Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
On 16 Feb 2003 at 18:30, Nomen Nescio wrote: Yes they are. By definition, intimidation and violence by governments is not terrorism. The fact that the recipient is feeling terror is irrelevant. Take back the language. Actually that is the original, 'terrorism' as both word and concept came from the bloodbath after the French Revolution, where the state used terror to keep the population under control. It has been coopted by states to conveniently refer only to non-state operators. j
Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
John Young wrote on February 16, 2003 at 00:54: What intrigues about Tim's message was the implication that the war on terrorism, by all sides, is fundamentally about racism, although camouflaged by political and economic drapery. As was, and is, imperialism and its bastard clone, capitalism. I never read anything like that in his post. [A whole bunch of stuff read, and snipped] What the hell are you talking about? -- Tom Veil
Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
America's founding crackers set up a slave-owning nation, after 300 years of murdering natives, following the still alive and well European/Asiatic/African tradition of stealing from others while being doped by witchdoctors and astrologists (today's intelligence industry). Politics and economics and higher education, and their tools of dissimulation, the pantheon of heroes and enemies, were invented to camouflage this brutal depradation, in the nation's beginning as now mimicking the civilized practitioners of mayhem (no pun on Tim May). The depradation's beneficiaries see nothing wrong with it, even argue that's the way of predestination, god's will for spoils to belong to the victor, sloganeering Might makes right. When victims adopt the means and methods of the righteous victors, they are called terrorists, enemies of the state, uncivilized, inferior, kill-worthy by weapons of mass destruction, collateral damage of hidden hand market forces and bare-faced moralism in service to privilege. Yeah, yeah, all ideological tripe is the same: mine is right, yours is wrong. However, ideologues are a tribe on the prowl for victims, so beware media-addiction. Like this distortion mirror. What you fail to see incoming can splatter your guts. Tim calls what he sees. A horror movie.
Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
Excerpts from a NY times book review today of an American history of weapons of yokel seduction: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/books/review/16BROOKHT.html 'To Begin the World Anew': The Founding Yokels By RICHARD BROOKHISER Of the storms of fashion that have pounded the humanities during the last 30 years have spared the study of early American history, one of the scholars we have most to thank is Bernard Bailyn. Bailyn's 1967 classic, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, kept the eyes of a generation of historians on the subjects that early Americans themselves eyed so obsessively: the ideas and the politics of a highly intellectual and political time. There were battles to be fought and money to be made during the American Revolution, and without victory in the first, or the lure of the second, the Revolution would never have been won. But the thoughts of even soldiers and speculators kept returning to politics, and to the ideals that they believed politicians lived to defend, or to threaten. Bailyn made the founders comprehensible, and lively -- for their ideas still march through our minds. The essay on Jefferson is the slightest. Bailyn draws attention to the ambiguities in his thought -- his glimpse of what a wholly enlightened world might be versus the compromises he made as a politician and an administrator to advance his agenda of the day. Basically, though, the essay is hero worship -- Ken Burns, one more time. This will no longer do. Jefferson's reputation has been taking on water at an alarming rate, from the twin leaks of Sally Hemings and the larger question of slavery. Federalist sympathizers, disgusted with his coldness, his cant and his many deceptions, may be tempted to view Jefferson's posthumous troubles with glee. But if Americans commit parricide on him, they commit suicide. Jefferson must be defended by those who love him toughly -- who know him well enough to dislike him, but who know themselves well enough to know what they owe him. In the misleadingly titled Realism and Idealism in American Diplomacy, Bailyn hits top form. The real subject is the protean genius of Benjamin Franklin at recreating himself and his image. We meet the shape-shifter in his first portrait, painted when he was 40, as a middle-class man. As Franklin becomes a famous scientist, he poses with experimental paraphernalia. By the time he is 60, he sits beside a bust of Newton, in a blue velvet suit with gold trim -- a picture of intellectual and worldly success. Ten years later, in 1776, his newborn country sends him as its minister to France, where Franklin adopts a new look -- a plain dark suit, a cap of marten fur and long straight hair. The French went wild. Franklin seemed like a 70-year-old child of nature, or of Rousseau (Rousseau, Bailyn notes, had worn a similar fur cap in a famous portrait). Franklin's face appeared on prints, medallions, busts and teacups. The apotheosis came in a 1778 portrait by Joseph Siffred Duplessis. Bailyn writes that this face -- hatless now -- is worn, the skin pouched, the eyes somewhat puffed and tired. Yet it radiates experience, wisdom, patience, tolerance . . . unconstrained by nationality, occupation or rank. Franklin had become identified with humanity itself, its achievements, hopes and possibilities. All these images were propaganda -- by boosting himself, Franklin boosted the United States. But he hit his grandest note when he employed the fewest artifices.
Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
John Young wrote: Jefferson, Franklin, a fools' parade of alleged proponents of freedom, all richly enjoyed the good life while extolling the virtues of liberty and independence from entrenched power. A fools' (sic) parade of alleged proponents of freedom? I would be very interested in seeing Mr. Young's list of genuine proponents of freedom, circa 1776. And I'd like to see the mechanisms that Mr. Young feels entrenched the power of those people he considers freedom's frauds. Acting publicly to provide material, verbal, and financial support for an armed revolution to violently overthrow the existing government while it was the largest military and financial power in the history of the world, and in the face of its holding rougly 75% Tory support in the colonies, its stationing of a substantial army of Continentals and a large body of British soldiers and administrators, along with its military forces regulating commerce all major ports of trade, would not be the obvious path to either enjoying the good life or holding on to entrenched power. Quit sniffing the duct tape, John. As for the reasons Bush would like to start a war with Iraq, the leaders are: 1. To finish up for Bush 41 2. To grab the world's second largest proven oil reserves 3. To sandwich Iran between a US administered Iraq and a US administered Afghanistan and with Turkey, sealing off Saudi Arabia from Islamic revolutionary zeal seeking to overthrow the tyranny there 4. To distract from a declining US economy and gain reelection 5. To motivate random mini-cells of Islamic fundamentalists to make mini-attacks on US interests, so as to gain acquiescence to institutionalizing fascism in the US for security reasons.
Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
At 01:37 PM 2/16/2003 -0800, you wrote: The essay on Jefferson is the slightest. Bailyn draws attention to the ambiguities in his thought -- his glimpse of what a wholly enlightened world might be versus the compromises he made as a politician and an administrator to advance his agenda of the day. Basically, though, the essay is hero worship -- Ken Burns, one more time. Speaking of Burns, here's my review of his DVD The Civil War http://comments.imdb.com/CommentsShow?0098769-32 To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists. --John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General
Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
At 09:54 AM 2/14/2003 -0800, Tim May wrote: I've been watching the Security Council session this morning. Positions are established. It's clear the U.S. is preparing to start a war. Nothing Blix or the other inspectors could say would stop the massive U.S. mobilization from continuing. Before going further, let me say I am no friend of Iraq. But no foreign entanglements was and is good advice, and the U.S. mostly followed it for its first 130 years of existence. As it became a statist power around 1915 it began to form various alliances. The huge increase in entangling alliances and Big Brotherism happened a bit later. I don't think the 1991 war was justified, either. The invasion of Kuwait is the sort of thing nations do to other smaller and vastly weaker nations--the Kuwaiti oil princes had plenty of time to have built Swiss-type defenses, but chose not to. (Part of counting on Big Brother to protect one is the moral hazard which results.) And whatever the 1991 justifications were (*), the justifications today are far, far weaker. For an independent view on the underlying causes that I think Tim will salute to, see http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/20030102.php War is just a racket ... something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small group knows what its about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. --- Major General Smedley Butler, 1933
Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
John Young wrote on February 16, 2003 at 00:54: What intrigues about Tim's message was the implication that the war on terrorism, by all sides, is fundamentally about racism, although camouflaged by political and economic drapery. As was, and is, imperialism and its bastard clone, capitalism. I never read anything like that in his post. [A whole bunch of stuff read, and snipped] What the hell are you talking about? -- Tom Veil
Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:37:33 -0800 (PST), John Young wrote: Jefferson's reputation has been taking on water at an alarming rate, from the twin leaks of Sally Hemings and the larger question of slavery. If, when you speak of Martin Luther King, Jr., you speak of him in bed with a white woman, you are a racist. If, when you speak of Thomas Jefferson, you speak of him NOT in bed with a black woman, you are a racist. Whenever Jefferson is mentioned, at least one of the first three points made is his alleged sexual relationship with Ms. Hemings. Whenever King is mentioned, there is silence on his rampant, documented promiscuity, and those who transgress this unwritten rule are branded racist. Most people seem to buy the tacit, racist line of political correctness, without question or objection.
Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
Excerpts from a NY times book review today of an American history of weapons of yokel seduction: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/books/review/16BROOKHT.html 'To Begin the World Anew': The Founding Yokels By RICHARD BROOKHISER Of the storms of fashion that have pounded the humanities during the last 30 years have spared the study of early American history, one of the scholars we have most to thank is Bernard Bailyn. Bailyn's 1967 classic, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, kept the eyes of a generation of historians on the subjects that early Americans themselves eyed so obsessively: the ideas and the politics of a highly intellectual and political time. There were battles to be fought and money to be made during the American Revolution, and without victory in the first, or the lure of the second, the Revolution would never have been won. But the thoughts of even soldiers and speculators kept returning to politics, and to the ideals that they believed politicians lived to defend, or to threaten. Bailyn made the founders comprehensible, and lively -- for their ideas still march through our minds. The essay on Jefferson is the slightest. Bailyn draws attention to the ambiguities in his thought -- his glimpse of what a wholly enlightened world might be versus the compromises he made as a politician and an administrator to advance his agenda of the day. Basically, though, the essay is hero worship -- Ken Burns, one more time. This will no longer do. Jefferson's reputation has been taking on water at an alarming rate, from the twin leaks of Sally Hemings and the larger question of slavery. Federalist sympathizers, disgusted with his coldness, his cant and his many deceptions, may be tempted to view Jefferson's posthumous troubles with glee. But if Americans commit parricide on him, they commit suicide. Jefferson must be defended by those who love him toughly -- who know him well enough to dislike him, but who know themselves well enough to know what they owe him. In the misleadingly titled Realism and Idealism in American Diplomacy, Bailyn hits top form. The real subject is the protean genius of Benjamin Franklin at recreating himself and his image. We meet the shape-shifter in his first portrait, painted when he was 40, as a middle-class man. As Franklin becomes a famous scientist, he poses with experimental paraphernalia. By the time he is 60, he sits beside a bust of Newton, in a blue velvet suit with gold trim -- a picture of intellectual and worldly success. Ten years later, in 1776, his newborn country sends him as its minister to France, where Franklin adopts a new look -- a plain dark suit, a cap of marten fur and long straight hair. The French went wild. Franklin seemed like a 70-year-old child of nature, or of Rousseau (Rousseau, Bailyn notes, had worn a similar fur cap in a famous portrait). Franklin's face appeared on prints, medallions, busts and teacups. The apotheosis came in a 1778 portrait by Joseph Siffred Duplessis. Bailyn writes that this face -- hatless now -- is worn, the skin pouched, the eyes somewhat puffed and tired. Yet it radiates experience, wisdom, patience, tolerance . . . unconstrained by nationality, occupation or rank. Franklin had become identified with humanity itself, its achievements, hopes and possibilities. All these images were propaganda -- by boosting himself, Franklin boosted the United States. But he hit his grandest note when he employed the fewest artifices.
Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:45:37 -0800 (PST), you wrote: America's founding crackers set up a slave-owning nation, after 300 years of murdering natives, following the still alive and well European/Asiatic/African tradition of stealing from others while being doped by witchdoctors and astrologists (today's intelligence industry). The British set up slave-owning colonies, and along with other European powers murdered natives for 250 years. It didn't take blessings or exhortations from priests or astrologist. It was the traditional way to power and wealth for the stratified class structures of Europe. The founding crackers as you call them, destroyed the stratified class structure. Politics and economics and higher education, and their tools of dissimulation, the pantheon of heroes and enemies, were invented to camouflage this brutal depradation, in the nation's beginning as now mimicking the civilized practitioners of mayhem (no pun on Tim May). Invented to camouflage? Didn't work, huh? The depradation's beneficiaries see nothing wrong with it, even argue that's the way of predestination, god's will for spoils to belong to the victor, sloganeering Might makes right. Some say that. It's at least as accurate as Weakness makes right, the current socialist mantra. Some understand that right is right, whether anyone knows it or cares about it. When victims adopt the means and methods of the righteous victors, they are called terrorists, enemies of the state, uncivilized, inferior, kill-worthy by weapons of mass destruction, collateral damage of hidden hand market forces and bare-faced moralism in service to privilege. Yes they are. By definition, intimidation and violence by governments is not terrorism. The fact that the recipient is feeling terror is irrelevant. Take back the language. Yeah, yeah, all ideological tripe is the same: mine is right, yours is wrong. However, ideologues are a tribe on the prowl for victims, so beware media-addiction. Like this distortion mirror. What you fail to see incoming can splatter your guts. That brings a smile to the face and a song to the heart. Tim calls what he sees. A horror movie. He needs more than one screen.
Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
America's founding crackers set up a slave-owning nation, after 300 years of murdering natives, following the still alive and well European/Asiatic/African tradition of stealing from others while being doped by witchdoctors and astrologists (today's intelligence industry). Politics and economics and higher education, and their tools of dissimulation, the pantheon of heroes and enemies, were invented to camouflage this brutal depradation, in the nation's beginning as now mimicking the civilized practitioners of mayhem (no pun on Tim May). The depradation's beneficiaries see nothing wrong with it, even argue that's the way of predestination, god's will for spoils to belong to the victor, sloganeering Might makes right. When victims adopt the means and methods of the righteous victors, they are called terrorists, enemies of the state, uncivilized, inferior, kill-worthy by weapons of mass destruction, collateral damage of hidden hand market forces and bare-faced moralism in service to privilege. Yeah, yeah, all ideological tripe is the same: mine is right, yours is wrong. However, ideologues are a tribe on the prowl for victims, so beware media-addiction. Like this distortion mirror. What you fail to see incoming can splatter your guts. Tim calls what he sees. A horror movie.
Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
At 01:37 PM 2/16/2003 -0800, you wrote: The essay on Jefferson is the slightest. Bailyn draws attention to the ambiguities in his thought -- his glimpse of what a wholly enlightened world might be versus the compromises he made as a politician and an administrator to advance his agenda of the day. Basically, though, the essay is hero worship -- Ken Burns, one more time. Speaking of Burns, here's my review of his DVD The Civil War http://comments.imdb.com/CommentsShow?0098769-32 To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists. --John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General
Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
Response and addition to: http://cryptome.org/war-reason.htm From: V To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 14:01:47 -0500 Subject: Racism is Not Fashionable Tim May writes.. A war that, Allah willing, causes Washington, D.C. to be be hit with a suitcase nuke, cleansing it of a million criminal politicians and two million inner city welfare mutants. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. The terminology inner city welfare mutants demonstrates that this abstract is intended only for a certain segment of the people who read your page. I always found your page a refreshing alternative to other news sources. Any valid arguments Tim May presented are negated by his blatant racism. I always read your page as being critical of stupidity. Your credibility has suffered severely with me due to such blatant racism being expressed in the aforementioned. I'm not asking for censorship, however, everything that you may be sent doesn't need to be published. It's your credibility that's at stake.
Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
On Saturday, February 15, 2003, at 05:45 PM, John Young wrote: Response and addition to: http://cryptome.org/war-reason.htm From: V To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 14:01:47 -0500 Subject: Racism is Not Fashionable Tim May writes.. A war that, Allah willing, causes Washington, D.C. to be be hit with a suitcase nuke, cleansing it of a million criminal politicians and two million inner city welfare mutants. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. The terminology inner city welfare mutants demonstrates that this abstract is intended only for a certain segment of the people who read your page. I always found your page a refreshing alternative to other news sources. Any valid arguments Tim May presented are negated by his blatant racism. I always read your page as being critical of stupidity. Your credibility has suffered severely with me due to such blatant racism being expressed in the aforementioned. This is good, as I don't need credibility with this V entity. Besides, what's racist about inner city welfare mutants? I didn't say they are Caucasoid, Mongoloid, or Negroid. Any perceived racism is because we all _know_ they are Negroid. The negro in America is still living on the white man's plantation, still waiting for Massah in Da Big White House to make decisions for him, to give him favors and handouts, to be his pappy. Every year that passes the negro in America falls further behind in science, technology, and business. He is now so far behind the immigrants from Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan, India, Pakistan, and elsewhere that one has to wonder if there really is a genetic component at work. The negro is transforming himself into a gutter race. Sad, but true. Think of it as evolution in action. --Tim May
Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
John Young posts: From: V To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 14:01:47 -0500 Subject: Racism is Not Fashionable The terminology inner city welfare mutants demonstrates that this abstract is intended only for a certain segment of the people who read your page. I always found your page a refreshing alternative to other news sources. Any valid arguments Tim May presented are negated by his blatant racism. I always read your page as being critical of stupidity. Your credibility has suffered severely with me due to such blatant racism being expressed in the aforementioned. Exactly when were people living in the inner city or people recieving welfare benefits upgraded to a race. Clearly, I've missed an announcement somewhere. Darn. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 12:22:30 -0800 (PST) From: E Subject: Questions To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm wondering why Cryptome decided to place thisB particular piece of opinion.B It is not inkeeping w/ the type of stuff I've read here before, in terms of it being a straightB opinion piece, not a document,B federal register entry, etc..B Why did you (who is that exactly, anyway?) choose to includeB it?B I am not aware how things areB chosenB for Cryptome.B Please inform me. Am I ignorant ofB the context, as in: Is the purpose of placing itB to reveal the author (whom I've never heard of) as a racistB calling to mass-murder?B OrB was it placedB because you read it, agreed with it's essence, and thought it worthy ofB being read by others.B If not, why print this piece especially considering all theB other (better)B analysis out there?B C'mon - ending with praising theB bombing of D.C. and all it's inhabitants, B 2 million welfareB mutants? What is this stuff?B I am eager to know ifB this placement/choice reflects the editorial views of Cryptome?B I am seriouslyB disturbed andB am thinking twice about continuing to refer most types of peopleB (quite a few since I discovered you) to what I thought wasB aB valuable resource that wouldn't be a discredit toB truth. I would like to thank you in advance forB responding to my questions in an e-mail. Signed, Confused about You.B
Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
Tim May wrote: The negro is transforming himself into a gutter race. Which ones? I see a very different pattern of behavior in some other parts of the world.
Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
On Saturday, February 15, 2003, at 01:07 PM, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote: Tim May wrote: The negro is transforming himself into a gutter race. Which ones? I see a very different pattern of behavior in some other parts of the world. The negro in America, of course, which is where I live. As I have said I seldom travel anymore, and may have said that I have only left the U.S. for a few days in the past 20 years, my meaning was quite clear. I am happy that you find negroes in other countries show a different pattern of behavior. From this I assume you see the same behavior I see here in America, otherwise, you living in America, you wouldn't have said different pattern ... in some other parts of the world. I doubt the negro is any less smart than the mongolian or caucasian races, but he acts as if he is. He acts as if he's a dumbass pimp selling his hoe sistuh on the street. It's time that house niggers like Jesse Jackson stop saying that more handouts are needed and start telling his peeples to start studying math and science and business the way the other races are. --Tim May The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. -- Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789
Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
I'm wondering why Cryptome decided to place thisB particular piece of opinion.B It is not inkeeping w/ the type of stuff I've read here before, in terms of it being a straightB opinion piece, not a document,B federal register entry, etc..B Why did you (who is that exactly, anyway?) choose to includeB it?B I On a purely theoretical plane, there is no straight opinion. When one mentiones word France, for example, it assumes a lot - that the french state is a legitimate state, that state is a valid entity in the first place, and that term France is a legitimate name for that particular territory. Language is a distillate of past propaganda. The newcomers and dissenters have no advantage of legitimate words to support their case. They must use elaborate descriptions or define new macros. That you see nothing wrong with word federal but see something wrong with word mutant is a display of your own bias. And the mere notion that valid stuff (facts) can be smeared by racist stuff illustrates that you are not looking for facts, but for granfallooning with something, with a group or idea. (Along those lines, *anything* a politician thug ever mentioned would become smeared and invalid. OK, bad example.) = end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com
Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
What intrigues about Tim's message was the implication that the war on terrorism, by all sides, is fundamentally about racism, although camouflaged by political and economic drapery. As was, and is, imperialism and its bastard clone, capitalism. Demonizing the enemy, whether by skin color, by class, by income, by intelligence (the finest idiocy of all) is precursor to savage aggression against challengers of privilege, of prejudice, of claims of superiority. Bush has killed hundreds in Texas due to his Connecticut-cultivated racism inherited from the Bush family tree of privilege. He will kill more in thrall to smart-asses in his administration willing to wage war to the Middle East, or around the world, to enlarge their inferior-fearing stature, their yearning for superiority -- fearing to displease higher authority. Cheney the Mole could care less about the harm his drive for wealth has caused, in the exculpatory capitalist tradition -- as from the earliest roots of American moneyed-aristocracy, itself founded upon imitating the long-lived British class ranking humans by intelligence (bias), blood purity, stolen loot, number of servants, proper accent, rhetorical escapism, aversion to labor and addiction to brutality. Jefferson, Franklin, a fools' parade of alleged proponents of freedom, all richly enjoyed the good life while extolling the virtues of liberty and independence from entrenched power. Read my musings, artful rhetoricians, fat-ass lazy, mind-fuckers. Sure, Jesse Jackson, one among many clusterfucking whites and coloreds, is in that mold, of preaching one way and living corruptly another. Perquisites of power and wealth and rhetoric and aint-I-bad controversy are irresistable. All celebrity-drunk would-be leaders -- constitutional yellers, well-fed defenders of civil liberties, crankyankers of causes --contemn the populace, their emotionally abused customers, without whom there would be no yokel applauders of pixie-dusters. Balck and white racism is not only about race, never was. What it is about is blind-faith believing that the enemy, the challenger to privilege (the right to be left alone except for sucking the bank's bloodstream), is contemptible and needs killing now and then to affirm the supreme rights of auto-narcotizing bandits, even though privilege is supported by deprivations of the un-privileged, or more indelicately lying to the bug-eyed, the under-privileged. Perceptive citizen units can see who's scared witless about the threat of losing it all and being a nobody, totally transparent. A religious fundamentalist, armed and dangerous, said a terrorist-wanted poster. Put another way, an American racist supremacist believing in one god, yo mamma mammon.
Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
What intrigues about Tim's message was the implication that the war on terrorism, by all sides, is fundamentally about racism, although camouflaged by political and economic drapery. As was, and is, imperialism and its bastard clone, capitalism. Demonizing the enemy, whether by skin color, by class, by income, by intelligence (the finest idiocy of all) is precursor to savage aggression against challengers of privilege, of prejudice, of claims of superiority. Bush has killed hundreds in Texas due to his Connecticut-cultivated racism inherited from the Bush family tree of privilege. He will kill more in thrall to smart-asses in his administration willing to wage war to the Middle East, or around the world, to enlarge their inferior-fearing stature, their yearning for superiority -- fearing to displease higher authority. Cheney the Mole could care less about the harm his drive for wealth has caused, in the exculpatory capitalist tradition -- as from the earliest roots of American moneyed-aristocracy, itself founded upon imitating the long-lived British class ranking humans by intelligence (bias), blood purity, stolen loot, number of servants, proper accent, rhetorical escapism, aversion to labor and addiction to brutality. Jefferson, Franklin, a fools' parade of alleged proponents of freedom, all richly enjoyed the good life while extolling the virtues of liberty and independence from entrenched power. Read my musings, artful rhetoricians, fat-ass lazy, mind-fuckers. Sure, Jesse Jackson, one among many clusterfucking whites and coloreds, is in that mold, of preaching one way and living corruptly another. Perquisites of power and wealth and rhetoric and aint-I-bad controversy are irresistable. All celebrity-drunk would-be leaders -- constitutional yellers, well-fed defenders of civil liberties, crankyankers of causes --contemn the populace, their emotionally abused customers, without whom there would be no yokel applauders of pixie-dusters. Balck and white racism is not only about race, never was. What it is about is blind-faith believing that the enemy, the challenger to privilege (the right to be left alone except for sucking the bank's bloodstream), is contemptible and needs killing now and then to affirm the supreme rights of auto-narcotizing bandits, even though privilege is supported by deprivations of the un-privileged, or more indelicately lying to the bug-eyed, the under-privileged. Perceptive citizen units can see who's scared witless about the threat of losing it all and being a nobody, totally transparent. A religious fundamentalist, armed and dangerous, said a terrorist-wanted poster. Put another way, an American racist supremacist believing in one god, yo mamma mammon.
Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
I'm wondering why Cryptome decided to place thisB particular piece of opinion.B It is not inkeeping w/ the type of stuff I've read here before, in terms of it being a straightB opinion piece, not a document,B federal register entry, etc..B Why did you (who is that exactly, anyway?) choose to includeB it?B I On a purely theoretical plane, there is no straight opinion. When one mentiones word France, for example, it assumes a lot - that the french state is a legitimate state, that state is a valid entity in the first place, and that term France is a legitimate name for that particular territory. Language is a distillate of past propaganda. The newcomers and dissenters have no advantage of legitimate words to support their case. They must use elaborate descriptions or define new macros. That you see nothing wrong with word federal but see something wrong with word mutant is a display of your own bias. And the mere notion that valid stuff (facts) can be smeared by racist stuff illustrates that you are not looking for facts, but for granfallooning with something, with a group or idea. (Along those lines, *anything* a politician thug ever mentioned would become smeared and invalid. OK, bad example.) = end (of original message) Y-a*h*o-o (yes, they scan for this) spam follows: Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com
Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
On Saturday, February 15, 2003, at 01:07 PM, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote: Tim May wrote: The negro is transforming himself into a gutter race. Which ones? I see a very different pattern of behavior in some other parts of the world. The negro in America, of course, which is where I live. As I have said I seldom travel anymore, and may have said that I have only left the U.S. for a few days in the past 20 years, my meaning was quite clear. I am happy that you find negroes in other countries show a different pattern of behavior. From this I assume you see the same behavior I see here in America, otherwise, you living in America, you wouldn't have said different pattern ... in some other parts of the world. I doubt the negro is any less smart than the mongolian or caucasian races, but he acts as if he is. He acts as if he's a dumbass pimp selling his hoe sistuh on the street. It's time that house niggers like Jesse Jackson stop saying that more handouts are needed and start telling his peeples to start studying math and science and business the way the other races are. --Tim May The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of. -- Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789
Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
John Young posts: From: V To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 14:01:47 -0500 Subject: Racism is Not Fashionable The terminology inner city welfare mutants demonstrates that this abstract is intended only for a certain segment of the people who read your page. I always found your page a refreshing alternative to other news sources. Any valid arguments Tim May presented are negated by his blatant racism. I always read your page as being critical of stupidity. Your credibility has suffered severely with me due to such blatant racism being expressed in the aforementioned. Exactly when were people living in the inner city or people recieving welfare benefits upgraded to a race. Clearly, I've missed an announcement somewhere. Darn. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
Response and addition to: http://cryptome.org/war-reason.htm From: V To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 14:01:47 -0500 Subject: Racism is Not Fashionable Tim May writes.. A war that, Allah willing, causes Washington, D.C. to be be hit with a suitcase nuke, cleansing it of a million criminal politicians and two million inner city welfare mutants. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. The terminology inner city welfare mutants demonstrates that this abstract is intended only for a certain segment of the people who read your page. I always found your page a refreshing alternative to other news sources. Any valid arguments Tim May presented are negated by his blatant racism. I always read your page as being critical of stupidity. Your credibility has suffered severely with me due to such blatant racism being expressed in the aforementioned. I'm not asking for censorship, however, everything that you may be sent doesn't need to be published. It's your credibility that's at stake.
Re: The practical reason the U.S. is starting a war
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 09:54:33AM -0800, Tim May wrote: I've been watching the Security Council session this morning. Positions are established. The French diplomat gave a wonderful speech, but its all for show. The real decisions are made in the back rooms. [..] * The reason is clear: the juggernauts of the military buildup are rolling: 5 carrier battle groups now either in the region or arriving within the next 10 days. More than 100,000 U.S. and British troops massing in Kuwait, Qatar, and other staging areas. * The new moon, when moonlight is minimal, is happening around 1 March. This is the standard military time to attack, and fits with the cresting of the military buildup. (Carriers and aircraft and troops should be in place by 25 February, and so the war could start any time after that.) It's been well known for months in the rest of the world that the war is scheduled to start on the 27th. Our media isn't mentioning that, to heighten the suspense and preserve the various fictions of working with the UN and having a debate. All of these issues point to what a clusterfuck this is turning into, exposing the hypocrisy of the U.S. position that it doesn't start wars (a claim that can never be made again with a straight face if this war starts...though some would say this claim has been bogus for the past 40 years). Having its hypocrisy exposed no longer bothers american adminstrations. The Big Lie technique works better now than it ever did. And exposing the hypocrisy of the notion that Congress debates important issues. And of course the U.N. suffers. Not all of these things are bad. Which is why I am hoping for a war. A war that goes badly, a war that results in world opinion turning sharply against the American aggressor state. Our government won't care. They own the world and they know it. France will block a UN resolution because the USG didn't cut them in for enough of the oil fields, and the USG will go ahead anyhow. Any government that opposes too seriously will find itself part of the axis of evil. A war that causes Iran to decide to seize some disputed territory (what we gonna do then, homey?). Invade and set up a puppet government of course. A war that returns the United States to blissful isolationism. Won't happen. Even if the war costs $200B/year they'll just raise taxes on the middle class and run up the deficit and Congress will bleat 'yea' votes when required. A war that, Allah willing, causes Washington, D.C. to be be hit with a suitcase nuke, cleansing it of a million criminal politicians and two million inner city welfare mutants. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. Not. The rot and corruption runs far too deep in politics for a single hit on DC to change anything fundamental, and the vicious police state that would result would be far worse than any of our current nightmares. Eric
