176978 Argentina Taste of Our Power -------- 176728 + 8 (also see 176541) primitivism discussed --------- 176693 Palestine and the crisis of Western democracies (english) Abdelwahab El-Affendi ------- 176686 Guardian editorial on Creveld the craven military historian and threatening nihilist in israel (includes some keyclack by yowzthorougly) ------ 176894 In Defense of Demagogues (english) Murray Rothbard ---------xxxxxxx--------  176978 Argentina Taste of Our Power Chris Harman 9:16pm Sun Apr 28 '02 Mass demonstrations dispose of two presidents in as many weeks. A star performer for the IMF-World Bank Washington consensus circus, Cavallo, is forced to flee the economics ministry. A leader of the largest political party warns of the danger of civil war. Such has been the picture in Argentina since the end of December. Yet much of the western media give the impression that these events are of marginal interest. Mass demonstrations dispose of two presidents in as many weeks. A star performer for the IMF-World Bank Washington consensus circus, Cavallo, is forced to flee the economics ministry. A leader of the largest political party warns of the danger of civil war. Such has been the picture in Argentina since the end of December. Yet much of the western media give the impression that these events are of marginal interest. They are happening a long way away, we are told, in a 'developing country' or an 'emerging economy', very different to western Europe, North America or Japan. In fact, what we are seeing in Argentina gives us a foretaste of what could happen elsewhere as increasing fluctuations in world markets wreak havoc in unexpected places. Argentina is an industrial country, with a higher proportion of its workforce in industry than in Britain. It's also a country where working people have, within living memory, experienced living standards close to west European levels. It was known as the 'granary of the world' at the beginning of the 20th century, with an economy very much like that of Australia, New Zealand or Canada, centred the massive production of foodstuffs on giant capitalist farms for the world market. Relatively high wages made it a magnet for millions of immigrants from Italy and Spain who brought traditions of industrial militancy with them. Key sections of the ruling class were able, using state intervention and tight controls on imports, to siphon some of the agricultural profits into the building of new industries in the 1930s and 1940s, especially when war in Europe caused agricultural prices to double. The government of Juan Peron, an army colonel, was able to buy off worker militancy by doubling real wages at the same time as industrialising. His supporters gained control of the major unions and won an enormous working class following for an intensely nationalist ideology that preached unity between workers, the state and 'patriotic' capitalists. However, the boom in world food prices ended by 1950 and the military removed Peron from power in 1955. From then on Argentinian capitalism confronted a central problem, which still plagues it today. It was small and weak and many of its industries were uncompetitive in world markets. Profitability came to depend on periodic onslaughts on workers' living standards. But the working class retained its traditions of combativity and every spell of industrial expansion and inflation gave birth, eventually, to an upsurge of strike activity, which was only broken by throwing the economy into recession and crude methods of repression. All out repression came in 1976 with the installation of a military dictatorship which murdered some 30,000 activists (six times the death toll in Chile). The dictatorship survived until its disastrous Malvinas/Falkland Islands war of 1982. It was successful in inflicting a massive defeat on the most militant sections of the working class. But it could not overcome the central problems of Argentinian capitalism--the lack of global competitiveness. Nor did it fully manage to stop all resistance from workers. The non-Peronist civilian government that followed was no more successful. Attempts to expand the economy led to hyperinflation (5000 percent in 1989), which could only be stopped by economic slump. Output in 1990 was lower than in 1977. It was against this sense of crisis that the Peronist Menem won the 1989 election and appointed the head of the national bank under the dictatorship, Cavallo, as economics minister. He was convinced that there was only one way to solve the crisis. The whole approach that had characterised Argentinian capitalist development since the 1930s had to be scrapped. The state had to step aside, allowing those industries that were uncompetitive to go bust. This 'neoliberalism', it was argued, would attract foreign investment and provide a future for Argentinian capitalists in a globalised economy. All the old nationalised industries were privatised. Welfare for the unemployed was removed to encourage 'labour flexibility'. The local currency, the peso, was tied to the dollar. For seven years the Argentinian economy grew at breakneck speed, and Cavallo became the darling of mainstream economists worldwide, advising governments such as those of Russia and Ecuador. Then the whole policy suddenly fell apart with the new phase of world economic crisis in Asia in 1998. Boom suddenly became bust. Commentators began to note, belatedly, that the boom had rested upon financing imports of luxury goods with debt and privatisation proceeds. In a declining economy the money was no longer around to service these debts. Each set of cuts led to further economic contraction and a further problem with debt servicing. There were growing splits within the ruling class. One section--those living off bank interest and privatisation profits--wanted to replace the local currency with the US dollar. The other section--those running companies whose products were too highly priced for world markets--wanted to keep the peso and devalue it. Driven below the poverty line The only thing they agreed on was mounting attacks on the working class, and when these could not alone lead to a balancing of the books, on wide layers of the middle class as well. So there were attacks on the education system in the spring of last year--which were beaten back. This was followed by cuts in public sector wages and pensions by 15 percent in late summer, a refusal to provide funds to provincial governments to pay their employees, raiding pension funds to pay the interest on the foreign debt and finally freezing bank accounts. As unemployment soared nearly half the population were driven below the official poverty line. Workers were not getting paid, the middle classes found they could not get access to salaries paid through the banks, and shopkeepers could not sell their goods because people could not afford to buy them. The result was growing discontent affecting a whole range of social groups. The union federations called six one-day general strikes in 18 months. There was mass agitation of students and teachers. People threatened to commit suicide in public unless they were given their jobs back. The unemployed organised pickets to block roads and bring the country close to a halt for days at a time. The poor began raiding supermarkets for food. Teachers occupied a bank because their salaries were not paid. By mid-December the mood seems to have been like that in Germany in 1923 or 1931--of a whole country, in which every section of the population except for the very rich was being crucified by economic crisis. Then on 19 and 20 December came that explosive fusion of bitterness that often marks the beginning of a revolutionary situation--the poor attacking the supermarkets to get food, the lower middle classes banging their saucepans, the small shopkeepers and stall holders expressing solidarity and working class youth with a thousand grievances out on the streets. Polls showed 30 percent of the population said they had taken part in protests, with 90 percent agreeing with them. The political elite in Argentina is now in shell shock. They have had to announce a cessation of payments on the foreign debt. They have had to make gestures to the movement that threatens to engulf them--courting the union bureaucracies, meeting the leaders of the pickets, talking to the Madres de la Plaza de Mayo (mothers of 'the disappeared'), denouncing the 'pillaging of the country' by the privatisers, employing the language of 1940s Peronism and sending police to scrutinise the books of foreign banks. At the same time they are trying to assure the IMF and the owners of the privatised businesses that such gestures are not to be taken too seriously. Two of the key elements in Lenin's description of a revolutionary situation are present--the mass of people are not prepared to continue in the old way, and the ruling class itself cannot do so either. But there has not been a revolution. People are rejoicing that they have overthrown two governments. But the state--remains intact. So does the market system. And the overthrow of two lots of governments has not yet solved the problems faced by millions of people. That requires the emergence of a force that has the capacity to challenge the system in its entirety. And if the challenge does not come from the left, the danger is that the right will rise again. A movement of popular assemblies has begun to take root in some localities. People are raising demands such as occupation and nationalisation of firms which have sacked the workers, the seizure of great refrigeration plants to provide food for hungry people, and the taking of control of the banks to stop the flow of money abroad. But there does not yet exist the third element in Lenin's description, a powerful revolutionary party able to challenge the conservative and corrupt union bureaucracies and to fuse this movement of popular assemblies into a national alternative. Argentina shows how in conditions of global crisis a so called 'miracle economy' can fall apart and create a near revolutionary situation. There is a message in that for activists everywhere. socrev1text.abelgratis.co.uk/pubs/sr260/harman.htm ------------------------ Why The Term Primitivism is Culturally Racist and Elitist (english) C@NDY C@ne 5:36pm Fri Apr 26 '02 (Modified on 4:22am Sat Apr 27 '02) article#176541 When on the Art Bell show recently Mr.Zerzan (moronic hypocrite) was touted mistakenly by Bell as "an Anarchist" and not a primitivist. Bell confronted issues like "why are you on a phone"? "Is it true you flew to Europe?" Why do you wear clothes or take medicine"? Zerzan is a moron Why The Term Primitivism is Culturally Racist and Elitist By C@ndy C@ne The word primitive, and the origins of the word conjures up images of dancing natives around a bubbling cauldron with bones in their noses. The word comes from archeologists and anthropologists and the word was devised to describe what they called "Pre Colombian" people. Meaning that any indigenous culture in existence before Columbus landed in the "New World" and outside of Europe was primitive. American Indians (Indian is the colonial word and Indians are still colonized so dump the Native American thing) resent the term "primitive". The cultural elitists in Eugene should think about that as they fly their "primitive" flag. The Indians, Africans, Aborigines and other indigenous people don't call their indigenous culture "primitive" they consider their legacy advanced in the pale of the ridiculous creature comfort industrialized and Americanized world we live in. Some ironic things we in the A.nti I.mperialist N.etwork and T.askforce have noticed as of recent: If you are a primitvista then why would you have a web site called www.Primitivist.com? If you are a primitivist then why do you use a phone? If you are a primitivist then will you refuse penicillin when you contract syphilis? If you are a primitivist did you grow the fiber that is contained in your clothes? If you are a primitivist then why do you wear clothes at all? Something to think about anyway. Indigenous people have a very hard time understanding how people who consider themselves "Primitivists" consider themselves progressives. Indigenous people are enemies of the cultural elitism that created the Euro-centric term "Primitive". The term primitive is racist. add your own comments Linked articles: Why The Term Primitivism is Culturally Racist and Elitist (english) (full story and one comment) Why The Term Primitivism is Culturally Racist and Elitist (english) (full story) Why The Term Primitivism is Culturally Racist and Elitist (english) (full story) Why The Term Primitivism is Culturally Racist and Elitist (english) (full story) Why The Term Primitivism is Culturally Racist and Elitist (english) (full story and 3 comments) ============ misconceptions lead to misjudgments (english) b 10:50pm Fri Apr 26 '02 comment#176615 It sounds to me like your misconceptions about the word "primitive" as well as some obvious misunderstandings about the rhetorical ideology of "primitivism" is leading you to some harsh accusations of "racism" against a movement that cherishes egalitarianism. I also think a baseless character assassination of John Zerzan and lacking the common courtesy to even post his responses in your pseudo-journalistic endeavor leaves your credibility seriously in question. Firstly, the word "primitive" when used in anthropological, sociological, or archaeological contexts has a wider scope than your narrow definition of "pre-Columbian" indigenous peoples. In fact, I digress, but would it not be equally racist to segregate history on the basis of a European's "discovery" of a populated continent? In actuality the term "primitive" is applied anthropologically to human cultures of the Paleolithic (Old Stone Age) and even later human cultures that retained Paleolithic customs and technologies. You see, there are no sharp divisions in the history of cultural evolution. Traits emerge as in species. You are right that the definition of "primitive" as "basic; elemental; or archaic" could be construed as an insult when considering the advanced social structures as well as the technological capabilities of indigenous cultures. Yet this misnomer is the responsibility of decades of anthropological science, not the more recent theoretical explorations of Primitivists. Unfortunately, anthropologists did not supply modern philosophers a more appropriate word to describe the cultural worldview of Paleolithic peoples and today many struggle with the connotations of the word "primitive". Just as indigenous people struggle with the label. It is important though, when explaining Primitivist ideology to symbolically demarcate the transition in thought that we see expressed after the Paleolithic - in Neolithic (New Stone Age) cultures. It's important that the difference in cultures be highlighted because, according to Primitivists, one road of thought (Neolithic) led to the modern culture of global destruction - that we see dominating today - while the other (Paleolithic) is still responsible for the sustainable egalitarian cultures that we see rapidly losing their last strongholds in places like Amazonia, Borneo, and even the Kalahari. Primitivists claim that the differences in worldview between these cultures leads one to believe that the earth is at their disposal, to modify and manipulate however suits them. While the other culture's view could be typified by Chief Seattle in "the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth". This difference in worldview could, in fact be the origins of the anthropological term “primitive” – it may have seemed a fitting way to describe people who didn't use all the “natural resources” at their disposal to reshape the world as a world for humankind. Yet I'd guess Zerzan knows that “primitive” people weren't so by necessity, they were “primitive” by choice. Considering how the historical record reflects numerous indigenous societies fighting to the death to retain their way of life. The label of "Primitivist", while it's not one I personally apply, is by no means intended to be racist or defamatory and I truly believe your attack must be of a more personal nature. It should also be noted that there are several names for emerging theories that all exemplify the only time in human history in which true anarchy and egalitarianism has actually thrived. Some of these titles are "Anarcho-Primitivism" (so Zerzan was rightfully introduced as an anarchist); "Green-Anarchy"; "Deep Ecology"; "Anti-Domestication"; "Anti-Civilization"; "Nihilism"... the spiritually influenced "Animism" and "Scientific Pantheism" are ecologically based and non-anthropocentric, much the same as Primitivism. While some would consider that Primitivists simply understand the world in an ecological perspective, subscribing no categorical -ism to their ideas. Either way, the English language by its very nature is "Eurocentric" as you charge, but as you know political or social theorists are often at the mercy of connotations carried by their particular title. Furthermore, a solid understanding of what Primitivists and anthropologists have to say about how life has changed since the advent of civilization would have preempted many of the questions so arrogantly posed Mr. Bell that you felt inclined to repeat. For starters, as a result of the destructive unsustainable nature of modern agricultural practices, cotton is illegal to grow without a series of permit applications and government approvals in many states of the union. While syphilis as well as most other communicable diseases are endemic to overpopulated, over-polluted animal populations. By that fact, they are a much older "discovery" of civilization than antibiotics; which, in fact, are the products of molds, older than all humanity. In addition, no Primitivist who writes such impeccably researched and referenced academic works as Mr. Zerzan would ever suggest that some 6 billion humans could return to gathering/hunting and dancing around a bubbling cauldron with bones in their noses. In fact, he'd likely cite that as an ethnically and culturally biased understanding of the type of human societies anthropologists call 'primitive'. If you'd listen a little more and be a little less hasty to judge you might actually find yourself in a bit of agreement. ============= Primitivists should call themselves Cave Men (english) Trog 2:08am Sat Apr 27 '02 comment#176647 The words primitive and primitivist were devised by Eurocentric anthropologists and racists. No long essay can diminish the long held hatred by Indigenous people of the terms. Just like a racist mascot of a sports team offends Indigenous Americans. Who are you to decide what terminology and ideological misappropriation is found to be not only offensive but simply a shabby revision of indigenous thinking. Pointing out that penicillin is grown from mold fails to escape the technology it takes to put it into a pill that can be distributed in mass form. Mr. Zerzan prides himself on avoiding technology yet comes up with many excuses for using it when it benefits him. Who cares how many referenced pieces he has written? Exactly how did he come to prominance? The sensationalism pimping of his shameless relationship with the disturbed Mr. Ted. Zerzan is not simply an anarchist and you know it. Many people who have been anarchists for many years would want nothing to do with his "primitivism". You defend anthropology more than Zerzan and so it seems your defense would lead one to believe you have an agenda aside from defending primitivism. Indigenous activists (and artist) such as Floyd Red Crow Westerman, Dennis Banks, and Vine Deloria have been very explicit and rational in their disdain for the origins and the misinterpretatrions of the alledged science of anthropology. Indigenous people have defended their ancestors bones from archeologists and denied vigorously the conclusions anthropologists have made about their history. We need to remember that eurocentric anthropologists and historians had concluded long ago that Indigenous people had no civilization. Something that Zerzan applauds by claiming that Indigenous people had no civilization because they were advanced. Unfortunately Mayan culture totally blows that idea out of the water. The bottom line is that indigenous people have always found the terms primitive and primitivist as offensive. Find a new term for yourself. Cave Manistas ============= Who cares if Primitivist is meant to offend? (english) GOLLEE 3:30am Sat Apr 27 '02 comment#176653 It offends. this is the same argument used to defend racist mascots. "Braves isn't meant to offend","Redskins isn't meant to defend" etc.. It offends. We know the word primitive and primitivist offends.Alot of white people are now saying "my niggas" and claiming they don't mean to offend. Why would a group of people claiming to be egalitarian latch on to a ward that is known to offend? Egalitarian my ass. The primitivists I know don't care a lick about the struggle against racism. They are consumed with the earth and the earth alone. In fact,some I know delight every time they see a large numbe rof people leave the earth regardless of the circumstance.Does anyone remember Dave Foreman (founder of Earth First now persona non grata) and his statements that AIDS killing off large number of humans being a good thing for the earth? Even though the majority of those dying from AIDs are in the third world? He then left Earth First out of disdain for those wanting to focus on environmental racism. What a great egalitarian. ============ more misunderstandings? (english) b 4:07am Sat Apr 27 '02 comment#176657 Apparently you're misunderstanding, as well, if you think I'm defending the anthropological origins of the word "primitive". I believe I did acknowledge that it is a culturally biased term from a time when science held grave misconceptions about indigenous cultures. However, not all anthropology is Eurocentric. When Marshall Sahlins published his essay "The Original Affluent Society" in 1968 the world of anthropology was forced to revise. Sahlins informed those who would listen that Paleolithic (a.k.a. "primitive") cultures were arguably more affluent than the later Neolithic cultures. He called them "the original affluent society" due to the fact that Paleolithic people worked less, had more leisure time, better sanitation and general health than citizens of Europe as recently as 500 years ago. Any account from an indigenous perspective would confirm this, but anthropology had failed to listen for decades. Some even improvised assumptions as to why the "savages" would be willing to fight so fiercely for the right to remain "primitive"... foolish assumptions like the "science of race". Scientific justice waited until after the American social revolution of the sixties but many scientists followed Sahlins with detailed impartial evidence from surviving indigenous societies, that proved centuries of anthropological work was culturally biased. There is, however, anthropology that proves indigenous cultures and technology are more highly complex, accessible, and egalitarian than even that of modern democratic nation-states. Not to mention the fact that they are indefinitely sustainable. There is a wealth of written material to prove, as I said before, that indigenous Paleolithic societies were the only human cultures to know success with what we call "anarchy". This is the only kind of anthropological reference that I have seen cited by John Zerzan (or any writer that could be labeled as "Primitivist" - no matter what they would call themselves). People who would call themselves Primitivists are well intentioned and do not see indigenous cultures as backward or lacking in anything. They actually see these indigenous peoples, especially those least touched by civilization, as our most likely teachers of how to create sustainable societies. After all, they are the only ones who have ever been successful. Also, I don't recall anyone ever claiming that Mesoamerican or pre-Columbian peoples never created civilizations. Maybe you heard something about David Copperfield disappearing Mayan ruins in Belize, but covering up stone pyramids is not a job for Primitivists or anthropologists. What is evident would be that the first people of the Americas were not as convinced as we that civilization is an unsurpassable invention. It is proposed that Mayans, Anasazi and others who developed civilization were content to abandon their elaborate creations when they perceived that it was causing discord in their social fabric or that their cities were not conducive to the environment. This would account for the abandoned structures that continually puzzle "civilized" scientists. At least, those scientists who could never imagine "civilized" people returning to life as "savages". There's also the factual accounts from the demise of the Aztecs that prove their mighty civilization was not so much toppled by a handful of Conquistadors, but rather the hundreds of thousands of disgruntled "subjects" of the Aztec empire. Many were disgusted with the hierarchy obviously, but we'll never know how the last native civilization would have ended if left to it's own devices. Finally, I hope you can see the brazen hypocrisy in condemning those who would call themselves "Primitivists" with taunts like "cave man" while on the other hand defending the indigenous cultures that Primivists exemplify as anything but "cave men". Primitivists as well as many other progressive hold indigenous cultures in the highest esteem for their ability to 'make things work' for millions of years. Civilization should be humbled by the fact that we're plotting our own extinction and our culture is full of pollution, insanity, and disease after just a few thousand years. Either way, thanks for your concern that "Primitivist" might not be a well received title for one's personal philosophy... I don't think I'll be going with "Cave Manista" though. Actually, I identify with those who would call themselves Primitivists after reading much of what of what I could find under the label (which both C@ndyC@ne and Trog have obviously not done - especially in regards to Zerzan), but before I had ever read John Zerzan's work, before I had ever even heard of him or the term "Primitivist" I was - to most everyone who asked - a self-described animist. I suppose you could object to that term as well, but I know for a fact that it is not objectionable to many indigenous people. Especially when it is a necessity to explain to non-animist people how spiritual views can lead to an ecological conscience. If you do object or again, misunderstand the term that someone chooses for their personal philosophy I suggest you do your own research next time. You're right that no long essay can erase the deep-seated hatred against a word. It takes an open mind and a bit of persistent self-education before you might be able to read new meaning into a tired old phrase. ============= Policing words is fascism! (english) anti-facsist 4:22am Sat Apr 27 '02 comment#176660 Gay people call themselves "queer" and disabled people will refer to themselves as "cripple" or even "gimp" for christ's sake. Who are any of you to say what might offend or not? Yes "primitive" is an old word and it doesn't really fit, but then again anyone who has made it through college should have learned that native cultures were not just sticks, stones, caves or wigwams. words can be redefined. I mean, the word "colored" to refer to non-white people is antiquated and TO SOME offensive also but we still have an NAACP that does some good work in the name of colored people. It fucking makes me sick when all someone can look at is one little word to try and determine someones integrity. political correctness is another term for thought control...while we're on the subject of terms. and any group who's been put down over the years...gay, black, disabled, native, whatever...they should know it better than anybody. it's not a person's words that matter. it's what they mean to say. progressive my ass. you;re the fucking pedantic semantic 'anarchist' thought police. probably not even native yourself...if so you wouldnt be a candycane... more of an apple. lighten up. ------------------------ 176728 Weighing in on the "insensitive Primitivist" discussion (english) la bastille 1:04pm Sat Apr 27 '02 (Modified on 8:25pm Sun Apr 28 '02) article#176728 Although this discussion yestersday was interesting and the term primitivist is offensive, of more concern are the ideas of "SOME" Green Primitivists/anarchists like Dave Foreman and John Zerzan and others who have no concern for class struggle, the issue of sexism, or racism. The backbone of the environmental devastation? Racism, imperialism, sexism, and capitalism.Having just visited (hahahha) www.primitivism.com and checking out the predominantly male,white, and educated writings there (I said predominantly there are like two women listed), I can truly say I am not impressed. The primitivists would be well served to visit the pueblo communities of New Mexico where they have constructed out of mud water and air and with the help of tools today) communities that include irrigated water from cisterns and run off, ovens, kivas, elaborate collective communities that mix and use technology as needed. these communities have been maintained for hundreds and thousands of years. having recently visited Acoma Pueblo (Sky City), the oldest continuosly inhabited city in America (since 800 AD that we know of the people that live there claim it is much older) that involves the best of all worlds. they are not purist hunter gatherers and there traditional society has survived in harmony with the land in spite of imperialism. No it has not thrived but they have weathered the test of time. They could not be called industrialists or primitivists. 23 families still inhabit the main pueblo. 2300 people live in adobe homes around the reservation. Amazing place please check it out. The main problem brought out that I see from yesterdays discussion is that many green anarchists/primitivists/ and others put no priority on organizing against racism (because they don't believe in race and neither do I,unfortunately racsits do and capitalists base their system on racial division), nor sexism (because womyns autonomy is also a division as they see it), or class (because the poor in their minds merely need to stop working). No one in yesterdays discussion responded to the Dave foreman problem. We have a certain breed of freak out here who like Ted Kazenski, chastise those who would support and orgainize around issues of racsim and sexism (read the first 5 pages of his manifesto where he critiques people who "support the causes of defeated people like Native Americans"). John Zerzan thinks Ted is a prophet. Dave Foreman's comments on AIDS in Africa bordered on being those of a Nazi. Now I don't want to just throw that out without explanation. Who are the people on this planet who have any chance of forcing imperialism back through continuing their agrarian lives? People in Africa, Central and South America, South East Asia etc.. These are the people who present the biggest possible opposition to imperialism. So Dave Foreman and others are just happy as hell that AIDS is killing people. No thought about the fact that these are the people still living closer to the land than the primitivists themselves are? This is just plain racsim hidden under Green camoflage. Primitivists idolize Indigenous Americans.Big deal. They are also disconnected with those same people today in our society. Why? Because Indigenous Americans are fighting for Health and Humna Services money (reformist in the minsd of Zerzan), they are demanding reparations (green anarchists and libertarians don't believe in that concept), they are trying to get internet education for their children (Well Ted would hate them), they want some, SOME of the things need to survive in America and have some semblance of power. That just blows those Native Americans right off the pedestal that primitivists have erected for them? In the minds of primitivists these native Americans should be living off of berries. The issue that pissed me off the most was when the Makah got the right to do a small whale hunt once a year in an effort to revive their culture. What primitivists would call their "primitive' culture. Hunting with a traditional spear in a small boat. "Many greenies screamed spear a Makah not a whale". Amazing that europeans who are the descendants of those who hunted whales near to extinction are screaming at the people who neve rtook more than they needed that they should not take one whale a year for their tribe. Then they also make the erroneous argument that long ago Native Americans didn't eat meat. This is just horse shit. It seems that primitivists just change the argument to fit what ever they are pissed at. first they love native Americans then when they want to take one whale a year they call them murderers. It is imperialist societies that have destroyed and hunted to extinction most of the animals in the world not the animist cultures. the whole dialouge from that camp while sometimes is interesting is usually opportunistic. indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=176541 ========== Acoma Pueblo Website for those interested (english) same as above 1:20pm Sat Apr 27 '02 comment#176732 If you are near there sometime check it out. www.newmexico.org/culture/pueblo_acoma.h... ========== Learn to distinguish (english) Mike 2:38pm Sat Apr 27 '02 stepbystpefarm@shaysnet.com comment#176747 "La Bastille", you'd perhaps make more sense if you learned how to distinguish the players. You THINK you are arguing against "green anarchist/primativist" folks but then you go off the deep end confusing them with vegan animal rights types. Which means you don't know what the hell you are talking about (you can't recognize the players). Of course to you they are all the same, people not involved with YOUR fight (class war against capitalism). Tough shit baby, they aren't interfering with you either. You can't DRAFT your militants, you gotta ocnvince them that YOUR fight is the one worth fighting. Look, I haven't met ANY "green anarchist/primativist" types who believed a solution to environmental problems can be found within capitalism. But they aren't working for YOUR revolution because they have no reason to believe simply correcting human justice issues will somehow get people to live in balance with the rest of Nature. Sure, they don't have an answer for "how can we feed six, seven , however many billion humans and not trash the environmant?" But that's because they don't believe it can be done -- certainly not by the capitalists BUT NOT BY YOU FOLKS EITHER. Go ahead, have your revolution and prove them wrong. They would LIKE to be proven wrong. But they aren't going to put much work into what to them is a hopeless effort. Instead they'll work to save as much environment as can be saved. ========== You aren't really refuting anything I said (english) ?? 3:41pm Sat Apr 27 '02 comment#176753 I guess you didn't se the slashes between green anarchist/primitivist etc. I do know the difference. I also know the similarities. I make a strong argument for how we save the planet you just chose to by-pass. The people who are currently living in the non-industrialised world the Africans,the South East Asians, Central and South Americans cannot be seen as expendable in the wake of AIDs, war, etc, in hopes that rapid population decline means a plus for the environment. In fact it is the opposite. these are the people on the planet most likely to be a force to stop the globalization of the third world and demand agrarian access to the land. The similarity between the various wing nut factions is that they have no analysis that would lead them to oppose imperialism at the ground level. This is the only hope for the planet or the people. Ask the indigenous people who live closer to the ways many of the primitivists claim to aspire to. They have always known this and it is part of their culture. Resistance to defend the land AND THE PEOPLE is the core tenant of almost every indigenous group. You latch on to the differences, I wanted to examine the siliarities. Dave Foreman is just like Hitler. Hitler was a vegetarian as well. He loved animals but not humans. Your hero? ======== Dave Foreman is a Republican (english) Anonymous 4:33pm Sat Apr 27 '02 comment#176757 What the hell does he have to do with any of this? ========== Primitivism is many things (english) J. 4:54pm Sat Apr 27 '02 comment#176759 In addition to what has been said, primitivism is an aesthetic/political movement, with origins early in the 20 th century. Primitivism is really derived from Rousseau's notion of the "noble savage" and the critique of the corrupting influences of "overly civilized" societies, esp of attitudes amongst the upper classes, during 18th century France. Stravinksy's "Rite of Spring" (1911) is considered the greatest "primitivist" piece of music, the premiere of which caused riots when it first premiered in Paris. That work sought to revive, in the form of symphonic music and ballet, the sacred rites of the ancient peoples of Siberia. The result was shocking, since the work was simultaneously modern but ancient in the emotions it invoked, surrounding violence, nature worship, ecstatic states of mind, and human sacrifice. The goal of primitivism, from a political or aesthetic point of view is to strip away all that is false or an artificial construct conditioning the behavior of modern peoples. True primitivism does not either glorify or degrade or look down upon the behavior of ancient peoples. It merely seeks other states of civilization to find another framework from which to judge and evaluate contemporary mores, political assumptions, and aesthetic attitudes. Intelligent primitivism does not seek to destroy everything in modern society, but seeks to reject all false class divisions, false and trite modes of thinking, as well as inauthentic behavior patterns, which are based on worn out assumtions. It can be revolutionary and progressive, if it is intelligent and discriminating, or it can be reactionary and retrograde, if applied as a dogma, or invoked to go back to more hierarchical forms of social organization. The revival of Germanic Pagan mythology amongst certain Nazis during the Hitler years, is one example of reactionary primitivism. Primitivism is a two edged sword, which can be used constructively or negatively, depending on the application and the social context. ` =========== my two cents... (english) b 6:57pm Sat Apr 27 '02 b@electroncloud.com comment#176768 It's great to see this come up again. It seems like we're breaking down many false assumptions via discussion. Personally, as an "animist" I can understand and accept the message that primitivists are attempting to convey with their rhetoric. I've tried to explain before, but perhaps have not been clear in stating, that most intellectual primitivist critiques of civilization (that I've read) are well aware that reversing the course of time is no solution to the ills of society. There's talk of supposed primitivists who would cheer the mass die-off of human beings in their presumption that this would be good for the "environment". This polarization of the argument, with man pitted against nature shows a very shallow understanding of ecological processes, but it's typical of the divide and conquer strategies employed in our domestication. Recall the Spotted Owl vs. human loggers debate for a prime example and notice little mention of the importance of living trees to humans as well... it's either owls or family-men... you decide. Yet, any informed primitivist, animist (person with traditional indigenous spiritual beliefs), or ecologists could explain clearly that humankind and the entire natural world are inextricably linked. Humans and human cultures depend on the benevolence of the Earth and we are ruled by the laws of ecology, just like any other species. There's no "closer to nature" or "farther from nature". The difference between how cultures evolve is dependant on whether they accept being ruled by nature or they choose to deny it until their own destruction. That's why any primitivist, animist, or ecologist could also conclude that "civilization" is not working for human kind... because it's not working for the Earth. With 200 species going extinct every day it's foolish to believe that we aren't losing biodiversity on which we depend. It's foolish to believe we aren't setting the scenario for our own extinction. Again, as an animist, that's how I can accept what primitivists are saying about our predicament... the fact that they have actually shed the anthropocentric worldview that plagues most of our global civilization, they understand that as humans we are not separate or exempt from nature. Like I said, indigenous people who understand how their ancestors were able to create stable, healthy, diverse and egalitarian societies know that it was a natural logical progression of how they viewed the world. Indigenous, primitivist, animist, and ecological thinkers realize that the earth does not belong to man, but we belong to the earth. The hope is, when the majority of humans realize that we are as dependant on the health of the planet as any other species, then, human societies will reflect those beliefs. Perhaps it is becoming clear that all primitivists, despite the connotations of their label, do not merely advocate a "reversion" to a more simple way of life. The goal is to raise awareness of a worldview that the majority of humans were forced to abandon or willingly forgot with the birth of civilization, a worldview that indigenous cultures have kept alive to this day and one that modern civilized science is slowly, reluctantly rediscovering. Specifically applying to the John Zerzan critiques, I'd like to note that while Zerzan is somewhat extreme in his critiques of language, hunting, symbolic spirituality, and any example of even the earliest domestication. He is, by no means, the leader of the Primitivists or worth judging all primitivist creations against - as political anarchists it would be ludicrous to lay self claim to the central authority over all primitivists. As J. pointed out critiques of civilization that could be called "primitivist" have an history older than even civilization's latest empire, America. In fact, Rousseau's Discourse on the Origins of Inequality (1754) probably fueled colonial independence movements in the America's and around the world. While Hesiod's "Works and Days", of the oldest Greek writings from the 7th century B.C. contains one of the earliest primitivist dissertations in its recollections of an ancient "Golden Age". A time whenâ€Â¦"their hearts were free from sorrow, and without hard work or pain," when "the fruitful earth yielded its abundant harvest to them of its own accord, and they lived in ease and peace upon the land with many good things." =========== Just To Add (english) - 10:07pm Sat Apr 27 '02 comment#176785 First off Hitler was not a vegetarian, its was a PR game that he played to make him look like he cared about living creatures. According to his personal cheif he ate sausage every morning, doesn't sond like he was veggie to me. Look into don't just belive me. Second the way they hunted the whale was not with a spear it was a .50 harpoon gun, and the whale didn't go to the tribe it was sold, and the profits did not go to the people of the tribe. I am not one that supports primitivism, in all reality I think it is purly stupid to think that one can get rid of civilization, and all technology, I mean come on isn't a spear a form of technology? So where are you going to draw the line? and why there? The proplem as I see it is not that people are just one sided, its the fact that everyone feels we need not to be one sided. The aspect that we need to have all these huge coalitions, when in reality all they do is make most everyone, and anarchist in particluar, go against everything they belive in. I mean come on an anarchist is against all forms of government and authority, i dont know one anarchist that would go out and try and start a coalition with the republican party, or even the a white supramacy group just because they share some things in comon. Forming coalitions is a way to keep the people from acutally achieving anything. Now days your a shity person and activist if you don't go against some of the things you believe just to be apart of a coalition just so serveral thousand people can march in the street feel good about themselves while in reality not achieving shit. I say fuck coalitions and fuck trying to make everyone fight your fight. We need everyone fighting in there own way. I would rather see people standing up for what they believe in be it communism, socialism, or what ever. but don't try make to me feel like shit and look bad because i wont go against what i believe and help you. I'm an anarchist, and If any of them actually had there little revolution we anarchist would be the first ones they would try to get rid of because now we are a threat to them. So why should i help them help destroy me? anyways enough ranting, sorry about the poor spelling and grammer. - ========== Rousseau can shove the noble savage!Racists (english) Ok! Now I see 2:09am Sun Apr 28 '02 comment#176804 None of the defenders of primitivism refuted the original piece. As a native person let me say FUCK THE NOBLE SAVAGE YOU RACISTS. The stoic Noble Savage image has been despised by our people since "Last of the Mohicans Was Written". the Mahingan (the real spelling) are alive and well thank you DB Cooper. Noble Savage my ass. Too pure and beautiful to compete with the brutality of the industrial world. This is simply amazing. This anthro racist keeps writing these long rants informing us of what we think. As an animist I do not stand as one in the same with a primitivist. You completely failed to respond to the failure of the primitivist to have a progressive interest in organizing to defeat racism, sexism, the isms, and capitalism. You completely duck, with all your big words the assertion that the unabomber manifesto condemened those who support the struggles of Indigenous people. For once and for all we don't care how you mean primitivist. If your interpretation of indigenous people are involved in the categorization we are involved. the term is racist. The belief that all indigenous people are born with some extra connect to nature that no one else has is racism. there Natives that sell our land to accept nuclear waste, do you think they are noble savages. I cannot believe you people would reflect positively on a term like NOBLE SAVAGE. I mean fuck all you people forever. Fuck anyone who would defend anyone who would term indigenous people as savages. Now I know what a primitivist is. Furthermore to the person who said the makah sold that whale. I like some of what you said but you are mistaken. I know the people who were on that hunt and they divided that whale in the community in their traditional way. As for the harpoon? Try using a harpoon from a canoe. It may not be primitive but it sure isn't state of the art. The main point is still that it is industrialists and colonialists that have endangered the whales and other animals. Not some small band of Natives in a canoe taking one whale. The thing I learned tonight is that primitivists are not anyone I want anything to do with. The defenses here avoiding the issue of race and defending the terminology of primitivist and the origin with the Noble Savage tell me you people haven't learned anything. Also can you cite to me exact quotes from Rousseau where he uses the term primitivist? Just curious. Noble Savage my ass. =========== as you wish... (english) b 8:25pm Sun Apr 28 '02 comment#176972 "This is simply amazing. This anthro racist keeps writing these long rants informing us of what we think. As an animist I do not stand as one in the same with a primitivist." You'll notice that this "anthro-racist" makes every effort possible to show that I speak for myself. I don't write long essays to tell you what you think, they're not too long (by my standards) and written to tell you what *I* think. Yet, who is this "we" you speak of repeatedly. You are the animist 'pope'? Or maybe the Indian messiah? Do you speak for your tribe or you know the mind of all natives? Either way, I guess it's clear that you speak for an entire group of people...or maybe you just think for them. I'm not sure but I'd say that's "RACIST!" too. No doubt it's a gross generalization. ;-) I know I probably shouldn't bother responding, but "Ok! Now I see", you obviously have a great deal of anger regarding this subject and it's not allowing you to approach things rationally. Whether that involves reading other's responses fully or generating your own rhetoric coherently - it's not being done. Your arguments HAVE been refuted although simply denying the fact would be a convenient way to preserve your ego - or whatever you're holding on to. Not that it matters though, no one is really attempting to change or even challenge your views. It looks like everyone is just trying to make it clear that others have DIFFERENT views... and hoping you'll accept that. If you think I'm hiding behind "big words" I'll state my point as plainly as possible. From the perspective of another native animist I can say that I have read "primitivist" literature, I have examined their philosophy, and while I do not claim it is identical to my own worldview, there is no requirement that it must be identical. As an animist, I do know that mankind has no birth-right to rule the earth and I believe that many of the problems that must be addressed in our society come from the fact that most people DO believe that mankind is meant to rule the earth - and all other creatures. I suppose that makes me an anarchist too, because not only would I love to see equality among all humans, I would like to see all life made equal as well. That doesn't mean I hate people, because I love the world and people are part of that. All the racism, war, opression, poverty, disease, famine, drug abuse, insanity, etc., I feel, can be linked to how humans understand their place in the world. I find these same ideas in Primitivist writings, so here I can identify. If one human feels entitled to cage a herd of animals as property, it seems like a logical step for the same attitudes to later assume control over other humans. It's an easy step, we've seen it throughout history, they just make the humans in question seem as "animal" as possible, that justifies it. That's actually where we get dehumanizing terms like "savage" to describe tribal societies. A word which I, for one, would never consider defending. So I can't really respond to the accusation. The concept of the "noble savage" too is obviously steeped in racism, yet I don't see how to avoid encountering racism when dealing with literature over 200 years old, like Rousseau. Are you one of those who would ban "Huckleberry Finn" just because it tells us a story from another time? I still think if you would take more time to understand you could see the relevance in the things Primitivists are saying and then there'd be a bit more unity in "the movement", but that's up to you. It's not even important that you accept their ideology, of course, but I don't understand why you couldn't have just a bit more tolerance for people who ARE trying to achieve the same goals you mentioned. I should quit though, I've tried too much already to help you shed a bit of your hate for these people who call themselves Primitivist and I certainly don't intend to trade profanities with you. "Fuck all you people forever" and being called an "anthro racist" (clever) certainly doesn't motivate me to offer a benevolent rebuttal, but I really have no animosity and I hope you don't either. I just wanted to make it clear that because they are anarchists, I don't think there will be any Primitivists at your door trying to 'convert' you. So, maybe, you could just live and let live. That's what I'm doing and as a disabled, indigenous (mostly, but even my German ancestors are on the Removal Rolls), animist I can say that NOT ALL native americans are offended by the word "primitivism", especially not after a detailed look at what the word represents. Sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can never hurt you. Of course, I speak for myself just like you can only do the same. Those who speak unchecked on behalf of the whole tribe are usually the ones selling off the timber... or in your case, selling the rights to dump radioactive waste. --------------------------------- 176693 Palestine and the crisis of Western democracies (english) Abdelwahab El-Affendi 9:29am Sat Apr 27 '02 (Modified on 10:56pm Sat Apr 27 '02) article#176693 The stakes are much higher in Palestine, and the crimes are being committed in full view of the world. But far from mobilizing NATO to take out the tanks besieging the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, or to stop the massacres in the Jenin refugee camp, only indistinct comments are being muttered, and very indecisive and shamefully inadequate steps (such as delaying arms shipment) are being promised. Sanctions are not even being mentioned. It's not that European and American politicians don't realize the gravity of the situation and the threat it represents to international stability. And it's not that these leaders don't want to take decisive actions to stop the deteriorating situation. Palestine and the crisis of Western democracies The fallout from the deteriorating situation in the occupied Palestinian territories has exacerbated the Arab regimes' chronic crisis of legitimacy and threatens to destabilize the whole region. However, while the Arabs very early on assumed the primary responsibility for resolving the Palestine question and staked their legitimacy on it (and lost), one needs to be reminded that the Palestinian crisis is not an Arab creation. It is the West that bears the primary responsibility. First, the West persecuted its Jewish citizens and drove them from their homes, dumping them unceremoniously in Palestine. Second, it was colonial Britain that provided the military arm of the Zionist movement and supported it against the unarmed Palestinians. While Zionists mounted a vicious campaign of dispossession against the Palestinians, British troops prevented the Palestinians from defending themselves against Jewish aggression in the same way Yugoslav troops (and partly the international community) played the role of  the crash troops of Serbian aggression against the Muslims in Bosnia, or deprived them of the means to defend themselves against this violence. Britain ­ first an active accomplice in the dispossession crime, and later a clumsy and impotent mediator between the two communities ­ failed dismally in resolving the issue and beat a disgraceful and humiliating retreat in the end, further abdicating its responsibility for the mess it had created in Palestine. Later, Britain and other Western countries went further, actively supporting Israel's aggression against the Palestinians, while the Arabs rose to support the Palestinians but failed miserably in their task. This, in turn, destabilized the Arab regimes and created a vicious cycle of violence and turmoil that still plagues the region. This combination of Western complicity and Arab impotence was the prime reason behind the current resurgence in international terrorism. For it is the breakdown of the Arab system which gave birth to vigilantes and roving armies vying to accomplish what they believe Arab states have become incapable of. Israel's recent war on the Palestinians has made the problem even more acute. Children as young as eight were apprehended at the Egyptian-Israeli border, where they had escaped, without the knowledge of their families, seeking to become “martyrs” by fighting the Israelis. Were Arab regimes to relax their grip only slightly, thousands (maybe millions) of volunteers would flock to Israel's borders seeking to join the ongoing battle. Many Arab regimes are in serious trouble. But it is not only Arab regimes that have been put on the spot by Israel's war on the Palestinians. The major industrial nations are also caught up in the same cycle of impotence and legitimacy crisis. Appalled by the Sharon government's blind brutality against the besieged and unarmed Palestinian population, even US President George W. Bush was forced to say “enough is enough.” A chorus of European leaders had urged Bush to restrain Premier Ariel Sharon and his right-wing government, fearing that the butcher of Sabra and Shatila was going to do it again ­ and he did not disappoint. However, none of these European leaders, who jointly bankroll Israel's atrocities, was even able to condemn Sharon's war crimes, let alone stop them. The European leaders showed similar impotence and prevarication toward Serbian aggression in Bosnia. The US was slightly more determined to act there, but it could not persuade its allies, in particular Britain and France, to act decisively. It took a change in leadership in France in 1995 to create the necessary shift in the European position, when French President Jacques Chirac finally provided the necessary leadership. The lesson was learned slightly better in Kosovo, when NATO moved decisively in response to Serbian aggression which exceeded all bounds. By the standards set then, an even more decisive action is called for to stop Sharon's rampage. While Slobodan Milosevic's crime was to drive the Kosovars into refugee camps, Israel had done that 50 years ago, but is today attacking the very refugee camps it created. This is the equivalent of Nazis desecrating the graves of Holocaust victims. The stakes are much higher in Palestine, and the crimes are being committed in full view of the world. But far from mobilizing NATO to take out the tanks besieging the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, or to stop the massacres in the Jenin refugee camp, only indistinct comments are being muttered, and very indecisive and shamefully inadequate steps (such as delaying arms shipment) are being promised. Sanctions are not even being mentioned. It's not that European and American politicians don't realize the gravity of the situation and the threat it represents to international stability. And it's not that these leaders don't want to take decisive actions to stop the deteriorating situation. But they simply cannot. Or, they believe they cannot. They are too afraid to lose their jobs. Western politicians have to tread carefully when making decisions, for fear of antagonizing powerful interests or alienating publics that are wary of costly foreign involvements. While many Arab commentators ascribe this apparent Western impotence to the inordinate influence of the pro-Israel lobby, the issue is far more complex. But it is certainly a manifestation of a deep crisis in Western democracies that realpolitik considerations can deter politicians from taking a principled stance on matters of vital national interest. The stance of Western governments on the Palestinian issue goes to the heart of this crisis of democracy. On the face of it, the Western position on Palestine is a principled one. Their siding with the Jewish state is motivated by a commitment to the security of the state of Israel, which represents a haven and compensation for the survivors of the Holocaust. There is an implied act of atonement for the crimes committed against the Jews, and wariness that anti-Israel sentiments may easily slide into traditional European anti-Semitism. Support for Israel is also seen as opposition to terrorism. However, on closer examination, the moral dimension recedes very quickly. It is remarkable that European leaders have not been moved by 50 years of Palestinian suffering, and have made no effort during those five long decades to undertake any initiatives to alleviate or end this suffering. It is, ironically, terrorism and the Arab-Israeli wars that motivated many of these leaders to act, and often to do the wrong thing. Thus, it is not the current deteriorating humanitarian situation that has exercised the minds of Western leaders, but the threat of regionwide instability. Even today, no attempt is being made to address the plight of over 350,000 refugees in Lebanon, and the dire situation of millions of Palestinians in the West bank is not even being considered except from the perspective of combating violence. In other words, the message is that if a person wants to call attention to his plight, violence is the sure way to achieve this. This ethical lapse is made the more serious in these times of moral triumphalism and the West is lecturing everyone about moral values and the value of human life. But the message the current Western position on Palestine emits is that Western democracies do not yield the ethical results they are supposed to, when they are supposed to. One must hasten to say that the claim that democracies are ethical enterprises is a tenuous one, since democracies have regularly coexisted with slavery, plunder, racial discrimination and many other sins. Arguably, many democracies could not have survived without these institutions. However, of late, democracies have defined themselves in terms of the progressive approach to the ideals of equality and humane conduct. The reactions of the leaders of Western democracies to the Palestinian crisis have fallen well short of these ideals. While democratic politics is yielding positive results ­ as seen by the actions of civil society groups expressing practical solidarity with the besieged Palestinians ­ at the official level, political leaders have shown indecisiveness, even outright cowardice. This calls for a serious examination of the mechanisms governing the operation of these democracies, for if these faults persist, the system may easily self-destruct. Abdelwahab El-Affendi is a Senior Research Fellow at the Center for the Study of Democracy, University of Westminster. He wrote this commentary for The Daily Star www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/27_04_02_e.... =========== Sharon and Co. are monsters (english) outside the whale 9:50am Sat Apr 27 '02 comment#176696 Why does U.S. punish Saddam for "naked aggression" in Kuwait yet Sharon has a green light for his "naked aggression". Obviously, Sharon is 10 times as worse than Saddam. How? What if Saddam was going through Kuwaiti neighborhoods crushing children in houses, shooting them, starving them and on and on. .... How can U.S. citizens be so blind and stupid? ========== Why the West doesn't care about Palestinians (english) Truth teller 2:51pm Sat Apr 27 '02 comment#176748 The West doesn't give a shit about the Palestinians because the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are Muslims. Why should the Christian West give a damn about Muslim Arabs being killed? Also the Zionist State of Israel serves another very uselful purpose for the West. It keeps the Arabs down, Israel is stoping the economical and technological development of the Arab World. A developed, economically and technologically advance Arab World, would upset the blance of power in the World. Both Europe and the US would be less powerful as a consequence. Its a form of Neo-colonialism, in the past European countries like Britain, France, Spain, Portugal and Belgium would invade countries and subjugate people in Africa and the Americas. And steal their land to serve the needs of the colonial power. In order to keep South America under American control, the US help assist Right-wing Miliatry dictatorships to get into power and stay in power. Like they did in Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Paraguay, Peru etc in the 60s, 70s, 80s. If the US doesn't like a government in South America, the CIA instigates a coup disguised as a "popular revolt" like they did in Venezuala against President Hugo Chavez earlier this month or like they did in Chile with Salvador Ayennde in 1973. The US is using puppet regimes, the CIA and IMF/World Bank to keep the South American people down. To make sure South America remains poor and beholden to the USA. Look what the IMF/World bank and the West has done to Africa! Exactly the same tactics. The Arab World strecthing from Morocco to Iraq. The same tactics are being used. Puppet, corrupt and dictatorial regimes that beholden to the USA. Oppress their own people, hold back the development and advancement of their countries. But in order to maintain Western and in particular US tutelage over the Arab peoples. The West help create the Zionist state and continue to support financially, militarily and politically. People often say its because the Jews control America is why America always supports Israel and that's why Sharon is able to ignore what ever Bush says. That is true, but that doesn't explain why the West supported Israel in every war its had with the Arabs 48,56,67,73 and the invasion and occupation of Lebanon 78,82-2000. You see De Gaulle said in the 50s that Israel is needed to keep the Arabic peoples under control. Irsael is the military force that is needed to control the Arab peoples for the West. As long as the Zionist state is alive the Arab peoples will not be allowed to accomplish anything. Instead the Arab World will be left behind as the Europe, Asia Pacific and North America become more prosperous, technologically advance and militarily stronger. At the expense of the Arab World, Africa and South America. You see their needs to be a third world in order for the first world to be rich. If the Arab peoples want a dignified future they must rid themselves of their corrupt, oppressive and dictatorial governments. Or its all over for them. The only thing that anyone respects and just look at the history books. Is strength, power, might call it what you like. The UN is a load of shit. Lets just hope China fucks up everything for everyone. Great Article. One Point ... (english) ============= Jordan Thornton 10:56pm Sat Apr 27 '02 pilgrim112@hotmail.com comment#176792 The Western Nations are not democracies. Their leaders call them that, the media echoes the sentiment, and the brainwashed masses accept this label without question, but it does not make it true. We are basically Feudal nations, with channels available for dissenting voices, but they are mainly ineffectual, except to those with the money and organization to lobby officials. Since our elections have been corrupted, what little we could cling to in claiming the label "democracy" is now gone. Our leaders even ignore us when we show up en masse. We are ruled by a group of highly connected elite families, organizations, and corporations. Our societies are not about freedom and equality, but maintaining the Elite's seperation from the majority, for they are taught that they are superior to us. Every action they take is about saving face, and protecting their interests. Our masses are just as lost as anyone else's. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either a part of that group (the Elite) and is deceiving you, or has not yet thrown of their mental shackles. I do love your article, however. Sorry for nit-picking, but I feel this is an important distinction to make. I wish you well. -------------------------------- A Jewish Perspective They Won't Show on FOX News (english) The Guardian 9:16am Sat Apr 27 '02 (Modified on 5:12am Sun Apr 28 '02) article#176686 Asked if he was in favour of bombarding Palestinian cities and causing thousands of deaths among civilians, Creveld answered: "Yes, as much as is needed in order that there will not be a need to repeat it, so that they won't tail us during the time of the withdrawal. We have to strike so hard that there won't be a need for a second strike. Perhaps 5000 or 10,000 killed won't be enough and then we will have to kill more." The Guardian April 24, 2002 Editorial: Kill 'em all! Professor Martin Van Creveld who is a Zionist military historian has expressed in words the policy that the Israeli army put into practice during its destruction of Jenin. The Professor argued in the Hebrew weekly Yerushhalyim that the Israeli army would have to kill tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians in order "to restore the balance of deterrence between us and them". Asked if he was in favour of bombarding Palestinian cities and causing thousands of deaths among civilians, Creveld answered: "Yes, as much as is needed in order that there will not be a need to repeat it, so that they won't tail us during the time of the withdrawal. We have to strike so hard that there won't be a need for a second strike. Perhaps 5000 or 10,000 killed won't be enough and then we will have to kill more." The Professor said that the mass killing would have to be done so quickly and so strongly that before "the world understood what was happening the matter would be over". "What is involved is a massive crime, but whoever isn't willing to commit crimes in order to save his country shouldn't engage in statesmanship, it is better that there be one massive crime after which we will exist and lock the gate behind us." Asked about the possible international reaction, Creveld said, "People forgive for one crime on the condition that it is over. They forgive if it is quick and smooth, and particularly if it succeeds. If it doesn't succeed, everything is lost." Creveld, at the same time as putting forward these barbarian views, described himself as a "pacifist". He said his plan had been presented to the Israeli authorities and that "the right people read it". Here we have not just the preferred policy of the Israeli Government of Ariel Sharon and Shimon Peres but the policy and ideology of a dying capitalist system. The leaders and governments of the leading capitalist countries have no answer to the world's problems, except to use force to impose their policy aims and the slaughter of tens of thousands of people who disagree with them and refuse to submit. Capitalism is incapable of finding a solution to poverty and unemployment. It has no policy by which different nations with a variety of social systems, ideologies, national groups and religions can live together in one world. The ideology of Creveld is no different to that of Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard and a number of others, although they are usually more careful in expressing it. Successive Israeli governments have proven to be incapable of negotiating a fair and reasonable solution to the Palestinian question which entails the creation and recognition of an independent Palestinian State and the withdrawal of Israeli forces to their pre-1967 borders. Being incapable of accepting this solution, which embodies the resolutions of the United Nations, the Israelis opt for war and the mass murder of Palestinians and the imprisonment of thousands more. They bullbozed homes with people still in them. They destroyed the infrastructure required by any modern community — food, water and medical supplies, housing, schools, hospitals and so on. Creveld sees the situation as "between us and them" reflecting the racist attitude of the capitalist world. Having carried out the recommended mass killing, the Israelis would "lock the gate behind us". It is apparent that the Israeli army now intends to remain in occupation of Palestinian land and continue to surround Palestinian cities with their tanks. There is yet another aspect of Creveld's statement. He claims to be a "pacifist". It has become a common feature of the leaders of a number of countries to present policies which are directly opposite to those carried out. Creveld is a warmonger, not a pacifist. It is a deliberate policy of lying — just as John Howard has deliberately lied about the "children overboard". Creveld's "solution" is little different to that of the Nazis who attempted a "final solution" to the "Jewish question" by sending millions to gas chambers. His statements may help to awaken those who think about what happened in Jenin last week and what is in store for others who refuse to bend the knee to such criminals who parade as professors, statesmen and even as civilised leaders. add your own comments ============= Thelma and Louise (english) outside the whale 9:38am Sat Apr 27 '02 comment#176695 America started out as only 13 colonies. Then the greedy land thieves murdered the Indian women, children, and men in their expansionist push.--- The same thing is happening in the Middle East. Israel is merely a colony that is now expanding eastward. The subjugation of the Arab countries is the goal of the nabobs who tire of negotiating with OPEC. The Arab people are under assault right now. And the assault on Americans is soon to follow....Like the Saudi Prince just told Bush "the region is getting ready to go over a cliff. ============= Re: Outside the Whale (english) idiot detector 2:14pm Sat Apr 27 '02 comment#176741 For many of the "land theives," staying where they were was not an option. They immigrated to North America for the same reasons people immigrate today: land shortages, food shortages, unemployment, political repression, religious repression, ethnic repression etc. The reason that millions of European Jews emigrated to Palestine is because other countries, including the US, refused to let them in and, like of other immigrants throughout the ages, staying where they were was not an option. ============ Edited out of context! (english) Mike 2:16pm Sat Apr 27 '02 stepbystepfarm@shaysnet.com comment#176742 You lying bastard! See this little "speech" was published not all that long ago on IndyMedia but THEN it was in its correct context, making it clear he had been asked his advice about "what if the Palestinians attacked while we were pulling out?" That's right -- in other words assuming the Israelis had agreed to to withdraw, dismantle the settlements and evacuate the people (which the Palestinians are asking them to do) AND they were attacked while during that withdrawal operation. BEWARE OF EDITED MATERIAL -- ALWAYS INSIST ON THE LINKS ============= Creveld turned hisself into a depraved person (english) piet 2:23am Sun Apr 28 '02 comment#176806 he received attention in a big dutch weekly this weekend (once again); the media here use the skits and splits modus operandi but pro-israel comes out ahead less obviously that it used to. Creveld, Leon de Winter and Ron Rosenbaum are granted waaaay more space (making the likes of me and Israel Shamir very mad but I think we have to bow out to the ultimate, most infectious and absolute nihilism of these guys; as for Creveld, the man is so unsightly he could have known that a life among other humans would proliferate ugly views within himself eventually. I don't know what babyface de Winter's story is but he is as screwy as they get when it comes to jews. =========== on de Winter (english) piet 5:12am Sun Apr 28 '02 comment#176820 he is in the paper on sat again and tries to argue that israels atrocities are singled out of all other ones to feed a hungry anti-semitism; he mentions chechnya but of course fails to complete and flesh out this 'parallel', which would take evidence of russia's dependence on a remote sugardaddy (wether or not hoodwinked) who subsidizes immigration, expansion, encroachment and the like (to (over)compensate the 'terrorists' higher birthrates? Or to work on/with the underlying drive to drive the looked down upon brother/neighbour out?). He tries to blame europe for zionism and would have implicitly preferred the jews to continue displaying their talents in a less out in the open, more diffuse and 'customary' way I guess. His attempts to discourage regarding israel as a country of saints bycause of all their hard won privilege, diligent cultivation of talent and power despite the hardship doesn't mention the mirror image of such argument, namely that they might have provoked opponents into some sort of nastiness they can (thereafter feel justified to) trump. I have made another attempt to entertain the traditional line up in front of the anne frank house: ladies and gentlemen you are here to learn about a story of hiding, hidden jewry and hardship but I would like to show you a new side of the davidstar. picture one of which the point are connected. now turn the flat version into a 3 D figure and try to look through it. What do you see? A double pyramid and this hints at the most valuable clue to the history of jewry: their is always an inverse hidden side to it (if not many). FREE PALESTINE, rebuild palipolis. --------------------------- Rothbard on demagoguery -- In Defense of Demagogues (english) Murray Rothbard 12:50pm Sun Apr 28 '02 (Modified on 8:03pm Sun Apr 28 '02) article#176894 . This short manuscript is dated 1954. It has never before been published. For many years now, demagogues have been in great disfavor. They are not sober, they are not respectable, they are not "gentlemen." And yet there is a great and growing need for their services. What, exactly, have been the charges leveled against the demagogues? They are roughly three in number. In the first place, they are disruptive forces in the body politic. They stir things up. Second, they supposedly fail to play the game in appealing to the base emotions, rather than to cool reason. From this stems the third charge: that they appeal to the unwashed masses with emotional, extreme, and, therefore, unsound views. Add to this the vice of ungentlemanly enthusiasm, and we have about catalogued the sins of the species demagogue. The charge of emotionalism is surely an irrelevant one. The problem of an ideology is not whether it is put forth in an emotional,a matter-of-fact, or a dull manner. The question is whether or not the ideology is correct. Almost always, the demagogue is a man who finds that his ideas are held by only a small minority of people, a minority that is apt to be particularly small among the sober and respectable. Convinced of the truth and the importance of his ideas, he sees that the heavy weight of public opinion, and particularly of the respectable molders of this opinion, is either hostile or indifferent to this truth. Is it any wonder that such a situation will make a man emotional? All demagogues are ideological nonconformists and therefore are bound to be emotional about the general and respectable rejection of what they consider to be vital truth. But not all ideological nonconformists become demagogues. The difference is that the demagogue possesses that quality of mass attraction that permits him to use emotion to stir up the masses. In going to the masses, he is going over the heads of the respectable intellectuals who ordinarily guide mass opinion. It is this electric, short-cut appeal direct to the masses that gives the demagogue his vital significance and that makes him such a menace to the dominant orthodoxy. The demagogue is frequently accused by his enemies of being an insincere opportunist, a man who cynically uses certain ideas and emotions in order to gain popularity and power. It is almost impossible, however, to judge a person's motives, particularly in political life, unless one is a close friend. We have seen that the sincere demagogue is very likely to be emotional himself, while stirring others to emotion. Finally, if a man is really an opportunist, the easiest way to acclaim and power is to play ball with the ruling orthodoxy, and not the opposite. The way of the demagogue is the riskiest and has the least chance of success. It is the fashionable belief that an idea is wrong in proportion to its "extremism" and right in proportion as it is a chaotic muddle of contradictory doctrines. To the professional middle-of-the-roader, a species that is always found in abundance, the demagogue invariably comes as a nasty shock. For it is one of the most admirable qualities of the demagogue that he forces men to think, some for the first time in their lives. Out of the muddle of current ideas, both fashionable and unfashionable, he extracts some and pushes them to their logical conclusions, i.e. "to extremes." He thereby forces people either to reject their loosely held views as unsound, or to find them sound and to pursue them to their logical consequences. Far from being an irrational force, then, the silliest of demagogues is a great servant of Reason, even when he is mostly in the wrong. A typical example is the inflationist demagogue: the "monetary crank." The vast majority of respectable economists have always scoffed at the crank without realizing that they are not really able to answer his arguments. For what the crank has done is to take the inflationism that lies at the core of fashionable economics and push it to its logical conclusion. He asks; "If it is good to have an inflation of money of 10 percent per year, why isn't at still better to double the money supply every year?" Only a few economists have realized that in order to answer the crank reasonably instead of by ridicule, it is necessary to purge fashionable economics of its inflationist foundations. Demagogues probably first fell into disrepute in the 19th century, when most of them were socialists. But their conservative opposition, as is typical of conservatives in every age, never came to grips with the logic of the demagogues' position. Instead, they contented themselves with attacking the emotionalism and extremism of the upstarts. Their logic unassailed, the socialist demagogues triumphed, as argument always will conquer pure prejudice in the long run. For it seemed as if the socialists had reason on their side. Now socialism is the fashionable and respectable ideology. The old passionate arguments of the soap box have become the tired cliches of the cocktail party and the classroom. Any demagogy, any disruption of the apple cart, would almost certainly come from the individualist opposition. Furthermore, the State is now in command, and whenever this conditions prevails, the State is anxious to prevent disruption and ideological turmoil. In their wake, demagogues would bring "disunity," and people might be stirred to think for themselves instead of falling into a universal goose-step behind their anointed leaders. Furthermore, individualist demagogues would be more dangerous than ever, because they could now be equipped with rational arguments to refute the socialist cliches. The respectable statist Left, then, fears and hates the demagogue, and more than ever before, he is the object of attack. It is true that, in the long run, we will never be free until the intellectuals--the natural molders of public opinions--have been converted to the side of freedom. In the short run, however, the only route to liberty is by an appeal to the masses over the heads of the State and its intellectual bodyguard. And this appeal can be made most effectively by the demagogue--the rough, unpolished man of the people, who can present the truth in simple, effective, yes emotional, language. The intellectuals see this clearly, and this is why they constantly attack every indication of libertarian demagoguery as part of a "rising tide of anti-intellectualism." Of course, it is not anti-intellectualism; it is the saving of mankind from those intellectuals who have betrayed the intellect itself. www.b.150m.com/ ========== interesting (english) Sigmund 8:03pm Sun Apr 28 '02 comment#176967 very interesting -------------------------------------- Raymond on 9/11: Decentralism Against Terrorism ----- (I wrote this on September 11th, 2001, hours after learning that the World Trade Center had been destroyed, with thousands of lives lost, by terrorists who hijacked two jetliners using carpet knives.) Some friends have asked me to step outside my normal role as a technology evangelist today, to point out in public that a political panic reaction to the 9/11 terrorist attack could do a great deal more damage than the attack itself. Today will not have been a victory for terrorism unless we make it one. If we reward in any way the Palestinians who are now celebrating this hideous crime in the streets of the West Bank, that wil have been a victory for terrorism. If we accept "anti-terrorism" measures that do further damage to our Constitutional freedoms, that will have been a victory for terrorism. But if we learn the right lessons, if we make policies that preserve freedom and offer terrorists no result but a rapid and futile death, that will have been a victory for the rest of us. We have learned today that airport security is not the answer. At least four separate terror teams were able to sail right past all the elaborate obstacles -- the demand for IDs, the metal detectors, the video cameras, the X-ray machines, the gunpowder sniffers, the gate agents and security people trained to spot terrorists by profile. There have been no reports that any other terror units were successfully prevented from achieving their objectives by these measures. In fact, the early evidence is that all these police-state-like impositions on freedom were exactly useless -- and in the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center lies the proof of their failure. We have learned today that increased surveillance is not the answer. The FBI's "Carnivore" tap on the U.S.'s Internet service providers didn't spot or prevent this disaster; nor did the NSA's illegal Echelon wiretaps on international telecommunications. Video monitoring of public areas could have accomplished exactly nothing against terrorists taking even elementary concealment measures. If we could somehow extend airport-level security to the entire U.S., it would be just as useless against any determined and even marginally competent enemy. We have learned today that trying to keep civilian weapons out of airplanes and other areas vulnerable to terrorist attack is not the answer either -- indeed, it is arguable that the lawmakers who disarmed all the non-terrorists on those four airplanes, leaving them no chance to stop the hijackers, bear part of the moral responsibility for this catastrophe. I expect that in the next few months, far too many politicians and pundits will press for draconian "anti-terrorist" laws and regulations. Those who do so will be, whether intentionally or not, cooperating with the terrorists in their attempt to destroy our way of life -- and we should all remember that fact come election time. As an Internet technologist, I have learned that distributed problems require distributed solutions -- that centralization of power, the first resort of politicians who feed on crisis, is actually worse than useless, because centralizers regard the more effective coping strategies as threats and act to thwart them. Perhaps it is too much to hope that we will respond to this shattering tragedy as well as the Israelis, who have a long history of preventing similar atrocities by encouraging their civilians to carry concealed weapons and to shoot back at criminals and terrorists. But it is in that policy of a distributed response to a distributed threat, with every single citizen taking personal responsibility for the defense of life and freedom, that our best hope for preventing recurrences of today's mass murders almost certainly lies. If we learn that lesson, perhaps today's deaths will not have been in vain. --------------------- The Biology of Promiscuity Why do human beings screw around when it complicates our lives so much? Why do we preach fidelity at each other and then, so often, practice adultery? The cheap and obvious answer, "because it feels too good to stop" isn't a good one, as it turns out. Evolutionary biology teaches us that humans being, like other animals, are adaptive machines; "feels good" is simply instinct's way to steer us towards behaviors that were on average successful for our ancestors. So that answer simply sets up another question: why has our species history favored behavior that is (as the agony columns, bitter ballads, tragic plays and veneral-disease statistics inform us) often destructive to all parties involved? This question has extra point for humans because human sex and childbirth are risky business compared to that of most of our near relatives. Human infants have huge heads, enough to make giving birth a chancy matter -- and even so, the period during which they remain dependent on nurturing is astonishingly long and requires a lot of parental investment. If we were redesigning humans to cope with the high investment requirement, one obvious way would be to rewire our instincts such that we pair-bond exclusively for life. It's certainly possible to imagine an evolved variant of humanity in which "infidelity" is never an issue because mated pairs imprint on each other so specifically that nobody else is sexually interesting. Some birds are like this. So why aren't we like this? Why haven't promiscuity and adultery been selected out? What adaptive function do they serve that balances out the risk to offspring from unstable matings? The route to an answer lies in remembering that evolutionary selection is not a benign planner that tries to maximize group survival but rather a blind competition between individual genetic lines. We need to look more closely at the conflicting strategies used by competing players in the reproduction game. Male promiscuity has always been relatively easy to understand. While total parental investment needs to be pretty intense, men have a dramatically lower minimum energy and risk investment in children than women do; one index of the difference is that women not infrequently died in childbirth under pre-modern conditions. This means genetic lines propagating through us hairy male types have an optimum strategy that tilts us a little more towards "have lots of offspring and don't nurture much", while women tilt towards "have few offspring, work hard at making sure they survive to breed". This also explains why cultures that have not developed an explicit ideology of sexual equality invariably take female adultery much more seriously than male adultery. A man who fails to take a grave view of his mate's "unfaithfulness" is risking a much larger fraction of his reproductive potential than a woman who ignores her husband's philandering. Indeed, there is a sense in which a man who is always "faithful" is under-serving his genes -- and the behavioral tendency to do that will be selected against. His optimal strategy is to be promiscuous enough to pick up opportunities to have his reproductive freight partly paid by other men, while not being so "faithless" that potential mates will consider him a bad risk (e.g. for running off with another woman and abandoning the kids). What nobody had a good theory for until the mid-1990s was why women cooperate in this behavior. Early sociobiological models of human sexual strategy predicted that women should grab the best provider they could attract and then bend heaven and earth to keep him faithful, because if he screwed around some of his effort would be likely to be directed towards providing for children by other women. In these theories, female abstinence before marriage and fidelity during it was modeled as a trade offered men to keep them faithful in turn; an easy trade, because nobody had noticed any evolutionary incentives for women to cheat on the contract. In retrospect, the resemblence of the female behavior predicted by these models to conventional moral prescriptions should have raised suspicions about the models themselves -- because they failed to predict the actual pervasiveness of female promiscuity and adultery even in observable behavior, let alone concealed. Start with a simple one: If the trade-your-fidelity-for-his strategy were really a selective optimum, singles bars wouldn't exist, because genotypes producing women with singles-bar behavior would have been selected out long ago. But there's an even bigger whammy... Actual paternity/maternity-marker studies in urban populations done under guarantees that one's spouse and others won't see the results have found that the percentage of adulterous children born to married women with ready access to other men can be startlingly high, often in the 25% to 45% range. In most cases, the father has no idea and the mother, in the nature of things, was unsure before the assay. These statistics cry out for explanation -- and it turns out women do have an evolutionary incentive to screw around. The light began to dawn during studies of chimpanzee populations. Female chimps who spurn low-status bachelor males from their own band are much more willing to have sex with low-status bachelor males from other bands. That turned out to be the critical clue. There may be other incentives we don't understand, but it turns out that women genetically "want" both to keep an alpha male faithful and to capture maximum genetic variation in their offspring. Maximum genetic variation increases the chance that some offspring will survive the vicissitudes of rapidly-changing environmental stresses, of which a notably important one is co-evolving parasites and pathogens. Assume Jane can keep Tarzan around and raise four children. Her best strategy isn't to have all four by Tarzan -- it's to have three by Tarzan and one by some romantic stranger, a bachelor male from another pack. As long as Tarzan doesn't catch them at it, the genes conditioning Jane's sexual strategy get 50% of the reproductive payoff regardless of who the biological father is. If the stranger is a fitter male than the best mate she could keep faithful, so much the better. Her kids will win. And this isn't just a human strategy either. Similar behavior has been observed in other species with high parental investment, notably among birds. So. The variation effect predicts that mated women should have a fairly strong genetic incentive to sneak off into the bushes with romantic strangers -- that is, other men who are (a) from outside their local breeding population, and (b) are physically attractive or talented or intelligent, or (c) show other, socially-mediated signs of high fitness (such as wealth or fame). It may also explain why polyamorism is only now emerging as a social movement, after women's liberation, and why its most energetic partisans tend to be women. Our instincts don't know about contraceptive intervention; from our genes' point of view sexual access is equivalent to reproductive use. As our instincts see it, polyamory (the ideology of open marriage) enables married women to have children with bachelor males without risking losing their husband's providership for any children. Men gain less from the change, because they trade away a claim on exclusive use of their wives' scarce reproductive capacity for what may be only a marginal increase in access to other women (relative to the traditional system combining closed marriage and high rates of covert adultery). This model may not please prudes and Victorians very much, but at least it explains her cheatin' heart as well as his. (Thanks to Gale Pedowitz for the email discussion that stimulated this essay.) In The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism, Steven W. Gangestad and Jeffry A. Simpson have explored some similar themes, focusing on within-sex variation in mating strategies and the idea that there may be tradeoffs between fitness-to-mate and willingness-to-nurture signals. who knows Rob 9:35am Fri Apr 26 '02 comment#176417 U know - who knows! At the end of the USSR everything was also perfect and great. They fulfilled every plan they made - that is at least what they told themselves and the world. A few days later and: BAM! I have no doubt that the US administration is able and willing to falsify every statistic they like to and to lie to the people until their last day. Therefore: I don't buy the numbers. you mean... (english) blitzen 11:26am Fri Apr 26 '02 comment#176446 ...economic success for the U.S. doesn't meet with your particular ideology, so you reject the facts? ============= A better gauge (english) SVA 11:29am Fri Apr 26 '02 comment#176448 Better more honest gauges of the economy would be: 1. How much money are corps spending on marketing and advertisment, R&D, and expansion. 2. The current national unemployment rate, broken down by region. Corps tend to cut back on spending, if they project negative net profits for the short-term. Short-term normally being 2-4 quarters. SVA =========== the better half covers for U-S-Lackers (english) piet 1:03pm Fri Apr 26 '02 comment#176474 that be the 'defense' industries, always the 'gangmaker' as a weird cyclesport expression has it. A very fascinating one to us kids having had to peddle to school against headwind and being very happy to find a moped slow enough to keep up with. Wouldn't you know it, they (belgians and ditch foke turn this into the type sport done in stadiums with leaning hardwood sides. America has had that famous skater sprinter pal widthda huuuuuuuuuge thighs introduce ittoyouall no? Now, please see that they (armamental cases) are restrained, put to shame, . . . why not literally lose their balls. . . . hey that's an idea, let's envision a future where incurably selfish types suffer that fate (after ample fair warning) by the age of, say 16 (should be an increasingly deminishing percentage by the time that goes into full effect but for now (this godawful spooky emergency), let's see if we can get the housewives of arms and army industry related professions to cut the balls off of their mates all at the same time as if it were a loonymoon pagan todo in about a . well . . cut'm some ssslick ssslack. lessssay .. . before this quarternary timelapse snaps shut (or so); sicker, seep and drop this whole item on a flyer in the base male base box . . . errr. . .forum ... list . . .aaaeeeh, how do we get a hold of these ultra insecure brutality condoning females anyway. I am at a loss . .. aren't you? Ps: learn dutch today (along with aforementioned irresolvably oppolaridiculizations) via an excellent book: Finnegan's wake in bilingual edition for only 70 pleuro If we can't fight fairly clever, nor clever fairly we should reduce fightin to one on one fair and knowbody rig the ragridden jury rule ok? poetpiet.tripod.com/Indymediasamples.htm ========== The gdp rising does not mean economic upturn (english) Steven James Blake 1:12pm Fri Apr 26 '02 steveb@nspi-inc.com comment#176478 This is trickle down economics. this up turn is mainly in the defense industry. which in real dollars and jobs means nothing to average americans. the real measuring stick of economic prosperity is what the average american is making and how many have full time jobs with money in the bank. and these numbers suck. we are heading for a world wide war. and our defense industry is being preped to build the war machines we need to support it. in addition with all of the recent tax breaks for corperations, not much of this money will be returned to us. some of it will return from the various workers who pay taxes. most of it is moved "off-shore". See you in the new american "STATE" Hope you like the new non immigration service. Seige Heil. brush up on your german boys and girls. sjb =========== brush up on your crush up rather, friend(s) (english) piet 1:35pm Fri Apr 26 '02 comment#176482 I'll let you have a sample free from that impressive(ly priced) tome. Today's NRC: born for lorn in lore of love to live and wife by wile and rile by rule of ruse gelegd in wiegen om te liegen van lijven als wijven die wijlen en willen op wallen na lallen met ballen I'll buy it. Some day over@@@@@@he mainflow stop pestering genteelasses and my ready to rumble for better crumble minkin ya cowards behind numbers and even less playcent ammoperdition ya funks ya flukes ya losers of love. ========= Burn, burn, that oil! (english) J.I. 3:09pm Fri Apr 26 '02 comment#176499 The faster, the better, baby! http://www.fromthewilderness.com http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=176934 arts scandal in montreal??? otl.20m.com 176892 Nazi (Sudilkov) zionist (Jenin) comparison; last commenter alledges the nazi uniforms were designed by Hugo Boss. ----------------------------------------- The Circus Midget and the Fossilized Dinosaur Turd -or- "What up with that software industry?" A Treatise on Free Software Development. With apologies to Eric S. Raymond. ---- By Martin Hock (oxymoron@bigsky.net) Copyright 1998. This is a parody. It is completely fictitious. I assume no liability. Please don't hurt me. Yes, there's an actual point to this. I went down to the Ethnic Quarter of the Montanan "city" I live in today, which normally consists of approximately three black people. Today, however, was different. Not only were there the normal three black people, but there were a couple of weird Europeans who had apparently gotten lost. On my way into the Cheap Legal Drugs Mart, I happened to overhear their conversation, which went approximately as follows: "You looka at the state ofa the software industry today, my frien, anda what do you see? You see a biga ball of the shit. That'sa what you see." The other guy didn't say anything, probably because he was too busy staring at a woman across the street. Still, it got me thinking. What up with that software industry, anyway? As I went home that night, I couldn't shake the image of the slobbering man from my mind. While I watched for the umpteenth time the Juiceman Juicer infomercial formed by a beam of electrons refreshing half the screen 60 times a second, I suddenly realized that I could make money off this concept if I went around the country making speeches about what up with that software industry. I looked at the room around me. Filled with empty beer bottles and crinkled pornography magazines dating back to the late 1970's, I realized that sinking all of my money into the simple pleasures in life brought me all the satisfaction that I ever needed. Oh, right, the software part. Yeah, anyway, I thought back to when I was a little kid and how I used to love the circus. I didn't like the lions, or the stupid gymnasts, or the evil foul-smelling clowns. What I liked were the freaks. They helped remind me that there were people in the world who were even more pathetic than myself. I especially liked the midget. His bulging little eyes used to follow me around my room, his stained leotard a constant reminder to the audience that bladder control is essential to functioning as a part of society. I wondered what that little man got paid. Probably sub-minimum wage. My parents used to feel guilty when they walked by him. He had a little tattered hat next to him with a small card taped in front that simply stated, "Donations." It was always empty, except for a couple of pennies. "The horrible way that circus treats that poor man," my mother always said. "If he didn't like it, he'd work somewhere else," my father would respond gruffly, his mono-brow dipped downward in the middle. They never put anything in the hat. Other days, we used to go to the museum. There were many things to look at when we went there, but the ones I most liked to observe were the dinosaurs. They were so huge and fierce. They reminded me that there were forces in life stronger even than parents. The big, bony structures didn't really tell me much, though. What I really liked to look at were the turds. They were these gigantic, ellipsoid masses. I could almost touch them except for a thin pane of Plexiglas. The small brass plate called it "excrement" or "feces" but I knew better; it was a turd, nothing less. I would dream about going in there at night, shattering the barrier, and taking the mass home with me. It wasn't scatological or anything. What I really wanted to do was drop it on a car from the overpass. Those cinder blocks did hardly any damage on the hardtops and hitting the windshield was nearly impossible from such an angle. The midget was a lot like free software. True, getting into the carnival wasn't free, so I guess that's like the hardware. But you could look at the midget all you liked. You could take pictures of the midget and bring them home. He modified himself sometimes; you'd see a new stain every time the carnival came in town. He'd get a little older, a little uglier. Back when I was a kid it was really cool, but if I went there today to see the midget, I wouldn't even care. There are better things to do with one's afternoon than to go look at a midget. The fossilized dinosaur turd was a lot like commercial software. It was big and robust. It was well supported by a velveteen cushion. It even had a nice layer of security instated by the Plexiglas. I could have stolen it, but there would be potential repercussions. I know that I could have taken the midget with me, but what would be the point? Also, the turd has a lot of potential uses. You could drop it on a car, a bus, or even a pedestrian. That's what I call adaptive. I could have modified the midget by feeding him lead shot over a course of several weeks, but this would have been time consuming. Why waste your time when the turd is already there, ready for use? So that's what I have to say about software development. You wanna give me my money now? Oh, I suppose you'd expect a little more than that for ten grand. All right, I'll continue. Look at the midget. It is feeble and weak compared to the dinosaur turd. It is the undiscovered, the lost. There was no banner trumpeting the arrival of the midget in town. However, it is alive. The dinosaur turd, though famous and strong, is dead. It has little hope for improvement, as the dinosaur that laid it is long extinct. Young dinosaurs may have frolicked in the field of turds, but a thick dust cloud ended all hopes of survival. A dust cloud, you might notice, made up of thousands of tiny particles, all working in unison. The midget stands alone, hoping for support, but the dust particles, all driven by the jurassic breeze, manage to topple even the largest dinosaur. Only the small, well-protected creatures remain. So what of the dust? Ah, it is the proletariat rebellion, waiting to happen, to conquer the bourgeois beast! It is inevitable, but we can bring it on ourselves if we work hard enough. We must employ thousands of workers at equal wages to create a giant fan fit for the ages. Then, we make a solar-powered generator, which allows for the falling away of the state since we won't have to turn the crank ourselves. Then, we just sit back and relax as the winds blow the dust and blissful anarchy sets in. But what of the tiny creatures? Ah, these are the seeds of a new generation! These will grow up one day to form factions, which can only be prevented from taking over the government if we implement plenty of checks and balances... Oh, I'm done now? I get the check already? But I have another nine and a half hours... ------------ Fame? Ego? Oversimplification! (I originally wrote this 14 July 1998 in response to a thread on Slashdot.) Many messages appearing on Slashdot in the last couple of days have made me wince pretty hard...and consider whether, in fact, I was really wise to try to haul the social dynamics of hackerdom out into the light. What's bothering me the most is some of the people who have gotten enthusiastic about the analysis I presented in The Cathedral and the Bazaar (CatB) and Homesteading The Noosphere (HtN), but, in their enthusiasm, are arguing something like a bad parody of it. I don't use the word `fame' at all in either paper, except once in reporting on Fare Rideau's critique of an early version of HtN. (The reference has since been removed; Fare reworded his critique after reading this essay.) This is not an accident. `Fame' is a vulgar, brassy, and shallow thing when compared to the earned and considered esteem of one's peers. Believe me on this, because I've had quite a bit of both (especially lately) and I know which one feels like a cheap high with a bad hangover and which one is food for the soul. And so, I think, do most hackers. It oversimplifies my work and (much more importantly) insults the people and culture my work describes to imply that most hackers have some inner fantasy of tickertape parades, talk-show appearances, and hordes of adoring groupies. But that is exactly what the word `fame' connotes -- and the way people have been flinging it around in disagreement and (worse) agreement with me suggests that a lot of them need to think carefully about the difference between `fame' and `peer repute'. That difference is crucial to understanding our culture. Because `fame' is a mob phenomenon, essentially an emotional response. It's irrational and self-reinforcing. There are people who are famous for being famous. The photographer who took the pictures for my People interview back in 1996 during my pre-CatB first fifteen minutes of fame called them `face people'. Often, there's nothing behind the face. Peer repute, on the other hand, is a much subtler and solider thing. The earned and considered approbation of one's peers has to come from accomplishment, from productivity. Often those peers are few, and this becomes more true as one becomes more accomplished. Higher levels of it, unlike fame, become progressively harder to earn because one's own standards for who is a fit peer keep rising. Linus said "I am your God" at Linux Expo on stage and brought down the house. The line was ironic and hilarious precisely because what he has is not `fame', not uncritical adoration, not the masses gazing up at him in awe, but rather a rational peer response to real achievement. He knows that; and he knows that we know it. I thought most of us did, anyway. The last day or two of Slashdot makes me wonder. So, in case it needs saying again, don't confuse `peer repute' with `fame'. And if you've interpreted CatB and HtN as assertions that `fame' is the only significant motive for hackers, think again. Reality, as usual, is more subtle and complex than that.