Date: Fri Dec 30 03:42:41 2005
From: measl at mfn.org (J.A. Terranson)
Subject: [OT] Regarding Mr. Gilmore


Since the list appears to have gone on yet another holiday, I proffer
below a reply to the many schizophrenic rants recently posted by our
Resident Fascist and Associate Professor of Modern Bullshit, Paul Schmeil.

-- 
Yours,

J.A. Terranson
sysadmin@....org
0xBD4A95BF


'The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments
it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest
limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of
the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext
whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the
brink of destruction.'

St. George Tucker

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 21:36:59 -0600 (CST)
From: J.A. Terranson <measl@....org>
Reply-To: Antisocial <antisocial@....org>
To: Antisocial <antisocial@....org>
Subject: Re: [Antisocial] [dave@...ber.net: [IP] Fear destroys what Bin
    Laden could not] (fwd)


On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, bkfsec shared the Epiphany, thusly:

> The problem is the people who don't want to work things out and who
> simply want to obstruct because they can.  Obstructionism isn't
> worthless, unless it's meaningless.
>
> I make one exception to all of this: neo-conservatism.  You will hear me
> talk about the neo-conservative movement in relative absolutes.  The
> only reason for this is because the neo-con movement is a new movement
> that has a well-codified and concise set of beliefs.  Most people, I
> dare say, who identify themselves as neo-conservative, aren't at all.
>
> True conservatives should be appalled at the rise of neo-conservatism.
> They're hijacking your ideology and replacing it with Empirialism and
> Fascism.  The openly stated goals of the neo-con movement are clearly,
> in the most direct sense of the term, opposed to the freedom of and
> governing by the people.  I am not exaggerating.  These are people who
> believe such things as government interference on behalf of corporations
> is a good thing.  The leaders of the neo-con movement believe in strict
> political regimentation in society.  In some neo-con papers, removing
> citizenship from anyone who isn't a democrat or a republican is
> proposed.  The neo-con movement is a rebirth of the "might makes right"
> ideologies of yesteryear.  Neo-conservatism is the belief that the
> ability to exploit is the justification for exploitation - after all the
> exploited gains as well.
>
> There is no doubt in my mind that true conservatives should not waste
> their time defending neo-conservatism.  All one has to do is read the
> position papers of those who are the ideological grandfathers of the
> movement.  The anti-democracy aspects of the ideology are blatantly
> presented.  Unlike most other ideologies, the founders of
> neo-conservatism didn't base their beliefs off of a heady attempt to
> make the world a better place.  The sole intent of the neo-conservative
> belief system is the empowerment of its creators.  The belief system
> itself is tainted by design.

This is one of the most cogent, well reasoned political assessments I have
ever seen regarding "modern" Neo-conservative thought.

Thank you.  (BTW: I'm going to forward it to Paul "Shithead" Schmeil ;-)

-- 
Yours,

J.A. Terranson
sysadmin@....org
0xBD4A95BF


'The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments
it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest
limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of
the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext
whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the
brink of destruction.'

St. George Tucker
_______________________________________________
Antisocial mailing list
Antisocial@....org
http://lists.mfn.org/mailman/listinfo/antisocial

Powered by blists - more mailing lists