[OT] Pravda still spreading Dissention



On Dec 8, 1:17 am, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Davey Crockett wrote:
>
> > > This be the Flag of the English Patriots
>
> > >http://www.whitedragonflagofengland.com/
>
> > Calling Mister Oswald with the swastika tattoo,
> > there is a vacancy waiting in the English voodoo...
>
> > Now I better understand your little obsession with Zundel and co. You might also get a clue from past hints at Holocaust denial (referred to as
> "truth seeking") from DC.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yzupqk
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

I will agree with Davey on that Holocaust denial should NOT be
illegal. Who decides what's offensive speech? PC speech codes, and this
is one are one of the things I think the Democrats will strive to
massively expand here to match those in Europe.
IMO unless the speech leads to direct physical harm, such as "Fire" in
a theater we've got no business squashing it, or making it criminal.
Being offended, or claiming that it should be banned because someone
failed to control their violence in reaction is garbage too. That just
encourages immediate violence to silence those you disagree with.
Speech should be free and legal, assault, threats, and other violence
in response to speech should be illegal.
Bush is in power, what "speech codes", like the ones at universities,
could Cheney, Coulter, Malkin, and Robertson come up with to make law?
Nothing I want to happen. Same for Pelosi, Clinton, Soros, Moore, and
Gore.
Bill C
 
Bill C wrote:

> I will agree with Davey on that Holocaust denial should NOT be
> illegal. Who decides what's offensive speech? PC speech codes, and this
> is one are one of the things I think the Democrats will strive to
> massively expand here to match those in Europe.

dumbass,

everyone is for free speech in theory, but the fact is if you are a
minority somewhere, you are always going to be nervous about the
majority turning on you, and who's going to protect you when the army
and police and the public are all part of that majority ? like the
famous benjamin franklin quote: "democracy is two wolves and a lamb
voting on what to have for lunch,..".

it's not the speech that worries me, it's the inciteful intent. frankly
i don't trust the government or the majority public to look out for me.
white power movements are always more scary than black power movements.
white people know the army and police are there for them if there's
ever angry hordes of black people.

in europe they've recognized this because of their history of
anti-semitism. now if only they could take it a step further and allow
citizens to carry handguns.
 
Bill C wrote:
>
> On Dec 7, 3:56 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> Davey Crockett wrote:
>>
>>> This be the Flag of the English Patriots
>>> http://www.whitedragonflagofengland.com/Calling Mister Oswald with the swastika tattoo,
>> there is a vacancy waiting in the English voodoo...
>>
>> Now I better understand your little obsession with Zundel and co.
>
> Your reaction seems to be the standard reaction to any person of
> northern European heritage who's proud of it. I get that Nazi **** all
> the time about Germany. It's garbage. The Nazis were 25 years out of a
> couple thousand. Not quite sure what the hell they had to do with
> making a couple of the Roman Empires best legions into tree ornaments?
> Bill C
>

Elvis Costello references trump Nazi references, making it all OK.
 
Bill C wrote:

> My guess is that it began ... as soon as there
> were enough people so that some looked different,...

"Looking different" has never been a necessary condition for humans to
enslave others, although it has been claimed as a sufficient
(convenient) condition.

The Angles and Saxon "move" to the island ("Angleland">>>England) was
an invasion. Nothing special to be proud of.

And culture is memes, not genes. Memes can be transmitted to anybody
and of any appearance, since there is only one (genetic) race of
humans. Nothing special there either.

It is all a bunch of phoney nationalistic ****, and here we see only
the picking of a different time in history to snapshot the arbitrary
nation of one's favor.
 
Bill C wrote:

> Who decides what's offensive speech?

The property owner.

Guvmint "property" will always suffer the "tragedy of the commons"
because ownership was vaporized.

Eliminate guvmint, bye-bye problem.

Justice Holmes was out to lunch on this one.
 
Donald Munro wrote:
>> Attila was a cool dude. This AJ Smith guy should change his name to
>> Attila, AJ Smith is a very uncool name; Atilla Smith has a bit more of a
>> ring to it.

BillC wrote:
> Had nothing to do with Attila:
> http://www.amazon.com/Quest-Lost-Roman-Legions-Discovering/dp/1932714081
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest
> Arminius on the other hand was the man, fighting Imperialism and
> enslavement.

Perhaps, but I still think Attila Smith sounds better than Arminius Smith.
 
On Dec 8, 9:30 pm, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > My guess is that it began ... as soon as there
> > were enough people so that some looked different,..."Looking different" has never been a necessary condition for humans to
> enslave others, although it has been claimed as a sufficient
> (convenient) condition.
>
> The Angles and Saxon "move" to the island ("Angleland">>>England) was
> an invasion. Nothing special to be proud of.
>
> And culture is memes, not genes. Memes can be transmitted to anybody
> and of any appearance, since there is only one (genetic) race of
> humans. Nothing special there either.
>
> It is all a bunch of phoney nationalistic ****, and here we see only
> the picking of a different time in history to snapshot the arbitrary
> nation of one's favor.

Yep you have to trace the history of the culture and that's fluid
across both borders and time. Much more so today than in the past
though.
Bill C
 
On Dec 8, 9:36 pm, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > Who decides what's offensive speech?The property owner.
>
> Guvmint "property" will always suffer the "tragedy of the commons"
> because ownership was vaporized.
>
> Eliminate guvmint, bye-bye problem.
>
> Justice Holmes was out to lunch on this one.

Then the biggest, best armed, nastiest folks get to say whatever the
hell they want, and everyone else gets beat down. Greaqt system.
Bill C
 
Donald Munro wrote:

> Perhaps, but I still think Attila Smith sounds better than Arminius Smith.

If he went to Baltimore, all the waitresses would call him "hon".
 
Bill C wrote:
> On Dec 8, 9:36 pm, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Bill C wrote:
> > > Who decides what's offensive speech?The property owner.
> >
> > Guvmint "property" will always suffer the "tragedy of the commons"
> > because ownership was vaporized.
> >
> > Eliminate guvmint, bye-bye problem.
> >
> > Justice Holmes was out to lunch on this one.
>
> Then the biggest, best armed, nastiest folks get to say whatever the
> hell they want, and everyone else gets beat down. Greaqt system.

You're the longrunning rbr champ of non-sequiturs. I explicitly say
"respect the property principle," and you immediately read it back as
"don't respect property, shoot-em-up." WTF?

If you come on my property (initially invited) and start spouting ****
I don't like, then get off my property or get hurt. And vice versa.

Yer gunna let the guvmint decide what's offensive on guvmint
"property?" LOL. Great system.

Yer gunna go into people's living rooms and tell them what to say and
what not to say, what to think and what not to think. Great system.

After all, why should anyone respect the person, property, and privacy
of others when you can just take it by force of arms? Great system,
Bill, great system.
 
On Dec 9, 6:35 pm, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > On Dec 8, 9:36 pm, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Bill C wrote:
> > > > Who decides what's offensive speech?The property owner.
>
> > > Guvmint "property" will always suffer the "tragedy of the commons"
> > > because ownership was vaporized.
>
> > > Eliminate guvmint, bye-bye problem.
>
> > > Justice Holmes was out to lunch on this one.
>
> > Then the biggest, best armed, nastiest folks get to say whatever the
> > hell they want, and everyone else gets beat down. Greaqt system.You're the longrunning rbr champ of non-sequiturs. I explicitly say
> "respect the property principle," and you immediately read it back as
> "don't respect property, shoot-em-up." WTF?
>
> If you come on my property (initially invited) and start spouting ****
> I don't like, then get off my property or get hurt. And vice versa.
>
> Yer gunna let the guvmint decide what's offensive on guvmint
> "property?" LOL. Great system.
>
> Yer gunna go into people's living rooms and tell them what to say and
> what not to say, what to think and what not to think. Great system.
>
> After all, why should anyone respect the person, property, and privacy
> of others when you can just take it by force of arms? Great system,
> Bill, great system.

You seem to assume that there is this spontaneous support for this
"property principle". All of human history has shown that gangs band
together to take the property and dominate the weak when the "weak"
don't band together as a "government" to protect themselves as a group.
History has shown that, once they band together for self protection,
by coercion and violence, they expand that to the detriment of those
who are weaker.
You have yet to show anything vaguely resembling a working version, in
the real world, of your system. Iceland was coercive and had a core
central leadership that imposed it's judgement by violence. Not the
individualist paradise, where everyone was free and equal, except the
slaves of course.
Communism is great in theory too, but every study, ever done shows it
breaking down, due to human nature at about 200-400 people. At that
point groups begin to band together to assert their will abd
superiority. Your theory has, exactly the same human failings.
Bill C
 
Bill C wrote:

> You seem to assume that there is this spontaneous support for this
> "property principle".

Obviously there is and it is the most common form of interaction
practiced by people (trade and non-trespass). It is simply not
universal. Wake up. The few exceptions of warmongering is all you
notice because they are such spectacular violations of regular and
normal practice. You have a warped vision of reality.

> All of human history has shown that gangs band
> together to take the property and dominate the weak when the "weak"
> don't band together as a "government" to protect themselves as a group.

IOW, with all your ******** about the "weak," is that they are not weak
at all since they *dominate*.

> History has shown that, once they band together for self protection,
> by coercion and violence,...

Whoa there Bill. At that early point there isn't coercion. It is
simply voluntary and cooperative defense.
Individuals/families/subgroups could break off if they don't seek the
protection of the more formidible group. In the American revolution,
for example, there wasn't conscription (coerced participation by
colonists for the cause of indpendence).

> ...they expand that to the detriment of those
> who are weaker.

Yes, and so my point of that is to stop it before it gets there. And
you don't like it!!! You simultaneously make opposing points, which is
usually called incoherence.

> You have yet to show anything vaguely resembling a working version, in
> the real world, of your system.

That is riduculous. By that argument, Madison's republican government
should have been never created because no one had ever done it before.
Anything that has not been done should not be done, according to you.

Why do you keep bringing up your silly non-argument? I guess it is
because you are a conservative: if is does not exist then it should
never exist. But then you have an impossible problem of explaining all
the social rules of conduct that already exist. It is as if you think
a God swept down and created a world with a wave of "his" magic hand --
there was non-existence then ****!, near complete order appears with a
few residual problems of warmongering. Sheesh. Now who do you talk to
that buys that ****?

> Your theory has, exactly the same human failings.

Um, the whole point is to recognize ourselves for what we are --
"failings" and all -- and arrange our formal and informal rules of
conduct accordingly. "My theory" {laughs} accepts human nature for
what it is. I recognize the dangers of concentration of power and
propose minimzing concentration. But you trip over the same old rock
over and over, *****ing about the pain, and then complain to me for
pointing out the rock.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:

> As for how it's relevant, and for the northern European achievements,
> in my world it's pretty simple. Music, art, literature, pholosophy,
> philosophy of law and justice, architecture, medicine, science,
> etc...and their development all play important parts in my world. Sorry
> they don't in yours.

I hope you realize those aren't exclusively northern European acheivements.

> Now as for those 19th century racists. Racism and discrimination
> didn't start in the 19th century, or with northern European peoples. My
> guess is that it began somewhere near Olduvai Gorge as soon as there
> were enough people so that some looked different, or if you buy into
> the paralell evolution theory we'll include a couple of other sites
> too.
> It's been prevelant on every continent in every century, and still is.

I suspect that Greg may be stunned to hear this, but on the issue of "race" we're
in agreement. There may have been bigotry since day one, but "race" is an artificial
construct that has its roots in the work of Carolus Linnaeus, the Swedish botanist
who created the scientific system of classifying organisms (which appeared in the
1730s). Following along after this were any number of other so-called "systems" that
seek to classify the human race. Unfortunately for all of these "systems," there is
no scientific basis to justify them. While there are enough genetic differences
between, for example, a ball python and a reticulated python to describe them as
separate species, these genetic differences between humans don't exist. Anyway, the
sole reason for the use of "race" is to help give the appearance of support to the
idea of the innate superiority of Europeans.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Dec 8, 1:17 am, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> >
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > Davey Crockett wrote:
> >
> > > > This be the Flag of the English Patriots
> >
> > > >http://www.whitedragonflagofengland.com/
> >
> > > Calling Mister Oswald with the swastika tattoo,
> > > there is a vacancy waiting in the English voodoo...
> >
> > > Now I better understand your little obsession with Zundel and co. You
> > > might also get a clue from past hints at Holocaust denial (referred to as
> > "truth seeking") from DC.
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/yzupqk

> I will agree with Davey on that Holocaust denial should NOT be
> illegal.

I pointed that out for the simple reason that it leads me to the conclusion that
his thing is a bit more insidious than merely being proud of his northern european
hereitage. If you read through the posts by the linked one, you'll see that even you
thought it suspect then. Anyway, I'm certainly not in favor of making Holocaust
denial speech illegal, but I have to say that, at this point in time, anyone who
takes it seriously is a fool and nutcase.

> Who decides what's offensive speech? PC speech codes, and this
> is one are one of the things I think the Democrats will strive to
> massively expand here to match those in Europe.

I think your fears on this are unjustified.

> IMO unless the speech leads to direct physical harm, such as "Fire" in
> a theater we've got no business squashing it, or making it criminal.
> Being offended, or claiming that it should be banned because someone
> failed to control their violence in reaction is garbage too. That just
> encourages immediate violence to silence those you disagree with.
> Speech should be free and legal, assault, threats, and other violence
> in response to speech should be illegal.
> Bush is in power, what "speech codes", like the ones at universities,
> could Cheney, Coulter, Malkin, and Robertson come up with to make law?
> Nothing I want to happen. Same for Pelosi, Clinton, Soros, Moore, and
> Gore.

Well, the people who are donors to universities are, in general, far more a part
of the culture of Bush and co. than the people on the other side. And it has been
seen that recently far more stifling of speech at universities has been done by
donor pressure ("don't allow person 'X' to come speak at the school") than people
like Soros. Besides, we've been through this kind of thing before and the people
you've cited on the issue are guys like David Horowitz, who has an agenda of
stifling speech that doesn't agree with his rightwing tilt.

Amit is correct to point out that speech isn't dangerous in and of itself, but
speech that incites is something to consider being held to account.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
On Dec 10, 10:09 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
>
.. I suspect that Greg may be stunned to hear this, but on the issue
of "race" we're
> in agreement. There may have been bigotry since day one, but "race" is an artificial
> construct that has its roots in the work of Carolus Linnaeus, the Swedish botanist
> who created the scientific system of classifying organisms (which appeared in the
> 1730s). Following along after this were any number of other so-called "systems" that
> seek to classify the human race. Unfortunately for all of these "systems," there is
> no scientific basis to justify them. While there are enough genetic differences
> between, for example, a ball python and a reticulated python to describe them as
> separate species, these genetic differences between humans don't exist. Anyway, the
> sole reason for the use of "race" is to help give the appearance of support to the
> idea of the innate superiority of Europeans.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"Race" codified as race, as you point out is a fairly new label, and
is just one of the more recent ones for grouping people. It was as you
point out used to discriminate, but all the term did was provide a
cacthall word. Before then the discrimination was still based on tribe,
culture, appearance, nation, continent, etc...
Going back to an old conversation with Kurgan; the level of "racism" ,
dislike, and discrimination between the people of China, Korea, and
Japan is centuries old and still pretty strong.
People want to feel superior to each other and anyone who is deemed to
be different. Just ask the kids who are a little different that get
bullied regulary at school. It doesn't take much.
Just to touch on the rest of the stuff. We're going to disagree on
University speech because I see stories at what I would guess is a 10-1
ratio at least of students and speakers being blocked, harrassed,
intimidated, suspended, failed, etc... for non PC speech compared to
the right doing it.
I agree that the right is doing it, but in a far less widespread and
systematic way. There are millions of examples all across the country
documenting this behavior.
It's really amazing, to me that I'm the one arguing the government
thing with Greg since he and I are still about the closest thing to
kissing cousins here in comparison on the subject. I'd like to think
that his theory could work for a small isolated group of like minded
folks but this area is littered with the remains of failed communes
that came apart in the end because of human nature.
I was trying to fing the movie that was out, I think it was this
summer, documenting one of the local ones that a bunch of my friends
were connected with. Cool flashback.
out time for now I'll find it later.
Bill C
B
 
On Dec 10, 10:09 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:

> I hope you realize those aren't exclusively northern European acheivements.

The reality on that one is that the Chinese were so far ahead of
everyone for a millennium or so it wasn't even close.

I suspect that Greg may be stunned to hear this, but on the issue
of "race" we're
> in agreement. There may have been bigotry since day one, but "race" is an artificial
> construct that has its roots in the work of Carolus Linnaeus, the Swedish botanist
> who created the scientific system of classifying organisms (which appeared in the
> 1730s). Following along after this were any number of other so-called "systems" that
> seek to classify the human race. Unfortunately for all of these "systems," there is
> no scientific basis to justify them. While there are enough genetic differences
> between, for example, a ball python and a reticulated python to describe them as
> separate species, these genetic differences between humans don't exist. Anyway, the
> sole reason for the use of "race" is to help give the appearance of support to the
> idea of the innate superiority of Europeans.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

That brings up my disagreement with your "race" point. The Chinese
looked down on, and discriminated based on their inherent cultural
superiority as they saw it. This was racism without the word. It's also
hard to condemn them for it, when by every real measure, they were
totally correct and were that far ahead of everyone else.
The idea that all cultures are equal, as well as all people are equal
is garbage even though you aren't supposed to say it today.
Linus Pauling was worth more as a human being, to the rest of
humanity, than Jack The Ripper. Ridiculous comparison because the
concept is ridiculous.
I also don't consider, say Canadian culture which is more humanistic
the the US's, to be equal to the Sharia Law cultures where it's your
duty to beat the women for going out without a male escort, etc...
We DO need more rational discriminating thought on just what kind of
world we want to live in and what we are going to do to encourage it to
be that way.
Silencing the debate because it offends those who castrate little
girls is exactly what's wrong with Europes vision of politically
correct speech. Calling Sharia law barbaric is "Insulting to Islam" and
actionable, especially in the UK currently. This goes along with the
riots, Fatwas, and support for terrorist acts every time anyone dares
question Islamic values, the way everyone elses are questioned.
You've got Martin Rowson drawing the most vile, insulting,
religiously oriented, anti-Israel attacks since the forged "protocols
of the elders of Zion", weekly and there aren't any riots, yet Europe,
pretty much as a whole, caved from the threats and intimidation over
much less offensive cartoons aimed at Muslims.
Moral relativism says, "hey that's their culture so it's OK and we'd
be "moral imperialists", to borrow a phrase from a Brit politician, to
suggest it's bad.
Bill C
Loves free speech even when it isn't positive for me as opposed to
those, here and elsewhere who claim it's good, but would limit those
they disagree with.
 
Bill C wrote:
> On Dec 10, 10:09 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I hope you realize those aren't exclusively northern European acheivements.
>
> The reality on that one is that the Chinese were so far ahead of
> everyone for a millennium or so it wasn't even close.
>

dumbass,

the whole be "proud of your heritage" thing is retarded concept in
history. every person has ancestors who have done some unsavoury
things, so you don't get to pick and choose what you want to take
credit for.

are OJ's kids proud to be his kids just because ?

do sean and julian lennon get props because their dad helped write the
"white album" ?

no of course not. so why should that line of attribution be extended to
entire cultures ?
 
On Dec 11, 5:04 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 10:09 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I hope you realize those aren't exclusively northern European acheivements.
>
> > The reality on that one is that the Chinese were so far ahead of
> > everyone for a millennium or so it wasn't even close.dumbass,
>
> the whole be "proud of your heritage" thing is retarded concept in
> history. every person has ancestors who have done some unsavoury
> things, so you don't get to pick and choose what you want to take
> credit for.
>
> are OJ's kids proud to be his kids just because ?
>
> do sean and julian lennon get props because their dad helped write the
> "white album" ?
>
> no of course not. so why should that line of attribution be extended to
> entire cultures ?

Tell me how English Common Law derived from the Magna Carta doesn't
underlie most all of law and justice in the Commonwealth, ands the US?
Bill C
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bluejay931
old bikes still good?
Replies
19
Views
4K
Road Cycling
Froze
Froze
S
Back Pain - Can you still get fitter?
Replies
24
Views
3K
Road Cycling
n crowley
n crowley
C
Floyd You're Still A Winner
Replies
0
Views
614
Road Cycling
Carmella the Roach Killer
C
H
ASO still refusing to admit Astana in TDF
Replies
104
Views
3K
Road Cycling
MagillaGorilla
M
R
Re: Dr. Frank Still Talking Nonsense
Replies
0
Views
726
Road Cycling
Robert Chung
R
Top Bottom Back