OT: To all would-be anti-government Rambos, subversion is better than revolution

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

(This was re-posted, with small modifications, in response to a request by Mumsie. It is only loosely connected to Y2K, mainly the social aspects. It reflects my belief that peace is better.)
While your friendly neighborhood authorities are busy doing things that would surely make Thomas Jefferson roll in his grave, some of you are so angry at the Federal Govt.--and other Authorities With Guns--that you just want to explode. Some of the things I hear on this forum make me frightened that all kinds of horrendous violence is strirring in the air, waiting to ignite on January 1, 00. It seems that some (but by no means all) hardline rightwingers and federal police are itching for a fight.
But this sort of Ramboism will solve nothing. The far rightwingers would ultimately lose and the government will only tighten its controls as a result. It's a lose-lose situation. Step back and think about it. In a battle between an armored helicopter and a guy with a hunting rifle, the helicopter usually wins. Don't expect to be a martyr, either. History never looks very kindly on the side that lost in a conflict, no matter how well-intentioned their cause may have been.
Don't get me wrong. I think that our current system is very inefficient and top-heavy, and that by and large the reach of Washington needs to shrink (with a few exceptions, ie, NASA, NIH, NEA, and NSF need more support). I love freedom. But with freedom comes responsibility.
Part of this responsibility is in restraint. Hopeless causes are just that--hopeless. There is nothing noble about wasting your life on somthing that has no chance of being accomplished. Y2K, if anything, is only going to make the vast majority of people whine and complain that the government isn't doing enough to help them. And government will almost certainly oblige them. That is how they stay in business. That is the reality. No amount of hollering and shooting is going to change that. To those who fantasize about violence, I beg you to stay at home on Jan. 1. But don't give up in your vigilence.
If you don't like the way government acts, remember that you have some far more powerful "bullets" in your arsenal. You have these things called "votes." You can even run for office, yourself, and persuade people to rally behind you. You can remind people of their Constitutional rights. You can blow the whistle on leaders who trash our freedoms.
Some of you think that we are no longer a free country. Well, in some ways this IS true. Nevertheless, I don't think we were all that free when Andrew Jackson death-marched thousands of Southern Indians--many of whom had farms, churches, their own alphabet, civilization--way back in the 1830s. Slaves certainly wouldn't have called this a free country, and neither would blacks who had to sufferfrom Jim Crow laws, lynchings, and corrupt sheriffs only a few decades ago. Conscripts marching off to world war I amidst prohibitions on free speech might have had second thoughts about how free they were. etc. etc. There have always been appalling, unlawful things going on in our Republic since it was founded. Corruption and abuse of power, even in your own backyard, is nothing new. It is especially common among people who call themselves "revolutionaries."
Once upon a time, there were lots of angry people in a country called France. They overthrew the corrupt regime of the day, amidst cries for "justice and "freedom" and "brotherhood." Then these rebels came to power. But then they proceeded to kill and decapitate anything that got in their way, including many who fought alongside them during the overthrow of the monarchy.
You can repeat a version of this little story in many many places that are familiar: Russia, China, Cuba, Cambodia, etc. What went wrong? Nothing, really. In the words of a certain French revolutionary whose name evades me, "revolutions eat their own children." Revolution usually doesn't work. Usually it's just one group of butchers who claw their way to the top after killing the previous group of thugs.
There is an alternative to revolution. It is called subversion. It is slower and more quiet but far more effective. You can be subsersive, too. You can raid the system for all the tools you need. You can attain fortune and recognition. You don't have to languish in prison or end up with a bullet in your back. It may require a bit of compromise along the way, but nothing is ever won without sacrifice, of which compromise is one major component.
I realize that this message is somewhat out of place and may even raise a few hackles. But I invite your criticism. I don't care if I am wrong, but this is my opinion; this is where it's exposed to fresh air where it can be evaluated so it can be made more solid or trashed entirely.
humbly submitted,
-c

-- coprolith (coproltith@rocketship.com), August 24, 1999

Answers

There will not have to be a revolution. All of the left wingers will be killed as they try to get something for nothing after 1/1/2000. Then honest Americans can vote the bastards out.

-- rambo (rambo@thewoods.com), August 24, 1999.

Coprolith,
I agree 100% - right up until they try to take all our guns away. At that point we are dead meat, and might as well fight back tooth and nail.
Recall that in Nazi Germany, even those who voluntarily turned in their guns were put on the "dangerous" list, merely for being the type of person who whould have one. Later, many of those people were rounded up and killed by representatives of Hitler's German Worker's Socialist Party.
Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), August 24, 1999.

I will try to answer some of the points your post brings to my mind by interposing my comments in brackets between your comments. My feelings about much if this are strong, so if I seem to be railing at you, please understand that I am railing at the idea, the situation, the moon or something. I am not attacking you. You seem quite reasonable and softspoken, qualities I appreciate.
Here we go ----
Subject: OT: To all would-be anti-government Rambos, subversion is better than revolution
(This was re-posted, with small modifications, in response to a request by Mumsie. It is only loosely connected to Y2K, mainly the social aspects. It reflects my belief that peace is better.)
While your friendly neighborhood authorities are busy doing things that would surely make Thomas Jefferson roll in his grave, some of you are so angry at the Federal Govt.--and other Authorities With Guns--that you just want to explode. Some of the things I hear on this forum make me frightened that all kinds of horrendous violence is strirring in the air, waiting to ignite on January 1, 00. It seems that some (but by no means all) hardline rightwingers and federal police are itching for a fight.
[The fedgov ninjas have already demonstrated that they are looking to fight. Consider Oklahoma City, Waco and Ruby Ridge.]
But this sort of Ramboism will solve nothing. The far rightwingers would ultimately lose and the government will only tighten its controls as a result.
[What if the government doesn't win?]
It's a lose-lose situation. Step back and think about it. In a battle between an armored helicopter and a guy with a hunting rifle, the helicopter usually wins.
[Just like in Mogadishu(sp?)? Don't underestimate the resolve of a patriot fighting on his own country.]
Don't expect to be a martyr, either. History never looks very kindly on the side that lost in a conflict, no matter how well-intentioned their cause may have been.
[Read Unintended Consequences by John Ross for some ideas about how the existing government can be changed.]
Don't get me wrong. I think that our current system is very inefficient and top-heavy, and that by and large the reach of Washington needs to shrink (with a few exceptions, ie, NASA, NIH, NEA, and NSF need more support). I love freedom.
[No, you have just proven that you love being on the "winning" side. You think that it is alright for a large group to steal from a small group to support things the large group wants: NASA, NIH, NEA, and NSF.]
But with freedom comes responsibility.
Part of this responsibility is in restraint. Hopeless causes are just that--hopeless.
[Of course, one doesn't know what is hopeless until he has given up.]
There is nothing noble about wasting your life on somthing that has no chance of being accomplished.
[I'm sure glad the patriots in 1776 didn't agree with you.]
Y2K, if anything, is only going to make the vast majority of people whine and complain that the government isn't doing enough to help them.
[Yes, there are a lot of useless eaters that depend upon the bully for survival, and they _do_ bitch and complain when they don't get what they want.]
And government will almost certainly oblige them. That is how they stay in business. That is the reality. No amount of hollering and shooting is going to change that.
[If I didn't think you were wrong, I would probably go somwhere and eat a bullet. But what _will_ change it is exactly that, hollering and shooting. (I would agree that hollering and shouting would not do much good.)]
To those who fantasize about violence, I beg you to stay at home on Jan. 1. But don't give up in your vigilence.
If you don't like the way government acts, remember that you have some far more powerful "bullets" in your arsenal. You have these things called "votes."
[A vote is no longer more powerful than anything. We have devolved from a constitutional republic to mob rule. A vote in that contex is worthless.]
You can even run for office, yourself, and persuade people to rally behind you.
[Working withing such a broken system is what is hopeless. There is no way that those in power will allow themselves to be replaced.]
You can remind people of their Constitutional rights. You can blow the whistle on leaders who trash our freedoms.
[Tweet! tweet! President Clinton. All cabinate members, and all in both houses of Congress. Now, just what earthly good did that do? Again, I ask you to read Unintended Consequence and consider.]
Some of you think that we are no longer a free country. Well, in some ways this IS true.
[I'd say that when over 50% of what I labor to earn is stolen from me and spent on things that I do not want it spent on that I am a slave. The New Hampshire motto comes to mind: Live free or die.]
Nevertheless, I don't think we were all that free when Andrew Jackson death-marched thousands of Southern Indians--many of whom had farms, churches, their own alphabet, civilization--way back in the 1830s. Slaves certainly wouldn't have called this a free country, and neither would blacks who had to sufferfrom Jim Crow laws, lynchings, and corrupt sheriffs only a few decades ago. Conscripts marching off to world war I amidst prohibitions on free speech might have had second thoughts about how free they were. etc. etc. There have always been appalling, unlawful things going on in our Republic since it was founded. Corruption and abuse of power, even in your own backyard, is nothing new. It is especially common among people who call themselves "revolutionaries."
[I tend to agree with you, right up to the last sentence of that paragraph. You will have to provide some evidence for me to believe that.]
Once upon a time, there were lots of angry people in a country called France. They overthrew the corrupt regime of the day, amidst cries for "justice and "freedom" and "brotherhood." Then these rebels came to power. But then they proceeded to kill and decapitate anything that got in their way, including many who fought alongside them during the overthrow of the monarchy.
You can repeat a version of this little story in many many places that are familiar: Russia, China, Cuba, Cambodia, etc. What went wrong? Nothing, really. In the words of a certain French revolutionary whose name evades me, "revolutions eat their own children." Revolution usually doesn't work. Usually it's just one group of butchers who claw their way to the top after killing the previous group of thugs.
[Unfortunately, that is the way of this world and will be so until God puts it right. In the meantime, I am coming to believe that we are obligated to fight for freedom. And I say this knowing that I, personally, _do not_ want to fight.]
There is an alternative to revolution. It is called subversion. It is slower and more quiet but far more effective. You can be subsersive, too. You can raid the system for all the tools you need. You can attain fortune and recognition. You don't have to languish in prison or end up with a bullet in your back. It may require a bit of compromise along the way, but nothing is ever won without sacrifice, of which compromise is one major component.
[Compromise with what? One's principles? Sell one's soul to the devil? Seems a bad bargin to me.]
I realize that this message is somewhat out of place and may even raise a few hackles. But I invite your criticism. I don't care if I am wrong, but this is my opinion; this is where it's exposed to fresh air where it can be evaluated so it can be made more solid or trashed entirely.
[Most likely, as with most other things, some is good, some is not so good. The problem is in figuring out what is good and what is not. You and I disagree about what, in the context of this world (which I believe to be un-fixable by humans) we should do to make things better.]
humbly submitted,
-c
-- coprolith (coproltith@rocketship.com)
George

-- George Valentine (georgevalentine@usa.net), August 24, 1999.

Aahhhh, yes.... The gentle liberal trying to reason with the freedom lover. George, you have it mostly right.
-- coprolith said- There is an alternative to revolution. It is called subversion. It is slower and more quiet but far more effective. You can be subsersive, too. You can raid the system for all the tools you need. You can attain fortune and recognition. You don't have to languish in prison or end up with a bullet in your back. It may require a bit of compromise along the way, but nothing is ever won without sacrifice, of which compromise is one major component.
My response is that I hope you and your like-minded friends are PREPARED to compromise, because me and mine aren't!! I challenge any here to name a single item or activity that is not regulated by government!!! I challenge you! This is slavery, pure and simple. Frankly, I am hoping y2k dismantles enough government controls to allow a reformation of the system.

-- Bertin Opus (third@hotmail.com), August 24, 1999.

I think Frederick Douglass had it right:

"Those who profess to favor freedom yet depreciate agitation are men who want the crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. ...Power concedes nothing without demand. It never has and never will. ... The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." --Frederick Douglass

-- Jim Morris (prism@bevcomm.net), August 24, 1999.

"Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat."
Theodore Roosevelt

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 24, 1999.

"One man with courage is a majority." - Andrew Jackson
WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), August 24, 1999.

coprolith: You bring up many good points...with some of the pertinent historical perspectives. I would suggest that social transformation is a more appropriate word than subversion. (not sure I understand what you mean here. Social transformation is a natural molting of outworn, useless systems...it occurs as a necessity in response to the needs of the people. You are right: revolution by force never meets the needs of the people. And as for those who call out the name of Jefferson in such a cause, contrary to their limited scope of understanding of the man, he was a perfect example of a man who observed the wrongs of his time and yet abided by the laws, but spoke out for change, and worked for social transformation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 'In spite of the fact that he owned slaves himself, as was common with plantation owners of his time, Jefferson spoke out tirelessly throughout his life against the institution of slavery and for the right of black people to be free. Apparently there were many factors, financial, social and political, that prevented him from freeing his own slaves. In a letter to Edward Coles (Aug 25, 1814), he wrote, "The laws do not permit us to turn them loose, if that were for their good." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- He also makes note of the blindness of the new powers that be in regard to their ability to inflict the same if not worse abuses of power than those they sought freedom from: "What a stupendous, what an incomprehensible machine is man! Who can endure toil, famine, stripes, imprisonment and death itself in vindication of his own liberty and the next moment be deaf to all those motives whose power supported him through his trial, and inflict on his fellow men a bondage, one hour of which is fraught with more misery than ages of that which he rose in rebellion to oppose." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:103 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Lin k

---------------------------------------------------------------------- I have at times been ready to abandon this forum as the collective voice seemed more and more to turn toward anger and advocations of destructive violence. And then there arise those voices who have been here all along ...calm, caring about their fellow human beings, calling for reason, cooperative spirit, and vigilance in a spirit of responsible social action. I think it is important for all of us to voice our opinions. .. and not leave the forum to the vocal few who would make of it a forum for promoting social chaos. Silence won't do when irrational, violent voices threaten to undo all you have accomplished for the past several years. This forum was a haven for me...a rational voice. Note, I am not calling out for censorship; I am merely saying it is important for us all to use our freedom of speech to speak against that which we do not support. And I appreciate your post. Thanks

-- Shelia (Shelia@active-stream.com), August 24, 1999.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed ... with the blood of tyrants"
(loosely quoted -- from Thomas Jefferson, I believe)
(I think the "..." is something like "every couple of [few?] generations.) The tree is thus overdue for refreshing.

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 24, 1999.

"A" -- here's the quote:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Colonel William S. Smith (November 13, 1787)

-- Wilferd (WilferdW@aol.com), August 24, 1999.

Aahhhh, yes.... The gentle liberal trying to reason with the freedom lover. George, you have it mostly right.
I too am trying to think these things through. The only reason I cited this topic is because
(1) I am wondering if the System still works. Right now I think it does. Will the system stilll be working after 00? It is my fervent hope that it WILL be working, because there is not much of a good alternative around. (Or is there?) I hope even more that potential problems will "wake people up" to get them more involved in their community and in their government and off their passive, TV-drugged arses. The last thing I want to see is the end of these United States, flawed gems they may be.
(2) I think life lived with passion and vigor and ideals is really great. But unless self-defence is involved, I don't think political violence is necessary to say you gave it your all toward your beliefs. BUT this opinion begs the question: Just what comprises 'self defence'? How far (hypothetically) will people be pushed against the wall before they become Che' Guevarras? What do you think?
(3) BTW, I am not technically a liberal, because my opinions are all over the map. "Soft-core" libertarian would be more like it. Lesseee. I think Clinton's been a very evil President and should be in jail. I consider myself to be "pro-life." I think the IRS needs to bite the dust and be replaced by a (voluntary) means of taxation-- natl. sales tax, tariffs on imports, and lottery. I think America shouldn't have gotten into Kosovo (unconstitutional and immoral are two words that come to mind), and that much of our activity in other stupid foreign wars could have been solved peacefully. I think education is a national security issue because dumb people make bad, treacherous citizens. I think basic research in science and technology is also an important priority of the federal govt. (especially in projects that could lead us to independence from foreign oil) because our edge in technology is ALSO a national security issue. I think that the so-called "War on Drugs" is really a never-ending war on civil liberties, a way to ensure that organized crime remains a fixture in the inner cities, and a source of hidden revenue for black budgets for CIA/NSA goons. I think that the right to bear arms should NOT be negotiated, because if leaders cannot trust their subjects with self-defence, the leaders cannot trust the citizens to do much of anything for themselves except fritter away in what Alan Keyes calls the Daycare State.
There you go. Even with those unpopular (and crazy, to many people) beliefs, I have decided that the System with all its flaws is worth fighting for. All the things I stated can be best obtained by working within the Establisment. Will I have these beliefs a year from now? Who knows?

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), August 24, 1999.

this thread needs to be expanded, enlarged, shouted from the rooftops;
the key issue is first and always :
WHO OWNS MY LIFE?
i.e. - is my life mine, or must I show feality or allegiance to some entity, body, person, or geographical space in order to exist?
what is the price I must pay to LIVE?
to whom must I pay that price?
is that price payable?
- i.e. can I, within the constraints imposed upon me by that entity to whom I pay life-ransom, earn enough to pay that price, and have enough left to actualize my individual potential?
- i.e. to live as a free, sovereign, human individual and to fulfill, to the best of my own ability, without violating the reciprocal rights of others, my highest accomplishments for myself and for others?
the answer to this question ought to assist one in determining what course of action one must take with regard to the elimination of tyrants and tyranny - wherever it may exist.
how do we know when tyranny exists?
"When the governments fear the people, there is libery. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson
the life you save may be your own...
Great forum, let's stay on point, - and make this existence worthy of our living it.
Thanks,
Perry

-- Perry Arnett (pjarnett@pdqnet.net), August 24, 1999.

thanks for deleteing my post. i shall never post to this facist forum again

-- xxxxxxxxxxxxx (xx@xxxx.com), August 24, 1999.

Brilliant essay, Corpolith. I hope some of the forum heavies will way in on this issue on this thread.

-- Fruitcake Spotter (GoodWork@Corpolith.com), August 24, 1999.

Sheila, you said:
I would suggest that social transformation is a more appropriate word than subversion. (not sure I understand what you mean here. Social transformation is a natural molting of outworn, useless systems...it occurs as a necessity in response to the needs of the people.
I just looked up "subversion" in the dictionary, having never really studied it on a high school vocabulary quiz. Yes, that does seem to be a very harsh word, a bit shriller than I intented. Mostly when I hear "subversive" in daily use, I interpreted it to mean that it's the power to craftily change things to your advantage without wrecking everything in sight or getting yourself in jail (kind of like Tom Sawyer's tactic when he was ordered to white wash the fence). So yes, "social transformation" seems to be more apt; i stand corrected.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), August 24, 1999.

A completely unreasonable and unworkable point of view! I cannot and will not endorse appeasement, negotiation or collaboration with those sworn to destroy my country and the people who populate it. This is NOT solely about Y2K, but rather the great divide in American politics between radical Left and Radical Right. The Radical Left wants a disarmed populace, burdened with confiscatory taxation and socialized medicine...all in the name of huge bureaucracy and "managed" (read: enforced Political Correctness).The Radical Right is equally fervent about preserving our Constitution and our lifestyle and smashing the bureaucratic beast that is slowly squeezing ALL of us to death.
I am NOT anticipating OR hoping for any kind of violent upheaval in this nation, unless Clinton goes for Martial Law. In that case, I would prefer to steer clear of the conflict. However, if attacked by modern day Nazis like FEMA or National Guard reservists confiscating guns, I will fight back without question or hesitation.
I absolutely REJECT a police state America under Clinton, FEMA and the U.N.
I absolutely ENDORSE freedom and law and order under the auspices of the United States Constitution!

-- Irving (Irving@privacy.net), August 24, 1999.

Whhhoaaaaaa, I missed something somewhere, Irv. How did FEMA get into this? I think you meant ATF. FEMA co-ordinates disaster relief - ATF enforces laws to do with Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms...hence the name. Get it?
Yep...well organized and well informed group of revolutionaries we got around here.

-- (bok0non@my-Deja.com), August 24, 1999.

Folks had better learn to pick their battles folks won't be folks long. This can still be a great country but it's an inside job, man. I know I'm not interested in trading it in jest cause I'm ticked. Ole Cop is close with France but might want to add a little Weimar Republic, shaken - not stirred. Might want to visit the national park exhibit at Concord. It's pretty darn good. . . One thing did make the American Revolution special - the intellectual leadership elite. People like G. Washington and a few other men from around Boston. Not sure I've seen any Cinnittatus types on this forum. There may be some; but you'll never know from the blow - only in the doing. Cop is right. What about now? How about the last few years? There is a system. How many have really been trying to work within it? Sure, I can listen to the radio and get steamed, too. But where's the doin' - right now - when things are easy? Best be very careful when you open that bag and let that insurrection cat out. Just 'cause you opened the bag don't mean it's your cat. And what you gonna do when it ain't goin the way you thought? Started a huge bonfire of waste building materials yesterday. The match was easy. But there comes a moment when you realize that sucker is on fire, man, and ain't nothin' you gonna do to put it out. Best you can do is watch it burn and hope it don't catch the barn, too. You really ready to take a chance on your barn, buddy - the one your wife and kids are in?

-- Magnolia (maagnoolia@yahoo.com), August 24, 1999.

Coprolith: Thanks for your insight. It generated some interesting answers. One thing I believe everyone should consider is that Y2K will not happen in a vacuum. We are sitting on a three-legged stool. Y2K is just one leg. The other two are ecomonic crises and external threats. Any one could trigger the other two. Without a basic structure of government(city to national) how would you effectively defend your country against an outside threat? Revolution at a time like this would leave you wide open to the Chinese or Russians or whomever. Yes, changes need to be made to re-align us with the Constitution. If those changes are made using the wrong method and we fall into the hands of a foreign force what have you gained?

-- Neil G.Lewis (pnglewis1@yahoo.com), August 24, 1999.

Coprolith,
Thank you for your post.
It seems incredible to me your still able to hold and expound the view you've shared. Clearly you carry a measure of passion and sincerity in the way you feel. I envy you in a nostalgic way.
Instead I feel a great sense of anger for the powerless, inconsequential significance of my own passions today.
Instead I feel a desperate hoplessness for a system which discounts the greatest gift I'm capable of; Love.
I believe no one other than myself is entitled to measure the significance and value of my exsistence as a human being.
I measure myself by the degree which I'm able to access and share the treasures within others and myself. It's been an awfully long time since I've discovered new treasure.
So why is it as we get older we must struggle so fiercely to reveal treaures which once flowed as naturally as water to the sea?
Something is afoul. That something is our abject powerlessness to enlighten a system which denies us the certainty of each others treasure. We are helpless to introduce the simplist bit of common sense into the institutions we rely upon.
I worry alot anymore because it's becoming increasingly more difficult to maintain my vision. I think it's called atrophy.

-- Rob Carroll (flyingred@montana.com), August 25, 1999.

To believe in the present society is to be romantic. Our Country is gone it belongs to the Dragon so here is the only possible revolution without guns:......
THE MASK AND THE FACE OF THE BANK-DRAGON
Millions of words have passed and 120 days are left before the four dark knights ride on the stage. Y2K is coming irrefragably.
It no longer makes a difference if every silly polly wakes up from the enchantment cast on them by sorceress Morgana La Bank. America sleeps from sea to shining sea as it glides toward the edge of the Y2K precipice.
The fog of the Dragon's breath has 260 million in soothing slumber. The stock market is given artificial respiration by the restless Dragon. "Sleep Pollies! Sleep Sheeple! The doom of pollies is that they forget. Their fear is manifest by their avoiding to look on the dragon's fearsome face.
Jim Lord came riding in and wounded the dragon with the Pentagon Papers. A thousand Minions yelped and run to damage control. A few frantic pollies are posting stupid diatribes to try and confuse even the few who have seen the Dragon through the fog of official lies.
The world financial system is only the mask of the dragon. Made of a thousand shining scales: loans, mortgages, savings accounts, cashiers checks, credit cards, debit cards, in millions of instruments to feed its own reckless lust. Behind that shimmering evil mask is the deadly face of the insatiable beast that owns the world. It owns our homes, our farms, our cities, our countries, our hospitals, our medicines, it elects presidents and finances dictators it commands governments and finances churches it owns almost all natural assets on earth, almost every home owner is forced in debt to it his whole life by land and construction codes, no enterprise can survive but by the Dragon's grace, it owns the debts of every corporation and the souls of most politicians and controls directly or indirectly all media except for the Internet which has become a thorn in its side. The Dragon now wants to control by police power the Internet "for the good of the children", so it claims as it denies food to the poor to children, the old and mothers and to the seek and the meek..
The Dragon cares nothing for the lives of people, concerned only about the source of its own blood sucked out of the people from birth to death. The people must leave their money in bank custody by the spell of fear - "Beware of thieves! - But bankers are the greatest of thieves - they take one dollar pay you 3 cents a year interest or less then reproduces it electronically a hundred and a thousand folds with the magic of fractional banking. You go to prison if you dare produce money out of nothing but they are licenced to steal. The dragon loans the phantom money back at usury interest and presto more power to the Dragon more pain to the people. "Keep your money in my belly" roars the monster, threatened for the first time in 500 years. "Your mattress is not safe". Do not hoard food do not prepare to survive just reproduce your banking records and leave your hard earned money here where it is safe from other thieves.
Take your money out of the bank let the Dragon will die, so the world may have a return to a real exchange with currency that no one can fake or cause to evaporate from your pockets even as you sleep by manipulating interest rates.
True knights are few, but the sound of their battle horns are being heard across the earth. "Might for right! Not right for might" Let the dragon die.
Trade your soon to be worthless money for trade goods. Let the Dragon of Greed die!

-- Arthur (ArthurRex@Camelot.Grail), August 25, 1999.

This thread is just staggering.
You want examples of corrupt revolutions and can't think of any? Man, you HAD to be home schooled - that one got covered THROUGHLY in 8th grade! To start off with - Fidel Castro(Cuba), Khmer Rouge (Cambodia), Lenin + Trotsky (Russia) - do you really need any more? Or maybe you approve of the Revolution stealing property and killing MILLIONS for purposes of establishing the new state? Cambodia - at least a half million dead, Russia - estimates run up to 30 million plus (though that takes us through Stalin) - Cuba - unknown but in the thousands. And those are pretty typical of revolutions in general. VERY FEW revolutions accomplish the goals of the people who set out to induce change by force. Moreover, most revolutions fail. As an example of THAT - I suggest you take a look at the Civil War. Whenever a revolution fails, it is called a civil war. Quite a few of them in the history books.
Arthur - your post reveals a stunning lack of knowledge of the banking system, plus a bias the size of a house. What can I say - you are wrong so many ways I won't even bother to list them. Besides, I have done that sort of thing too many times for similar posts to get excited about doing it again. Try reading something about economics besides the voodoo jargon you are finding on the web, or Gary Norths books.
And that brings up a point. The Internet is a good source of information IF AND ONLY IF YOU HAVE A BULLSHIT FILTER CAPABLE OF DETECTING THE BULLSHIT. Apparently, a good many posters on this forum have badly defective bullshit filters.
If you want to promote a revolution, at least be honest with yourself about the cost. Don't tell yourself the CR's or militia will take over because the Army will be on your side during Y2K chaos. If you think that - YOU HAVE JUST SWALLOWED SOMEONE'S BULLSHIT.
If you think the banking system is going down forever because of a simple cash shortage (with, I might add, not a whit of evidence there will be a cash shortage except old Gary's wishful thinking) - YOU HAVE JUST SWALLOWED A PILE OF BULLSHIT.
If you think the world is coming to an end because of Comet Lee, or any other comet or meteor doing something weird and unexpected that NASA will not tell you about - YOU JUST SWALLOWED A HUGE PILE OF BULLSHIT.
And Chuck, I apologise for being so blunt here, but sometimes the situation calls for being blunt. This business of a bunch of parlor pinks running roughshod over every reasonable person here has just gotten totally out of hand. I did not like it when the pinkos were shouting down Charlton Heston, and I don't like it when the right wing wackos are trying to shout down everyone they don't like. A bunch of people keep pointing to the forums purpose as some sort of holy grail. PERHAPS they should look up the words DISCUSSION and FORUM in the dictionary - NOWHERE does that definition include SILENCING ALL OPPOSITION BY WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY!

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), August 25, 1999.

Sometimes, the only thing force understands or respects is force in kind. At other times, it is best to "guide" the force of tyranny in order to lead it to its own destruction -- sort of like how in judo the leverage of your opponent is used for his own downfall.
Revolution or subversion -- why does it have to be one or the other? This is a false choice. Both may be needed at various times for differing reasons.
In any event, the reactions against force are just that, "reactions". A responsive force does not arise of its own volition, but is prompted from external stimuli. If the social context was fair, free, and just, this discussion would be mere academics.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), August 25, 1999.

FILTERING Paul Davis, August 25, BISON-DUNG POST WITH A BANK-BULLSHIT FILTER PROVIDED BY THE BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENT'S PANIC ADVICE TO WORLD BANKERS:
PAUL (are you a banking boothlicker?) YOU ARROGANTLY STATED (then cunningly avoided clarification) to wit:
" Arthur - your post reveals a stunning lack of knowledge of the banking system, plus a bias the size of a house. What can I say - you are wrong so many ways I won't even bother to list them. Besides, I have done that sort of thing too many times for similar posts to get excited about doing it again. Try reading something about economics besides the voodoo jargon you are finding on the web, or Gary Norths books.
And that brings up a point. The Internet is a good source of information IF AND ONLY IF YOU HAVE A BULLSHIT FILTER CAPABLE OF DETECTING THE BULLSHIT. Apparently, a good many posters on this forum have badly defective bullshit filters.
Here is your Bank experts panic statements Paul:
A bank will face increased risk to asset quality to the extent that its customers encounter Year 2000- related problems. These problems may result from the failure of a customer to properly remediate its own systems and from Year 2000 problems that are not addressed by the customers suppliers and clients. Bank supervisors have issued guidance recommending that banks identify, assess, and establish controls for the risk posed by various counterparties. If asset deterioration occurs, bank supervisors would normally be expected to address the problems through traditional supervisory methods. Asset portfolios may need to be analysed to identify both potential problem institutions and industry concentrations. The overall Year 2000 readiness of industries to which banks typically extend credit or from whom they purchase equities should be taken into account. Supervisors should be sensitive to the implications of an unjustified request for banks to change their credit policies, so as not to create an over-cautious attitude. Rather, the focus should be directed towards encouraging banks to practice adequate due diligence and prudent underwriting standards. Where appropriate, supervisors should consider encouraging banks to establish loss reserves for potential risks based on the magnitude of the risk and the likelihood of its occurrence. Liquidity risk Liquidity risk is a principal concern of both bank management and supervisors. While there is no precedent for estimating liquidity demands for the period surrounding the millennium change, supervisors ought to alert banks to be prepared for a possible liquidity squeeze. To that end, supervisors need to consider a number of measures to facilitate liquidity. For example, banks should be encouraged to ensure they have adequate credit lines with private sector counterparties. The necessary arrangements need to be completed well in advance of the century date change. Supervisors may also consider encouraging or requiring banks to keep additional cash or liquid assets for the period of the highest predicted demand. Both the negative impact on earnings and security considerations for increased cash retention related to this strategy should be taken into account. An important aspect of managing liquidity risk is to maintain the confidence of customers and counterparties. It is therefore imperative for supervisors to stress the importance of banks demonstrating as convincingly as possible that they are prepared for the Year 2000. Moreover the public needs to be reassured that sufficient cash will be made available to meet depositors needs. Supervisory authorities in countries with deposit insurance schemes can additionally remind depositors that their balances will be protected by the insurance arrangements.
... Given the relatively short time period remaining before the potential need to take supervisory action, it is imperative that these considerations receive prompt attention.
V. Conclusion
It is imperative that supervisory authorities act quickly to develop contingency plans for dealing with Year 2000 disruptions in the banking industry. The financial services industry operates on a global scale and, therefore, attention to potential disruptions within a country's borders will not be sufficient to avert or contend with the possible effects of Year 2000- related failures.
The Basle Committee believes that the interests of governments and the worldwide financial services industry are best served by a concerted effort on the part of supervisory authorities to establish open lines of communication across borders, in addition to establishing sound policies to deal with domestic problems. This approach affords the best possible means of ensuring that disruptions have a minimal impact.
SPEAR THE BANKDRAGON DEPRIVE IT OF FOOD ___ AVOID BANKS THEY ARE VIPER NESTS.

-- Arthur (ArthurRex@Camelot.Grail), August 25, 1999.

REPLY TO: bokOnon re: FEMA versus ATF.
Thank you for your response to my comments. A few brief clarifications are in order, if you please. 1) I am NOT a revolutionary, a rambo or anything of the type. 2) Please do some homework on the FEMA issue. FEMA happens to be at the very heart of the Martial Law plans by Comrade Clinton. All of this is spelled out very clearly in the various Executive Orders issued regarding Y2K and National Emergencies. Your assertion about the ATF being in with the bad guys is accurate, but you have missed a SERIOUS piece of the puzzle by overlooking FEMA...the one Federal agency with the open ended authority to forcibly relocate citizens, confiscate food, water, medicine and weapons and more or less usurp Constitutional government.
Please do the homework. You might even thank me later.
Regards,
Irving

-- Irving (Irving@privacy.net), August 25, 1999.

Arthur
Pretty funny. I guess you figured I didn't know where that came from. It is on the web under the San Fransciso Reserve Bank, right? And if you take the trouble to hunt up the article, as I did when it first popped up, you find out it is not some official position of the bank, but is an article copied from a banking trade magazine and posted on their website. IOTW, it is the equivalent of finding one of Ed's articles from ComputerWorld on a website belonging to the IEEE. Hardly means they take Ed's position on Y2K as gospel.
Matter of fact, I happen to know that some people were complaining about that article being on a government supported site, so it may be down by now.
And BTW, be more careful with the submit button next time.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), August 26, 1999.

PAUL DAVIS
Sorry Paul but you again are spilling misinformed Bull Dung. The material you see there was issued by the Bank For International Settlements in Basel Switzerland. Those boys are the bank of banks and as clearly suptranational as they come.
Paul you better apply your bullshit filter to your own statements and fitler them well before you shoot off the hip.
I know you consider yourself an astute and elevated mind but a touch of humility and reconsideration of what history teaches us all might help. We did live in the BC and then the AC era now we definitely live in the BS era where money has become the only measure of human worth. Time for a change? We'll see the clock is ticking.
Arthur

-- Arthur (ArthurRex@Camelot.Grail), August 27, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ