America and the dollar

[Thomas Linton]

I'm pleased somebody responded to my last post. Took me a while to write and I was beginning to think nobody had read it!
. . .

Sure, the Nazis did this. That does not make it a bad idea.
. . .
My argument is not to imply we should kill people because they are insane or retarded or prefer peanut butter to almond butter, but rather because their motivition is destructively selfish.
. . .
[T]he library is free and the a staggering amount of subversive material can be found there.

-Tycho-

Ah ha, another superior being who will decide who lives and who dies. Bye, bye.

 

[Rice]

Stand up, all victims of oppression
For the tyrants fear your might
Don't cling so hard to your possessions
For you have nothing, if you have no rights
Let racist ignorance be ended
For respect makes the empires fall
Freedom is merely privilege extended
Unless enjoyed by one and all.

Let no one build walls to divide us
Walls of hatred nor walls of stone
Come greet the dawn and stand beside us
We'll live together or we'll die alone
In our world poisoned by exploitation
Those who have taken, now they must give
And end the vanity of nations
We've one but one Earth on which to live

And so begins the final drama
In the streets and in the fields
We stand unbowed before their armour
We defy their guns and shields
When we fight, provoked by their aggression
Let us be inspired by life and love
For though they offer us concessions
Change will not come from above.

 

[Thomas Linton]

Whatsoever for any cause, seeketh to take or give
Power above and beyond the Laws
Suffer it not to live.
Holy Church or Holy State or Holy People's Will
Have no truck with the senseless thing.
Order the guns .. and Kill.

 

[tychoseven]

Whatsoever for any cause, seeketh to take or give
Power above and beyond the Laws
Suffer it not to live.
Holy Church or Holy State or Holy People's Will
Have no truck with the senseless thing.
Order the guns .. and Kill.

'Tis a touching line of verse, one that aptly demonstrates the crowd's moralistic and vengeful philosophy. Destroy anything that threatens individual sovereignty, especially if we can't understand it. Overwhelming numbers are substitute for the inner strength possesed by noble, intelligent people.

I too offer a quote, this from America's own Mark Twain:

"The average man don't like trouble and danger. You dont like trouble and danger. But if only half a man - like Buck Harness, there shouts "Lynch him, lynch him!"you're afraid to back down - afraid you'll be found out for what your are - cowards - and so you raise a yell, and hang yourselves up onto that half a man's coat tail, and come raging up here, swearing what big things you're going to do. The pitifulest thing out is a mob; that's what an army is - a mob; they dont fight with courage thats born in them, but with courgage thats borrowed from their mass, and from their officers. But a mob without any man at the head of it, is beneath pitifulness."
Huck Finn, Chapter 22

 

[Thomas Linton]

'Tis a touching line of verse, one that aptly demonstrates the crowd's moralistic and vengeful philosophy. Destroy anything that threatens individual sovereignty, especially if we can't understand it. Overwhelming numbers are substitute for the inner strength possesed by noble, intelligent people.

Strange to regard the religious zealot, the extereme nationalist, and the populist demagog as protectors of "individual sovereignty." Historically, the contrary is true.

The point is that we know and understand extremists all too well. They place themselves ABOVE Law, ABOVE the group and ABOVE every other individual who does not accept their guidance because they THINK themselves to be the vessels into which is poured Received Wisdom. That is, after all, what makes them Superior Beings who are destined, some day, to lead the "mob."

"I always smile when I hear 'Power to the People.' It really means 'Power to the People Who Think Like Me, Follow Me, Adore Me.' To the Gulags with the rest."

 

[Yvsa]

Stand up, all victims of oppression
For the tyrants fear your might
Don't cling so hard to your possessions
For you have nothing, if you have no rights
Let racist ignorance be ended
For respect makes the empires fall
Freedom is merely privilege extended
Unless enjoyed by one and all.

Would Rice like to expand on his post and give his thoughts on why he posted lyrics from
"The International" or is Rice just a troll trying to stir up trouble?
Right now I'm giving Rice the benefit of doubt but I don't know why a person would make his first post on a knife forum about such as this.

 

[gravertom]

Hollow Dweller,

Thanks for giving some positive suggestions. That is more difficult than just critiquing...

Though I tend towards agreeing with conservatives, I don't understand, despite listening to the Limbaugh show today, how debt can be good.

I might agree to tax increases to retire the debt, as long as spending is reduced in real dollars, not just a reduced rate of increase, and impediments to business are reduced as well.

other things I would do...

get troops out of Japan, Europe, etc. (Not Iraq just yet)
Reduce standing Army
Re introduce Old militia laws, county and State control.
Make conscription un constitutional
Phase out federal spending on education
Eliminate property taxes
After debt is retired, end personal income tax
Phase out federal welfare
Eliminate/ reduce penitentiary system, replace with corporal punishment/ restitution
Return real autonomy /significant lands to peoples we have broken treaties with in the past

I guess that is enough for now!

as far as population control, I am not sure the world is over crowded, as opposed to resources and potential for production not being free to flourish. There is a lot of empty land on this earth. I believe it is at least theoretically possible to have a high standard of living, a clean environment, and plenty of food for most people, certainly better than we do today. The willingess is lacking, that is the real problem. Bad government starved the Ethiopians, not a lack of world food production.

With respect to reducing the population, those who feel so strongly about it are welcome to start at home, as it were.

I am a man with 5 children. Which should I send back?

I guess that makes me the enemy, or at least irresponsible to some.

While I feel very strongly about abortion, I no longer worry about it as much, for the following reason. The people who vote, believe, and think similarly to me are not aborting their children. Absent the importation of folks who will vote with the other side, my side would eventually out number them!

Don't get me wrong, I think abortion and the like are terrible, and I should pray and weep more about it, but I would not advocate a war to end it. I would not advocate violence to stop it. I don't believe I have a duty to stand between the Amalekites and God's judgement upon them...

With the advent of the internet, and newer and newer technology, I would like to see some sort of healthy reversal of the industrial revolution. "Each man under his own fig tree." Small farms, tradesmen, small manufacturers, etc. maybe not totally possible, but if it could head in that direction a little, so much the better.


Idealistically and unrealistically yours,

Tom

 

[Yvsa]

With the advent of the internet, and newer and newer technology, I would like to see some sort of healthy reversal of the industrial revolution. "Each man under his own fig tree." Small farms, tradesmen, small manufacturers, etc. maybe not totally possible, but if it could head in that direction a little, so much the better.

Tom

With a substantial amount of land allowed to return to its native wild state in between methinks that would be Utopia Tom.:thumbup:

 

[hollowdweller]

Hollow Dweller,

I believe it is at least theoretically possible to have a high standard of living, a clean environment, and plenty of food for most people, certainly better than we do today. The willingess is lacking, that is the real problem. Bad government starved the Ethiopians, not a lack of world food production.

With respect to reducing the population, those who feel so strongly about it are welcome to start at home, as it were.

I am a man with 5 children. Which should I send back?

I guess that makes me the enemy, or at least irresponsible to some.


Don't get me wrong, I think abortion and the like are terrible, and I should pray and weep more about it, but I would not advocate a war to end it. I would not advocate violence to stop it. I don't believe I have a duty to stand between the Amalekites and God's judgement upon them...

With the advent of the internet, and newer and newer technology, I would like to see some sort of healthy reversal of the industrial revolution. "Each man under his own fig tree." Small farms, tradesmen, small manufacturers, etc. maybe not totally possible, but if it could head in that direction a little, so much the better.


Idealistically and unrealistically yours,

Tom

Tom,

I don't have any kids, and one of the reasons was environmental so I'm balancing you out

The reasons for famine and lact of quality of life I believe is greed. If everyone would really practice "love they neighbor as thyself" not only on a personal but also on an international basis it would be a start.

I agree it is possible to have a better environment with the same population, but I am sad that our country is actually one of the obstructionists in this issue. I think it has been proven that regulations promoting a better environment actually help the economy, however this has been resisted by the business community. I think it is criminal that in most places they reccomend only eating the fish on a limited basis due to the mercury contamination. Clinton proposed reductions in mercury emissions but the Bush admin has not followed thru on this. I mean people can't even try to be a little more self sufficient by fishing because industry has ruined it.


On abortion I think it is a matter of privacy. If you read Roe VS Wade I think it makes sense from a Constitutional Perspective. I personally think a million?? Abortions in the US is too much. Just like Gun Control I think we could drastically reduce or eliminate abortion without banning it.

The problems I see with it are this. First the Republicans seem to be the Anti Abortion party, yet in almost every way their policies encourage abortion. Keeping the minimum wage rock bottom, cutting funding for medicaid and social service agencies, cutting funding for sex education and birth control. All these impair a womans abiltiy to provide for her child or take care of it. Or prevent pregnancy by another means.:thumbup:

I think it is telling that the rate of abortion went up during Reagan and Bush's terms, and down during Clintons. Clinton passed family and medical leave act, we raised the min wage, increased the earned income tax credit which raises the salary of low income folks. I believe all these impact the abortion rate. The Republicans are for the child being carried to term, but after that he's on his own

Due to economies of scale I doubt that we'll ever go back to small farms, but we can do our part by buying locally even if it costs more. About the only way we will see a return to the local economy is if gas prices rise to the point that the transportation costs are a significant factor in the cost of consumer goods.

 

[tychoseven]

Strange to regard the religious zealot, the extereme nationalist, and the populist demagog as protectors of "individual sovereignty." Histoically, the contrary is true.

My comments were in reference to the speaker in the poem, not its subject. The crowd cannot abide anyone who would place themselves apart from it, because that would undermine their power and expose them as cowards and fools.

The point is that we know and understand extremists all too well. They place themselves ABOVE Law, ABOVE the group and ABOVE every other individual who does not accept their guidance because they THINK themselves to be the vessels into which is poured Received Wisdom. That is, after all, what makes them Superior Beings who are destined, some day, to lead the "mob."

Not all extremists are created equal. Most people are philosophically undeveloped and are therefore attracted to binary worldviews (morality), so naturally most extremists are going to be firebrands without any substance or thought behind them, but they will have a popular following! However, some people ARE above the mob by virtue of intelligence, education, and will. They do not recieve wisdom, they uncover it slowly through years of thought, observation, and application. Their beliefs may seem extreme to less developed persons, but intelligent people will comprehend more than others and thus "extremists" like ecoterrorists make perfect sense.

Understand that I do not consider myself one of these enlightened people, nor do I have any desire to rule others. I'm not a great leader, and I've had enough experience to know. I only report what I observe, and my observations will be flawed, like everyone else's. We're all on our paths to self-improvement and wisdom, and it's an ongoing process, not an end in itself. Some people have a more accurate assesment of reality than others, and for that reason they are above the crowd.

"I always smile when I hear 'Power to the People.' It really means 'Power to the People Who Think Like Me, Follow Me, Adore Me.' To the Gulags with the rest."

Which is the problem with moralistic, crowdist thinking. I'll not advocate "Power to the People" simply because I've met people. I'm all for allowing people to govern themselves, but there is a reason we have leaders. Long-term decisions are beyond the ability of the average Joe Six-Pack, and healthy societies will have healthy leaders and healthy citizens. Note that I do not include our modern industrial world in this definition.

With the advent of the internet, and newer and newer technology, I would like to see some sort of healthy reversal of the industrial revolution. "Each man under his own fig tree." Small farms, tradesmen, small manufacturers, etc. maybe not totally possible, but if it could head in that direction a little, so much the better.

Return real autonomy /significant lands to peoples we have broken treaties with in the past

I am a man with 5 children. Which should I send back?

I guess that makes me the enemy, or at least irresponsible to some.

Right on. Quality over quantity, and a return to localized communites. Real communities, not ones with gates and names like "The Mews at Windsor Heights".

Yup, localization and autonomy. I'd also like to see a letter of apology for turning the country into a strip mall.

It's too late to send them back, obviously. And you are no enemy if you raise them well and encourage them to educate themselves.

-Tycho-

 

[Thomas Linton]

My comments were in reference to the speaker in the poem, not its subject. The crowd cannot abide anyone who would place themselves apart from it, because that would undermine their power and expose them as cowards and fools.

"The crowd." That would be the majority. Elitists are always antidemocratic at their core, being Superior people. That's why we need the Vanguard of the Revolution to guide the (inferior) masses.

. . . However, some people ARE above the mob by virtue of intelligence, education, and will. Their beliefs may seem extreme to less developed persons, but intelligent people will comprehend more than others and thus "extremists" like ecoterrorists make perfect sense.

Makes "perfect sense" to Superior People, as opposed to us poor "undeveloped" types. Kill those loggers. Burn the buildings. Bomb the labs. Superior People at work. UP the ELF!!

Understand that I do not consider myself one of these enlightened people, nor do I have any desire to rule others.

Oh the modesty of it all. You call names as if you had the wisdom and "development" to pass judgment. I let the others here decide where you place yourself on the spectrum of "development." If it walks like a duck . . . . [Maybe a pig on two legs wopuld actually be better. Animal Farm and all that.]

Some people have a more accurate assesment of reality than others, and for that reason they are above the crowd.

Yes. The Natural Elite. The Superior. We have seen their work from time to time. Above the law since wiser and better than those who make the law. Above society's rules because they are better than those who make the rules,

Which is the problem with moralistic, crowdist thinking.

Yes. Who needs morals? The ends justify the means. Let's list, in our memories, just some of those who agreed with that maxim. Calligula, Commodus, Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Saddam. Can't make omlets without breaking eggs.

I'll not advocate "Power to the People" simply because I've met people. I'm all for allowing people to govern themselves, but there is a reason we have leaders. Long-term decisions are beyond the ability of the average Joe Six-Pack, and healthy societies will have healthy leaders and healthy citizens. Note that I do not include our modern industrial world in this definition.

Yes. The majority are scum. Hopeless. A disease on the earth. Just taking up air and water. Simply "quantity" instead of "quality." Up the ELF!!! Power to those who agree with my (minority) view affairs. The Superior are, after all, really entitled to rule.

And you are no enemy if you raise them well and encourage them to educate themselves.

Yes. Raise them well. Tamed masses. Controlled by the Superior People (e.g. Party Members): War is Peace. Hate is Love. Scarcity is Plenty.


"Rand's elitism, like Communism, is attractive to intelligent children of all ages."

"Democracy is the worst of all political systems, except all others."

"Who do we trust to be our keepers?"


Ed: I apologise to any who follow Ayn Rand's views, although I strongly reject them This crowd who use "Crowdist" is a whole other, and "new," order of folks altogether, as anyone can easily discover.

 

[munk]

The crowd cannot abide anyone who would place themselves apart from it, because that would undermine their power and expose them as cowards and fools.>>>>>>>>> Tychoseven


Looking back on Nietzsche, on arrogant youth, on segments in academia which believe in some form of oberman, I see only human weakness and shame. The concept of a 'crowd' used in this narrow and distorted way is no more real than the legend of the few superior beings who would govern all. Simple, silly, ridiculous. A comic book.

What is going on in this thread?

If it continues it really should have color pictures and sell on Newstands... .


munk

 

[Kevin the grey]

While I don,t mind being middle class ? Prosperity has always seemed like a good idea to me . Its a lot better than being poor .

 

[bwray]

It is the responsibility of every generation to look the naysayers, the intellectuals, and the artists in the eye and say; "There is still hope and good here."


munk

I agree absolutely with "There is still hope and good here". I would go further: there is much good in this world and in this country of ours and we have the ability to make it better still if we think clearly and apply ourselves with energy.:thumbup: But how did intellectuals and artists get lumped in with naysayers as being in opposition to this basic optimism? An intellectual, in the general sense of the term, is simply a person who is guided more by rational analysis than by feeling (though not necessarily devoid of feeling), and an artist is one who creates things of beauty (but is not necessarily devoid of rational thought).

Intellectuals, of course, are of both liberal and conservative persuasion and occur in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Are not the neo-cons "intellectuals"?

Artists, if anything, may tend to be slightly apolitical due to their focus on beauty. (Not sure who you're talking about here - actors and actresses?) They probably are more liberal on average than most citizens, but that does not by any means give cause to group them with "naysayers". They are entitled, along with every other voter in the country, to evaluate policy at the ballot box, and their evaluation will almost certainly be negative with respect to some policies and/or politicians. But, again, they are not inherently negative people; quite the contrary, they are focused on finding and expressing the beauty in life. To be fair here, I must confess that I am a little biased because my wife is an oil painter and a very good one. Have a look at her with some of her work under "Seller and Family" on my eBay store. Does she look like a dangerous naysayer?

In order to function properly in the long run, a representative democracy requires the input of all of her citizens (or as many as possible), at least at the ballot box if not more broadly. It is not constructive to seek to eliminate or demonize the potential contributions of various groups who may not agree with our own point of view. You're a good guy munk, and I think it more likely that you were speaking carelessly than that you bear real animus towards artists and intellectuals.

Intellectuals and artists are the proponents of reason and passion in our daily lives. I appreciate Gibran's view on reason and passion. We would all do well to embrace a little of both.


Among the hills, when you sit in the cool shade of the white poplars, sharing the peace and serenity of distant fields and meadows - then let your heart say in silence, "God rests in reason."

And when the storm comes, and the mighty wind shakes the forest, and thunder and lightning proclaim the majesty of the sky, - then let your heart say in awe, "God moves in passion."

And since you are a breath In God's sphere, and a leaf in God's forest, you too should rest in reason and move in passion.

 

[munk]

We'll have to disagree, Bwray. Artists are not evenly distributed along political lines. As 'art' is often an alternative to the conventional view, it is always going to examine the status quo, to be against or poised to peirce and reveal. While I doubt you would find any more or less 'genius' in those artists with liberal or conservative political views, (in fact, I think most of our best art is non political) you will find the arts heavily Left biased. It has always been so.

"It is the responsibility of every generation to look the naysayers, the intellectuals, and the artists in the eye and say; "There is still hope and good here."

This is my original statement. I don't see where I've distinguished between Left or Right. You've taken that up because it concerns you. I imagine it concerns you because you are a liberal on some things and want me to know you are not a nay sayer to society. None of the regulars in HI forum are naysayers, we are builders and survivors, of all political persuasions. The point is that self and societal examination is neccesary and good, but must not prevent growth and survival.

munk

 

[Kevin the grey]

Looking back on Nietzsche, on arrogant youth, on segments in academia which believe in some form of oberman, I see only human weakness and shame. The concept of a 'crowd' used in this narrow and distorted way is no more real than the legend of the few superior beings who would govern all. Simple, silly, ridiculous. A comic book.

Quote from Munk :

REPLY : I have to admit that most of what you said is Greek to me as most of my philosophical pursuits have been of a decidedly disorganised nature .

The only part I question is the belief of a few superior beings controlling all is not to be taken seiously and best left where it belongs (comic books and tabloids)
If you are being literal I of course couldn,t agree with you more . If by superior beings you mean those who think they are superior and would control humanity by literally owning the land upon which we tred ,trod and or are trodden upon , then there is room for discussion .
As there is much I must plead ignorance to in your statement it is unfair to isolate one factor of it and expect to come up with a valid result .
Too many of us disect the views of others , harp on something and be ignorant of the workings as a whole .

 

[munk]

We're OK, Kevin.

Bwray? When I was composing my last post to you I kept thinking to myself, "There's enough room in my philosophy for a heavily armed libreral"

I think the Right needs to get used to that- heavily armed liberals. Good thing, too.



munk

 

[bwray]

We'll have to disagree, Bwray. Artists are not evenly distributed along political lines.munk

"They probably are more liberal on average than most citizens, but that does not by any means give cause to group them with "naysayers"." These were my actual words.

munk[/QUOTE]
As 'art' is often an alternative to the conventional view, it is always going to examine the status quo, to be against or poised to peirce and reveal. While I doubt you would find any more or less 'genius' in those artists with liberal or conservative political views, (in fact, I think most of our best art is non political) you will find the arts heavily Left biased. It has always been so.munk[/QUOTE]

So, if the arts are heavily Left biased, are we then justified in placing them (all of them) in a special category to be demonized? Seems to me their perceived crime is that they may "heavily" disagree with you. Are you aware that artists were heavily demonized and controlled in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Communist China? Is that fact of any significance to you? Or do you dispute the fact?

munk[/QUOTE]
"It is the responsibility of every generation to look the naysayers, the intellectuals, and the artists in the eye and say; "There is still hope and good here."

This is my original statement. I don't see where I've distinguished between Left or Right.munk[/QUOTE]

Well, you made the statement that "you will find the arts heavily Left biased. It has always been so." This after you have identified artists as a group of naysayers. Looks like a clear connection between artists, left-wingers and naysayers to me. That's your priviledge of course, but you should own it.

munk[/QUOTE]
You've taken that up because it concerns you. I imagine it concerns you because you are a liberal on some things and want me to know you are not a nay sayer to society. None of the regulars in HI forum are naysayers, we are builders and survivors, of all political persuasions. The point is that self and societal examination is neccesary and good, but must not prevent growth and survival.
munk[/QUOTE]

Liberals are also builders and survivors, we just have different ideas about how to get it done. We may disagree with you on some issues, but that does not make us "naysayers" in the sense that we seek only to tear down or destroy. It does concern me to see people making sweeping generalizations about other groups with whom they generally disagree. Rather than demonize "artists and intellectuals" it would be more productive to identify ideas, positions and attitudes that you disagree with and then suggest an alternative point of view.

 

[bwray]

Bwray? When I was composing my last post to you I kept thinking to myself, "There's enough room in my philosophy for a heavily armed libreral"

I think the Right needs to get used to that- heavily armed liberals. Good thing, too.
munk

I appreciate that munk. You're acknowledging how poorly served we are by stereotypes.

 

[munk]

That's right, Bwray; we are all of us just people.







munk