my two cents

But how can we share, without violence or threats?

It is quite simple. We stop teaching our children comparative and superlative moral standards. We stop teaching people that their worth is only evident when compared to another. Sure, parts of subsequent generations will be slaughtered along the way to progress, but no greater numbers will die arbitrarily by such a process than in the same period of constant, hopeless attrition. Yet with a growing body politic of trusting pacifists, two things will occur to aggressors: 1) that it just isn't fun to arbitrarily kill people who aren't scared or fighting back; 2) that there's suddenly a whole lot more pacifists than wardogs.

People would rather obey cruelty than challenge it. Why? Because, "That's the way it is." There is no excuse, once we are capable of recognizing arbitrary cruelty, for perpetuating, exploiting, or endorsing such madness. That nature or God demands it is an excuse for cruelty posited only by the stupid. It is much easier to act blindly than to consider what one is actually doing. We humans challenge many "natural" conditions of the Universe; why is it that cruelty is the one "natural" thing that we accept wholeheartedly? Does it really feel that good to treat people poorly? Is the greater part of society actually so ill-prepared for the living experience that they think hatefulness is the point?

Yet right out of the gate, we teach children moral superiority, and right and wrong as an arbitrary function.

* Because I say so. (The dumbest authoritarian excuse ever given.)
* Because God says so. (This is a calculation that reduces infinitessimally the stupidity of such arbitrary declarations; at least here the aggressor is deflecting the sense of blame to God; Hey, don't blame me, idiot; it's God's mysterious way!)
* Because the neighbors will think ....
* I didn't work all these years so you could ....
* Because I'm your father/mother (circle one) and deserve respect ....

I've been trying to recall my first black/white racism notions, and it's quite hard. After getting beat up on the playground repeatedly for having slanted eyes, it might well have blown right by me that I was supposed to be comprehending a "new" concept being presented to me when issues of black and white were put before me. I also recall being impressed at various points in my life by arguments supporting white supremacy and slavery; deeper recollection advises me that the fault of all such statements lies in their narrow view of what's important. Surely if the color of one's skin is important, such issues will present themselves. Like the other day when Ricky, one cubicle over, said of our Fat Tuesday killing, "That's what happens when a lot of Them get together." (Them refers to people with dark skin in this case; it has also stood for people of Asian descent, who are apparently all unnecessarily paranoid; I believe it has also, in Ricky's time at my office, referred to people of indigenous American descent; after all, They are all just lazy and drunk.)

But where does one learn to base all their future perspectives on such a dichotomy as Us vs. Them? My cat does dumb stuff a couple of times before figuring it out; in this case, I would assert that generations upon generations of children brought up to fight wars and be proud of it generally support the idea that such stupidity as we find in the cruel or hateful can be maintained with the simple introduction of the idea that one person (the self) is so much more important (and therefore moral, and therefore deserving) than another (any other).

The Lutherans taught us, "God first, others second, self third," though I'm quite sure this concept existed before my generation of Lutheran. I do not believe this idea exists anymore among Americans. One only thinks of others when the newspaper, ballot box, or other social mass-malady incites them to; furthermore, it would seem that a loud voice of many has shouted God to the appropriate forefront, and made God the mechanism justifying considerations of the self first. Of course, the humble believers are left tongue-tied; either to betray God by denouncing a fellow believer, or to betray God by not. It's generally a lose-lose situation that can only be solved by a well-placed bolt of lightning from the heavens.

But the idea of comparative existence permeates the American culture; we are only in comparison to others. In Oregon, it's "forcing" a lifestyle on someone if the law doesn't make that lifestyle illegal. How is it that every law designed to help the "little guy" results first in an increase of wealth among the most wealthy, a decrease of wealth among the least wealthy? It isn't just, in this case, that one is wealthy, but that one must be just so wealthy in comparison to another person. (The $100,000 concept ... it's in another post, I'll get back to that if we need to.)

But it's rambling, and I've just been ordered to clear the office for the sake of ... well, when HR's leaving ....

But the first thing we need to do is to eliminate this silly need to establish comparative morality, birthright, and other stupid ideas that lead people to behave a priori that they are inherently more deserving than another.

Tiassa :cool:
fantasticly awsome post tiassa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
groove on

and when asking the person who earns 500,000 $ a year
"is not, teaching your children the most important thing to you"?
yes they would reply (mostly, althought they would miss the double negative in the question :D)
and what should that teacher recieve for there task
"the plesure in the job is why they do it" the rich person would say-
"dont pay them 'big money' or they will only teach for the money"!
ha hahha ha ah ah ah ahahahahahah ah ah ah ah a ah
and so be the mentality of the rich

*next step-
why not pay teachers the same as politicians
do you not value your children as much?

something to think about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
groove on all

Hmm.. I wonder if it is because the politicians determine their own salaries, while teacher salaries are determined by a bunch of moronic beauracrats who are on the school board...????

Also, as someone who is currently in the United States public school system, let me say that most teachers dont teach because they love teaching, or genuinely care about anything. They teach because they are immature dicks that cant do anything well, and they know that if they become teachers they have great job security.
yo corp
i get ya point
also gives a certain level of power
i do find it amazing how teaching used to have so much
honour to the trade and now its seen as something that would be an alternative to a previouse goal for some people.
i live in new zealand, and so... i heard we used to lead the world in teaching pre school
usa teachers used to come hear to learn
just a few months ago i heard that they are now coming
to teach
groove on
Re: my two cents

Originally posted by tiassa

Sure, parts of subsequent generations will be slaughtered along the way to progress, but no greater numbers will die arbitrarily by such a process than in the same period of constant, hopeless attrition. Yet with a growing body politic of trusting pacifists, two things will occur to aggressors: 1) that it just isn't fun to arbitrarily kill people who aren't scared or fighting back; 2) that there's suddenly a whole lot more pacifists than wardogs.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I am a pacifist and would go out of my way or even stand to lose something of mine, in order to avoid hurting some other person, but I'm afraid that I just cannot agree with the above sentiments.

1) I think that the vast majority of people who are sent into war, would rather not have to and I'm sure that most of them don't really think it's fun to kill people.
If they do happen to, it's because they may have a genuine grievance (if their country had been invaded, raped and pillaged etc and they'd lost family, friends, homes and businesses due to the aggressor for example) or it's because they happen to live in a fundamentalistic religious or racist country, which has indoctrinated its society into hating another.

2) A whole lot more pacifists would just mean a whole lot more sheep ready for slaughter. I mean, have you heard of, 'taking candy from a baby'? Well, it's a maxim and I'm sure every aggressors dream. For them, it would be great fun to take the pacifists candy, while meeting no opposition. And in this case, the aggressor can be your own government, your boss, your church, you name it.

Sure, Jesus was supposed to have said, 'turn the other cheek' and 'love your enemy', but is this something that 'Christian' governments have ever done? Or is it more likely the complete opposite?
Ghandi also preached non-violence but whatever he achieved by his stance was only very short lived; a bubble rising out of a steaming cauldron.

If the Palestinians stopped their attacks on the Israelis, will the Israelis stop stealing their land and return the land already stolen?

Would Turkey ever even consider returning the land they stole from the Greek Cypriots (up to now they haven't), even with the knowledge that if they don't, they may never get to join the European Union, which they desperately want to? No, in fact they are now threatening that if Cyprus is allowed to join the EU then they will simply annexe the Northern part which they invaded, occupied, ethnically cleansed and filled with mainland Turks since 1974. The US btw, has been continually funding Turkey and supplying them with arms, (apparently) because of her very strategic position on the map and does nothing to right the wrong.
Would Turkey be so intransigent if Cyprus was as powerful and had the same friends as her? And if the Greek Cypriots pacifistically just said "Oh well, it's a shame we lost half our country. Let's forget about it and go drink some ouzo!" Would Cyprus ever be able to even contemplate the idea that one day she would be a whole democratic country again, if it wasn't for the (token) leverage of the UN resolutions in her favour and her 'guarantors' Britain and Greece?

Pacifism is a great ideal, perhaps it's right for some of the people, some of the time, in certain contexts, but it's probably something that actually goes against fundamental human nature; survival of the fittest and all that. Which leads me to another concept, which will need a new thread. And that is:
1) that racism is indeed fundamental to human nature and that it is a ploy for survival.
2) Probably everybody, is, or has been, racist or ethnically prejudiced at some point.
I'll call it, 'Is racism natural?'
Re: Re: my two cents

I would like to respond to the following:

Originally posted by tablariddim

1) A whole lot more pacifists would just mean a whole lot more sheep ready for slaughter.
2) that racism is indeed fundamental to human nature and that it is a ploy for survival.
3) Probably everybody, is, or has been, racist or ethnically prejudiced at some point.

1) At this time & place, unfortunately, this would be so true, that to disarm our military would be to invite all the wolves. Let's wait for more Star Trek-like people & countries first.
2) I think this is learned behavior, probably tied to our bonding response to our mothers & those familiar to us. Just look at how quickly infants cry, when in the arms of others.
3) If you grew up in a racially mixed neighborhood, would that still be true? As a teen I had black, Asian, white & of course, Mexican friends, but I don't remember racism raising it's ugly head until at 14 some friends joined gangs, others became preppies, jocks, stoners and I was just an average joe, so everybody went their way.

Live long and prosper!
and so hence the misguided search for self actualisation
perverted by big business to promote a state of extreem consumerism tightly controlled by police who have access to all information they desire.
thus is the moment
with pockets of ressistance who are labeld the conspiracy theorists and in the usa as communists.
why can only so few see the many issues that dictate reality of the mass perverted thinking person....
groove on all
Just a few thoughts on.............

Originally posted by ripleofdeath

1) tightly controlled by police who have access to all information they desire.

2)with pockets of ressistance who are labeld the conspiracy theorists and in the usa as communists.

3) that dictate reality of the mass perverted thinking person....

1) police may not have all the info, otherwise they would catch & nail all the criminals. Now the CIA or some other secret agency might really do this, sort of like "Enemy of the State"

2) it's good to see all sides of an issue, that's were thinking comes in I hope?!

3) our worldview may be 'colored' so much by programming, that we may be blind or brainwashed to certain things?? I know that we in the West live in a house of cards; the Stock Market, real estate prices, comodities, banks, TV & movies, fashion, etc.
too true
more specificaly i mean(in regard to the police)
is that they respond to interference in busness father than personel situations...
like... i.e. someone who steals 10 million dollars from a company #(note without coming into contact with a person such like fraud)
will get a longer jail sentence than someone who goes out and rapes an old lady and then her granchildren and then beats the whole lot of them.#EGSADURATION...i hope!!!
but it seems all too often this senario is the rule of law.
yes i think it is the nsa and cia type people but they are more like parking wardens compared to the real shakers and movers!
if only they had some honour and humility and compasion and...
ill stop it there i could list the dictionary.
groove on all :)
Tab, a couple half-pennies

1) I think that the vast majority of people who are sent into war, would rather not have to and I'm sure that most of them don't really think it's fun to kill people.
True. But at some point, someone has to make the decision that this is worth it. In the case of an American president calling troops to war, there's a host of interests begging at his ear, and those, too, must choose to use their privilege of the president's ear to advocate human slaughter. People must make wars. As a nation disrespects its government's reasons for warfare, then warefare will become less frequent. This process can snowball by determined effort the same way a small incident can bring about war through willful idiocy. What just happened in the Palestine? At some point, the warriors have got to realize that it just isn't working. Even religious blinders cannot conquer the will for peace; when the world stands opposed to war, nobody will go to church in order to learn to kill.
2) A whole lot more pacifists would just mean a whole lot more sheep ready for slaughter. I mean, have you heard of, 'taking candy from a baby'?
Hmm. Is there any one person you would die for?

From there I would suggest the idea that some people will give their lives in the faith that it's the right thing to do for now and the future. Should the police state I fear ever become the instrument of my passing, I can guarantee you that it is because I will not fear a bullet. On the one hand, there are people whose wellbeing I would defend while accepting the possibility of killing the aggressor. To the other, I have no conscious will to kill in order to save my own life. Killing is pointless enough to me that I'll have none of it on my own behalf.

To extend that to a collective: If it came right down to it and the armies of any nation dared march through my streets to enforce the law, I will be damned if I will permit that. Shoot me. I don't care. You don't do this here as long as I live to stop you. (This is, of course, easy to say if you live in a nation whose greatest threat is itself. I realize this.) But I will not reduce myself to the level of killing a human being. Of course, I hate guns so it's not like I can "wing 'em" on purpose, so shooting to wound is a happy coincidence. But that's the point: I might not kill even for others. I'd rather never find out.

Therein lies a tragedy of an event like Tiananmen Square: nobody cares anymore. A whole lot of people died for something many of my acquaintances cuss out every day: simple freedom. That disturbs me. Yet nobody really seems to care. The more care and compassion each person gives, the less lambs we will have to slaughter to reach that point from here.

If humanity in general gave half the effort to just getting on with life that it gives to destroying itself ....
Sure, Jesus was supposed to have said, 'turn the other cheek' and 'love your enemy', but is this something that 'Christian' governments have ever done?
I don't wish to sound flippant, but that's kind of the point. Such is the result of assuming the worst of people: they give it to you. You'd think Christianity would figure that out, but something about being born into sin ...
If the Palestinians stopped their attacks on the Israelis, will the Israelis stop stealing their land and return the land already stolen?

I don't mean to sound flat or terse, but I happen to live in a stolen country, and there's really no sign of us giving it back. I tend to think of the British in Ireland, too ... hell, the British lost, and they still won't give it back. Americans had the good fortune, at the stage of their victory, to have a massive ocean in the way of further meddling by the crown. But who are we to celebrate? The first 50 years of European contact destroyed a massive portion of the population, estimated as high as 95%, but to be honest, I can't presently locate that textbook to cite my source. Would it suffice to say, then, that the next years would find Americans doing their damnedest to finish the job?

My best advocacy to find a solution to the Cypriot issue is to give money to the Irish Republican Army. The sooner the British are off the island, the sooner the world will stop watching that sad tale play out. The sooner that happens, the sooner they can find a new crisis to micromanage, and to be honest, they're only watching the Northern Irish conflict at all because all of the other ones are either too ugly for TV ratings, or too "remote" (read, too complex and involving too small of territories for Americans to give a damn).

But consider that Pol Pot was arrested when he was an impoent geezer. That the world let Pinochet get away with it, and said nothing after he was done, until he was 82 years old and sick. But Americans have money in most human conflicts on this planet; for that I'm truly sorry. Our president dared remind us, speaking before the Texas legislative assembly, that we were "at peace with our international neighbors." Of course, we've also declared war on just about everyone inside our borders. It's kind of weird, though. You have to have dark skin, be gay, be a woman, or be on drugs for the war to really become a problem. And this is all about money, dominion, and strategy, too. I'm sorry our people don't care about certain conflicts, and I'm not using that as a pathetic but well-timed apology. Rather, we're not interested because we're soulless.
Pacifism is a great ideal, perhaps it's right for some of the people, some of the time, in certain contexts, but it's probably something that actually goes against fundamental human nature; survival of the fittest and all that.
Two possibilities that I will assert here: A) that peace is part of human evolution, and B) we humans are self-aware, and that sort of changes things, in my opinion. Just because it's how the bats and the wildabeest behave doesn't mean humans must necessarily be the same way. Standing before God, some faithful are capable of believing the exact opposite. To excuse oneself by the excuse of nature contradicts the reasons for society in the first place. I don't see what the point was: we climb out of the trees just to start throwing more crap at each other. What was the point, if we're still just acting out the same silly parts over and over again?

I'm giving thought to the racism question ...

Tiassa :cool:
Last edited:
Randolfo ... a few notes

1) Is anything that humans do, simple?
The basic functions of life are just that: basic. And therefore simple. Sure, we've got a lot of human friction taking place about simple decisions of whether to order out for pizza or Chinese food, but the simplest fact is that it is still humans engaging their environment in quest of food.

Thus, the idea is simple. Execution, I admit, is more complex; as a vegan. When we pare away the extraneous considerations, do you eat or not? I quote Lisa Simpson: There's enough slime here for everyone! Style, taste, and considerations of social comfort (I hear it's the place to go if you like chimichungas!) are the things that make basic living functions complex.

Something a little more challenging? Mating/adultery: Your simplest duty in all the Universe is to reproduce. Considerations of attraction, commitment, and comparative superiority (trophy wives) make the reproductive function more complex.

The challenge is to peel away the layers of excess and arbitrary greed associated with these functions.
2) I supervise a clerical unit in our local jail, and I hope that we all try to teach our kids to not do criminal acts or behavior. A lot of them come back so often, that it's literally a revolving door. We need to teach some sort of standards, how will we function as a society, if everyone does their own thing, if we are individualists foremost to the detriment of our communities?
That's why I wrote comparative and superlative moral standards. Laws are a convention of society; Anarchists have not escaped this conundrum yet. But moral standards arise from something more personal than civic convention. As a child, even I heard the admonition to not play with certain kids: You don't need friends like that. Friends like what? I never found out. It had something to do with moral perceptions, honesty, and the assumptions of a parent toward another person's child. In the end, what I learned as a child and then adult is that You don't need friends like that unless they sign your paycheck.

But more directly, why does a person need to avoid people "like that"? What qualifies as "like that"? Well, for some it's skin color, or the shape of the eyes. For others, it's how many parents live in the home with the child, and for still others it's the genders of those parents. It's often the religion of the parents, or the method of economic support. (I figured out when I was in high school that my parents wanted me surrounded by white-collar people; I graduated high school with a very poor notion of the morality of the working class.)

Recently, at my office, one of my coworkers commented on a tragedy in which a young man was struck in the head with a bottle and died during our Mardi Gras celebration. My coworker acknowledged that, "Well, that's what you expect when you get a bunch of them together." Them, in this case, refers to people with dark skin and whose descendancy originates in Africa. Where does an idea like this come from? Upon what basis can we establish that a group of people is more or less dangerous, more or less useful, more or less moral, or more or less anything based solely on their skin color?

Superlative and comparative morality are massive factors in the generational prolonging of civil fights such as we see in Israel or Northern Ireland. Superlative and comparative morality ensure a healthy roster for the KKK or OCA, or other such hate-oriented groups.

The idea that someone is better than the next for arbitrary reasons is what I would hope to move society past. When the Anarchists take care of the need for laws, though, somebody wake me--I'll be long to dust by then.

You noted: . Also, I’m not sure, but I would guess that you all would be uncomfortable if a drug pusher, neo-nazi, an armed militiaman or total gangster moved right next door? Well, in the case of militiaman or neo-nazi, the elimination of comparative and superlative morality would solve the problem over the course of generations. (cf--#4, which you have so casually brushed aside in favor of a, Well, would you ...? argument. The answer is that we fight for what is right until we can fight no more. Sheep is what religions make, via the encouragement of superlative morality.) Of the drug pusher ... well, that depends entirely on his business practices, doesn't it? Or am I to assume the superlative morality of those who don't sell controlled substances? (Here we enter considerations of the superlative morality of the law, and whether or not that morality is a product of its own, or inspired by the superlative morality taught to the many individuals comprising the state that declares the law.)
3) Hopefully, we have high enough self-esteem that we don’t need to bring anybody down, that we know that as individuals we count for something. I guess that only role models would be the exception that we could emulate; sports, science, politics & power.
My first question regarding self-esteem, and the necessity thereof, then, would be to wonder what we hope when a majority of the population operates from the a priori postulate that human beings are inherently bad people--e.g. born into sin? On the one hand, I fully advocate the assumption of responsibility of a role model; to the other, I ask what our role models inspire us to transcend? If we are constantly striving to transcend what we consider "normal", then is not "normal" something worth transcending in general? If the normal condition requires advancement modeled after those who came before us, what is it that prevents that "model" behavior from being the standard?

We are, I submit, imperfectly educated; I do not think this is particularly a controversial assumption. However, what degree of that imperfection is absolutely necessary remains an important question. For instance ... to hear it from Dr King apparently did me no good the first time, for I am an ardent supporter of Irish independence, inasmuch as a non-Irish-American can be. However, it was upon reading the reflections of John Hume (SDLP) when I came to understand a phrase of Dr King's. An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. Certes, this spells poorly for the Irish, as everyone knows that the British never apologize. But what is a victim of systematic oppression supposed to think? That inaction and complicity work best? Yet we might look to any number of people like me who are educated to believe that war is OK if you're the "good guys". The role model of a man who has been amid warring times, who has striven for peace, who has worked within the machinery that makes peace impossible: for him to say it, I have no idea why it set this time. Perhaps if I had been twenty-six during Dr King's day, American race issues would crumble beneath the same rhetoric, which was its intent. Yet it took a situation removed enough from me that I watched it academically (and therefore conceptually) to present me with a simple idea that transcends the whole of the nasty fight I'd been watching.

But our fundamental self-esteem is low: we our taught out of the gate that humans are evil and dark, that we are born into sin. As individuals, we often do not count for anything, and that's the problem. Our a priori reality describes us as being nothing, as being tools of God, servants and sheep (the sheep again). We achieve the way other animals do: by climbing over the destruction of another in the preservation of the self. In fact, self-esteem right now seems more centered in a person's ability to defeat another than it is to stand on their own two feet. And this is a large part of why I assert that we teach people that their worth is only evident when compared to another.
4) Would you willingly go to your death, if the ‘New Future Committee' decided that you were part of the problem? That you were to anti-this or that for the future. And this attrition you speak of, is that the starving, AIDS infected masses of the Third World? Should we withhold resources now? Since most of the Third World also has what many consider outmoded, backwards thinking societies and morals?
You ask as if I would allow myself to be led to execution. A million people in the streets would not be willingly. A thousand, or a hundred, would not be willingly. But what's the point of killing in the name of saving life? What's the point of war for peace?

Presently, yes, the attrition I speak of manifests itself in the form of the third world. I mean, I realize that someone's gotta pay for it, but we have individuals in this country who are worth more than entire nations. That the attrition comes in the form of starving children is only the choice of the so-called just ones of society, who presently lead it. Those who make the final decisions, and sign their names to the laws, are the ones who make those decisions. Those who write the checks get to have a say in it. You and I? We just vote, and hope the law- and check-signers get it straight.

However, it would be more direct to say that in order to effect any change, the willingly proactive masses must sacrifice themselves. A hundred-thousand in the street with cans and rocks and chanting and stick-waving, against an armored force of thousands content to lay into them with military force. The protesters will stand for right, the soldiers for the status quo. When the hour comes that the soldiers shoot, the people fighting back must know enough to take it, and martyr themselves; the bloodshed will stop before too long if nobody's fighting back: the world can't stand lambs at slaughter. But if the hundred-thousand let their mighty rage loose all over their military opponents, the world is shocked, and supports "civil order" and brute force. (An arbitrator in Seattle has ruled that the King County Sheriff's Department must reinstate a deputy fired after WTO when he A) stopped a car, asked the driver to roll down the window, and then peppered the two women inside, and B) was videotaped beating a medical worker tending to wounded in the street. "Combat circumstances" warrant this militarization of our police departments, apparently.)

But for change to come, the people must speak their voices. They must be prepared to play by the sucky rules that exist, and they must be ready to find a way to win among those rules. They can riot all they want; nobody's listening.
5) I would prefer informed and empowered pacifists, people that are not ‘trusting’ sheep.
Informed and empowered persons trust each other. It's like anything else: do you ever work on your car? Now, is the other guy leaning in your hood capable? Or do you constantly worry about whether or not he's going to botch your repair work? If everyone's educated in how to work on cars, and educated enough to know that the other guy is educated, then they can work on the cars in harmony, without having to double-check each other's work and seek out faults by which to demean one another by that uneducated method in which we raise our opinion of ourselves by finding fault in others. Think about when you go to war: Does the soldier next to you know what to do? Is everyone on the same plan? Funny--for all the sheep talk in the world, I never thought of those who wanted to do something better with the world than just follow the leaders down the hole would be considered sheep. I thought sheep were stupid, unassuming, and docile. You know, kind of like that religion with the shepherd and the flock? Where the sheep are never supposed to question the shepherd, just fear him?
6) I’m not sure that would have deterred Hitler, or Mao, since they had little value for humans, except as a means to an end.
Yes, and we live in an amazing age. I think that it may not have been possible to get over some of our social hang-ups without some sort of resolution. I mean, Hitler killed six-million people for the crime of being Jewish, and it seems that the uncreative, dead-eyed, obedient sheep of neo-nazidom don't find that a thorough enough job. Think about the (possible) headlines:

* 10 protesters shot in Seattle demonstration: Chief vows inquiry
* 100 hurt, 20 killed as riot police fire on crowd in DC
* Thousands killed in protest-suppression disaster: police firebomb Los Angeles
* Marijuana protesters killed in NYC; Mayor says, "It's not enough."

At what point will the masses wake up? When the people read the detail, and find that the dead were merely protesting--that the rioting didn't exist, or that it really was Because He Was Black--what happens then? Sure, we lose some to sacrifice, but I live in a town where the mayor's office routinely lies to the citizens during times of crisis or emergency. Not misinforms, mind you, but outright calculates a fat ol' lie. (E.g.--Informed: Seattle Police will not be using rubber or wooden bullets; we do not even have those tools available to us. Reality: The rubber and wooden bullets are in transit from Boise and we should be able to start shooting the hell out of people within the next two hours.)

Realizing that fighting fire with fire will no longer work, the people will take to the streets in an undeniable show of pacifism: Go around us, go over us, go under us. Kill us if you have to. But we are not moving until peace is upon us. Would you like a nearly-puerile example? Amazing Grace and Chuck. What happens if one day every child in America stops speaking until peace is achieved?

In the modern day, would we accept another Tianinmen? Would the living mass of the American people accept a repeat performance of such arbitrary idiocy against human dignity?

Watch an 80 year-old man stand down a column of tanks in China: this, uh ... sheep ... did not go willingly. And I, for one, shall always remember. Such a silly sentiment, eh? But it is such sentiments that people are so unwilling to experience that keeps them from effecting any useful change.
7) I hope you are right, I feel that the more we know other people that are different than us, the more cosmopolitan we will become, knowing that one of these days we will be one people, one planet.
I will leave this one on such a wish. I will only suggest that, while we all seem to know that on the one hand all people are different, and on the other, that all are the same--it is, I believe, education which will teach us what is what, and tell our consciences exactly what to do about it.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:
It is society itself that leads to self destruction. Even tribal groups will turn in upon themselves when resources become too low and the need arises to say "hey guys, I need this more than you because...".Resources and space. Though while these are key elements that lead to any social problems, the real problem is psychological of course. This is a capitalistic society;you work hard you receive rewards. Communism works ok for in theory but you still have those few who manipulate to take over for themselves to be the one who decides who gets what. does one become less selfish? How do you shape a human being into thinking of the group, for it is only in the reshaping of the human being individually that will change the world from power groups being in charge because they were the toughest and most manipulative.
I'm just as quilty as everyone else because I place my children before everyone else. I am unselfish with them, but selfish with everyone else to get for and take care of them. If I could trust to receive fully and equally for my contribution, I could probably give just as fully and equally because it wouldn't take from my children. That's as unselfish as I can be at this time.
hey jhon :)
one question inpart of that re motivation
do you aknoledge good and bad/benevolent vs evil ?
or do you lean to it as being a sickness?

groove on all
Several people have mentioned tribal organization as a possible answer, but how do you get millions to think as a tribal group? I have heard that several cultures have group mind-think, but that it's enforced by societal pressure. To paraphrase a Japanese saying, "The nail that sticks out, is hammered down", that is not the way I want to be coaxed into agreeing to do things for the greater good. I want to be convinced that we all will benefit; to maybe feel a little bit patriotic, fanatical (sports-type), zealot (religious), concerned (environmental), idealistic (utopian)
or brotherhood of man (egalitarian)???
Last edited by a moderator:
we all are tribal by our nature but strive to be the best in the tribe so therefor feel reduced in value from ill taught morals and ideals
i think the key is education
we cannot have a good anything without a good education and it hasnt happed yet
but even capitolism would work if people wernt self fish but that is seen as a envieble quality innthe current capitalistic world
the trueth is that sick people already control most of the resources so you have to kill them first!
timothy mc veagh had the rite idea but the wrong people :D
as if he was the one that did it :mad:
bloody freaks
how could a fertiliser bomb fit into a small wagon like that?
its all bulshit and he is just a bit of a sick person who was used like harvey lee oswald
when will people wake up?
that is the real prob!
its not the idea its the people pretending to help you!
groove on all :)

I'm not sure that violence ever solves problems, it leaves more victims & more people that want to exact revenge, ad infinum, until they just kill each other because they've always killed each other. Is that an answer? I hope not!!!
The people of Oklahoma probably can answer that better than I ever can.
As for all the rich controlling everything, they won't give up any power, control, because they have always kept a tight grip of power. Whether they are raised that way or brainwashed, doesn't matter, they react with force because that is the way they have always done things. And since people want money, the rich have others that will do their dirty work for them. From politicians, police, army, thugs, etc.. How we change ancient, ingrained ways of thinking is the whole idea of this thread, how do we make things better for all (or most) of our swirling little blue dot's population without resorting to violence? Can modern thinking beings reason things out or are we hopelessly bound to repeat everything? Just wondering?
hey all
yo randolfo... i agree with the sentiment but!....
do you think they will allow the change?
if they wont what then?

groove on all :)
Last edited:

So, is there anyway that people can come to an agreement before revolution or violence? Since how we view things, is really a mindgame, why can't we agree to work together for the betterment of all? Or is that wishful thinking?:confused:
the rich wont give in!
so what do you want to do?
sit back and let them continue to use the poor as slaves?

you gotta wonder when it will change?

but the fight is very big cos all is setup for the rich and the power crazzed!
so resistance is futile!
submit and be a slave!
take drugs and eat food that will make you stupid!
it hurts less that way :/

if you do what they want ... they win!
if you openly opose them they make you a criminal
and they use innocents as a defensive oklahoma thing
bloody stupid place to put a bomb and kill all those poor saps who think they were making a difference!
anyone who thinks that the level of control comes from that is being a little bit short sighted i think :/
now he's(tim mc v) dead he cant tell the trueth!!!!
kinda closes the circle!
like oswald!

maybeee.... one day.... they will be hit by lightning and change into nice people! :D
groove on all :)
Last edited: