On 2002-03-21 20:30, Marc Lamb wrote:

Tristan, men are both evil and good. A methodology, a system, an ideology that accounts soberly, as in "kool-aid," for both is worthy of respect and attention.

Mr. Marx, Mr. Rush, Mr. Patton, Mr. Butler, Mr. Chomsky, Mr. Reed have no use for such notions of "evil and good," because they see themselves and society in an entirely different light. They see it merely in terms of power: Who has it and who don't. Thus this is the game they play.

For them, it is all about who has the power, the power to mold society as they see fit.

See Marc, I give you credit for intelligence which necessarily means that you are being dishonest here because you know better. I'd rather believe that it is an honest mistake and not a willful distortion. Some of those folks you named are preoccupied with power but I am not and I do not think Robert Reed is. A abhor power which is why I value constitutionally limited government which was established here and which is supposed to be still in place, but which clearly is not. The one thing I oppose above all else is arbitrary power which is authority not founded upon consent. I believe that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Therefore, I do not recognize arbitrary power, period. I neither acknowledge it nor seek it for myself. I have no use for it. I have better things to do which cannot be done so long as power-hungry cretins interfere with my existence. You know this but you cannot stand it, so you deliberately tar me with this garbage. Go ahead. I really don't care. But why bother? Don't you have something better to do?

Then engage yourself, pal, and quit sitting on the sidelines laughing at it all!

On 2002-03-21 21:01, Marc Lamb wrote:

Then engage yourself, pal, and quit sitting on the sidelines laughing at it all!

Another Profundus Maximus evasion above.

I have been engaged in this for the past 3 years. I used to get very mad that so many of my friends and allies were so willing to give in to the devil's alternative in this Bush administration, hence the name "Kool-Aid drinkers." But I no longer get mad. It serves no purpose. What's done is done and it is going to hurt like hell when the full weight of it comes down upon us. There is no avoiding it now.

But I continue to have a duty to my posterity to speak out on their behalf such that they might live in freedom once whatever this Bush crowd represents is finally removed by whatever means...probably their own disintegration. And laughing is automatic when I see the extent to which you and other Kool-Aid drinkers allow yourselves to be manipulated. The Bush administration has been consolidating power like none before. They have been organizing right out in the open of late with their friends and allies to stifle dissent rather thuggishly. Yet you want to bore me with your preoccupation with replacing one unconstitutional restriction on campaign financing with another. The only reason you and other Kool-Aid drinkers ignore all that matters while focusing on that which does not is because you have been thoroughly manipulated by the likes of the Flatulent One. You see, you know you have so it is your own fault. Therefore, there is no harm done when I laugh. You really should be laughing at yourself.

"They ("Kool-Aid drinkers," ie., "Bush administration") have been organizing right out in the open of late with their friends and allies to stifle dissent rather thuggishly."

Ah, so it's a conspiracy a foot, Mr. Patton? Not surprising that ye would chose to trounce down this "well beaten path." Ye are a fool cum laude, Mr. Patton.

Alas, in the current climate, your's is a road, well traveled. :smile:

On 2002-03-21 21:48, Marc Lamb wrote:

"They ("Kool-Aid drinkers," ie., "Bush administration") have been organizing right out in the open of late with their friends and allies to stifle dissent rather thuggishly."

Ah, so it's a conspiracy a foot, Mr. Patton? Not surprising that ye would chose to trounce down this "well beaten path." Ye are a fool cum laude, Mr. Patton.

Alas, in the current climate, your's is a road, well traveled. :smile:

See there. You are already defending the Bush administration when you were condemning them an hour ago. That is why I laugh. You deserve it and you know you do.

Ye are stupid, Mr. Patton, yet a willing ally to the very cause ye despise. :smile:

On 2002-03-21 22:04, Marc Lamb wrote:


Ye are stupid, Mr. Patton, yet a willing ally to the very cause ye despise. :smile:

OK, you are still in "defend the Bush administration" mode. I'm just timing to see how long it will be before you return to "Bush has made me so mad that I am physically ill and you guys are laughing! This is the end of our nation!" There might be a consistent underlying rhythm to your oscillating views such that we can predict your turns in advance. But the turns are now so quick and tight that it is as if you are zig-zagging to avoid U-boat attack. I'll keep you apprised of what the boys make of your course and speed when they get a clear fix.

I'll probably be hitting the rack but be sure and make Brother Bennett a big, sloppy-ass ham sandwich on a sub roll while I am gone. He needs high caloric intake in order to defeat the enemy...you know, dissenting Americans, loyal to the Constitution, such as myself.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2002-03-21 22:19 ]</font>

On 2002-03-21 22:24, Xer of Evil wrote:

On 2002-03-21 22:04, Marc Lamb wrote:


Ye are stupid, Mr. Patton, yet a willing ally to the very cause ye despise. :smile:

This post is making me giggle, and I have no idea what it even means. I think that I am picturing Marc wearing tights in a scene from Shakespeare or something.

So Marc, what about all that Bush-bashing on the other thread? Whassup with that?

I'll be damned! Thanks, Choselh, now I might just be able to place you on the flaming chart and fend off impending Cyber Sister attack. I'll get back to you.

BTW, yes, Marc wears tights with a codpiece (a small one). And he wears soft, pointy, ballet-type shoes with a fluffy ball of yarn hanging from each heel. And when he gets into Shakespearean mode (between U-boat attacks) he talks about "distaffs" a lot.

On 2002-03-21 20:30, Marc Lamb wrote:
Because freedom has a price, a price bought in effort, in debate, in ceaseless committment to the very cause... of freedom. :smile:

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

My main beef with the Libertarians is they do regard community as an important part of society. An individual is a member of a community and has obligations to the community.

Please do not regard me as a conservative, my Today's Americian standards my views would match a moderate Democrat.

Give tights to both Mr. Lamb and Mr. Patton and let them both share the Emmy.
That'll teach them.

:smile:

On 2002-03-21 18:05, Stonewall Patton wrote:
Firemind:

I do not know why you insist upon attributing all these extraneous things to me

I have not attributed any extraneous things to you. If you examine my recent posts, you will see that I am discussing not you, but your definition of fascism.

and, if I am not mistaken, we have had this very same conversation before.

More or less so, although I have added a new twist.

I define fascism precisely as Mussolini defined it:

"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

--Benito Mussolini. (from Encyclopedia Italiana, Giovanni Gentile, editor).

This is the definition I have been addressing. It is not the same as the currently accepted definition, and that has been my point.

The new twist is that I have now allowed that this definition may have once been partially correct in the minds of a few people long ago. I still maintain that the word now means something different.

To make my point clear, I have compared this phenomenon of a word whose meaning shifts over time with another word whose meaning has shifted ("gay") and a symbol whose meaning has shifted (the swastika).

The meanings of both of these other examples has shifted more-or-less permantly. There's no going back.

In the same way, I argue, the meaning of "fascism" is now permanantly associated with natures of the Axis regimes of WWII, beyond any simple arrangement of state power in relation to business power. Fascism is now practically synonomous with totalitarianism.

If you disagree with something in the article, how about demonstrating how the article is wrong rather than attacking me when I did not even write the thing?

That is precisely what I was doing. I was not attacking you.

If you disagree with something Robert stated, how about taking it up with him and not with me when I did not even make the statement?

Robert took your definition of fascism as having only to do with state power involved IN ANY WAY with corporate power, and concluded that this meant that all nations currently in existance are fascist. While I do not agree with the conclusion, I agree that the conclusion follows from the definition. If America is fascist, so is Sweden. The problem is the definition, not Robert's logic.

If you disagree with Mussolini's definition of fascism, which I share, then, by all means, take it up with me.

That's exactly what I have been doing.

As you have said, we have been over this before. I despair at changing your mind, and on this matter I will not waste another keystrok

Is it the people that gives power to government or government that gives power to the people?

I prefer the former not the future.

Brian -
Justin, I'm going to disagree with you there, for the simple reason that anarchists are advocating an impossible social order, while fascists are advocating a workable (if disagreeable) one. Anarchy cannot be implemented. Human society requires order and governance, and if they are lacking demands and creates them -- usually in unpleasant forms.
In my own system, fascism is a political philosophy which subordinates the individual to the state, completely or nearly so, for the purpose of advancing national greatness and power. Its opposite is liberalism, which holds that the purpose of government is to protect the rights of individuals, and national greatness and power are important only insofar as they lead to increased freedom and well-being for people.
Libertarianism is a subset of liberalism which holds to the liberal core value, but claims (in disagreement with other liberals) that a laissez-faire capitalist economic model serves those values.

I?ll begin by separating my terms:

When I speak of anarchism, I mean what is sometimes called philosophical anarchism, of the type propounded by Spooner, Rothbard, and others. This is in contrast to the ?anarchism? professed by ignorant high-schoolers, which has no real philosophical grounding.

When I speak of libertarianism (small-l), I?m again speaking of the political philosophy propounded by Hayek, Smith, and their compatriots.

When I speak of Libertarianism (big-L), I?m talking about the party which goes by that name. Frequently, people are libertarian, but not Libertarian.

And, like you, when I speak of liberalism, I mean it in the sense of Locke and Jefferson.


The fundamental difference between anarchism and libertarianism is, I think, nonexistent. The first principle of libertarianism is the ?non-initiation of force?. The first principle of anarchism is the ?sovereignty of the individual?. These two are not opposed. In fact, either one must lead to the other. Where we see a difference is when we speak of Libertarianism. One principle held by Libertarians is the concept of the State?s monopoly on the righteous use of force. Libertarians, by their actions and goals, appear to be somewhat in the position of Boromir (if you will allow a Tolkein reference) in believing that if the reins of power were in their hands, they could wield them correctly and ?save our country?. To this extent, they are as statist as those they oppose.

I will agree with you that the defining characteristic of fascism is the subordination of the individual to the State. This cannot be opposed to Libertarianism, as that, too attempts to use the power of the State to its own ends. In fact, the direct opposite of the ?sovereignty of the State? over individuals is the ?sovereignty of the individual? over the State. This can be properly called libertarianism or anarchism. To avoid confusion with the big-L philosophy, I tend to rely on the term anarchism to describe that state.

On 2002-03-18 21:44, Barbara wrote:
If anyone's still interested: I received today an email reply from Dr. Hanson to my email inquiry of him as to his birthdate. It is September 5, 1953. I included the link to here, also, in case he wanted to lurk or comment in person. Wonder if he looked. His reply was short and sweet, but he still responded. I thought it pretty nice. :smile:

I'm wondering, Barb: in your e-mail to Dr. Hanson, did you mention the saeculum at all? I'm guessing you didn't say much at all about the theory, but if you did, I'm wondering if you mentioned the saeculum. Since he is a classicist, he might have already heard of it.

By Richard Cohen
Friday, March 22, 2002; Page A27


Sen. Hillary Clinton was "very mad." Her colleague, Sen. Charles Schumer, was critical as well. New York's mayor, Mike Bloomberg, was not happy either, and neither was New York's governor, George Pataki. As for myself, I am painfully perplexed. For once, the right answer eludes me.

I am referring now to the report, first published in Time magazine earlier this month, that the feds back in October received a tip that terrorists were planning to detonate a small nuclear bomb in New York City. The information came from an agent code-named Dragonfire, whose reliability was deemed "undetermined." A 10-kiloton bomb would kill about 100,000 people and irradiate about 700,000 more. It would also flatten everything for a half-mile around.

What so vexed New York's elected officials was the fact they were not notified of this threat. They all insisted they should have been. The former mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, said that he should have been told so he could alert the police -- "at a minimum, and maybe others." This would have given him an additional 40,000 or so sets of eyes to look for something suspicious. It also would have alerted every living thing for miles around that officials were searching for a nuclear bomb.

What would have happened next? Panic. A mass flight out of the city. Four of New York's five boroughs are on islands. Bridges and tunnels are the only way out. A normal rush hour is an ordeal. This would not be a normal rush hour. This would create gridlock, chaos and then, almost certainly, loss of life.

I bring up that threat and the response to it because it exemplifies how much our world has changed since Sept. 11. At the six-month anniversary, I read in some places that things had not changed much at all or, if they had, it was stuff like security checks at airports and that sort of thing. Hardly. We now know, if we think about it, that we live on the brink of catastrophe.

It just so happens that the nuclear alert turned out to be a false alarm. The purported tipster was characterized by federal officials as a "fabricator" with "delusions of grandeur." (Sounds like a politician to me.) But the feds, while dubious, did not know this at the time -- otherwise they would not have issued any alert at all. It took time to check him out. In the meantime, it paid the feds to be alert.

We now have colors for those alerts. The highest level is red, the lowest is green and in between are blue, yellow and orange. According to Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, we are now on yellow alert and will remain so for "the foreseeable future." This is what Ridge told the nation.

I pity Tom Ridge. His new color-coded warning system is easy to ridicule, but it's hard to envision a better one. It's harder yet -- maybe impossible -- to come up with a way to know when a panic can be risked. It would not have been in October, because Dragonfire turned out to be a phony. But it was impossible to know that at the time -- to know with absolute certainty.

Unlike Clinton or Bloomberg or any other of New York's elected officials, I'm glad they were kept in the dark. Had the word gotten out, New York would have suffered a grievous blow. Sept. 11 has taught us all that terrorism is not some theoretical threat. It's imminent. An alert would prompt us to flee. Two alerts or so and New York City itself would be crippled. Who would stay? Only people who absolutely have to. The others would leave -- take their laptops and do business elsewhere.

New York's politicians responded to the Time magazine piece with anger at the feds. I can understand that. I heard the same dismay from ordinary people. They said they deserved to know about the threat. They were parents. They were children with elderly parents. They wanted information so they could make decisions for themselves. They wanted control over their own lives.

So I went back to the politicians and asked what they would have done. Clinton didn't return my phone call, but Schumer did. He was, as usual, thoughtful. His answer, if I may paraphrase it, is that there is no answer. The public has a right to be informed. Government has an obligation to avoid a panic. "There's got to be a balance," Schumer said. I paraphrase again: God only knows what it is.

Color him -- color us all -- perplexed.


? 2002 The Washington Post Company

And for anyone who doesn't think there would be a panic, I will invite them to any supermarket after the weather reports have given a prediction for anything more than 6" of snow.

It ain't pretty!

Whoa. I wouldn't actually be surprised that someone else said the same thing as I did not too recently, because when Ivy League schools come up...it's just such a common stereotype. I actually didn't know anyone at my high school who was aspiring to Harvard who fit a "liberal" or rebellious description in any way...rather you'd hear students who act the way "conservative" adults want them to be saying they aspire to go to Harvard...Ivy League schools seemed a goal but Harvard was usually spoken of as the best, as if Yale was a sheer second to fall back on if they didn't get into the big H. Business or not, these kids all sounded the same way and said essentially the same words: that Harvard (or another Ivy League name) is the "best" school that will land me a "good" job, allow me to make the most money to support my family, that business applications will be looking for. If Harvard and Cornell (Cornell?) really all filled with students who lean left themselves, I wonder how they all got there.

i've heard this claim (voted world's biggest party school) said about many, many schools.

That's what everyone always told me...rated as Chico. (In California, at least, that's what they said). But in that episode of "King of the Hill", Connie attempting to defy her parents announces to the audience proudly at her sporting event that "I want to go to a party school -- Chico State!" If not Chico, then what would be the first example that came to your mind when you were asked to name a "party school"? (Is Dartmouth a possibility?)

On 2002-03-10 20:16, mmailliw wrote:
Not *ALL* of the students going to these colleges are preppy and conservative; I'm not (quite a few of my classmates are preppy but VERY few are conservative!) When Mallard Fillmore blasts a school (as he did Harvard and Berkeley), that's a sign the school is *NOT* conservative...

Tell me, William, what was the diversity in views like at your high school (and I assume they'd be mostly if not all headed for Ivy league names)? I never went to a prep school, so I only knew a small slice of my student body that was headed for Ivy League colleges. Were there both lots of leftist and rightist students, and how did everyone differ if not? If liberals were plentiful, maybe prep schools are where all those future Harvard leftists are hanging out together.

Oh, another thing I want to ask William: Is Harvard boiling over with lots of now restrictions on student conduct, rules about what can be smoked in the dorms or what can be printed and said? How are the students reacting to restrictions?

I am going to bed soon but will the last freedom lover up in the house kindly make Brother Bill (buuurrrrppp) "Book of Virtues" Bennett a big, fat, sloppy-ass ham sandwich before he goes to bed? Thank you. I'm setting up an HP air compressor by my chair so that, in the event that he appears on any Sunday morning talk show, I can let that pig hiss away non-stop so as to set the proper atmosphere. Thank you.

Justin '77:

If you think of it, post your analysis of AVOT's "principles" (hehehe). I started an analysis but have never finished. Give me a good laugh if you get a chance.

On 2002-03-23 16:06, Jesse Manoogian wrote:

....I actually didn't know anyone at my high school who was aspiring to Harvard who fit a "liberal" or rebellious description in any way....If Harvard and Cornell (Cornell?) really all filled with students who lean left themselves, I wonder how they all got there.

"liberal" is not the same as "rebellious". many would argue that in this day and age, "liberal" is anything but rebellious.

but yeah, harvard is fairly well known for it's left-leanings. i can see where you'd think it wasn't, though, given your equating "liberal" with "rebellious" and your experience with harvard-bound high-schoolers.

here are some links demonstrating the way harvard is usually viewed by the right:

http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_com...t072501b.shtml

http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/~sali...12/editor.html

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/j...20020109.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...22/60351.shtml

If not Chico, then what would be the first example that came to your mind when you were asked to name a "party school"? (Is Dartmouth a possibility?)

i don't know if dartmouth is a possibiltiy, but the rankings are made by many different groups and it changes from year to year. so chico probably got ranked #1 at one or more points by one or more organizations, but it really doesn't mean squat.

here's a link demonstrating the variety among the rankings:

http://www.google.com/search?q=top+1...hools%22&hl=en


TK

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: TrollKing on 2002-03-24 01:13 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: TrollKing on 2002-03-24 01:15 ]</font>

Stone:

I considered a number of different response styles to the AVOT manifesto. My first impulse was to try a ?quote-and-splice? method; this didn?t work out, and ended up being way too long for my taste. Interpretive dance and haiku also went by the wayside. Regardless, as I am not quoting in this post, it might be useful to refresh your memory of the manifesto before you go on.

Done? Okay then, here we go.



AVOT?s manifesto is rife with errors both of logic and of historical understanding. Though not particularly informative from a factual/rational standpoint, it does give a complete, if somewhat murkily stated, outline of the organization?s short- and mid-term goals.



AVOT begins its manifesto with a concise mis-statement of the nature and history of one of the most important socio-political forces in the 20th century. Communism (a particular socio-political belief system) is presented as an entity on par with America (an actual physical group of people). Of course, this bastardization of the english language is necessary to accommodate the equally-incorrect characterization of ?terrorism? (a tactic) as an enemy. It gets better, though. AVOT believes that it was responsible for the downfall of the menace of Communism. Of course, unless they have the power to nullify the laws of economics and praxaeology (which indicated that communism was doomed to fail from the outset) and refrained from doing so in the 20th century, they were fairly irrelevant to the demise of communist societies.


Next, AVOT moves to an explanation of the causes of terrorism which would embarrass Snidely Whiplash. Even most cartoon villains have a motivation for being opposed to the good guys beyond just not liking stuff. From the sounds of it, though, AVOT has discovered that those dirty Islamists won?t just let us be who we are. Good thing we know better, and generally leave people alone to live as they want, isn?t it? AVOT expresses a concern for the principles of America?s founding. This is important to remember, as the remainder of the manifesto illustrates.



The last 2/3rds of the manifesto help describe the priorities of AVOT and where our principles of democracy and equality fit into their heirarchy. AVOT clearly considers the State to be of paramount importance. The needs of the State ? increased military power, increased domestic police and intelligence gathering power, increased pro-State propaganda, and increased control over scholarly work and the general direction of information available to the public ? are clearly placed well ahead of the token preservation of civil liberties without sacrificing common sense or our common defense. (As an aside, I wonder if any of the fine fellows at AVOT have actually read Paine?s work>...)


Simply put, for the mid-term future, AVOT will concern itself with the following:

Ensure that the sheeple are kept frightened, ignorant, and docile by assuring them that they are in constant danger and that only by submission can they be saved.
Identify those who publicly disagree with them.
Attribute every failure of the State in securing the safety of its citizens to the actions of the above.

I would advise anyone who cares about reality to at least consider alternate points of view. Look at Ha?aretz, , or <a href=?http://www.pravda.ru?>Pravda every once in a while. Also good is <a href=?http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com?>The Time of India</a>. I?m sure you can find more. The world is more complicated than AVOT wants people to know.

Mr. Bennett, come and get me.

Justin Maroncelli
Portland, OR

Nice post, Justin. You might want to check your links to the international perspectives. You might want to add LewRockwell.com or similar liberal US sites.

I too am concerned with AVOT's pushing of extreme ideals, extreme positions, and attitude of confrontation rather than compromise. Still, none of the other voices are exactly objective consiliating.

But what would one expect in a fourth turning? We have conservative factions that wish to continue things as they have always been. We have radicals suggesting that injustices can't last forever. In between is a large gulf. Something has to give. Traditionally, violence has been required.

With weapons of mass destruction involved, the standard process of fighting a major war over these differences might not be optimal. If I didn't tear into AVOT a while ago, and looked to approve the strong part of their values and goals as well as their blind spots and lies, it is because I'm less than pleased with extremists dissing extremists. This only accelerates the spiral.

Spirals of violence are the norm going into a 4T. If possible, I'd like the spiral to be resolved before things go all out. History suggests this is unlikely. AVOT's narrow perspective fits in well with the feel of the slaver/isolationist debate, or the isolationist/interventionist. If values are different enough, compromise is not possible. Strong values are perceived as worth fighting for. People are ready to fight.
I applaud your suggestion of a complex situation and alternate viewpoints. At the same time, I'd rather work towards a position that includes AVOT's values, rather than attack and alienate. Of course, I would prefer to include all of the above value sets.

Unlikely, no?

With all due respect, Mr. Maroncelli, while I don't adhere to the policies of AVOT (or even know what they all are) 100%, I find in your expressed attitudes in much of those same attitudes which actually caused 9/11 in the first place.

And I am quite pleased that whoever it would be that you would wish in the White House right now, ain't there.

But, history does repeat itself and that attitude you express will be running the show sometime soon. Only then it will become a moment of national survival, rather than just cleaning up the mess left over from February of 1991. :smile:




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-03-24 18:32 ]</font>