The U.S. Government is no different than any other, some homework for you...

Google, wiki search, whatever, but look into:

1.) Ricky Ross, L.A. drug scene, CIA, Contra, Crack Cocaine, Gary Webb, assasination of Gary Webb (committed suicide by shooting self in face.... twice?!)

2.) Fred Hampton, FBI, William O'Neal, Chicago Police Dept, Summary Execution

3.) Randy Weaver, FBI, Ruby Ridge, US Mashalls, ATF, Gus Magisono, The death of Vicki Weaver

4.) David Koresh, ATF, FBI, Waco, 21 dead children, missing steel door

5.) Martin Luthor King Jr., FBI, James Earl Ray's fingerprints not found where he supposedly shot from, Louis Lomax, Jim Green

6.) Malcolm X, assasination, "By Any Means Necessary", Missing police report, common sense question: When have you ever heard of a murder suspect (who has confessed) claiming that the other 2 suspects also on trial were not present and were not involved in the shooting?

7.) John Lennon, assasination, Strom Thurmon, J Edgar Hoover, Mark David Chapman, World Vision, World Vision connection to CIA, CIA/FBI eye on Lennon during John Sinclair tour, Brainwashing, Common sense question: Why would someone who has killed for no other reason than "being crazy" then be sent, not to a mental ward, but to attica? So he was found to be rational when he killed lennon (responsible for his actions) but his motive for doing so was insanity(irrational stalking/obsession)?!?!

Feel free to add to the list.

Free my ass.....

You're telling that all these and more, all these people who spoke up and organized against the U.S. government met with a string of coincedences, bad luck, lone nutjobs, and/or accidents/mismanagement?

no common thread?

bullshit.

if you know more(there are plenty) then add to the list.

 

JFK, RFK, Reagan's near death experience...

not to mention oklahoma city, and 9/11...

goes on and on

and that's all domestic, just do a little research into all the shit we've done overseas! I'm talking about the shadowy shit, not just imperialism and nuking cities.

Is there anything positive that the U.S. government has brought to the globe?

 

Anyone who becomes to influential becomes a target of the system.


People loved Lennon and were willing to listen to him, so he had to go.

It seems like all good people die young or get assassinated.


JFK
Princess Diana

Working class heroes, or leaders do not live long.

 

Doesn't have anything to do with being good.

Weaver, Koresh, and the kennedys weren't exactly "good" people.

but they became threats.

so they were taken out.

 

Anyone who exercises any considerable influence over any significant number of people as to break the hypnotic spell that enables one to take without protest what the system feeds at face value becomes a threat.

 

Also when you dissent it will be the slaves of the system that burn the heretics not the masters of the system
The slaves believe they need the masters far more than the masters believe they need the slaves

 

I find it interesting that you bring up things that concern the extreme rightwing as well as the extreme leftwing. What are you trying to say? That both sides have critical common ground?

 

Yes and it's spelled: m o n e y

http://dunwalke.com/

It's long dry read, but it's well worth the time.

 

Sure, it's a false dichotomy anyway isnt it?

I want to know who the hell decided that you're either red or blue?

My color is black, now and forever!

People don't fall into catagories of gun lovin, gay bashing redneck and big government, baby killing yuppie!

people just want to be free.

Fuck that red vs blue, lib vs. con, coast vs. midwest bullshit!

unite, and hang all those fucker already!

I reserve the goddamn godgiven right to abort children while smoking cigerattes and toting guns while whistling dixie and fucking up capitalists while driving 120 mph while enjoying what's left of the environment while screaming fire in a movie theatre while humping a an arab/black/jewish/indian transvestite and building explosives in my barn while homeschooling my kids and teaching whatever the fuck i think they need to know!

Fuck idealogical slavery!

"But I don’t want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin." - John Savage

Freedom above all else!

This sick fucking species!

Carving up and bartering pieces of earth as if you can actually claim ownership of a planet!
locking people into steel and concrete boxes for possessing a plant, A FUCKING PLANT!
Telling me what words are appropriate!?!?
and taxes, goddamn, is there anything you dont get taxed for?

And how the fuck are going to bust into a person's home and arrest them for getting fucked in the ass? You'd think getting fucked in the ass would be punishment enough...

telling me how old i have to be to drink, smoke, drive!
and then telling me where i can and cant drink smoke and drive!
and then telling what i cant drink smoke and drive!

WTF!!!

death of the individual, people welcoming servitude!

for what?

security?

jesus fucking christ a goddamn pet has security, do want to be a pet? Do you want to be fed and sheltered and collared and neutered and watched and your nose shove into your piss?!

domesticated people.

one world, one government, one people, one race, one culture, one religion

no deviancy, no "extremism", no individuality!

It a Brave New Fucking World, and no one likes an Epsilon do they?

where not only is being homeless a crime, but feeding the homeless is a crime.
where the richest fucking group on the planet cant even get off their asses and help their own!

and whats the cure, whats the solution that they give us? more of the same, more rules, more laws, more pc and bullshit!

idiots electing people based on wether they would have a beer with them??!!?

they're putting CCTV cameras in kindergarten bathrooms now, shit they're expelling 4-5 year olds for sexual harrasement!

chips in our arms and brains, gps units in our cars, microphones in our tv sets, spyware in our computers!!!

they're trying to make you breathe into a piece of plastic in order for your car to start!

might as well plug me into the fucking wall socket!

I'm pissed now, i gotta go smoke a bowl, before they make it mandatory for you to take an instant piss test into where your ashtray used to be...

fuck

 

The Marshall Plan, for one. Although I'm not claiming the Marshall Plan was done by the goodness of the American heart, either.

I just mention it because demonizing a particular governemnt is entirely too simplistic, it is exactly what right-wingers do, except they demonize other countries. Why must states be either categorically good or bad? Why can't they be both?

 

Yes theres... ah, um ! uhhhhh , ermmmm - no actually youre right - oh no hang on theres
ah no actually youre right the usa is a waste of space that could be demolished to make way for a better future

 

Maybe, which is why i like to demonize most if not all current and past governments.
The State has no morality.
Any good that the State has done is generally in keeping with cleaning up a previous wrong that the State has done.

It always takes more than it gives and the amount that it takes grows exponentially.

The Dominant world State known as the United States of America is no different, but most westerners wouldn't know that.

We hear about the crimes of China, Russia, Germany, Iraq, Iran and the like, but only the far left and the far right give voice to those who know that the U.S.A. has done crimes of it's own, a lot of which it has gotten away with.

 

sorry about the rant, that was a bad day...

 

haha i liked the rant shane, i found myself getting pissed right along with you brother.

 

“My color is black, now and forever!”

Shane old friend, is that then the colour of the Social Darwinists?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

Which of these have i advocated?

How has anything i've stated been in line with: Using the State and/or Private Institutions to reject/ostrasize/eliminate "undesirables"?

Eliminate the State and all other compulsory forms of organization, and promote and foster self governance, personal autonomy, direct democray and concensus desision making w/a non-capitalist economy.

Choosing to not police everyone is not Social Darwinism.

Leaving the Cherokees to resolve issues that concern the Cherokees is not Social Darwinism.

Acknowledging that a small number of people control a large number of people only with the willing consent of the latter is not Social Darwinism.

Stop calling me a Social Darwinist unless you can show where i've advocated that idea.

I do not believe that any group of people is inferior to any other, i believe groups of people and individuals can make mistakes and can choose not to act in their own self-interest at times when most likely they should have.

Eugenicists are Social Darwinists.
Nazis are Social Darwinists.
Racist Nationals are Social Darwinists.

I am Not.

Either way it's:

fftopic:

So you have nothing to say about the topic post, only an unfounded accusation about me personally(one that you've repeated elsewhere)?

Glad we have our Mod back...

 

Well to me Social Darwinism is about applying the ideas of natural selection to human society that is letting people fight it out and in the past you seem to have advocated a society that was based on the survival of the fittest (or at least the one that is well armed and shoots first).

“Tear up the constitution, give everyone a gun, let the population drop off to what nature can sustain, tear up the roads and blacktop, erase every dotted line from the map, let private property become public property become just land.I'm sick of the pre occupation of protecting everybody from everybody and i'm even more sick of the front of protecting everybody from everybody if only you just let this group or that group gain a little more inch here and there until all you have left is an inch.
There are no good laws, no good corporations, no altruistic governments.
It's all an attack on individual autonomy.
And it comes from the left and right flanks.
I owe you nothing, i owe government nothing, i owe my neighbor nothing.
I am not responsible for the people in darfur, kosovo, france, china, n. korea, india, new orleans, new york city, boston, chicago, or anywhere else.
They are responsible for their own survival, health, food, happiness, ect.”

**

Do you remember my reply to this -

“I do care.

That is where we seem to differ, both emotionally and politically.

The Anarchist philosophy I admire is also caring, in it welfare would not be needed because people would care for others without having to be asked to. Laws to set such things as minimum wage would not be needed because people would get a fair and decent payment for their services because those employing them would see that as the caring thing to do. To me an anarchist society is one in which everyone cares for each other, the community and the planet.

When you say that to you Anarchy means giving everyone a gun, and letting each individual sort out his or her own survival, I can only despair. That is not a caring society it is its complete opposite. It would create a terrifying turmoil, an brutish place where everyone is in competition with everyone else for the resources to live, a place where human life is cheep and where the population (according to you) would just “drop off” in what I presume is some Darwinist free for all orgy of death.

I like most people don’t want to be permanently alone, I may like to take solitary walks or sit in solitary contemplation, but on the whole I want and like company. Even coming here is a part of that, I come to debate ideas with others because I enjoy the experience of interacting. I enjoy parties, the company of friends and family and I love been with my partner and child. To a large extent a human beings emotional wellbeing is dependent on such interactions.

The people I know are my tribe my clan, we learn from each other, help and support each other, but they are also just fellow humans I have meet along my way. A stranger in Toledo, Moscow, Hong Kong or Chipping Sudbury is just a stranger because you haven’t got to know them. As such I care for them as fellow humans and although the emotional bonds are not as strong as those I have with my friends they still exist.

You seem to be saying that this is wrong in some way that I should only care about myself and at a pinch, my very immediate family.

How is a society like that meant to work?

All you’ve said so far is that it would involve some kinds of ‘organisations’ that would come together in some way or other and kind of sort things out in some way you can’t explain.

But beyond these fuzzy comments you will not go, because you admit you don’t know.

But it seems to me that if no one cares about anything beyond looking after number one, how are they going to care enough even to get involved in organising anything beyond their own self interest.

I mean you make it quiet plain that in your opinion the human next door is the same as a human in Dafur and a person should not care what happens to either of them, since it has nothing to do with you. So if a persons next door neighbour is being raped, tortured or hacked to pieces with a machete they shouldn’t care, help or even empathise with them. What happens to other people should be a complete irrelevance.

So if people are too sick to make a living, let them die. If people are too old to survive let them die? If you kill a hundred people by selling them dangerous drugs or infected meat that’s ok? Poison a river and kill a thousand, fine. Make the planet uninhabitable for people in the future, that all right too. I mean you owe them nothing all that is important is your immediate survival.

But to me that’s not Anarchy, it is utter madness.

You might say that is not what you meant to say, but it is what you post says, its all there.

**

Yes it appears that we don’t think the same, I couldn’t be as callous as you seem to want to be or as emotionally frigid and detached.

But are your Social Darwinist ideas ‘better’ than the left wing argument?

Do I want to live in your vision of a future society?

A place where I need a gun just to survival, where I have to be on constant vigil in case of attack and where if I get too sick or old I will receive little or no help. A land where I’m meant to feel detached from those that are suffering or are in pain and where I’m not to interfere if I see people being raped, tortured or exploited. A place where I can only see might become the only right.

That may seem attractive to you but to me it seems like hell, and not in the least the communalcentic left wing vision where people help and care for each other.

You ask “Why are we so complacent with being dependent on everyone else?”

If by that you are wondering why people get together in groups and communities to improve their lives and care for each other, its because it works. By helping and caring for each other people can live longer and have healthier, happier and more productive lives. That is why it has been the model for human existence, from the first tribes to the latest unions of states, it might not be perfect and in my opinion has a great need for improvement but it is a model that works.

I hope that one day the human race will have no need for the laws and regulations that are sadly now so badly needed to guide us within these groupings but we can only try and work for that day.

I do it because I care.

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=169214&page=12&pp=10

**

As I’ve said before you are great at rhetoric and ranting and raving against the ‘system’ but when you are asked to be constructive it all goes a bit wishy washy.

Why not stop being so negative and begin being positive.

 

Again:


I believe this conversation has already taken place in several other threads.
I have already stated that my problem is with compulsory heirarchical organizations (like the State). I've already given several different models of how such a non-heirarchical society would make it's desicions(consesus or direct democratic) and what it's economic practice(such as mutualism) could entail. Dependece and Interdependence are 2 seperate things. And human beings will never be free from force and coersion as long as they look to "higher ups" to solve their problems isntead of finding their own solutions. Who best to deal with local issues than those directly affected(the EZLN is a good model of local people dealing with local issues in solidarity with and some support from others but with decisions being made by those most affected).

This has all been stated and ignored before.

I am not interested in rehashing this arguement with you.

 

It’s not off topic and I’ll explain –

My point is that you are very good at saying what is wrong with government but from the many conversations I’ve had with you it is clear you don’t seem to have a rational or workable alternative.

**

“I have already stated that my problem is with compulsory heirarchical organizations (like the State).”

But what does that mean, what is the workable alternative when asked you have said that you don’t know.

“I've already given several different models of how such a non-heirarchical society would make it's desicions(consesus or direct democratic) and what it's economic practice(such as mutualism) could entail.”

Well when we have discussed your views it all ended up it’s own fundament or just raised more questions than answers because you claimed you didn’t know how it would work and definitely couldn’t explain how it would work.

Dependece and Interdependence are 2 seperate things.

Oh so profound, but like what do you mean?

And human beings will never be free from force and coersion as long as they look to "higher ups" to solve their problems isntead of finding their own solutions. Who best to deal with local issues than those directly affected(the EZLN is a good model of local people dealing with local issues in solidarity with and some support from others but with decisions being made by those most affected).

I agree but the problem is that it’s just rhetoric, if in the end you abdicate any explanation of how you think it would actually work.

This has all been stated and ignored before.

Yes it has but not on by part, it is you that doesn’t seem to have thought things through who complains that I keep asking you to think.

I am not interested in rehashing this arguement with you.

I know you are not interested, because basically you have no positive argument, much preferring attack threads, I mean it is so much easier to destroy and criticise than it is to be build and create.

Shane

The problem for me is that every time you post something like this, for me there is always ‘an elephant in the room’ that you just don’t want to talk about, which is, the gapping hole in your arguments.

What are you alternatives and how are your alternative actually meant to work.

For example we talked about your dislike for cars, but as far as I can tell you are hoping that at some point a ‘critical mass’ of like minded people will just get out of their cars and rip up the roads, and that’s it.

I also want to get rid of the car but I believe the only realistic way of going about it is to wean people off car use, by improving public transport, taxing car use, congestion charging in urban areas and so on. And I’ve been involved in getting some of these things introduced to London and I don’t own a car and try to walk, bike or use public transport when I travel.

(Post 112 - http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=169214&page=12&pp=10)

as I said at the time – “We both have a dream, (even if different) but while I support coherent policies, which can be explained and debated. Your views cannot be explained so they cannot be debated because by your own admission you don’t know what they are beyond the slogan and are not even sure if they could work let alone how they would work.”

You seem to be implying that all people have to do is embrace your brand of ‘anarchy’ and everything will be all right. That when they embrace your brand of ‘anarchy’ all of them would agree on what to do and how to do it, while of course being totally ‘independent’ of thought and totally focused on there own and exclusive self-interest.

I know you get annoyed with my scepticism, but really do you think that is realistic any time soon?