people rise up to overthrow a tyrannical leadership.
--------------
Forgive me if I am stating the obvious, above. I just wanted to explain why I feel the way I do about nations, nationalism and patriotism; it’s a bit like the gazelles voting for more lions every bloody year.
It IS a simple problem; but sadly there are NO simple solutions. People, who wish to dominate and control others, end up doing so (or fighting for someone who does, in the police or the military). Alliances between nations are just pacts of mutual support between leaders with sufficiently common or reciprocal interests. Most national enemies can become allies in seconds, if their interests mesh; don’t let the rhetoric fool you.
The future of individual freedom lies in understanding the world, its economic forces and the current crop of despots who own us. Like all humans, lifespan limits them and their power is dependant on revenue, largely raised through taxation. In effect powerful people farm their national population and eat the crop, which is “money”. A large proportion of the crop is used to placate, cajole and bully us into producing a better yield next year; so excessive force and truly crazy laws are counterproductive. Your only real weapon is non-compliance. Just produce what you need, stop feeding them your surplus; if possible move your wealth to a place with more freedom and a liberal government. Owning a handgun with the aim of overthrowing a tyrannical leadership is pointless; you might as well threaten a tiger with your banana.
In a strange way this forum is one of our few freedoms, because we can say what we think. It’s a very small degree of freedom but it’s one that could not exist before the web. Here we speak to each other; media moguls don’t determine (and seldom influence) what is said or thought here. It’s so odd that this discussion should emerge from people seeking to discuss ways of restricting sexual conduct.
Take care
Susan (Builder) |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 494
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 11:52 pm: | |
Termy Nator, in his post of 11/05/06/1857 in the thread, Really Stuck, Dutchmyn 2 wrote, "Of course, the one problem I've never seen posted here that I read in an FAQ about 8 years ago was when you get partially erect in a steel tube and have to go to the ER to get the CB surgically removed. Ouch!!" Prior to that, Bill Jones told me that, at the beginning of his undertaking to make the male device, he had got complaints from clients (not the wearers), that often the wearer had trouble achieving erection after release; or, alternately, that the wearer was able to withdraw his penis from the tube while the device remained in place. He concluded that for a tube to do its job, it had to be tight on the flaccid penis. Now what this seems to do, is negatively to reinforce erection, strongly, and with invariant consistency. Remember, please, that the concept was brought into being in the first place to stop boys from masturbating; and that masturbation is a sign of the presence of a sexual appetite per se. Now if you kill erection through negative reinforcement, you do stop masturbation. (In what bizarre way, then, will the repressed sexual appetite express itself?)
In contrast, the correctly-fitted waistline Florentine female Belt generally (majority of cases but not across-the-board uniformity) arouses the wearer by congesting her pelvic region while the shield gently presses against her labia majora; this is done without the ridiculous irrelevancy of inbuilt dildos.
The two apparati function 180 degrees opposite one another. That of the female Belt is [1] laterally to channel the wearer's sexual energy;[2] to act as asafety device, enabling the wearer to maintain a higher static-burn level of sexual energy, that sacred fire between her thighs, than is compatible with the norms of autonomous chastity; [3] to protect that which is sacred from profanation by unauthorized approach; and [4] to protect that sacred fire from contamination by shame or guilt over a sexual "transgression." I can only infer from reading here and elsewhere that the male device functions in a state-of-mind that substitutes BDSM play for intercourse, which is wa-a-ay different head-space than I ever have occupied or intend to occupy. Blessed be? Maybe. Without me? For sure! The instrument appears now to be only a theatrical prop for fantasies of male submission either as male demoted back to boyhood for a dominant (mother-figure?) woman or as a catamite for a pederast.
Did you receive the two e-mails I sent you at the beginning of this week?
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net |
Alison Lockt (Alison)
New member
Username: Alison
Post Number: 93
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 8:02 am: | |
Robert
I would agree that in my case, I am certainly aroused by being in my belt. As to dildos, I've never been violated in such a way with a belt. If a belt is to protect and care for the lady, then violate is not too strong a word. I've been abused in the past and don't like it at all.
I'll also agree with your points 1 to 4.
Alison |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 425
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 10:43 am: | |
Susan;
Another bit of irony, discussing ways to limit sexual freedom leading to discussions of ways to restore actual freedom.
Robert;
I think I am beginning to understand what you express in your convoluted, and very eloquent way. The female belt tends to "keep the home fire burning" while a male belt tends to extinguish it.
Convoluted might not be quite the right word, but it is sometimes hard to get your point. One thing is for sure, once you get it, you get it precisely.
Perhaps males or Men who wear willingly for kink reasons are enjoying the fight to keep the fire going. Indeed, similar viewpoints expressed different ways and/or with different analogies are helpful.
I will check my email. I do not check it as often because it is a pain now due to a computer error.
T |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 495
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 2:50 am: | |
Alison, Sarah Jane, and Termy Nator, you have taken exception to my low (beneath abysmal, abyssal) opinion of sodomy, either oral or anal. I can only say that I learnt in an older school, where the lesson was that to ask a female to take part in either activity was a mortal insult to the lass and an insult to one's own honor: Specifically, asking the lass for such, was to lower both the lass and oneself to the level of a homo-erotic male. I know these activities and selated activities still more disgusting, now enjoy a certain vogue; but I am not persuaded that my revulsion from such activity is error. At even bend-over-backward charitable best, I remain convinced that these activities are parasitic upon the receptacle.
While we are on the subject of parasitism, consider what a pimp is: A financial exploiter of women. Such a male is not only disloyal to his woman (women?), but is a traitor to men in that his behavior undermines one of the moral bases for male authority. To me this is not fit subject-matter for humor.
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 426
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 12:00 am: | |
To date myself in this way.......
When I was young there was a joke going around.
Russian guy and American guy talking, the American guy says "Well we have freedom of speech so I can go into the Presidents office and say 'Nixon is a nut'"
So the Russian guy goes into Gorbachev's (I think) office and declares "Nixon is a nut".
Simplistic and not very good, it does illustrate the masses' misconceptions of the world. Come on, nobody just walks into the oval office just like that.
Fox news, which should be called faux news (but it doesn't sound right) gets a memo every day from Murdoch or someone up top outlining what stories are to be written and used on air, even the slant to placed on the stories.
If I take out a full page ad in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, to the tune of about $200,000 for the Sunday edition, and continue to do so I would gain the position where I could call them up if I didn't like their story on the front page. "You 'expletive', cancel my ad".
Within two days, they would be at my home or business asking for my forgiveness. At $200,000 per week they would most likely offer me approval on their front page content. After all I do not want to advertise in a paper that does not reflect my views. My moral values if any.
As I continue to pay $200,000 per week, the newspaper becomes a junkie for my money. They are in my power and I hold the reins, even though I am no better than a drug dealer at this point.
This is one of the larger factors that has screwed up our country my friend, and fixing it is no easy task.
Why is it that the influx of big money screws up society ? Because of the kind of people who have big money. How did they get it ? Greed.
I have articles written by journalists, and in some cases ex-journalists which point to this fact. Of course if I have read what they have written they are still journalists as a matter of fact, but they are no longer in the employ of 'journalists-r-us".
If 'pimp' is defined as exploiter of Women, what then is the term for exploiter of Men, or Man ? I could offer up several terms, money, government and such. Tyrant comes to mind.
Long known fact is you can get an interview with your local TV station for about $3,000,,,,,,,per day. You will be purported to be some sort of expert in the field, which of course will be based on whatever product you are selling. People look at it and say, "Damn, they were ON THE NEWS, not a commercial". The impact is clear.
The credibility, even if nonexistant is percieved by the viewer, to a very great degree.
Taking control of the world, it seems to me now, is not a matter of killing, destroying and taking. I submit that if we were to wean ourselves off of their money, it could do alot.
In the future, look for ads in the Tradin Times that say 'barter only'. The car's value is $2,000 say, but they won't take money.
See it is we, the commoners of any given nation that produce the weal. Yes I used that word. There is a subtle difference between weal and wealth.
In the future I see a sub economy being fueled by thos who still participate in the "un"real economy. They will surely print enough money to pay their soldiers (jail guards, trffic cop etc), and they will have to pay,, enough that people not participating in the 'economy' can have gas, electricity and so forth. But when it comes to certain things money is no good.
For example, I get paid in weed to fix a car. This is what the guy has. I got my base expenses covered and I would rather have the weed than money. Money is the worst thing to have now, all it does is drop in value.
For example, a guy comes by wanting to buy my 1963 Split Window Coupe. You know what I maen, a Corvette.
After I refuse his money, to the tune of $200,000 and the like he finally says "Well just what the fuck do you want ?". Whaddya got ?
I could use more space, got any land I can park the rest of my cars and trucks on ? Do you have anything that used to belong to Elvis ?
Can anyone see this the way I do, there will be X amount of people who make the money, somehow people in the 'sub'economy will get enough to maintain having electricty and phones, but will barter goods and services like vegetables, car and home repairs etc.
That is what I mean when I say that we produce the weal of our nation. If we were to decide, for just one day, to produce nothing for the tyrants, they might possibly collapse.
To get extra gas for your car at whaever price beforehand, and then nobody buys any gas in this immense nation for just one day, what will have been said ? More importantly, what will have been heard ?
Tens of millions of gas station employees paid a whopping $7 an hour or, gasp, even more, are on the clock and absolutely no money at all goes to the oil companies.
I can handle a broken rib just fine. Guy's got a company car full of gas. I attach my rig to the Schraeder valve on the fuel rail. As that car 'bleeds' gasoline into mine, I go in and wrap up what he has bought.
They want the cashless society to thwart these 'infractions'. It is very true that 'they' want a cut out of each and every transaction you make. They got their fingers into enough of it to be rich, but with their 'gimme gimme' attitude they always want more.
No more Mom and Pop shops, gonna use eminent domain and put up a Walmart. You got nothing to say about it so shutup. We say who lives around you, we say what you can have and not have and we even can tell you what to do for no reason, I will cite seatbelt laws at this point.
Causes and effects have been hacked to death, but who speaks of a solution ?
In my opinion, we now know what caused the situation we now face in the world, and colleagues, it is up to us, those with something in our crania, to come up with a solution.
People are waking up slow but sure. To solve all the world's problems by Friday is not a charge resting squarewly on our shoulders, and our shoulders alone. No way.
It is going to be an interesting decade.
T |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 496
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 7:05 am: | |
Termy Nator, apply what you said about Klevlandskaya Pravda (better knows as the Plain Dealer, a peculiarly clear example of the degeneration of journalism in a one-newspaper -- no competition -- town, and a dismal disappointment) to United States' foreign aid: The principle is subversion by subvention: The recipient becomes dependent upon that contribution to its national budget. Once dependency sets in, the annual subsidy becomes a string that America can pull. If that revenue stream suddenly stops, a painful re-adjustment of the budget suddenly becomes urgent. Therefore best is to comply with the "benefactor's" wishes.
Yes, you are right in that that is the methodology of the dope-pusher writ large.
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 429
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 11:44 pm: | |
Robert;
You are not stupid, so you do see that it is hapening on a much grander scale. With certain notable exceptions, our politicians are bought wholesale, through the means of the two party system. It is no secret, no matter how repulsive it is to a true conservative. Indeed to any Patriot, who, must in my view, have truly more 'conservative' leanings than any recent administration.
The masses simply follow, as long as they get their trips to the mall on who knows who's money. They really have to have the newest video games or their kids will not be popular.
Something has just occurred to me, it seems like the powers that be have somehow enabled the children to lead. I agree the there are plenty of people who are full-grown, but I mean this more literally. Moms will call their kids on the cellphone to make sure they are getting the right videogame.
Perhaps some new $200 tennis shoes while I am at the mall dear ? How about a new plasma TV for your room ?
Did you do your homework, you know these Ds and Fs are no good. No. Well no plasma TV today, and what version of that game do you want, the online ?, do we have open GL ?
Mom, you are such a dinosaur.
Poor kid, has to get by with only two wireless networks in the house, and one doesn't even cover the garage ! Literally half of the yard is dead. Lucky we got the new one or we would be so screwed.
In the bedroon can rip and burn DVDs, got highspeed internet and DVR with TIVO.
HDTV, DVD all that, they can literally watch Barney 36 hours a day.
Yet lab rats are fed a better diet.
For thornbushes you have asked Sir, thornbushes you have. I know this is an affront to flagwavers who call themselves patriots. The fact of the matter is that we Americans must face up to the truth, we are not on top, and if we have any spirit left, use it to get back on top. It is we who landed a Man on the moon, or faked it so well nobody can tell.
(Robert, I know you didn't need that, but in this public forum, I thought it worth including)
In any major change to come there will need to be a changing of the criteria. The good doers must seperate from the evil doers and somehow prevent the fruits of their labor to fall into the hands of the evil doers.
This is essential, and can be construed to re-invoke all that I have said about alternate barter type sub, or paralell economies. Or better put co-existant economies.
The haves will be fine of course, while the havenots will learn and grow. Human intellect is what put us at the top of the food chain, and that is the only thing that can get us back there.
For example, in Austrailia, if a croc eats you, he is not punished. Let those gun control assholes keep it up, at the very least we need to counter that influence. It is truly the least we can do. Let a wild animal come up and eat their son !
I wish that fate upon every politician who does not support our gun rights.
No kidding, I never was a Christian, I will go to Hell if that is what happens, and I will take my licks if you take yours. I want to see these ex-politicins down there right next to me though. I want to see them fitted with things like those described in Infernoland, an adaptation of Dante's Inferno. This was where politicians, after their glorious death, were fitted with some type of plumbing from the anus to the mouth.
They could only talk shit.
T |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 497
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 1:34 pm: | |
Yesterday was the anniversary of an unsung atrocity: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics judicially executed Oleg Vladimirovich Penkovskii. He was not shot.
He was tied wrists and ankles, with the equivalent of coat-hanger wire, to the poles of a medevac stretcher, laid on the conveyor-belt feeding the furnace of the Moscow Municipal Crematorium, and fed in -- alive, fully conscious, feet first. This was done before an audience; and the GRU filmed it, the film subsequently used as an initiation document that all subsequent entrants to the GRU were obliged to view.
I emphasize that this was a judicial execution; it was not the impromptu and impulsive act of rage that similar atrocities in the Nazi death-camps so often were. It was deliberated upon, and carried out pursuant to written orders, that vlasti had first to sign.
Someone I trust for his knowledge and veracity, told me that John F. Kennedy knew about this shortly after it happened, and that CIA had acquired a print of the film. However, the facts were suppressed in order that there should not be a popular clamor for war with the USSR, with collateral damage to home-grown Leftists. (Just as the fate of an American pilot, shot down over Lybia in Reagan's punitive raid, was kept from the people in order to avert rise of a popular clamor for war with Lybia.)
I would have loved to see a series of Nurenberg-style war-crimes trials after an American victory over the USSR, laying out for the world to see the atrocities sponsored by that Kontora Grubikh Banditov.
I was a Cold Warrior, no shame therein taken, no guilt thereover felt. Reagan called his shot in the dead center of the X-ring when he called the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire." That which is evil, from one's own perspective, is that which is at once both hostile and threatening.
What I never ever could understand, however, is how one could opposed Nazi Germany (something IMHO right to do) and not oppose the Soviet Union and still claim to be consistent.
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 504
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 12:16 pm: | |
http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/birminghampost/perspective/features/tm_objectid=17189805%26method=full%26siteid=50002-name_page.html
Colleagues, the last post corresponded to what we, in the West, most usually identify as totalitarianism: Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four model, of shortages, monstrously monumental "public" buildings (But do not try to enter without the appropriate pass!) that dwarf the individual, dank dwellings of exposed brickwork and pipes, total control of the media with only the State's message broadcast, shortages everywhere in everything -- except to the State and its tiny coterie at the top, who live lavishly -- and the inevitable "language rules," aiming at the truncation of thought so that one cannot apply reason to analyse one's predicament. Confessional jurisprudence is nearly, but not always, an essential feature thereof. And there is always, lurking in a sinister manner in the background, a crematorium. This is the model we have seen in the Soviet Union, in Nazi Germany, and in their imitators. It is a valid model, but it is not the only possible model.
The other model was postulated heuristically plainly by Aldous Huxley in his Brave New World: It is the totalitarianism of the nursery, in which the citizenry are reduced to equality with children. The State, of course, is governess -- on the model of the "pathological mommy" who so loves her childrens' childliness that she will not allow them to grow up. Babies must be protected from themselves, so the physical and social environments must be purged of things they can use to hurt one another or themselves, and risk must be aversified. "Language rules" enter, because baby mutht (must in baby-talk) not hurt his playmates' feelings. One could go on, but you in Britain already know much of it through daily living, and we in the U.S.A. see that as a shape of things to come. This picture is sharper in outline in the American academic subculture.
The "hard" model, from Plato (Republic, Laws, and Statesman) up to the present date, is the actuality of utilitarian socialism. That "soft" model" postulated clearly by Huxley, is the object of advocacy, taken to its remotest consequence, of humanitarian socialism. (The picture is blurred by those Bourgeoises who cry "Socialism!" at every attempt to protect us commoners from their overreaching. It is as much in the nature of businessmen, including bureaucrats, to overreach as it is in the nature of cats to scratch.)
In her Origins of Totalitarianism, Arendt demonstrates how governmental mechanisms originally created for purposes which their creators thought were more or less benign, could be re-combined for malignant purposes. And it is this, Colleagues, that is one of the real detriments of "humanitarian" socialism. It creates governmental mechanisms whose existence is incompatible with the freedom of individual citizens. (Consult the character of Ellsworth Toohey in Rand's The Fountainhead.) What happens when money to fund "humanitarian" programs runs first thin, then dry? The simpering nanny mask of "humanitarian" socialism gradually, incrementally morphs into the riveted-iron skull-face of purely utilitarian socialism.
Arendt also demonstrates one of the many detriments of imperialism: The imperial bureaucrat, retired back home, voices his suspicion that methods which worked so well with "subject races" in the far-flung reaches of the empire, would work at least equally well if not better, here at home. A politician crony picks up the suggestion and puts it forth for implimentation. Of course, another detriment of imperialism is that laws enacted in a colony by imperial bureaucrats to control "subject races," remain in being after independence, but only the color of the oppressors changes.
"If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual." -- HERBERT, Frank, (novel) The Dosadi Experiment, chapter epigram. That is the major detriment of "humanitarian" socialism: That it begins by catering to the actually helpless and ineffectual; but that, through bureaucratic empire-building, more and more people are encouraged to believe that they need "help," of such kind as one or another kind of bureaucracy provides. More and more people, in more and more areas of living, come to think of themselves as helpless, ineffectual, and thus dependent upon the State for the "help" they need. Just look at the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans last year.
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net |
The cynic (Cynic)
New member
Username: Cynic
Post Number: 144
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 1:18 pm: | |
Robert:
First Heinlein, and now Herbert. Do you have an opinion of John Varley? |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 505
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 2:49 pm: | |
Cynic, see my e-mail to you.
Colleagues, we have all heard the cliche about boiling the frog. Sayings would not become cliches or truisms or platitudes unless they so very often proved true. We, collectively the "frog," have been in water whose temperature has steadily but slowly increasing, since William Randolph Hearst lied the U.S.A. into the Spanish-American war, if not earlier still.
If by some miracle the Founding Fathers of the U.S.A. could be brought back to life, most of them (With the exception of that bastard Alexander Hamilton), seeing what this country has become, would tear their hair, howl, hurl, and shit. (Hamilton, I think, would love the advent of a plutocratic oligarchy and an all-powerful central bank. So would Gouverneur Morris.)
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 457
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 9:58 pm: | |
In light of your post Robert, I will share this joke I read recently.
Hillary Clinton is elected President, but there are ghosts in the Whitehouse and she is visited by George Washington, she asks him what should she do ? "Never tell a lie" he replies. She said "No way".
Then come a few others, and finally Abraham Lincoln is there, and she asks, Lincoln's response ? "Go to the theater".
If I ever became President I would surely pick my own body guards. I would cause change, gotta die sometime. Y'know, the Kennedy's have had money way too long. JFK should've known better than to issue an ultimatum to David Ben-Gurion. Then we got Chappaquidick, if my girl was in the car I would do everything I can to get her out. Not them.
The thing that really makes it worse, is that these booze runners are much better "leaders" than we have today.
T |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 512
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 11:42 am: | |
Colleagues, you are respectfully invited to read http://www.wesjones.com/gatto1.htm. I solicit your comments. For myself, I believe it is true.
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 478
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 1:05 pm: | |
Robert;
You've done it again. Look for this thread to be 200 posts long soon. That is a very astute article. I agree with it and have experienced it.
When I was in kindergarden (kindred garten ?) at the beginning, not the first day, perhaps the first week the teacher asked who could write a letter A on the blackboard. Already being literate I of course raised my hand. So I chalked a printed, not cursive, upper case A proudly on the blackboard. I have no idea why, perhaps because I'm left handed, she said it was backwards. I quickly retorted "it can't be backwards, it's symmetrical" . The reaction wasn't harsh, but wasn't pleasant.
Was this a veiled test for individuality ? Could a teacher really be that stupid ? We can only speculate.
My next revelation came in third or fourth grade when I asked, politely, after class to be shown how to do long division. I surprizingly didn't know already, since after being asked in kindergarden to count as high as I could. I asked the teacher "Are you sure ?". This because I knew how the number system works and if given enough time could count to infinity, or just short of course. When I got up to 100 or so I was asked to stop. I had it figured out, the only anomolies were eleven through nineteen, they could've been called "tenty-one, tenty-two," etc.
In other words, I had it figured out, not memorized. I also knew that 12/3=4, but only through reverse application of the multiplication tables. I wanted to really be able to figure it out. The answer was "We aren't on that yet".
This is proof positive of Mr. Gatto's point, at least in my eyes. As bad as it was, it is exceedingly worse now.
I believe that forced memorization of material, that is not essential, is a sinister tool to oppress imagination and creativity.
Luckily, I was from a broken home and had an afterschool "sitter" not at home. An older kid showed me long division and life went on.
Of the four in our nucleic family unit only my Mother actually graduated high school. When the family broke up, she was forced to support us on mediocre (if even that good) jobs. My dropout Father on the other hand was a top notch job shop machinist. Then by the time I was 20 I had a better job than my Mother.
Things changed, she finally found a couple of jobs that challenged her intellectualy and is now doing very well. She was never stupid, but I think that later life experience taught her not to accept less than her due in life. She is a very intelligent Woman, always was, but I think at some point she "broke out of the mold" so to speak.
The ol'man never had a mold. He was ferocious, he knew the value of his work and used it ruthlessly against employers. There were times I believe he actually got two raises in one week, driving the payroll department crazy I'm sure.
My Mother, now wants to retire and has tried to train many replacements. She likes the company very much, but wants to retire very badly, but she really flourished at that firm and they keep throwing money at her. She will finally retire one day, but why couldn't this enlightenment have come to her much earlier ? She even went to a Catholic school, and still had to break out of the mold. Why ?
I think Mr. Gatto summed it up quite nicely.
His article probably holds true for most European school systems, but they don't dumb down the students anywhere near as much as the US schools.
If you do a Google search for "America by the numbers" one of the results will be from the Minneapolis/St. Paul City Pages website. Read that, it could be disheartening for some, but to be ignorant of the problem is to perpetuate it's existence.
You know, I am an American, I am in the US, we do not export cars. Why are there symbols on the dashboard of our cars now ? In Europe, and the advent of Japanes cars, I understand why they use symbols. A Frenchman might not understand the word "vipershnellen" or whatever the word is for wipers in German. Certainly very few would understand the Japanese symbol for that device.
Of course I note the Buick Roadmaster, which has the word "LIGHTS" printed over the knob, not toggle switch, a pull out knob like that which was used for decades.
This is not quite the car for the masses. Cars for the masses are dumbed down. In the next few years we might see a gas guage with a symbolic picture of a man walking where the "E" used to be. Maybe a picture of a police car on the speedometer where it used to say "80", and maybe a jail door where it used to say "100" and a picture of a school building where it used to say "20".
Now to say that foreign cars should have print instead of symbols would amount to American hubris, they are in a multilingual environment.
Although I have no idea who decided to do this, someone believes that the volume or channel up buttons on a TV set belong to the left of the "down" buttons. Now when the name on the front say "Ching Wa" or "Ak Nagakhh" this is understandable, but when it says "RCA", or "Magnavox" it is obviously intended for the American market. Which American contries read from the right to the left ? I can't think of any.
I also remember the days when we never heard the word "recall".
Education is at the heart of the problem, the "well rounded" education being the tool. This means that an engineer has to know the General's name in some obscure battle that occurred before he was born.
A budding journalist needs to know calculus.
Doctors are hit the hardest. With curricula ad infinitum, they emerge from medical school not being qualified to be a vetrinarian. True, check it out. Vets know what causes diabetes, ulcers, arthritis, tooth decay and a whole host of things easily cured in animals. A loose quote from Dr. Joel Wallach, one of the few people who are both an MD and an animal husbandry proffessional "If doctors took care of animals and vets took care of humans, health care for a family of four would be about $12 a month, but hamburger would be $300 a pound".
See, drug companies do not influence the curriculum at vetrinary schools the way the do at medical schools. Gatto said it, greed.
Now the social effects of this situation are even more disparaging. Tell people in a bar that the war in Iraq is wrong and you might get into a fistfight. Show people, PEOPLE WITH KIDS !, Gatto's article, and "America By The Numbers" and they might become irate.
Even worse, schools now have the stated intent of instilling self esteem in the children, It is this imbued self esteem that closes their minds even further. I know that you know this Robert, but I will literate it for others, perhaps passers by who may be reading. YOU CANNOT INSTILL SELF ESTEEM !, self esteem is called self esteem because it comes from one's self. You want to instill self esteem in a child teach him something useful. Make the child proud of himself because he knows more now, he can do more now.
Perhaps the whole education system should be scrapped. Many teachers would wind up working at McDonald's, and "Parents" of these hellions with no self control would have to put up with them all day, instead of getting an eight hour break from the big brother babysitting system.
My neighbors to the south are good people, but their mentality is not quite Mensa class to say the least. They maxed out their credit cards, for what ? tinkets, decorations, model cars, windup toys and anything, and I mean anything that depicts the cartoon characters snoopy or tweety.
Their tenant arrainged for a consolidation loan for them, he is pretty good in business, and the credit card debt was cleared. What do you think they did ? Went on a shopping spree.
OK we get overextended too, but we buy cars and trucks, lathes, milling machines, fluxcore welders, bandsaws (oops bandsaw, we only have one, you only need one). Next is a plasma cutter and a crane. We had a custom set of basement steps built that are removable, to facilitate the use of the crane, which is basically an overgrown cherry picker, like they use to change car engines, and yes it'll serve that purpose nicely as well.
Dropouts one and all. I was in my thirties, sitting around with Dad and one of his freinds, and one day out of the blue we decided to learn how to do square roots longhand. The procedure is outlined in the Machinery Handbook. Dad and his friend were in their 50s at the time. I don't know how it came about, but like a good part of the time we were having an intelligent discussion. I think what came up is that students were now allowed to use calculators in the classroom. One thing lead to another and we were pointing off the quotient etc., figuring it out as we went along, guided by the somwhat sparse instructions in this thick book with fine print.
We didn't get the self esteem "rush" younger people might, but we did it, and it was a positive thing. Learning is good at any age.
That last paragraph leads to this : the most common misconception is indeed that schools are for learning, or more aptly that schools are the only place to learn. Parents think that making their kids do their homework is educating them. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
I have helped kids with homework and I can tell you, there is something going on here. They are trying to shape their thinking process in ways that are foreign to me, and I will state that this means "to a normal thinking Man". If I did not believe that I would not be typing this. The twisted logistic issues these questions pose do indeed invoke thought, but the correct answer is frequently derived from the same twisted logic. Many questions, if posed to me would result in "that's a stupid question and totally irrelevant to any concievable issue", but in the same breath almost, we must tell the kids not to make such a judgement because they really can't concieve of all possible issues at this time. This gives teachers an alarming amount of power to shape the kids' minds. What's worse, the manipulators of the curriculum, the real emeny, have carte blanche to inbue political ideas in math class, moral issues in science class, and current events in electronics class.
The fucking worst thing is citizenship and/or social studies. (sorry to use that word Robert, but I meant it)
When the government teaches your kids citizenship, just in who's interest do you think they operate ? This was one of Mr. Gatto's points as well. Creative and intelligent people would provide quite a stiff opposition.
This was also stated in the Protocaols Of The Meetings Of the Learned Elders Of Zion, whether it is a fake or not, it was one of the most enlightening documents I have ever read.
Substitute greedy bastard for Zioninst and then it can be discussed without racism. Take the Rosenthal Document and substitute the word greedy bastard in every instance of the word Jew, and it makes sense. Now I am not saying Jews are greedy bastards, I am just saying that the content of these documents refers to greedy bastards.
"When we took over the school systems that was the real plum".
There are alot of greedy bastards, and by no means are they all Jews, not at all. Even IF they do lie at the core of certain social ills, it is not all of them by any means. whatever their traits, well so be it. Generally they are successful, adept at business and some are ruthless, but that applies to others as well.
What race is GWB ? Jews are loyal to their homeland, I have no problem with that, but why aren't our elected officials loyal to our homeland ?
Even if we had a severe pogrom like those in old Europe, it is not they who need to be punished, they just do what they do, it is natural. The politicians who sell out to big business, or sell out to ANYONE are those who should incur our wrath. Death by slow torture. They have destroyed generations of their supposed brethren, that is We The People.
GWB didn't start it, Woodrow Wilson didn't start it, even Abraham Lincoln didn't start it. Even the founding Fathers of this country didn't start it.
The question is looming though, and soon the answer will be apparent : Who will end it ? As much as I hate the bitch, Jane Fonda got it right "The light at the end of the tunnel may be a nuclear explosion". If you don't know the story of how she betrayed POWs in Viet Man I'll post a link. Until I found out about that I had no disdain for her, and almost had respect because she bucked the system, but she caused death by torture of a bunch of POWs while there, and that was wrong. She went too far. One Man survived to tell the story, the others all perished.
Even so, the politicians that sent our boys there are still more culpable for their deaths.
And the sheeple cheer them on, and reelect GWB. Let me enlighten you all, all wars are for gain, of natural resources or control thereof. Our boys went to Viet Nam for phosphorous, but it went on so long the American public learned of the atrocities in war, which are normal, but were too immature to understand it correctly. Calling them baby killers when they were trying to serve their country. That was also worng.
Milesovic wanted to sell his cadmium to countries that we didn't approve. Still haven't figured Korea out, but a geological map might prove interesting. Sometimes there are logistic reasons as well. It is possible that Iraq will be a staging ground for the destruction of Iran, who has stated that they intend to destroy Israel. Why else are we in Iraq, that pipeline doesn't mean that much, and Saddam's decision to switch over to the Euro wouldn't have killed us.
Let the events unfold, let me and other "crackpots" be proven right, as we have been in the past. Protect the people you know that have a brain and let the sheeple perish. It's the best we can do.
Yes, the educational system was a very big plum. I don't care about the race of the people who destroyed it, but they deserve death by slow torture.
Like the "Protocols" I mentioned, as I read it I was fully aware that anybody can write anything. Applying facts, one finds a strange correlation to world events. Such as it is with Gatto's article. I have seen it, I can see it. I have seen it in many many ways.
One time, while drunk, after discussing politics and education etc. for a while I made the statement "They should just tear down all the schools and put up sports arenas and stadiums". The more I see the state of affairs, the less sarcastic I regard that remark. It was sarcastic in nature at the time, but that was many years ago.
I encourage you (all) to read America by the numbers. The situation depicted in Gatto's text is part of the cause for the situation.
And as the other article points out, many flag wavers are still out ther "Number One, Number One". The only thing we are number one in is illiteracy among graduates and per capita murder rate.
T |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 514
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, July 01, 2006 - 9:29 am: | |
The Shape Of Things to Come in the U.S.?
Colleagues, please read http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_2_oh_to_be.html. Please take care to read the Selected Responses as well as the article itself. While comments are invited from all, most especially I would like to hear from those of you who are in Great Britain.
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 483
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 01, 2006 - 11:25 am: | |
About two months ago I recieved a phone call, the caller got lucky. My friend and his Wife were being pelted with rocks by four youths after he had evicted them from her sister's van, smoking an illegal substance. One claimed to have permission, but not from the owner of the van !
When I say he got lucky I mean I called my next door neighbor, who accompanied me and brought my other neighbor, and his truck. So two vehicles arrive and they scattered like cockroaches. I stepped out with my 350 Chevy camshaft ready to take some kneecaps home, it was dark so they couldn't see how many people were in my car and his pickup truck.
We learned from neighborhood sources, however that we had been seen. It was nice not to have to do violence, but it could've happened, and no prisoners.
As it stands they don't know if we were armed with massive firearms or what. The odds were now 4 on 4 and they had no idea, there could've been as many as 9 people in these vehicles.
Bullies and gangs operate in the environment of superior strength or numbers, they have no taste for a fair fight.
Robert, since you like to get me going, I have something for you : This mentality has spread to the police, the very people who are supposed to curb this behavior.
Id Est- from time to time you hear about the police beating a suspect. In general, how many officers are involved ? You generally don't hear about a solitary policeman giving some punk a well deserved sound thrashing. It is 4 or 5 of them kicking a handcuffed suspect.
I, too, would like to hear from Brits about this subject, even moreso from Austrailians, who have more recently lost their firearms. Reports are abound about the increased crime rate there.
Governments that take guns away from law abiding Citizens obviously care not for those who they are supposed to serve. The disarming of the Citizenry is clearly a case of preventing any proactive action by the People against tyranny.
Thouroughly sickening.
Now, it is Saturday, I'll be back another time.
T |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 516
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 8:23 am: | |
Shape Of Things To Come in the U.S.? 2
Although http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1129827.ece pertains to Great Britain, I respectfully request all Colleagues to read it: It will prompt recollection of unfortunate analogues here, e.g.: The "Real ID" act, and the innovation of keeping protesters out of the sight of the President.
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 713
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 2:49 pm: | |
The fact that public opinion has been both manipulated and occasionally coerced into silence in England and America is nothing new.
I believe that both the Blair governments (and the GW Bush administration) are trying to kill off public access to “inconvenient truths”, by making the spreading such information, a crime. This IS an attack on fundamental democratic freedoms and human rights.
In general terms we know why they are doing this; in some cases we even know quite specifically what they have done. However; our political systems no longer give us meaningful democratic options, so what the hell can we do about it? |
Alphax (Alphax)
New member
Username: Alphax
Post Number: 103
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 02, 2006 - 10:57 pm: | |
Vote for 3rd party candidates.
It really isn't throwing away your vote!
The Green Party in the US is more in line with my personal leanings than the Dems or the Republicans. Ralph Nader was such an idiot for letting himself be nominated in the last race by a) a conservative 3rd party, and b) an obvious puppet party of the Right.
If the 3rd parties ever want power, they're going to have to conquer one state at a time. |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 519
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 03, 2006 - 6:38 pm: | |
Happy Fourth of July!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/07/03/nyank03.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/07/03/ixuknews.html
"Most Britons see America as a cruel, vulgar, arrogant society, riven by class and racism, crime-ridden, obsessed with money and led by an incompetent hypocrite." So does this American, and many other common folk of my country. We are native-born, and a new tribe: The Bohicans.
"More than two-thirds who offered an opinion said America is essentially an imperial power seeking world domination." You English folk are suffering the after-effects of dissolution of empire. Our founding fathers knew that the best way to avoid that particular headache, was to avoid quest for empire: You do not want a hangover? Then do not get drunk. As to racialism, that lethal gene of the Body Politic (And many of the founding fathers knew it as such, even though they expressed the knowledge in terminology we today find quaint and/or overly theocentric.), the seminal error was in place before the Republic took discrete form: How the founding fathers could have corrected it, perhaps only the Gods know.
"And 81 per cent of those who took a view said President George W Bush hypocritically championed democracy as a cover for the pursuit of American self-interests." The founding fathers mostly knew better. Our freedom was not an export commodity in their eyes.
"With respect to the poll's assertions about American society, we bear some of the blame for not successfully communicating America's extraordinary dynamism...." said a spokesman from Grosvenor Square.
Dynamism? Remember that such figures as Gross National Product, Gross Domestic Product, etcetera of like ilk, are products of aggregation and statistical abstraction. Throw the incomes and holdings of the stratospherically wealthy into the spreadsheet, and, yes, that will raise the per capita figure. Profit is profit is profit ad infinitum? There is a difference, not in degree but in kind, between profit gained from domestic manufacturing and profit from paper transactions, even though both are expressed on paper in terms of -- unstable but overall shrinking -- dollars. Too, "creative accounting" uses more offsets than creative cuisine uses spices. However, quasi-religious statistical mania is one of the reasons why the Bourgeoisie are psychologically unsuited for uncontested supremacy in the State. Our biggest problem is that no other social force in the country, is strong enough reasonably to contest with them.
If by some means the founding fathers could be brought back to life and they looked upon the country, with the exception of that venomous bastard Alexander Hamilton, they would not know whether to howl, hurl, tear their hair, or go blind. Benjamin Franklin was asked by a lady what kind of government the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was giving the country; his reply: "A republic, madam, if you can keep it." We are losing it.
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net
|
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 715
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 12:04 am: | |
Robert McNamara is reputed to have said (regarding the Vietnamese) “If you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow!” I think this stupid failed policy remains active in the Pentagon today.
The Telegraph statement is a little harsh, since we have most of those problems here as well. Tony may not be as thick as your local twit (GW Bush) but he still followed him all the way to Baghdad.
Telling other societies how to behave at missile point is considered impolite; but it is very common. Just consider Israel’s actions in the last few days. |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 520
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 - 9:43 am: | |
Fellow Americans mainly -- but Colleagues all wheresoever situated -- are respectfully requested to read http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory118.html. Indeed, I recommend adding http://www.lewrockwell.com to your inventory of bookmarks.
A patriot builds up his own country; A super-"patriot" tears down another's country.
(BTW, "patriot" derives from the Latin, patria = "fatherland" [pater = "father"].)
----------
Who the actual originator of this toast is, I do not know; I heard it attributed to Karl Schurz, the nineteenth-century civil-service reformer:
"My country
"When right, kept right.
"When wrong, set right."
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 490
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 5:21 pm: | |
Anthony Gregory is OK, but a bit Amerocentric. You can't really blame him. I used to be the same way.
I also don't see any solutions offered. any revolutionary action by the People, or even show of force will be met with force, with the powers that be claiming that the power to quell such actions is vested in them by the "people". Surely they need to do this to satisfy any scraps of morality left in their mind.
Funny, I just corrected a typo, I typed mo/rality. Now that is a trip, because that is what they are about, getting more. We have a Vice President who is known to have converted a good portion of his wealth to other currency. He has an impact on the value of a dollar. The dollar is dropping. He and Bush should be brought up on charges of treason, if not more.
Mr. Pinkerton, I am sure this thread is being read by others, and that is good. The problem is I think we are now preaching to the choir so to speak. We all know how screwed up things are, but viable sloutions are scarce.
It seems as though they have us, and there is no way out, but I will not accept that. I agree that an armed revolt is out of the question, and I doubt a tax revolt will work. What are our options ?
There has to be options, otherwise we might as well talk about the weather.
T |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 717
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 2:17 am: | |
Recent Israeli actions (or reactions, if you feel able to believe them) make some kind of new Middle Eastern war almost inevitable. When will America stop supporting this rouge state with billions of dollars in military and economic aid?
Susan |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 525
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 9:52 am: | |
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." -- Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil (Kaufmann's translation), section 146 in toto.
French vernacular proverb: "Chacun prend a l'adversaire, qu'il le veuille ou non [Each takes after his enemy, whether he wishes it or not.]"
Taking part in a fight, exercises a corrupting influence on each party as a recoil effect, more intensely in proportion both as the fight is longer and as the fight is more bitter. In the last century, my country faced off with two monsters: The Nazis we thromped. The Soviets we outwaited, the while maintaining an excruciating stance of warlike tension. Decide for yourself just how much we unconsciously absorbed from both or either of them, especially since both had their domestic cheerleading sections.
Hatred exercises a corrosive influence on the soul of him or her who emits it. Yet hatred is the all-too-human response of one who is drawn into a fight for his or her life -- or, worse, the worthwhileness of his or her life to be lived. If Hitler had won, I would be a cake of soap, no mistake: I am not Jewish, but I am half Slavic on my mother's side (mostly Polish, but with a smidgen of Russian). If the Soviets had won, I would be a zek (Russian vernacular for Gulag inmate).
(Susan, as to my country's affection for Israel. When I was a child and a teen-ager, I knew a few alumni of the death-camps; more Americans than you might think, did. Generations before mine may have harbored a marginal anti-Semitism, but disclosure of the horrors of the Holocaust brought my elders to tearful shame when they were confronted with the sight of whither it would lead when pursued to its remotest consequence: What the Nazis did to any Jew who fell into their clutches, was anti-human apostasy from the human race. Too, Christianity is later fruit of the Abrahamic tree; and the man whom Christians think was God on Earth, was a Jew through and through, even if he did have a mystical side. A majority of my countryfolk, at least think of themselves as Christians. Then there is -- or at least used to be -- the American as-is "instinctive" tendency to root for young David against Goliath. Finally, do not overlook the effect in democratic politics, of a minority of like-minded, energetic, and prosperous people -- especially if the majority of that minority are downright likeable as individuals.)
I submit to you, Colleagues, that much of my country is corrupt in several different ways at once. Of course there is the lower corruption of venality: The giving and taking of bribes, sometimes coarse and blatant, sometimes subtle and artfully disguised. The higher corruption, however, is examined at length by Roberto Michels (Political Parties: An Enquiry into the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy), in those chapters wherein he discusses the psychological metamorphosis of the leadership: "There is more in common between two Deputies [Congressmen or Members of Parliament], one of whom is a revolutionary, than there is between two revolutionaries, one of whom is a Deputy." Is relaxation of sexual rigor intrinsically corrupt, as the pietistic hypocrites in the leadership and spokesmanship of the "religious right" would have us misbelieve? Sexual over-scrupulosity breeds its own corruption, widespread hypocrisy in matters sexual; which, like a computer virus, bleeds over gradually into other departments of life. Then, there is the simple mid-level corruption of arrogance: I think many non-Americans on this Forum, have "ugly American" stories to tell from personal observation. On the other hand, arrogance can easily be dissembled as the pity of the common equal toward the perceived "inferior": "We know better than you what is good for you."
Desire for violent social revolution is insane: What violent social revolutions produce are, inter alia, atrocity (Read exhaustive histories of that French revolution whose anniversary is today, the Nazi revolution in Germany, and the Soviet Civil War.) and dictatorship. (In Nineteen Eighty-Four, O'Brien tells the helpless Winston Smith: "The purpose of making a revolution is to make a dictatorship." There is an example of the privilege of fiction to illustrate truths passed over in silence in everyday discourse.) Anyone who even just pretends at sanity, should fear the very idea. Yet, I am afraid that this country's Establishment, in the blithe ignorance of arrogance, is pushing the country in the direction of a pre-revolutionary situation.
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 718
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 12:48 pm: | |
Dear Robert
America is not a fair broker in this matter; it’s almost unheard of for any US president or government spokesperson to oppose ANYTHING Israel does. I firmly believe that America covertly supplied much of the engineering technology that enabled Israel to build atomic weapons some 30 years ago; the US also supplies most of the airborne hardware being used against civilians as I write this.
Israel has atomic weapons, the most sophisticated (and successful) armed forces in the region, an internationally recognised intelligence service (operating on a war-time footing) and more military funding than most European nations (largely thanks to the USA). Basically they have become the local Goliath; with very powerful allies and brutally repressive policies towards the people they took the land from (at gunpoint, I might add) to build modern Israel. So . . . if you’re looking for a metaphorical David in this situation, Israel is not it!
The link between historic Judaism and Christianity has little relevance in these events; Israel plays the - get out of Jail free – “Holocaust card” every time it ignores a UN resolution against them; simultaneously engineering US sponsored UN resolutions against it’s neighbours when it can’t get it’s way by force alone.
It’s high time that Americans woke up to the brutal and duplicitous nature of the modern Israeli state. It’s hypocritical attitude to other people’s rights of self-determination show just how deep its national morals go; they are one layer of paint thick.
Susan |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 526
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 4:15 pm: | |
Susan, What I was trying to tell you, is that a fair majority of my countryfolk are at least more than half-way positively disposed toward Israel. As to that country's domestic conflict, do not expect me to pronounce judgment: I recused myself long ago, because, intellectually, I knew I did not have information enough to arrive at a principled position; and I am pulled emotionally in both directions at once, as I have both Jewish and Arab friends. (For cryin' out loud, my name is Robert Pinkerton; it is not the ineffable innermost Name [ha Shem, known to those who do not speak Hebrew as Tetragrammaton] of their God.)
(Speaking of Gods, I put this proposition to all Colleagues: The ruling God of this twenty-first century Western culture is not the God of Abraham [ha Shem a.k.a. Tetragrammaton].
The ruling God of this culture is not Y'shua bar Joseph of Nazareth, whom the Christians revere as filius Dei unigenite, the only-begotten son of God. Rather, the ruling God of this culture is Mammon, the demon of unnatural blind lust for money. Classical and mediaeval demonographers hold that Mammon is an androgyne.
(Now unnatural blind lust is a different thing altogether from love. Love is respectful of the beloved. The true lover of money earns it by nonest work; and proof that his love is true, inheres in his refusal to touch a dirty dollar. No, unnatural blind lust is the motive of the thief; in matters sexual, it is the sexual component of the motivation of the rapist. The orthodox worship of Mammon resembles a sick parody of Calvinism, in that earthly prosperity is the Sign of the Elect, and hypocrisy abounds. Most people whose behavior is perfect by the standard of Mammon, are not at all aware of this: The combination of narcissistic satisfaction with what they have, and envy of them who have more, occupies their minds to the exclusion of much else. However, many more people emit such behavior because they are forced by circumstance against their will. Either way, it is homage to Mammon. And the gradual removal of social-legislation "safety-nets" force upon the non-communicant the choice of emitting and perfecting such worship of Mammon, or living like a monk.
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 494
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 6:09 am: | |
Mammon seems to be omnipresent these days, and as one learns more and more history the word omnipresent seems to take on it's true meaning even more.
You Sir know as well as I who is promoting Mammon, and I can reasonably assure you that none of these people are your friends.
They are the modern equivalent of the Pharises. I am specifically NOT speaking of the Jews, as this is not them characteristically. Although they have been fed Mammonism by the truckload, they are not the problem.
I have been told that having a King or Queen was not always the worst thing. Sometimes in really hard times, like a drought or something the King might make a disbursement to each household. Though rare, it shows that a leader has a connection to his People. He firmly believes in his right to lead the country, whether into war or peace. But then this is not done on a whim.
Unlike today's leaders, they considered themselves responsible for their subjects' well being. Even if you analogize this with slavery, what happens if your slaves get sick, injured or die ? The work does not get done.
The supposed 'leaders' of today are way more then a half a bubble off. They are killing their cash cow and simply don't see it, or they do and they are more malicious than I thought. The latter seems more plausible as each day goes by.
Enough for now.
T |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 530
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 9:00 am: | |
Termy Nator, in yours of 15/07/06/0509 you wrote: "I have been told that having a King or Queen was not always the worst thing. Sometimes in really hard times, like a drought or something the King might make a disbursement to each household. Though rare, it shows that a leader has a connection to his People..." Whereof you speak is that selfsame loyalty downward from above which a Key-holder owes -- in chief, above and before any other obligation that binds him or her -- to his or her Steel Angel, only writ large to encompass the entire population, not just campaign contributors. That may be mythical and it may be naive, but -- knowing it is more myth than fact -- so do I subscribe to it as an ideal: I made the territory in which the story of my novel is situated, a Monarchy with an active Nobility. (My friend the retired psychoanalyst told me that in that particular -- having a government that an honest person could respect and need not fear -- my novel is wish-fulfillment.)
Colleagues, take a look at http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001155.php. Is that any kind of example of loyalty downward?
I recommend to all that they buy or borrow a copy of Gaetano Mosca's The Ruling Class, and read Mosca's discussion of the phenomenon of Class separation -- and that cosmic irony whereby class separation proceeds faster in democratic countries, than in others. The day when the Wall Street banker and the corner panhandler had in common that they both could discuss baseball, to cite one homely example, is gone.
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 539
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 2:38 pm: | |
Imagine a fence -- a S T O U T fence: Its posts are twelve-inch I-beams, the same as used in the skeletons of skyscrapers, driven clear down to bedrock. Upon these posts are fastened sheets of heavy, chemically passivated, steel; and the steel is festooned with a wire net bearing sensors at each knot. The steel sheets start fifty feet below ground level, and continue in a seamless expanse fifty feet above ground level. The fence is built canted facing south, so that an object dropped off the top thereof lands three feet south of its base, in order to augment difficulty of climbing. This imaginary fence starts at the Pacific coast and stretches all the way to the Atlantic coast, consistently fifty yards north of the United States - Mexican border, and the fifty-yard strip between the fence and the imaginary line that is the political boundary is kept raked smooth, so that any incursion shows. Any triggering of the sensors is investigated forthwith by helicopter-borne mobile squads; for this purpose, the Apache is the helicopter of choice, on the theory that it is better to have weapons and not need them than it to need them and lack them.
Is that the equivalent of a chastity belt?
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 516
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 7:25 pm: | |
One could only hope.
T |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 540
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 5:11 am: | |
If the United States government were serious -- if it meant business -- about unlawful immigration, that fence (or something stronger) would be part of the ensemble of measures to address the problem.
Another essential part of that hypothetical ensemble would be a law imposing a fine of a minimum of one thousand dollars per day per individual unlawful immigrant, on firms which hire unlawful immigrants. (I have no sympathy whatsoever for firms which engage in anti-national behavior for the sake of cutting labor costs.) Let the fine be declared due the very hour it is adjudged, with permission given to the State to collect it by levy upon assets in execution of judgment therefor if it is even twenty-four hours in arrears.
Still another part of that ensemble seriously to address the problem of unlawful immigration, is a statute criminalizing unlawful entry in felony degree.
A State which is loyal, downward from above, to the people over whom it holds privilege of rule, puts its own people first: Charity begins at home.
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net |
Termy Nator (Notchasteyet05)
New member
Username: Notchasteyet05
Post Number: 517
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 5:22 pm: | |
I read a story not too long ago. Some upscale housing development was being built and the workers, OK I am racist, with dark skin and speaking Spanish, were being slobs. Their litter was all over the place. The owner of the construction company had been pled with to keep his workers in check, to at least be neat.
Well they had a neighborhood association, I can't think of it's name right now, but it started with the letter "I".
The association calld the INS and told them what was going on and what they intended to do, which was to don blue uniforms with the acronym for their association on the caps. I_______ Neighborhood Something (Services I think). The Immigration and Naturaliation Service told them that this would be fine, they didn't care.
This INS picked up the garbage, during the work day, right in front of the crews. IIRC, they put the garbage in bags they had brought, rather than the provided public trash cans.
The next day most of the workforce did not show up. The company's owner was up in arms, but there's not a damn thing he can do about it, who would he complain to ?
Kinda made my day reading that.
T |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 547
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 22, 2006 - 11:11 am: | |
Colleagues, http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/1702684/posts is a long read, but it is applicable to any and all countries in the Western orbit; it amply repays your time and effort to read not only the article but also the appended commentary.
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net |
The cynic (Cynic)
New member
Username: Cynic
Post Number: 150
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, September 23, 2006 - 6:45 pm: | |
A bit ranty. |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 567
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 11:53 pm: | |
The articles linked below hypothecate an interesting linkage between the U.S.'s problems in Iraq and the family structure customarily obtaining there. Since they also bear upon chastity issues more directly, I am repeating this post in the thread, Chastity Belts are used in Arab Countries.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWYyMDhkOWYwOWU4YWZlMTkwMWEzMDY0MTA0MGM0YmY=
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2RhZTg4ZWM4ZTI0MzkzOWE5MjJkZGMzZTE3ZDllZmM=
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 868
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 5:28 pm: | |
Dear DF
I was aware of the Cuba missile crisis in the 60s, but really too young to understand what it meant for the world. Today those events have taken on a mythical quality, as if it happened in another world, not just a few decades ago in ours. Nuclear Proliferation is an old issue these days, perhaps we even felt it was a dead issue, but recent events prove that it is far from over.
As we know the Iranians are pushing forward their enrichment program, claiming that it is for power generation alone (which many doubt). I am concerned to see this threat flair up again, especially in the hands of a hard line Islamic state, but one has to recognise the hypocrisy of America’s position, in light of their gift of Atomic power to Israel almost two decades ago.
Now America and others threaten sanctions or military intervention because soft-spoken diplomacy has failed. Heavy diplomacy needs the treat of military force behind, but the big stick should never be flourished internationally just to satisfy one nations domestic PR problems. This happened in Iraq, which produced an intractable mess; today America and Britain just want some way out of the place without looking like complete buffoons. I hope someone with power and brains in the American administration has worked out how to end such a conflict, if it starts. If not, Iraq may seem like a fleabite on the way to a much bigger conflict.
How do Americans feel about the prospect of their government starting a shooting war with Iran?
How will European governments react, and where will their reaction to this situation take us?
Susan |
Robert Pinkerton (Robertpinkerton)
Senior Member
Username: Robertpinkerton
Post Number: 573
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 4:19 am: | |
"... [T]he tyrannies of the Middle East export much of the world's oil. The amount of petroleum they are willing to pump and sell can determine the pulse of the world economy. And much of the funding for terrorism worldwide has come out of the billions in annual petro-profits, which through private and public channels are paid covertly to terrorists both in admiration and as blackmail..."
"... True, it is easy now to call the supporters of democracy in the Middle East naive -- given the savagery in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan; the elected terrorists on the West Bank; and the deeply entrenched tribalism, fundamentalism and gender apartheid that thwarts liberal change so violently..."
"... We long tried almost everything else. Accepting dictators on their own terms did not bring stability, but constant war, oil embargoes and terrorism from the 1960s onward..." "... [S]taging coups or propping up authoritarians in Iran or the Gulf simply radicalized the Middle East..."
"... In truth, fostering democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq was not our first, but last choice. It was not a good option, only a bad one when the other alternatives had proven far worse..." [Emphasis supplied, RP]
Victor Davis Hanson, http://jewishworldreview.com/0806/hanson083106.php3
COMMENTARY: Definition of FUBAR: (Acronym, United States military slang) [1] F***ed Up Beyond All Recognition. [2] F***ed Up Beyond All Repair. [3] Substitute Recovery for Repair.
Colleagues from whichever country, decide for yourself which definition of that acronym most accurately applies to my country's situation in the Near East. Our petrocratic oiligarchy has embroiled this country in a war with no foreseeable end, with bait-&-switch for the mass line (The proposition, dubious at best but probably false, that Iraq had anything to do with the outrage of 11 September '01), and the fiction of "building democracy" (In the Near East? Whom are they trying to kid?) as its cadre indoctrination. In so doing, it has committed this country to a task like unto that of Sisyphus.
The war will drag on endlessly with a kind of warfare the American people are psychologically not equipped to fight nor to endure -- the fault of social forces whose cumulative effect is to leach rigor out of Americans to facilitate their performance of the roles of mass consumers and more docile employees, at work on the population through its many institutions for more than a century. However, it is not as if the war were worth fighting in the first place: It is about oil, and the United States insults its own honor by acting the thief, though at least a large minority of our population now could not care less.
Right now the war is like a few sparks playing with some tinder.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061209/wl_mideast_afp/gccsummit_061209202216
There is only the nascent sputtering before a chain reaction starts in the tinder; the main mass of fuel for the fire, pan-Islamic awakening, has not yet caught. When it does, the result will be continuous low-intensity conflict, much of it too primitive for our high-tech toys to recognize or to engage, thicker on the ground than it currently is in Iraq, spread over a majority of the oil producers of the world. For such a situation the West now lacks both the manpower and the stomach. If the West falls, endarkenment will befall the world. If the West survives, it will be either at the price of Tacitus' "solution(?)" ("... they made a desert and called it peace...") or adoption of a combined fortress-mentality and lifeboat-mentality in a much smaller patch; in either case, many of the values for which the West now stands, will be diminished.
Robert Pinkerton, heresiarch@sbcglobal.net |
Reunion (Reunion)
New member
Username: Reunion
Post Number: 33
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 1:18 pm: | |
Living on the Edge of Time.
I stopped and looked up at the wall map. A goodly part of South East England was depicted. On the clear cover were the sets of concentric rings that showed the graded zones of destruction of the air-burst thermonuclear weapons that had laid-waste to my world. In places the inner circles overlapped. Surely some people must be doubly dead.
According to the map there was no point to my going home. My home was gone, the homes of all my friends were gone, my family was gone, my friends were gone, their families were gone, the schools were gone, the hospitals were gone, to all intents and purposes London had ceased to exist. This bunker remained, the lights were on, but what of the outside. There was no CCTV, no periscope, no visual clues. Were the trees gone, was the sky on fire, were we buried.
I carried on collecting up the abandoned crockery and cutlery, separating it all out and piling it onto my tea-trolley. Later they would all be washed up and neatly stacked away. The urns would be emptied, the floors swept and polished. By the end of the day it would be like the world had not really come to end last night.
For it hadn't, this account is true, it was the map that told a fiction.
The command centre was now a Mary Celeste, the part-time cold warriors were at home in bed tired from a night spent practising the end of the world as we knew it.
Time had not yet run out. There was still some sand in the glass. We had looked at the edge of time and it backed away.
This was Civil Defence 1950s style. It was crazy. Soon all attempt at a pretence that nuclear Armageddon was manageable would be abandoned. This bunker would be gone, nobody would bother to test the Banshee sirens that were to give the "Four Minute Warning". Four minutes in which to prepare to die.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was in the future, as were "Dr Strangelove" (Kubrick) and "The War Game" (BBC).
It would be the 1980s before that BBC drama would be aired. Its 1965 vision of a post-nuclear war Britain having been judged "to horrifying" to be broadcast.
We were done. Time to leave this windowless world and head out into the daylight. We returned all the brooms, polish and floor-buffers to the "radiation room" and locked its door. We swung up each of the double sets of heavy steel bolts on the inner and outer blast doors and, passing through, let them slam back under their own weight. We locked each door and walked into what passed as cold war normalcy. We crossed the inner compound of this disused POW camp locking the steel gates behind us. We walked down the long concrete drive to the outer perimeter fence unlocking and re-locking its gates as we passed through. Our world was still here, we had not died today.
That was the world that we grew up in, a world whose future seemed all used up. We wondered if we would ever grow old. It was a world that gave rise to that most infamous of "vox pops" when an interviewer asking kids about their aspirations got not the usual "an engine driver" or "a nurse" in reply.
Interviewer to Child: What would you like to be when you grow up?
Child to Interviewer: ALIVE!
A kid living on the desperate edge of now.
Whatever became of us? Many were radicalised by the cold war and the failure of WWII to settle the question of fascism in Europe. Most just got on with their lives. Some became pacifists and filled the ranks of the anti-war movement. Some became the anarchist urban guerrillas that waged war on the complacent democracies of Europe that still hid fascists or had failed to address old inequities. At times governments teetered but they never toppled.
And what of now!
Once again youthful citizens are being radicalised.
But does radical Islam pose a threat to our nationhood? No!
Prior to 2003 radical Islam was becoming a spent force. Dr Zawahiri had mulled over the years of failure that required a new approach in his book "Knights under the Prophet's Banner". Radical Jihad had been apathetically rejected in Egypt. It had died in a hail of bullets and drowned in an ocean of the spilt blood of 100,000+ civilians in Algeria. It had been bombed into the ground in Afghanistan.
Just as its candle guttered we breathed new life into it in Iraq.
Ultimately it is a dead donkey but for now it can be used by governments and the media to frighten us. We survived the cold war, the IRA, the Red Army Faction, the Red Brigade, and ETA. We will survive radical Islam as will Islam itself.
Regards
Reunion |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 869
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 3:25 pm: | |
If European and American citizens have no enduring appetite for the conflict ravaging Iraq (and I think most of us are heartily sick of it), please remember to hold politicians like Bush, Rumsfelt and Blair to book for their ill-conceived military adventures.
Don’t just vote them out! Prosecute them as war criminals and dump their parties for a decade or more. When they “personally” pay for bad decisions - with their freedom, their future or their lives, they will start to learn from it. Right now it seems that they hung the wrong despot a few weeks ago; compared to the above list he seems to have been an honest man.
Reunion - you do have a point; but we need a solution and hindsight will not provide one. |
Webmaster (Admin)
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 209
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 1:58 am: | |
While I have no love for Bush or Blair. I think you need to look up what the word despot means, unless you had someone else in mind.
You can make arguments that the process that put them in power is flawed, not truely representative... But fact is neither of them have absolute authority.
Nor do I think you can consider Saddam Hussein an honest man. The man basically stole food from his people to buy luxuries for himself.
Trying to paint Saddam in a positive light compared to Bush and/or Blair is a faulty argument. Their policies may be ill conceived, many people have died as a result, but neither has risen to the level of despot.
Saddam was without a doubt the definition of despot. |
Susan (Builder)
New member
Username: Builder
Post Number: 872
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 9:51 am: | |
Dear Webmaster
OK, you have a technical point; but IMHO only opportunity separated GW Bush and Tony Blair from Saddam’s position of power, all three committed their nations to un-winnable wars for personal reasons – so what difference did our democratic systems actually make?
Regarding honesty – lets look at the chain of events:
Saddam attacked and invaded a direct neighbour because they were slant drilling under his border to steal oil reserves. That attack threatened the Saudi leaders, so they paid billions of dollars for an American led invasion force to take Kuwait back, followed by a 13 year long blockade, designed to cripple Saddam and prevent him trying this again.
In contrast - Before the second Iraq war Saddam said that he had no weapons of mass destruction to give up - and NONE have been found!
GW Bush wanted a nice conventional war because Afghanistan was a bit of a media flop and Tony joined in for his own reasons. Both used flimsy (but well spun) intelligence (most of which turned out to be utter bull) to deceive their legislators and voters; the cover up was massive but ultimately unconvincing, it continues to this day.
Saddam was a terrible man, a violent torturing dictator, he used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds; he also stole from and thus starved his own people during the sanctions period. Lastly he tried to terrorise Israel (a REAL nuclear power after all) with crude conventional missiles (which was little short of insane!). In terms of bravado and nastiness Saddam is king, but when it comes to deception and lies, Bush and Blair beat him hands down. |
Webmaster (Admin)
Board Administrator
Username | |