Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Revolution

If allowed to poison the well, (once again), the ANSWER types will make sure we are the losers. We will lose much more than a war!

There is a formula for revolution that was perfected by Stalin and used as a model for modern revolution.

(Loosely):
First unrest is generated against the government in power. Individual groups are loosely banded together under a common cause. Shrill accusations and propaganda is disseminated to achieve "popular" support. Rumors are spread and accusations fly. Martyrism is encouraged to provide more fuel for the fire until a type of critical mass is achieved where revolution becomes possible.

The Soviets were rather adroit at this and used the cell system and sleeper cells to lessen the chance of detection. Subversive elements are recruited and encouraged to pass information and if possible seek advancement that will allow the access to privileged positions inside of a government and civil services. (see the Verona papers)

Once the revolution is achieved and the remains of the old system are mopped up a new "threat" is found in the form of "counter revolution". The leaders and upper echelons of the separate groups that once formed a "popular revolution" are gathered up and "dealt with".

Power is consolidated and any descent from the party line is not tolerated. Gulags, et al ensue.

This model was used in Soviet Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and all of the "Peoples Republics"

In an interesting twist, this formula was used by the mullahs of Iran. But this time the Communists were gathered up in the "counter revolution" phase and were hanged.

These, ANSWER, people are the rightful inheritors of Communist style revolution. They do not give a damn about Iraq or the war except as a propaganda tool. The war isn't the issue, the "cause" is the issue. If tomorrow it was decided that the Iraq war "issue" did not further the "cause" of "International Socialism", The next day ANSWER would be no more or find a new "issue".

Have you ever wondered why these people support the "Palestinians", or why so much anti-Zionist propaganda comes from that quarter? A rational view of the situation doesn't seem to warrant the absurd charges of, "Human Rights Abuses", we so often hear. Especially in the face of the barbaric actions of the PA/PLO.

If they supported Israel they would have no issue to point out the "evils" of Western Civilization. In short, it would not further the "cause".

No doubt there are many well meaning people among them, (Stalin called them useful idiots), but at their core they are the most deceitful cold blooded murderers on the face of this earth.

For the present, they are content with subversion and seeking disruption through propaganda and attempt to gain power through the ballot box. Regardless, they further their "cause". If exposed they will not go away, they will change the names of their groups then duck their heads, while planning for tomorrow.

22 comments:

Always On Watch said...

This is an excellent analysis. The Stalin model is important to understand. No wonder Saddam saw Stalin as a role model!

Some Americans think that Islam is anti-Communist because of the conflict in Aghanistan. Such thinking is a fallacy. Islam divides the entire world into two parts: Dar Al-Harb (non-Muslim nations) and Dar Al-Islam (Muslim nations). Dar Al-Islam will temporarily buddy up with a Western ally so as to further its goal. Right now, the ANSWER people constitute an ally--temporarily, of course.

This us-against-them concept is the ultimate feud, if you will. And even within Dar Al-Islam, there is tribal warfare (Reminds me of the Stalin model, as you stated it: "Once the revolution is achieved and the remains of the old system are mopped up a new 'threat' is found in the form of 'counter revolution'. The leaders and upper echelons of the separate groups that once formed a 'popular revolution' are gathered up and 'dealt with'."

As a Muslim proverb states "It's me and my brother against my cousin. And when we finish off our cousin, it's me and my brother against each other."

You wrote, "If exposed they will not go away, they will change the names of their groups then duck their heads while, planning for tomorrow." It's all about having power, isn't it? Maybe that's why the ANSWER people are so persistent, even in the face of their own peril.

beakerkin said...

Warren

We deal with this type regularly on our site. However there is the red closet . I want to seriously know what the Communists Pride rally. We're here and red and not happy till all of you are dead.

167 did not like the Communism as a lifestyle.

kajando said...

let's all be miserable together

Warren said...

Always On Watch:

Communists, anti-Communists, it makes no difference to the Islamists. They will deal with the Communists in their own time as the Communists have dealt with others.

Thank you for posting. I find your posts very educating.

I'll reply more later. I have some pressing matters to attend to.

Warren said...

Beak, these closet reds are extremely neurotic!

Sometimes, I think that 167 actually believes that he isn't the "Low Loader".

Move over Sybil, step aside Billie Milligan, make way Eve White and Eve Black. Here comes 167 and Low Loader. (Who knows what persona will emerge next?)

Warren said...

Kajando,
Misery loves company!

Welcome brother!

;^)

Neptune said...

Warren.
Thanks for taking the time to leave a comment on neptunesgazette.myblogsite.com
I appeciate the help.
I reset the security settings to allow anonymous posts. Visitors no longer have to register a reader account, in order to post a comment.
I'm still in the experimental stage and I welcome all comments and suggestions.
Thanks again, Neptune

Neptune said...

Warren,
In case you missed my last post on neptunesgazette, I'm pretty sure that you can change the option on you BlogWare reader account, so that you won't receive a notification everytime someone makes a post.
I think you go into your account profile and click off the notification option.
I've registered with other discussion boards, in the past, and that's how it works.
Let me know if you have anymore trouble and I'll see what I can do.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Dammit.. this is the second time I've been wanting to use a Fidel Castro quote and I can't find it on the web. It was from a speech he gave in Nicaragua as a guest of the Sandinistas in the 1980s where he was boasting of how far his intelligence agencies had infiltrated the United States with commandos for insurgency warfare.

Ah well. So I won't quote it, unless someone else knows where to find it.

Esther said...

Great post, Warren! You are dead on with this analysis. We need to wise up fast.

Wintermute said...

You say that: "First unrest is generated against the government in power." It is not as if revolutionaries generated the unrest in Russia before the revolution, it was accumulating on its own, and the Bolsheviks (and many other groups, as you say "loosly banded together) simply used it to bring down the Monarchy. It wasn't as if there was a just system in place which was torn down by groups with mallicious intent. Stalin came to power by eliminating all of his "useful idiots" (i.e. Trotsky) after Lenin died, but the revolution was borne out by original injustices done to the people by their rulers.

you say: "The war isn't the issue, the "cause" is the issue." I agree, but when you continue to say "If tomorrow it was decided that the Iraq war "issue" did not further the "cause" of "International Socialism", The next day ANSWER would be no more or find a new "issue". I disagree. International Socialism is not the cause we are trying to further (perhaps ANSWER is doing so more explicitly than I am aware of). Rather, we are striving for peace, something which capitalist production will never allow.

Revolution is inspired by injustice. Without injustice to point at every day (like Iraqi's perceptions of Abu Ghrab, etc.) there would be no fuel for the fire. By us refusing to accept any criticism or reform to the status quo, many people who are ill-effected by the prevailing world order get pissed off and see violence as the only way to even get Americans' attention (though it has proved counterproductive to their goals).

I'm telling you, capitalism causes terrorism. We set up a rulebook and say "this is how you can play the game, you can take capital and invest it to make more capital." Problem is, we've been playing this game for a lot longer, and are able to keep the rest of the world trapped behind us as our corporations move in an take over their industry. These people don't have the capital or the infrastructure necessary to play by our rules. So, they reasonably reject our rules, especially since we don't exactly play by the book ourselves.

I'm not saying terrorism is our fault, or that the terrorists are morally right, or any of these things I am often misinterpreted as saying. All I'm saying here is that if we were a little more open minded, realizing that we like the rules of capitalism because we have an inherent advantage as a western christian nation, perhaps we might be able to change the rules so as to make them fairer and more just. That way, it would be more difficult for anyone looking to stir up a revolution to actually accumulate popular support. Without the initial spark provided by vast global inequalitites, the revolution may never come and we will be able to keep all our shiny trinkets. This does not mean lowering our standard of living, it just means helping to more activly raise everyone else's, and not by our standards but by theirs. Maybe muslims want peity in their lands rather than MTV, and who are we to say (via the WTO) that they must let all of our products into their lands? Talking it out with 'extremists' might reveal to us what this horrible injustice is that they feel has been done to them, and then perhaps we might either convince them that they are mistake or they might show us that we have in fact been in the wrong the whole time. But indubitably, talking (discourse rather than diplomacy) is the solution, not bombing.

Warren said...

Wintermute, you look at history as if it was a supermarket!

You think you may just go down the isles and grab what you want off the shelf and the rest doesn't matter to you.

Nobody said that the causes of the Russian revolution were not just and you don't seem to realize that the initial revolution was usurped by the Commies. There were many other groups that were destroyed after the revolution in the purges that quickly followed.

It doesn't matter a rats ass if there were "original injustices done to the people by their rulers". The people involved became statistics. Just a percentage of the 100,000,000 millions of lives lost for the lie of Communist Utopianism.

"I disagree. International Socialism is not the cause we are trying to further (perhaps ANSWER is doing so more explicitly than I am aware of). Rather, we are striving for peace, something which capitalist production will never allow."

Then you are another useful idiot.

Here is an excerpt:
"Officially, the organizer of the Washington demonstration was International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism). But ANSWER is run by WWP activists, to such an extent that it seems fair to dub it a WWP front. Several key ANSWER officials; including spokesperson Brian Becker; are WWP members. Many local offices for ANSWER's protest were housed in WWP offices. Earlier this year, when ANSWER conducted a press briefing, at least five of the 13 speakers were WWP activists. They were each identified, though, in other ways, including as members of the International Action Center."

Go read the The LA Weekly Article, and as Beamish said; "Admit you're an idiot"!

"Rather, we are striving for peace, something which capitalist production will never allow.'

Bullshit agiprop, comrade. You are learning your lessons well!

We don't live in a true Capitalist society and there would be no production without people being rewarded for their labor and innovation. Your ideas have been tried and failed miserably.

People that work harder or produce more expect to be rewarded for their efforts. Giving the fruit of their labors to those that don't produce is a slap in the face!

People trend to be greedy and those that produce the least believe they are shortchanged because they don't have what someone else has. When they are rewarded for sloth they become even more slothful.

People that don't earn what they have don't value it. If you don't believe me, go look at the disrepair of government paid for housing.

I know what I'm talking about. I spent years doing social work as a lay minister. I followed peoples lives and visited them in their homes. Some of them through a period of over nine years. I gave them money and helped them find work and all the neccisities of life. I acted as their advocate and consoled them during hard times.

I went to visit them in places where I guarantee you wouldn't go.
If its one thing I do know its human nature.

"Revolution is inspired by injustice. Without injustice to point at every day (like Iraqi's perceptions of Abu Ghrab, etc.) there would be no fuel for the fire."

You have no idea what, the "Iraqi's perceptions of Abu Ghrab", is. The ones I talked to wondered what the big deal was.
Its your bagheaded buds perception of reality to which you're atune, nothing else. If you don't think 'that' perception is fueled by anti-American propaganda, you're even a bigger fool that your ramblings suggest.

"By us refusing to accept any criticism or reform to the status quo, many people who are ill-effected by the prevailing world order get pissed off and see violence as the only way to even get Americans' attention (though it has proved counterproductive to their goals)."

There is no, "status quo", unless dimwits insist that we leave people like Castro and Saddam alone and ignore their actions. Their own governments and institutionalized corruption are their problems, not us. We are the economic driving force of the world.

Any government that accepts liberalized Democracy can raise the living standards of all its people. Any government that doesn't condemns its population to a feudal system without hope.

More people become wealthy, every year in this country, than any other country in the world. Every year, more emigrants, to this country, become millionaires than in their own countries.

Why is that, wintermute?

I'm telling you, capitalism causes terrorism. We set up a rulebook and say "this is how you can play the game, you can take capital and invest it to make more capital." Problem is, we've been playing this game for a lot longer, and are able to keep the rest of the world trapped behind us as our corporations move in an take over their industry.

More bullshit!
We do better because we out-produce and innovate, better than they do. If they work for an American corporation, its of their own choosing. You know as little of economics as you do history!

Did you know Americans work more hours that any other industrialized country? That our per capita production is the greatest in the world? That we take less vacations and time off work? That our food production feeds more people per acre and requires less man hours than any other county?

We don't do better because we cheat, we do better because we work harder and value that hard work. Our economy didn't happen over night and we can't raise the living standard of the world any appreciable amount. That requires hard work, liberalization of government, a classless society, and accountability.

"These people don't have the capital or the infrastructure necessary to play by our rules."

Then they should either continue to live in a shit hole, leave for someplace else, (like a lot of them do), or build and improve their own infrastructure. But if they do the latter it will require them to; work hard, liberalize their governments, create a classless society, and demand accountability.

It is stupid to expect us to do it for them. Its logistically impossible and would bankrupt us. One ting you demitted anarchist and commies always forget is that people work for those corporations you despise so much.

If you want a vision of the utopia you're trying to create, look at Zimbabwe.

"So, they reasonably reject our rules, especially since we don't exactly play by the book ourselves.'

There is nothing, "reasonable", about it and they don't have any rules. Placing one way restrictions on ourselves is asinine. With all your talk of breaking "international law" and "rules", you just show your ignorance on another subject. There are no international laws, only treaties, which countries subscribe to or not. Sometimes wars are fought over those treaties, like the one that Saddam Hussein broke that ended the first gulf war.

I'm not saying terrorism is our fault, or that the terrorists are morally right, or any of these things I am often misinterpreted as saying. All I'm saying here is that if we were a little more open minded, realizing that we like the rules of capitalism because we have an inherent advantage as a western christian nation, perhaps we might be able to change the rules so as to make them fairer and more just.

The rules are as fair and just as any. Rules, because they are rules are inherently unfair to someone. Give me a rule and I will cite you someone who is unfairly effected.

What the consequences of your actions would entail is easily seen in places like North Korea and any other totalitarian government. We give them money for development and they spend it on palaces, we give them machine tools and they build bombs. Without reforming themselves, they will not reform. When they become a danger, they must be dealt with.

Western, is a geographic accident. Christian is a choice, although the so-called protestant work ethic has a lot to do with it, the idea of working for wealth is an idea shared by the Japanese, Hardly a Western 'or' Christian nation. They have adopted the ideals of liberalized Democracy and a work ethic. Germany adopted those ideals and it had served them well until they started Socializing their government and economy.

What you propose is throwing out the tools that work and replacing them with the broken implements that lead to poverty.

"That way, it would be more difficult for anyone looking to stir up a revolution to actually accumulate popular support."

That's the very reason that there hasn't been such a revolution in the US, Germany or Japan.

But they built it their selves with our help and our ideals.

"Without the initial spark provided by vast global inequalitites, the revolution may never come and we will be able to keep all our shiny trinkets. This does not mean lowering our standard of living, it just means helping to more activly raise everyone else's, and not by our standards but by theirs."

That statement has nil semantic content, (it means precisely nothing)!

This country provides more in foreign aid than the next five nations put together, We educate more foreign students than any other nation. That doesn't even count the largesse of individual citizens that provide funds for charities and money for organizations like UNICEF.

If you feel guilty, send them more of your money. Keep your hand out of my pocket, I'll spend my money where I see fit!

"Maybe muslims want peity in their lands rather than MTV, and who are we to say (via the WTO) that they must let all of our products into their lands?"

Lets examine that statement.
What gives an armed minority the right to say what their fellow countrymen must or must not watch on television. They cannot control information anymore. The programs are beamed directly from a satellite into a home.

It would seem to me that it is a lot more about control than any grievance they have with MTV. No one forces them to watch.

How many muslims live in this country? Are you suggesting that MTV be shut down to keep from offending their sensibilities? After MTV, then what?

They aren't offended by MTV, they're offended by us.

I wouldn't lose a bit of seep if MTV went out of business tomorrow, but if you took terrorist actions to shut it down, I would gladly act as the governments agent and throw the switch on old sparky!

"Talking it out with 'extremists' might reveal to us what this horrible injustice is that they feel has been done to them, and then perhaps we might either convince them that they are mistake or they might show us that we have in fact been in the wrong the whole time. But indubitably, talking (discourse rather than diplomacy) is the solution, not bombing."

Yea, right. We solved those little problems of the "extremests" in Germany and Japan, by "discourse rather than diplomacy". Oh! wait! We bombed the shit out of them, didn't we?

Wintermute, if you can't solve your problem with me and my friends by discourse, what makes you think you can solve it with the terrorists? You can't really even identify the problem. You're like the guy that thinks he can stop his neighbor from beating his wife by talking to him.

Lets talk, all they want is what's rightfully theirs. Just some Lebensram.

They have already said what they want. Part of it is right up your alley, the destruction of capitalism. The rest is the destruction of the West and a world caliphate.

Only idiots haven't listened to what they have said. All they want is peace, the peace of your death.

Wintermute said...

Nobody said that the causes of the Russian revolution were not just and you don't seem to realize that the initial revolution was usurped by the Commies. There were many other groups that were destroyed after the revolution in the purges that quickly followed.


yes, like the anarchists who could have done a better job than the commies by instituting a truly non-heirarchical system when they had the chance.

It doesn't matter a rats ass if there were "original injustices done to the people by their rulers". The people involved became statistics. Just a percentage of the 100,000,000 millions of lives lost for the lie of Communist Utopianism.

What do you mean it doesn't matter? of course it does. Revolutions occur because of injustice, and generally lead to more injustice. To stop the initial revolution we need to stop the injustice. If we are doing injustice to the world there just may be a revolution, and in some people seem to think that its beginning. No american will take up arms against the locus of capitalism (America), but a large proportion of the rest of the world is at least a little resentful of the US, and as we go galavanting around the globe shooting people in the name of freedom we will make people even more resentful. Injustices lead to revolutions, which can cause more injustice (though not necessarily). If we want to prevent a revolution then we won't be able to do it in the traditional manner. Just think outside the box.

We don't live in a true Capitalist society and there would be no production without people being rewarded for their labor and innovation. Your ideas have been tried and failed miserably.

People that work harder or produce more expect to be rewarded for their efforts. Giving the fruit of their labors to those that don't produce is a slap in the face!


agreed, but not only capitalism has rewards systems. You can get more in a communist society for working harder, or in an anarchic society, or whatever. And doing hard work entitles you to a share of resources, but do we need to let people make millions of dollars a year on investments while others live in squalor?

And what does 'fully capitalist' mean? The USA has the most free market (albeit Keynsian) economy in the world, and it does its best to impose neo-liberalism on the rest of the world while it refuses to play by those same rules (think Canadian beef and softwood lumber). If we aren't capitalist what are we?

People trend to be greedy and those that produce the least believe they are shortchanged because they don't have what someone else has. When they are rewarded for sloth they become even more slothful.

So someone who is employed in an overseas sweatshop at <1$ an hour to produce clothing for american consumers by a man who inhereted a fortune and doesn't have to work ever again but still gets to accumulate wealth through low risk investment is being paid less because they produce less? The way I see it the employee is producing, the rich guy ain't doin shit.

And again, there are rewards in other economic systems. neo-liberal free market capitalism is not our only option, nor is it our best (from a humanitarian perspective).

People that don't earn what they have don't value it. If you don't believe me, go look at the disrepair of government paid for housing.

Umm, if the government is supposed to pay for them isn't it their fault for not fixing disrepair? If these people had the money to keep up the maintenance on these places they wouldn't be living there. It's not disrespect causing this disrepair, it lack of funding for such projects.

I know what I'm talking about. I spent years doing social work as a lay minister. I followed peoples lives and visited them in their homes. Some of them through a period of over nine years. I gave them money and helped them find work and all the neccisities of life. I acted as their advocate and consoled them during hard times.

and what, are you saying you don't think you helped anyone? I'm sure you did, and it's actions like that that we need, some good old fashioned giving back to the people. And yes, that comes out of the rich people's pockets, and rightly so. They are entitled to wealth, but they are also entitled to higher taxes on said income. If they are making more money they have more to give away, those who have less should have less taken away (or even some given to them).

I went to visit them in places where I guarantee you wouldn't go.
If its one thing I do know its human nature.


you have no idea where I've been, so don't make presumptions like that. And if you have somehow discovered that inherent human nature (which I doubt), tell me, what is it? Are we all greedy? Or lazy? Or what?

You have no idea what, the "Iraqi's perceptions of Abu Ghrab", is. The ones I talked to wondered what the big deal was.

Obviously you weren't talking to anyone upset by the War and that prison. Some people are, and it is easy for them to convince others to feel the same way so long as we keep telling them how its got to be.

Its your bagheaded buds perception of reality to which you're atune, nothing else. If you don't think 'that' perception is fueled by anti-American propaganda, you're even a bigger fool that your ramblings suggest.

bagheaded buddies? you're kidding me right? So I know some Islamic people, is that a crime (yet)? None are terrorists.

Do you think that your perception of Islam is fueled by anti-Islam propaganda? i think that this is manifestly true, but you would dispute it just like I would dispute your claim.

There is no, "status quo", unless dimwits insist that we leave people like Castro and Saddam alone and ignore their actions. Their own governments and institutionalized corruption are their problems, not us. We are the economic driving force of the world.

Any government that accepts liberalized Democracy can raise the living standards of all its people. Any government that doesn't condemns its population to a feudal system without hope.


Okay, so why do we qualify as a liberal democracy, and what exactly does that term mean (in your mind)? what must they accept to prevent the 'condemnation' of their people (as if everyone was 'condemned without hope' before liberal democracy came along).

More people become wealthy, every year in this country, than any other country in the world. Every year, more emigrants, to this country, become millionaires than in their own countries.

Why is that, wintermute?


Because all the wealth is already here, and you have to come here if you want a piece. To bad we usually only let in skilled or wealthy immigrants legally. "If you don't have anything to offer us then we don't even want to talk to you. Go back home and pick us some bananas," we say more often than not.

Problem is, we've been playing this game for a lot longer, and are able to keep the rest of the world trapped behind us as our corporations move in an take over their industry.

More bullshit!
We do better because we out-produce and innovate, better than they do. If they work for an American corporation, its of their own choosing. You know as little of economics as you do history!


I know economics my friend, pretty well in fact. What choice do people have these days but to work? That's the whole point of capitalism, to make it so that everyone has no choice but to employ or be employed. I am employed by a large inhuman, immortal, powerful corporation whose drive for the highest profit margin I think is doing a diservice to those at home and abroad. But I have no choice. Girl's gotta eat, right. This is a good paying job, though I have to sacrifice some morality to work at it because if I didn't I wouldn't survive.



Did you know Americans work more hours that any other industrialized country? That our per capita production is the greatest in the world? That we take less vacations and time off work? That our food production feeds more people per acre and requires less man hours than any other county?

yes, yes, no but I could believe it, and yes but only cause we use some hardcore chemicals.

We don't do better because we cheat, we do better because we work harder and value that hard work. Our economy didn't happen over night and we can't raise the living standard of the world any appreciable amount. That requires hard work, liberalization of government, a classless society, and accountability.

Yes, we work hard, and are therein rightfully deserving of a lot. But we can raise the standard of living significantly if we just tried. The west could easily eliminate abject poverty (that's being so poor that you will certainly die because you are so poor) with minimal donations by 2016. ELIMINATE!! so don't tell me we can't raise the world's standard of living, cause we easily could. easily, easily enough that we'd barely notice the money was gone if we all pitched in for what seems like a indubitably worthwhile cause. As regards the last part, I agree on every point, especially on accountability. But we aren't accountable to the rest of the world, even though they are in many respects subject to our will.

Then they should either continue to live in a shit hole, leave for someplace else, (like a lot of them do), or build and improve their own infrastructure. But if they do the latter it will require them to; work hard, liberalize their governments, create a classless society, and demand accountability.

It is stupid to expect us to do it for them. Its logistically impossible and would bankrupt us.


And yet, we'll do it for Iraq. Why?

One ting you demitted anarchist and commies always forget is that people work for those corporations you despise so much.

This is never forgotten. What would make you think it was? And so what? without the corporations there are still things to do. Just look what happened in argentina.

The rules are as fair and just as any. Rules, because they are rules are inherently unfair to someone. Give me a rule and I will cite you someone who is unfairly effected.

But, if we sat down and worked out the rules with everyone who will be playing by them, perhaps we might be able to pre-empt these squabbles over the rules in the future. If we said "we think it should go this way" and they said "how about this instead" and we went back and forth between all peoples, then that would be justice and no-one could complain (legitimately). But if we just say "trust us, we know the best rules, so play by them" they might just say "fuck your rules, let us figure it out for ourselves. Its like a kid being told what to do unendingly by their parents-soon enough they will rebel, no matter what they're telling him to do. In the end he'll probably start doing what they were telling him to do, but only because he figured it out for himself.

What the consequences of your actions would entail is easily seen in places like North Korea and any other totalitarian government. We give them money for development and they spend it on palaces, we give them machine tools and they build bombs. Without reforming themselves, they will not reform. When they become a danger, they must be dealt with.

So, don't give them money. Give them food and water and such. And as long as we have bombs others will build them to defend against us (and other nations that also have bombs).

Western, is a geographic accident. Christian is a choice, although the so-called protestant work ethic has a lot to do with it, the idea of working for wealth is an idea shared by the Japanese, Hardly a Western 'or' Christian nation. They have adopted the ideals of liberalized Democracy and a work ethic. Germany adopted those ideals and it had served them well until they started Socializing their government and economy.

What you propose is throwing out the tools that work and replacing them with the broken implements that lead to poverty.


We made Japan's constitution and enforced it for the first while. And I don't want to throw out what works, I want to see if we can make it better (for everyone).

That statement has nil semantic content, (it means precisely nothing)!

This country provides more in foreign aid than the next five nations put together, We educate more foreign students than any other nation. That doesn't even count the largesse of individual citizens that provide funds for charities and money for organizations like UNICEF.


sorry, but you're wrong

What gives an armed minority the right to say what their fellow countrymen must or must not watch on television. They cannot control information anymore.

You're right, but we can. Who gets to shut down websites and ban tv networks? us, but not them. Again, unfair. And besides, what gives an armed majority that right?

It would seem to me that it is a lot more about control than any grievance they have with MTV. No one forces them to watch.

How many muslims live in this country? Are you suggesting that MTV be shut down to keep from offending their sensibilities? After MTV, then what?


no, I'm not suggesting that, simply saying that if they don't want some product in their country maybe they have the right to say no rather than us simply beaming it in by satelite against their wishes.

Wintermute, if you can't solve your problem with me and my friends by discourse, what makes you think you can solve it with the terrorists?

Good question. Are you suggesting that I deal with you like you propose to deal with 'irrational' terrorists? But seriously, how do you know until you try, and I mean really try not just say you tried.

Lets talk, all they want is what's rightfully theirs. Just some Lebensram.

You're the one talking about what's rightfully yours, because you produced and thereofre deserve it. Just because you already have it doesn't mean that it is rightfully yours. Just because they don't have it doesn't mean its not rightfully theirs.

You know, some people say that you know that someone is losing an argument when they invoke the nazis.

They have already said what they want. Part of it is right up your alley, the destruction of capitalism. The rest is the destruction of the West and a world caliphate.

So, the first one is do-able. The second one, no so much. Do you think they would settle for no more capitalism and complete sovereignty but no caliphate? Maybe we should ask.

Only idiots haven't listened to what they have said. All they want is peace, the peace of your death.

Where'd they say this, huh? point me in the direction of the actual document, cause I doubt that they want ME dead. And are you not striving for the peace of their death? Try looking at it through someone else's eyes for a change. When you look through the terrorists eyes, tell me it doesn't all look exactly the same except inverted (they call it occidentalism). Neo-conservativism and fundamentalist Islam arose at about the same time for about the same reasons. Both think people need to be controlled, and I don't want to get caught up in your guys' stupid war, because I don't need to be control. I am a self-legislating individual, a free man. I can think for myself, something you may be incapable of.

Wintermute said...

When I say you're wrong about the donations I mean in terms of GDP. I don't know the figures for public and private donations in $US, but in terms of a % of GDP we are a highly unphlanthropic nation, especially considering we give more to our allies than to those who really need it (even if they are not enemies but rather simply of no future use to us).

Warren said...

"What do you mean it doesn't matter?"

It doesn't matter within the context of my post.

The people that read this blog are a lot more knowledgeable about history than the average, 'know nothing', with a GED certificate. They are aware of the October Revolution and the Tzar.

"but a large proportion of the rest of the world is at least a little resentful of the US, and as we go galavanting around the globe shooting people in the name of freedom we will make people even more resentful."

YAWN....

A large portion of the rest of the world, always wants the big guy took down! They resent the fact that he 'is' the big guy.

"Injustices lead to"...

Yada yada yada

Your ideas are juvenile and anal. I had thought of them and rejected them by the time I had turned 21. Now its time for you to grow up and face the real world.

"not only capitalism has rewards systems. You can get more in a communist society for working harder, or in an anarchic society, or whatever."

Yea sure, really great rewards.

And that's why people flee those societies, sometimes with just the clothes on their backs, to come here.

"but do we need to let people make millions of dollars a year on investments while others live in squalor?"

Those people that make those investments don't just sit on their money. They re-invest it and provide the money for new business and capital improvements.

"So someone who is employed in an overseas sweatshop at <1$ an hour to produce clothing for american consumers by a man who inhereted a fortune and doesn't have to work ever again but still gets to accumulate wealth through low risk investment is being paid less because they produce less? The way I see it the employee is producing, the rich guy ain't doin shit."

Really? How many of these people do you know?

I know two of them and they may be wealthy but they earned their money. Both started off piss poor and worked hard to earn their money.

One of them retired to South America and the other owns a trucking outfit. He drives a coal truck 8 to 10 hours a day 6 days a week.

Those investments represented a 'great risk'. South American countries are unstable and you can never tell when a government will nationalize your business and take away everything they can get their hands on.

That $1 an hour is greater than the prevailing wage in those areas, and in effect, takes the person working there well above the poverty line.

Read This

"Umm, if the government is supposed to pay for them isn't it their fault for not fixing disrepair? If these people had the money to keep up the maintenance on these places they wouldn't be living there. It's not disrespect causing this disrepair, it lack of funding for such projects."

It doesn't work that way and a welfare recipient has certain obligations.

People that live in Section 8 housing are still obligated to keep the trash picked up and not destroy the apartment unit.

People that live in "Scattered Housing", are also required to keep their lawns mowed and trash out of the yard.

"and what, are you saying you don't think you helped anyone?"

No, I'm saying that people don't respect what they don't earn and most people want a hand-out, not a hand-up. They think that it is owed to them.

That is the kind of attitude you would encourage.

"And yes, that comes out of the rich people's pockets, and rightly so. They are entitled to wealth, but they are also entitled to higher taxes on said income."

Err, no it didn't. It came from donations from people like me. I had access to businessmen, blue collar workers, councilor's and psychologists. Only the office staff were salaried employees. Government social workers usually are just bureaucrats that are more concerned with the right paperwork than actually helping someone.

"If they are making more money they have more to give away, those who have less should have less taken away (or even some given to them)."

In order, they do, they do and they are.

"you have no idea where I've been, so don't make presumptions like that."

Really?
When was the last time you went into a high crime 4 floor tenement with drug addicts laying in the halls carrying a flashlight because the stairway and hallway lights were busted out at 11 o'clock at night because someone called you and told you their children were hungry and hadn't eaten in two days?

Oh, BTW, it was a lie, they didn't want food they wanted money and got mad when I showed up with a box of good food and some gift certificates that weren't redeamable for cash.

"And if you have somehow discovered that inherent human nature (which I doubt), tell me, what is it? Are we all greedy? Or lazy? Or what?"

We are all what we are, but mostly we are liars that lie to ourselves the most.

"Obviously you weren't talking to anyone upset by the War and that prison. Some people are, and it is easy for them to convince others to feel the same way so long as we keep telling them how its got to be."

And obviously, you were talking to whom? It sure wasn't intelligent Iraqis.

"bagheaded buddies? you're kidding me right? So I know some Islamic people, is that a crime (yet)? None are terrorists."

No, . I was talking about these BAGHEADS

"Do you think that your perception of Islam is fueled by anti-Islam propaganda? i think that this is manifestly true, but you would dispute it just like I would dispute your claim."

Actually it is an informed opinion I came to after making the acquaintance of a couple of members of the intelligence community, (They didn't know each other), Arabic speakers, that had spent a significant portion of their lives in the Middle East. One of them was recalled to service during the first Gulf War. The other is retire although he sometimes works for a "think tank".

Thinking, it couldn't be as bad as they said, I checked it out. It was worse!

That was in the late 80s after the 1983 Marine barracks bombing.

"Okay, so why do we qualify as a liberal democracy, and what exactly does that term mean (in your mind)?"

Individual rights, representative government, freedom from excessive regulation. A nation of laws and not of men.

Your rights end where mine begin, that means you can't use your rights by tramping on mine.

Look wintermute, I'm not wealthy. If you make good wages you would probably be shocked at how little I make.

That's all I have time for now. I'll leave you with this:

" You know, some people say that you know that someone is losing an argument when they invoke the nazis."

It is a historically valid point. If you think you are winning an argument you are only deluding yourself.

People that say that are only ignoring history. I called no one a Nazi, I didn't imply you were one. The history of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia are more currant and easily verifiable than other, more ancient, examples I could give going back to the days of the first Roman Empire.

Wintermute said...

"I was talking about these BAGHEADS"


I like these shots better:
here
here
here
here

What can I say, Gap sucks, and the WTO sucks way worse. If no one smashed any windows would anyone have listened? Did they listen at all? Is there any way that a protest can be non-destructive and yet effective? Can a protest even be effective in a majoritarian representative 'democracy'? I think not. So why not send Gap a purely non-violent message, and in doing so expose the violence returned by the state in response to this non-violence (i.e. tear gas, rubber bullets, etc.).

This shit is getting ridiculous. When will we get a real democracy, not this half witted untransparent and radically insufficient (in modern times) oligarcy that we have now. This is not to say that we do not have democracy now, but rather that it needs to be expanded to meet the needs of a modern and rapidly progressing society. This involves somehow moving from a top-down approach to instituting social order (i.e. representative democracy) to a bottom-up approach to allowing social order to emerge (i.e. an anarchic model)




Here's the problem. You see me (and many of those whom I associate with) as recommending an institution of a totalitarian centrally planned Soviet or N. Korea style system. Obviously this is not what I am recommending. In the most basic sense I am recommending nothing but increasing democracy, allowing it to swallow economic interests as well.

When I say "not only capitalism has rewards systems. You can get more in a communist society for working harder, or in an anarchic society, or whatever."

and then you reply: Yea sure, really great rewards.

And that's why people flee those societies, sometimes with just the clothes on their backs, to come here.


You are implying that I was recommending a communist society. I was not. I was merely saying that we do have other options, many of which have never been tried out in practice, and that the tenable options we have all include motivating systems.

George Orwell, for example, recommended a kind of highly DEMOCRATIC socialism that was basically capitalism but with a fixed wage ratio (i.e. the greatest difference of income could be no more than tenfold. If my boss makes ten dollars an hour, I must at least make a dollar). Not all possible economic systems are capitalist or communist. Some are somewhere in between, and some are not even in that spectrum. But anything that we would actually think of implementing would have to have motivational systems. Its thinking outside of the box that's important, realizing that we have other options than allowing tyrants and racketeers to become legitimized (i.e. practicing free market unfettered corporate capitalism).

"Okay, so why do we qualify as a liberal democracy, and what exactly does that term mean (in your mind)?"

Warren: Individual rights, representative government, freedom from excessive regulation. A nation of laws and not of men.

Your rights end where mine begin, that means you can't use your rights by tramping on mine.


Okay, now why is that we qualify as such? I reject the notion that a liberal democracy entails representative government. Direct democracy would also qualify, but this point is superfluous to my argument here.

"Injustices lead to"...

Warren: Yada yada yada

Your ideas are juvenile and anal. I had thought of them and rejected them by the time I had turned 21. Now its time for you to grow up and face the real world.


I'm sorry that you had to grow up into a naive, dogmatic bigot who feels killing people is the best solution to every problem. And if you can't kill someone, the next best solution is to call them an idiot and charicature their arguments, and if that is impossible to simply ignore their argument entirely (as you have above) I'm not sure what that fallacy is called, but its a bad one. I should start copying some of this stuff down for a logic textbook, as argument templates to avoid at all costs. If you procalim yourself to be rational and civilized I suggest you grow up and start acting like it.

Wintermute said...

Wintermute, if you can't solve your problem with me and my friends by discourse, what makes you think you can solve it with the terrorists?

What makes you think I need to win you guys over? As far as I'm concerned you guys are lost causes, people who are so inhered, so inert that you will fight to protect the system which causes the problems you want to fix. You're just not ready to be unplugged Warren, nor are your buddies, nor is OBL. I am not trying to sway you, its that person on the fence that I'm trying to help. By exposing the arguments made by you and your pundiated buddies as ridiculous, bigoted, fallacious, unsound, hatefilled, and irrational I just hope that I can help counterbalance all the monkey feces you guys seem to love throwing back and forth at each other so much.

I don't need you in our society. I only need a majority (or a significantly unrully minority).

Warren said...

"I don't need you in our society. I only need a majority (or a significantly unruly minority)."

You need a clue! ROTFLMAO

So much for your "true democracy" and your "non-violence".

What you are really saying is that if you don't get your way, you (not actually you but your stupid bagheaded buds), will burn down our society. You're just hiding behind your empty rhetoric of "dialog" and "talking it out". You believe that democracy is having things your way.

If you are trying to convince people on the "on the fence", you are doing it in the wrong place.

This blog has low readership and this post is buried down far enough that I doubt that it will be read again (except by you).

I haven't even considered
alerting my friends or getting Beamish to come over and 'fumigate'.

You're just another wage whore, I'll readily admit I am. Only I'm not making concessions to my principles.

If you find my friends and I so distasteful, I suggest you leave for places you find more to your liking.

Shalom

Wintermute said...

I'm also simply sharpening my skills, so if you feel the need to 'call in the fumigators' by all means. Your arguments are more sound and logical than Beamish's.

But still, I don't think you understand democracy. A majority of people who, let's say, wanted to make America a socialist country could do so by demanding it. This is how the rules work. Other options include protesting, lobbying, or appealing to the constitution, all of which require nothing but a sufficiently pissed off minority. They don't have to be WTO Seattle pissed off, maybe just million man march pissed off. These are democratic solutions, which I feel are the only way, hence why I'm fighting the meme wars, even if in an insignificant corner of the blogsphere like yours, and honing my dynamic debate skills. I have faith in democracy, enough that I want more democracy, more control by the people.

Try responding to the arguments put forth. it might help you make your case better. Ignoring them just makes it seem like you don't have an answer to the important points. Or that you don't understand them.

Warren said...

Wintermute,
Let's start over.

I am constrained by time limitations. I have a full-time job and two part time jobs. Sometimes I take contract work for others. My wife is disabled and that eats up more of my time as I must take care of her needs.

Add to that, I'm one of those rare people with a high IQ and dyslexic. It takes me a long time to compose and edit.

If I do not respond to all of your points it is for either 'that' reason or I do not consider it worth responding to.

I have no need to have my ego stroked and I am quite secure in my intelligence. You might say, as others have, that I am arrogant. So be it!

You are imprecise with your vocabulary. You do not fully understand the definitions of the words you use or the self-contradictory nature of your arguments.

Example:
But still, I don't think you understand democracy. A majority of people who, let's say, wanted to make America a socialist country could do so by demanding it.

So far, so good.

"Other options include protesting, lobbying, or appealing to the constitution,"...

No, none of those are democracy. If used correctly they are forms for swaying public opinion or addressing grievance under law.

Law is not democracy, but instead, the framework for allowing humans to live together with the least amount of friction or injustice.

..."all of which require nothing but a sufficiently pissed off minority. They don't have to be WTO Seattle pissed off, maybe just million man march pissed off."

Now you are way off track!

What you are talking about is intimidation of the majority by a vocal or violent minority and nothing to do with democracy.

Then you end it so self assuredly with.

"These are democratic solutions, which I feel are the only way,"...

I re-iterate, Its not democracy.

You haven't convinced a majority. You might have intimidated the meek with threatening attitudes and actions but you haven't convinced anyone of the 'righteousness' of your cause. Still you seem so sure that you leave no room for debate.

If I didn't find it so sad I would laugh.

"I have faith in democracy, enough that I want more democracy, more control by the people."

No, you have faith in your "philosophy" and want more control by people that believe as you do.

From Merriam Webster,
democracy:
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

If you wish me to address a certain point, name it.

I'm out of time for now.

Wintermute said...

Honestly Warren, you're way cooler than Beamish, even if we disagree just as much. I too have a reading disability (no joke), it takes me about an hour to read fifteen pages in a novel, nevermind when its a philosophical text (which lends itself to slow reading anyways). I am, however, a fairly prolific writer-though I am a finger-pecker. I have no problem writing for hours on end, so I apologize sincerely if I demand too much.

Protesting, Lobbying, and constitutional appeal are parts of OUR democracy. They may not be integral to the functioning of any democracy, but in ours they play vital roles, and they constitute legitimate methods of effecting change. Lobbying I take issue with, but the fact that we are a constitutional democracy legitimates appeals to the constitution. Protesting is covered in the right to peaceful assembly. These are democratic processes-as surely as someone can vote in my stead I can make my own voice heard. In the end anything not covered in the constituion will come down to a vote, and in this sense protesting is a means to and end, a way of trying to sway opinion and gather votes. What I mean here is not that a sufficiently pissed off minority might get violent and force their will upon the majority, only that a sufficiently pissed off minority (like during the MMM) might be able to show the majority how they can change for the better (or in some cases, like when something the majority supports is banned by the constitution, why they MUST change).

As regards what points I want you to address, I just want to say that it is a general tone in this part of the blogosphere that arguments don't need to be met with anything but insults and hand waving in the sense of "Injustices lead to..." Blah blah blah, this is anal...etc, etc, etc.

But, if I get a choice, let's just pick at the idea that the US is philanthropic enough already, and that we couldn't make a big enough difference in the world without hurting ourselves dramatically. As far as I know, this is utterly false. Care to defend your propositions?

Warren said...

My problem is almost the exact opposite of yours (vis-a-vis disability). Face to face communication is much easier. I don't have to correct all of those mis-spellings and include the punctuation that makes the written word a laborious process (for me).

Beamish is my friend and distant cousin. He has little tolerance for positions which he finds indefensible. He has a sharp sarcastic wit and is highly intelligent and knowledgeable in a whole host of areas not readily apparent to you.

Although your courage for sticking your head in the lions mouth, (so to speak), is commendable. You picked the wrong place to make a convert.

Beakerkin, is a Ashkenazi Jew and a zenophile, (as am I, i.e. zenophile). He is my best friend on the web. He was in the building at the first WTO bombing and close enough to actually run for his life on 9/11. He sang the, Ani Mamin, (a death song) as he ran from the enveloping clouds of debris. His blog started out as comedic commentary but changed after the first post and a vicious attack by a anti-Semite.

Always on Watch, is a teacher. She was caught somewhat unawares on 9/11. She lives in Northern Virginia, not far from DC. She quickly started studying the history of Islam and brought herself up to speed, (and beyond). Her blog is a wealth of information.

Each of my friends, (many not mentioned here), are highly intelligent and well informed. They view the world as the sum of its parts and history as the foundation and predictor of what is to come. They view events with a far deeper understanding than words can express.

They each have a process which is driven by experience. They see motives which underlie rhetoric. A process I crudely call a "bullshit filter".

That is not to say that you are not earnest in your beliefs but I will attack their basis.

All of the proceeding was just to give you an idea of whom you are communicating with.

***************

vis-a-vis, democracy/constitution:

It is important to separate the parts from the whole.

Freedom of speech, assembly etc, are not democracy in and of themselves. Each have their limits, and rightly so. They are only parts of the whole.

Under a strict definition of democracy, they become totally unnecessary or even an anathema if a majority decides this isn't what they want.

Think about it and tell me if you agree with that statement.
**************
Philanthropy:

Do you agree with this quote/statement as a policy; "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

Its not a trick nor am I going to blast you as a Commie. I'm simply going to thoroughly Fisk it, if you agree to the statement.

Are you familiar with the costs in dollars of the welfare program since its inception compared to the initial cost estimates?

These things will make the basis for my arguments although it will probably take many side routes.