🚀 go-pugleaf

I would fight on the side of the government and blast these rogue into
outer space!
-- 
shaskivich said so!!!

klaatu <klaatu@clark.net> wrote in article <35BF4BFE.E6BDAAB1@clark.net>...
> George Worley wrote:
> > 
> > In article <6pkqd3$fem@umbc8.umbc.edu>
> > on 28 Jul 1998 11:23:15 -0400, jjasen1@umbc.edu (John "E.R." Jasen)
> > wrote:
> > 
> > >Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@netcom.com> wrote:
> > >> John "E.R." Jasen (jjasen1@umbc.edu) wrote:
> > >> : Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@netcom.com> wrote:
> > >> : >      If for some reason the armed forces did get into a  war
with
> > >> : > armed civilians, the armed forces would win easily and the
destruction
> > >> : > of life and property in the country would be enormous.
> > >>
> > >> : Ummm ... No. Even if the military 100% sided with the government,
the
> > >> : conclusion would be the inevitable destruction of the armed
forces, then
> > >> : whatever is left of the government.
> > >>
> > >>      Blatant nonsense.
> > >
> > >Hardly. The civilian population outnumbers the military by about
250:1.
> > You are assuming that every one will back the ones revolting... not
> > everyone that has a gun will back the ones revolting.   We as a nation
> > have all ready been thru this once a little over a 100 years ago in a
> > war that call the Civil War... tell me who won that war?  Not the
> > unrecognized civilian militia called the Confederacy.   In Kentucky
> > and Tennessee I have relatives where brothers fought against each
> > other.  One such case was that of my Great Great Grandfather and his
> > brother, as my Great Great Grandfather decided that the Union was
> > right for him while his younger brother decided that the Confederacy
> > was right for him so each went their own way.  As the story goes about
> > my Great Great Grandfather and his brother, they met on the
> > battlefield  at Shiloh and as the fight escalated my Great Great
> > Grandfather found himself in a hand to hand fight with his brother.
> > His brother surrendered to him and both survived the war.
> > 
> > You are living in an fantasy world if you think that when this
> > supposed uprising comes that all of the civilians will follow... it
> > didn't happen in the Civil War and will not happen now.  I have guns,
> > and currently if some group was to take up arms against the
> > government, I would side with the government.
> 
> Ah - and now I see that we are both barking up different trees, albeit in
the
> same neck of the woods. Less of a failure to communicate than attempting
to
> speak to the wrong end of the horse as it were.
> 
> This is the point which you seem to be unable to grap here, and I don't
think
> it's a matter of deliberate obtuseness on your part, nor on ours.
> 
> Thanks for sharing the opinions above, they're valid and enlightening...
but
> are missing the point of the discussion.
> 
> We're less concerned here about some uprising of cranks in the backwoods,
an
> instigated revolution for whatever reason, and more concerned with the
public
> reaction if a party, or parties, or more properly a particular mindset
> reaching across both mainstream political Parties, were to simply decide
that
> they, the "government" (which pointedly includes the Civil Service and
the
> "military-industrial complex" also known as the "Beltway Bandits") were
the
> sole legitimate power and to hell with We the People. Their mindset is
that
> all Americans are silly irresponsible hicks with the intelligence of
> chimpanzees and the educations of dunces, and must be managed for their
own
> good. Essentially we're talking about the sort of paternalism that one
sees in
> the best-intentioned of guards at facilities for the mentally-deficient.
For
> the most-part they mean well however if they decide to molest the
patients,
> there's simply nothing the patients can do about it; they're locked in,
> locked-down, and have neither weapons nor tools.
> 
> Such institutions - and some believe, increasingly the Federal Government
> Civil Service Bureaucracy is becoming such - have a variety of tools to
manage
> the inmates. Primarily, there's talk. You can talk and talk and talk
about the
> issues, never change anything, or one can throw a minor sop to whoever is
> making the most noise, and otherwise change nothing. One can also, by
reliably
> throwing the sops to whichever inmate is most amenable to "reform" in
> accordance with the goals of the keepers, create division within the
ranks
> (though in reality there are no ranks, only a bunch of sadly-wacko
individuals
> with remarkably disparate delusional systems), seed informants, and
empower
> petty tyrants. All sorts of very low-level social tricks and
manipulations can
> be used, from keeping one floor of the institution in starvation and
rags, to
> flooding another floor with interesting drugs (many of which are
addictive),
> pampering another floor, creating trustys, elevating the most vicious to
the
> position of screws, etc etc. Also, you may allow the inmates to elect
their
> representative to petition management, and in most cases, if the request
is
> reasonable management will comply but only so long as it serves
management,
> and management will in no way acquiesce to anything resembling greater
freedom
> for the inmates outside of conditions of widespread fire or
uncontrollable
> riot. Now realize well that all of the above-described chicanery is quite
> appropriate to an institution such as a prison, but it is not at all
> appropriate to a society of free equals of normal intelligence. It is one
> thing to be governed, and governed by common consent to the _vox populi_
or
> the _res publica_. It is another thing to be managed.
> 
> Increasingly, we are being managed. Management inevitably regards itself
as a
> beast apart from the unwashed masses of the toilers, _even in a system
where
> the corporation is owned entirely by corporate employees_. Failure on the
part
> of the unwashed toilers to aggressively unify to counteract management
> initiatives which remove options from the toilers, leads inevitably
towards
> management directing the future course into fields wherein only
management's
> intended path is safe to walk. It is the opinion of many that we are now
> entering into sufficiently restricted areas, into complexities of
machination
> and quadruple-cross scheming, that to attempt to counteract management is
to
> commit corporate suicide, _and management prefers that this be the common
> perception_ for on the one hand it causes the unenlightened to yeild to
> management's "better understanding of basic principles" and causes
> management's rivals, as well as its loyal opposition, to become
disorganized
> in the process of attempting to discern the _precise_ details and thus
the
> strategy, of management. Indeed, having been led into a mine-field, we
can
> only hope that the leaders know what they are doing.
> 
> And probably they do. But what is the goal here? To lead us to greener
> pastures, or to get us in the center of a mine-field, from which we may
exit
> only as permitted by whichever management cares to escort us out? We
aren't
> much seeing the greener pastures, except as shown us through the windows
of
> our televisions. Our televisions tell us that we are in an age of
> unparallelled prosperity, as measured by the prices of stocks on the
various
> exchanges. Yet the average high-roller stock has a profits-to-earnings
ratio
> of something like 24; which is a margin-call equivalent to fifteen times
that
> which collapsed Wall Street in 1929. But money is being made! Isn't it?
> Rather, more money is being printed, it has to be in order to cover for
the
> double-dozen inflation of the stocks issued. People are speculating in
double
> digits, and interestingly enough, taxes are being paid at record levels,
> propping up the printing of bogus specie in a Ponzi Scheme of
incalculable
> proportion. Essentially, all that is happening right now is that, of all
of
> the vast numbers of zeros to the right of the leading digit, more are now
> collecting in the accounts of government and management.
> 
> Simultaneously, we see credit extended at profligate levels, all
unregulated
> by the government which clearly ought to rein this in. Why do they not?
> Clearly, it is better that citizens hover on the edge of default. Why?
> 
> If every citizen who is free-and-unencumbered by debt were now to go and
buy
> gold, and take possession, and guard it themselves, this entire charade
would
> collapse. as it is, at present, perhaps the sole route to "wealth"
remaining
> in America is to overextend one's self on credit; then one may have all
of the
> shiny toys one may wish. At present, the bankruptcy law even allow one to
> default on payments, and keep many of the shiny toys - but you may not
retain
> gold bought on credit, nor, as a rule, may you retain weapons sold on
credit,
> for some reason, the first thing that people hock is their defense.
> 
> Soon we shall see that management has been purchasing gold, and extending
> false credit to unqualified recipients, and urging "investment" in
> grossly-overinflated "stocks" and "bonds" which are, I needn't say here,
> merely paper. Soon we shall see management pull the props out from under
all
> of that paper and we will see at-least a double-digit devaluation of all
of
> that paper. At that time, there will be such unrest, and such
disorganization,
> that the public will cry out to be led blindfolded into that mine field
"to be
> protected from what is outside". We are in that mine-field _now_, many
> believe.
> 
> The best advice I could give anyone right now is to buy gold or other
> industrially-useful metals such as platinum or vanadium, as much as
possible,
> from anyone who will sell it to you, and also buy a good safe, and buy
the
> weapons which, for now, you are permitted to own. And expect that when
things
> come crashing down, people will come to take both from you. 
> 
> This is a mindset which is incresingly widely-held, regardless of the
truth of
> it.
> 
> However, keep in mind, that taking payment in metals and
nonperishable-foods
> can do little to save the balance-of-trade nor recoup losses inherent in
> playing the markets, there will be an adjustment and all we can hope for
is
> that management won't let things crash so hard that the adjustment
reduces us
> all to barbarism. But so long as we all retain our weapons, we believe
that
> management has no option but to soften the adjustment as much as is
> practicable. If, however, we abandon our weapons while management retains
> theirs, this inevitable adjustment will _not_ be moderated, but rather
> accellerated and dropped on the world like a load of bricks, so that the
> foolish toilers can riot all they want as they starve, locked-out of the
plant
> where they've been replaced by automation.
> 
> Of course, this may be simply Millenial Paranoia. But a lot of people do
> believe, to return to the initial subject, that there will be no uprising
> against the government of the United States, and I would not in any case
> support such an uprising, I value my oath. The common conception is that
> elements of the government, instead, would engage in a very quiet
uprising
> against the American people, reduce them to poverty, and lead them in
rags to
> their chains.
> 
> _That_ I will fight against.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Be kind to your neighbors, | "When the going gets weird the weird turn
pro."
> even though they be        | http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/home.html 
> transgenic chimerae.       | Now. Chock full of uninteresting links. 
> --------- Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth ----------------
> Non-UseNet re-transmission of this news article is a willful violation of
US
> Copyright Law and the Berne Convention. Statutory damages are $250,000.00
>          Re-transmission of this e-mail expressly prohibited. 
> The e-mail addresses  for the FCC Commissioners include 
> wkennard@fcc.gov sness@fcc.gov hfurchtg@fcc.gov  gtristan@fcc.gov
>