December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Hello, >The IRS and United States Attorney's office are looking for assistance in >a criminal investigation involving threatening messages which were posted >to the Cypherpunks mailing list. This e-mail address was noted to be one >of those which receives the Cypherpunks list. I would appreciate it if >you would contact me to discuss whether you would be willing to assist us >in this matter, and what records or information you have relating to the >Cypherpunks list. You can contact me at this e-mail address or at (503) >326-2787. Sorry, but I am not aware of any threating messages posted to this list. Of course I can see how your organization may consider calls by the citizens for a return to a Constitutional government a "threat". I woun't be calling you but I will be calling my congressman and senator in the morning reaffirming my support for a flat tax and the abolishment of the IRS. Have a nice day, I am TOTOCUS!!

1 0

No Subject
by celltel＠mailexcite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello! This information is for those of you who make long distance calls FROM or TO overseas locations Worldwide, or who TRAVEL in the USA or Overseas. IF YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED, BE ASSURED YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE ANY FURTHER MAILINGS FROM US. ARE YOU CURRENTLY ENJOYING THESE RATES?? Can You Call FROM these countries? Can You Call TO these countries? At These Rates? United Kingdom @ 15¢/minute Sweden @ 18¢/minute Australia @ 22¢/minute Germany, or Netherlands @ 23¢/minute France @ 24¢/minute Switzerland @ 25¢/minute Japan @ 36¢/minute Israel @ 37¢/minute Moscow @ 50¢/minute These are just 10 examples of calling rates FROM these 10 countries TO the USA or FROM the USA to these 10 countries! You can call TO or FROM over 200 more countries to ANYWHERE. You can also make calls out of your home or office in the USA to anywhere in the world at the rates above, or you can call anywhere in the USA AWAY of your USA home or office at 16 cents/minute. There is no surcharge, no monthly fee, no minimums on this program use, nor do you switch from your regular carrier to use this service. To Learn all about this service, and to obtain rates for 200 countries, please write an email to CALLBACK(a)galaxymall.com. In the subject, and body write SEND. You will receive information IMMEDIATELY. Thank You!! Regards, Max Sklower, President MS TELECOM, INC

1 0

Advertisment for $ 99 WEB HOSTING
by lar＠compwebtech.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Check it out! 25 megs for only $99 per year with no set up fees. Free registration or change of domain at: www.compwebtech.com If you would like to be removed from our mailing list, please e-mail us to have yourself removed for the list. Thank You, Larry(a)compwebtech.com

1 0

RE: DNA
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> But what about identical sib's. They all > have exactly the same DNA! Or a clone ;). Matt

1 0

RE: DNA
by Brown, R Ken 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike Motyka wrote: > I'm not a biochemist Neither am I but I'm going to classes... > I think modern DNA analysis yields data that bear more > resemblance to a spectrum than anything else. In this > case there is always a good possibility for error. > Remember how large a project the Human Genome > thing is? That is an actual sequencing project. AFAIK police & courts don't use actual sequencing but DNA "typing" or "fingerprinting" - they extract certain well-known genes, a tiny subset of all that are there, and compare them with reference samples. You don't have to actually "read" a gene to be able to match it with another one. The genes they used aren't ones that are expressed either. They are if you like the "comments in the code". Or more likely graffitti because they don't seem to mean much. You can't "prove" that a sample did come from a named individual, but you can prove that it *didn't*. Which is why DNA testing has been popular with defence lawyers in this country (UK) because it has been used by the defence to get people released in a number of famous trials. (There was one poor bloke who got let out of prison after over 20 years when DNA typing showed he couldn't have committed the crime for which he had been convivted. He hadn't been released on parole because to get parole you have to show some contrition and he always claimed he was innocent). You can give a likelihood that a sample came from the same person as another sample though. Or their twin, or parents et.c et.c. It's also been used to get past our notoriously racist immigration officials. They tend to assume that anyone coming into this country as the spouse or parent of a citizen is lying (especially for Asians - they assume that all marriage are arranged or "marriages of convenience" - for some reason white Americans and especially Australians don't have nearly so much trouble.). DNA typing has been used by immigrants to show that they are (probably) the parent. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~cbbc/courses/bio4/bio4-1997/KatieLachter.html has some bumf about DNA evidence in US courts (you are much more suspicios of it than we are) http://www.emf.net/~iisme/actionplans/201.html has instructions for do-it-yourself DNA typing! Unfortunatly it requires equipment you are unlikely to have at home (& do US universities *really* issue such detailed instructions for lab work? "Raise your hand. Move it over the pencil. Move it down until the fingers are in contact with the pencil. Close your fingers round the pencil. Why is it important not to exert too much force with the fingers? Pick up the pencil. Remember the point is sharp and may have been exposed to potentially carcinogenic solvents. Do not stab any part of yourself or any other student. Do not place the point near your eyes, mouth or genitalia. Do not use the pencil in the presence of any minor under the age of 18, or any vertebrate experimental animals, pets or livestock. Do not hand the pencil to anyone not covered by the college's insurance scheme or who has not signed the standard disclaimer form..." OK, I exagerrate. But not much.) Within 20 years techniques that are now restricted to university labs and pharmeceutical companies will be available to the hobbyist. Maybe bio-hacking will be as influential in our kids lives as computer-hacking has been in ours. > And pattern analysis will identify the guilty before they > even think about committing an offense. > Hell, they'll probably be able to ID the bad ones from > samples coerced/stolen at birth and then all future > opportunity and resource allocation will be effectively > decided by the government, inc. Again, current methods don't identify genes just show how much they resemble those of another sample. And they mostly use DNA that is not transcribed anyway. So they tell you nothing about what a person looked like. Of course the stuff coming out of the genome project (which is having the same effect on molecular biology that the cold war had on rocket science, or the discovery of America on navigation, or the railways had on steam technology) will probably change all that Real Soon Now. There are at least 3 or 4 new methiods that are being introduced this year. > Could it be that a single sample of DNA can be used > to produce a large supply of that DNA which could then > be used to fabricate evidence? PCR can multiply the size of a sample many thousandfold in a day. Ken Brown

1 0

Thank you for your inquiry
by 11471..201＠compusub.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is your free issue of the Global Media and Corporate Relations newsletter. In order to continue to receive the GMCR News you must reserve your place in our news server by one of the methods below. If this newsletter has reached your mailbox in error, do nothing and you will receive no further contact. Visit http://www.corporaterelations.com and sign in to reserve your place in our news server. or Email to gmcr-list(a)corporaterelations.com ; include the words 'join gmcr-news' in the body of the message. GLOBAL MEDIA AND CORPORATE RELATIONS NEWS GMCR is dedicated to bringing you the most timely critical investment information about new issues, IPO's, small cap stocks and special opportunities that simply cannot be found elsewhere. All of the investment opportunities presented here are thoroughly screened by our experienced team of investment professionals. Each of our client companies has undergone a stringent due diligence process to insure that the investment potential is a bona fide GMCR opportunity. One Asian Tiger Roars as the Others Roll Over and Play Dead For the first half of 1998, U.S. electronics exports to Asia dropped 12% in the face of various economic crises and currency devaluations in the Pacific Rim that saw country economies falling like dominos. The culprits: Indonesian imports down 64%, Korean down 37%, Thai down 26%, and Japanese imports down 14%. So how did the U.S. semiconductor manufacturers fair overall? Total semiconductor sales worldwide were only down .38% because Eastern Europe, Mexico, Canada and China increased their purchases at the expense of their Asian counterparts. China, one of the Asian Tigers, escaped the crisis conditions unscathed, actually increasing their imports of U.S. semiconductor products by 50% during the first half of this year according to industry sources. China's tight control over its currency allowed it to escape the problems that slashed fifty cents on the dollar out of the other Asian Tiger currencies. While the other countries worried about currency devaluations and layoffs in industry, China quietly ramped up production in their three "golden" markets: telecommunication, consumer electronics and home appliances grabbing market share along the way. FEATURED COMPANY Our feature company this month is Micronics International, Inc (OTC:BB MCIK). Micronics International (MCIK) has been undervalued with the recent Asian crisis driving stocks lower. Timing is right for Micronics International (MCIK) to rocket upward propelled by a burgeoning Chinese semiconductor market. Their current mission is to take advantage of the large Chinese government incentives to moev electronic manufacturing from the coast to the interior of the country. Micronics is locating their new offices in the heart of these new centers of industry. The company will be perfectly positioned for a buy-out or merger with a larger U.S. semiconductor distributor looking for an established marketing channel into China, soon to be the worlds' biggest market for semiconductor products. Micronics (MCIK) is the Second Largest U.S. Distributor of semiconductors into the Chinese telecommunications, consumer electronics and home appliance manufacturing sectors. The company has established both close relationships with the government and permanent offices within their borders. The Chinese must import 94% of integrated circuit needs and their buying has INCREASED 50% during the Asian Crisis! Micronics (MCIK) is rocketing upward because: * The 1998 Chinese import market for chips? Over six billion units. * First half of 1998 showed a 50% increase in U.S. semiconductor imports into China, 10% higher than was predicted by industry insiders. * Industry forecasts for semiconductor sales: $120 billion 2005, $550 billion 2010, World's largest market by 2015. * A $50 billion plus semiconductor market in China is projected to grow at a 40% rate the next seven years! * The semiconductor market has grown steadily, 25% per year, for the last ten years in lockstep with increased U.S. imports into China! * Over 60 years of combined semiconductor marketing experience among the Micronics officers. * Micronics has excellent government and local factory contacts in China through a professional sales force. * The low cost provider to the market through strategic purchases of key stocks. * Long term relationships with U.S. proprietary chip manufacturers and smaller U.S. distributors focusing on telecommunications, computers and energy conservation, Micronics' key markets. * The U.S. semiconductor companies have a solid 10% of the China market * Very few American distributors are willing and able to crack the China distribution market. The only competitor of note is Arrow Electronics who does approximately $120 million in sales a year in China. * Many U.S. companies want in China, Micronics is positioned as a possible acquisition or marketing channel.

1 0

RE: Two Jims, Werner and Matt redefine socialism for their own en ds
by Brown, R Ken 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Matthew James Gering[SMTP:mgering@ecosystems.net] replied to a long > rant, as by "Martinus Luther": > >> something like Belloc and Chesterton's "distributivism". > Distribute what and created by whom? Need I point out the > obvious fallacy that wealth is a static sum. It is not, wealth > must be *created* before it exists to plunder and share. Every libertarian or cypherpunk ought to have read "The Servile State" by Hilaire Belloc. It is long polemic against socialism (or what Belloc thought was Socialism), the welfare state & so on. Your ranter obviously hads read the book, and in that context what is being distributed is *land*, as private property to be lived on, farmed and passed on to children. > Abstract wealth and divorce it from the creator and you > eliminate the motive to create. You can only live from plundered > wealth so long before you slip into oblivion (see the Soviet Union). I think Belloc would agree with you 100%. See http://www.cs.wesleyan.edu/HTML/Grad_links/mdemarco/gkc/distrib/ for links to pages on Distributivism. Distributivism is usually regarded as a right-wing, conservative political philosophy. Chesterton and Belloc didn't invent it but they popularised it. It derived partly from a distaste for the State, industry, trade unions and the modern world in general; partly from an admiration of traditional rural life; partly from the English Christian Socialism of the 19th century & partly from the Biblical idea of the Jubilee, when debts were cancelled and the land redivided amongst the families of the tribe. It is based on the idea that only free men who own their own land and house really have a stake in society or a chance at a good life. So in an ideal world ownership of property would be distributed as widely as possible (hence the name). Distributivists, always a small an uninfluential group, are divided as to how this desirable state of affairs can be brought about. Some want to achieve it gradually, through education and legislation and an increasing influence of the Roman Catholic church. These ones, following in the footsteps of Belloc (an ultra-nationalist, an anti-semite & in his old age a grumpy bigot), drifted farther and farther to the right, often becoming little different from Fascists. Recently they have become associated with the "Third Way" (i.e neither Socialism not Capitalism) a confused mish-mash of political positions that probably started as a self-justification by some milder Fascists but is now associated with Tony Blair and the British "New Labour" government. Some other Distributivists thought that the people should rise up and occupy the land, taking it from its current owners, whether the rich or the state. This philosophy is pretty indistinguishable from the English far-left Socialism of people like William Morris, drawing inspiration from agrarian revolts throughout history from the Peasant's Revolt to Gerard Winstanley and the Diggers. It isn't very different - apart from its explicitly Christian roots - from the Syndicalism of Joe Hill and the wobblies, or the position of some modern-day Left Anarchists such as the ones associated with the Solidarity Federation. They often say the same things, using different jargon. (The Distributivists looked backward to the middle ages & mainly talked about land, agriculture and small crafts. When they paid any attention to industry, other than to say they didn't like it, they made vague handwavings about "guilds", i.e. local trade-based co-operatives, owning factories. The Syndicalists looked forward to the 20th century, and were mainly interested in industry. When they bothered to talk about agriculture they wanted land farmed in small plots each by an owner occupier - "3 acres and a cow" again - except that in America where everything has to be bigger they made it "30 acres and a cow") To be honest it isn't that different from the position of a lot of Old Labour lefties like me - except we aren't revolutionaries either which leaves us in a bit of a fix... Chesterton was never a Socialist and probably never a revolutionary but he was often a Liberal (in the English sense) and was at least on speaking terms with Socialists and Anarchists (of whose politics he disapproved greatly) If you haven't read "The Servile State" you should. In fact if you haven't read Belloc you should. Not a great writer, not always even a good one, but very, very interesting. Of course I'm biased. In the early years of this century Belloc and Chesterton (& many other writers such as Henry James, Rudyard Kipling, S. Fowler Wright (you really have to be weird to remember him), E.C. Benson and A.A. Milne (the Hundred Acre Wood is just 20 miles from where I was born)) were almost fanatical admirers of my own home county of Sussex in England :-) And they wrote some really OTT poetry to show how good it all was. Ken Brown (about as off-topic as you can get on a Tuesday). The South Country When I am living in the Midlands That are sodden and unkind, I light my lamp in the evening: My work is left behind; And the great hills of the South Country Come back into my mind. The great hills of the South Country They stand along the sea; And it's there walking in the high woods That I could wish to be, And the men that were boys when I was a boy Walking along with me. The men that live in North England I saw them for a day: Their hearts are set upon the waste fells, Their skies are fast and grey; From their castle-walls a man may see The mountains far away. The men that live in West England They see the Severn strong, A-rolling on rough water brown Light aspen leaves along. They have the secret of the Rocks, And the oldest kind of song. But the men that live in the South Country Are the kindest and most wise, They get their laughter from the loud surf, And the faith in their happy eyes Comes surely from our Sister the Spring When over the sea she flies; The violets suddenly bloom at her feet, She blesses us with surprise. I never get between the pines But I smell the Sussex air; Nor I never come on a belt of sand But my home is there. And along the sky the line of the Downs So noble and so bare. A lost thing could I never find, Nor a broken thing mend: And I fear I shall be all alone When I get towards the end. Who will there be to comfort me Or who will be my friend? I will gather and carefully make my friends Of the men of the Sussex Weald; They watch the stars from silent folds, They stiffly plough the field. By them and the God of the South Country My poor soul shall be healed. If I ever become a rich man, Or if ever I grow to be old, I will build a house with deep thatch To shelter me from the cold, And there shall the Sussex songs be sung And the story of Sussex told. I will hold my house in the high wood Within a walk of the sea, And the men that were boys when I was a boy Shall sit and drink with me. Matilda Matilda told such Dreadful Lies, It made one Gasp and Stretch one's Eyes; Her Aunt, who, from her Earliest Youth, Had kept a Strict Regard for Truth, Attempted to Believe Matilda: The effort very nearly killed her, And would have done so, had not She Discovered this Infirmity. For once , towards the Close of Day, Matilda, growing tired of play And finding she was left alone, Went tiptoe to the Telephone, And summoned the Immediate Aid Of London's Noble Fire-Brigade. Within an hour the Gallant Band Were pouring in on every hand, >From Putney,Hackney Downs, and Bow With Courage high and Hearts a-glow They galloped, roaring through the Town, `Matilda's House is Burning Down!' Inspired by British Cheers and Loud Proceeding from the Frenzied Crowd, They ran their ladders through a score Of windows on the Ball Room Floor; And took Peculiar Pains to Souse The Pictures up and down the House, Until Matilda's Aunt succeeded In showing them they were not needed; And even then she had to pay To get the Men to go away! It happened that a few Weeks later Her Aunt was off to the Theatre To see that Interesting Play The Second Mrs Tanqueray. She had refused to take her Niece To hear this Entertaining Piece: A Deprivation Just and Wise To Punish her for Telling Lies. That Night a Fire did break out - You should have heard Matilda Shout! You should have heard her Scream and Bawl, And throw the window up and call To People passing in the Street - (The rapidly increasing Heat Encouraging her to obtain Their confidence) - but all in vain! For every time She shouted `Fire!' They only answered `Little Liar'! And therefore when her Aunt returned, Matilda, and the House, were Burned.

1 0

anti-spam lesson Re: Earn your worth not mlm!!! 330-258-9131
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- this guy knows this is a mailing list by the way he forged the from header. he knew the administrator address for the list. Quick anti-spam note by looking at the received header all the way on the bottom of all of them we see that the originating host was: a modem slip account from detroit michigan on the at&t service. that is about the best we can do as far as establishing this persons identity, but a copy of the message including the headers forwarded to abuse or postmaster @att.net of the message will have the problem resolved in no time. If everyone takes 2 min to do this it will definiately get the account removed. I guess I just do this for revenge though. It is fun getting all of the cancellation notices in your e-mail.' Received: from www.video-collage.com [206.15.171.132] by mx05 via mtad (2.6) with ESMTP id mx05-cJNB5S0058; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 01:56:46 GMT Received: (from ichudov@localhost) by www.video-collage.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA07486 for cypherpunks-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 21:49:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sirius.infonex.com (sirius.infonex.com [209.75.197.2]) by www.video-collage.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA07474 for <cypherpunks(a)algebra.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 21:49:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from cpunks@localhost) by sirius.infonex.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA17622; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:53:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cyberpass.net (cyberpass.net [209.75.197.3]) by sirius.infonex.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA17594 for <cpunks(a)sirius.infonex.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:53:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by cyberpass.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA15571 for <cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:54:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA13884 for cypherpunks-unedited-outgoing; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:41:58 -0700 (PDT) From: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Received: from 12.67.146.158 (158.detroit-03.mi.dial-access.att.net [12.67.146.158]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA13879 for <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:41:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 18:41:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199810140141.SAA13879(a)toad.com> To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Earn your worth not mlm!!! 330-258-9131 Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)Algebra.COM Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com X-List-Admin: ichudov(a)algebra.com X-Loop: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 5.5.3ckt http://netnet.net/~merlin/knights Comment: KeyID: 0xF4D1901B Comment: Fingerprint: DB49 2BFA 856F 0B7E CB78 9C3E 0167 279D iQEVAwUBNiSaAqKPqmf00ZAbAQHHZAf/XYUh5eybbUnOGTW0Bc10sF+rdvs5sJ/h CI2WCoHY6l/+8PxVHlphFqcXeXoE0i3o84eb75THNI8+fTdXmZsffK0jJOjoO+Xa TamPL5nMsCJHOTSFHUGIsvlvPLQvxWTkkRepfPcrQnA0MVCGxlHteXlRmh2J496/ OWEqfRp+iBgpptVdgG18u+IRG8KBWz/e3RQk5LjzhO0szz5x47S0wsTru4HHwLhh ZUsUX7CxZ8vwK6nty0RgYslk56wyAXCwoHU3/S6C+rHabzJptT/mFZUpRHmsVu3L aWOKpRY/vcXH6NUAQU1dDW4wh/DU3KXWwISJfItjl8u37HiEofmq0A== =b4+H -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

son (Gomez is coming!)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Son of Mother Of All Chapters -- SPACE ALIENS HIDE MY DRUGS!!! _________________________________________________________ July, 1948: The moment has come when the costumes, the grease paint, the falsely colored scenery, the technicolored spotlights and all the other artifices of makeYDup should be put aside and, in the interest of truth, the solid facts about the play and the players revealed to the people. ~ The Roosevelt Myth, Preface to the Popsvox PublishingR edition Dec. 7, 1941 The Lake of Life has started to turn over. The bottom is rising to the top, the top is descending to the bottom, and everything is becoming the opposite of what it seems to be. ~ Vice-Admiral B. D'Shauneaux, USN ~~~ ~~~ Version 1.7, Rev B: Saturday morning, March 4, 1933...the conquering Democrats poured into the city... Only a week before an assassin's bullet had barely missed Roosevelt. It struck Anton Cermak, the Bohemian mayor and boss of Chicago, who with Al Smith, had opposed Roosevelt's nomination...and died a few days later. Version 2.7, Rev. 3: On February 1, 1933, in Miami, Florida Giuseppe Zangara fired five shots a President-elect Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was making an impromptu speech while sitting in an open car that had stopped momentarily. Although none of the shots hit President Roosevelt, Zangara mortally wounded Anton Cermak, the Mayor of Chicago, and hit four other people, including a Secret Service agent. Version 3.9, Rev. 2-B: On February 15, 1933, Zangara attended a speech given by Roosevelt at Bayfront Park in Miami, Florida. When Roosevelt had finished his talk and was preparing to leave, Zangara pulled out a pistol and opened fire. Zangara wounded five people who had been near the president-elect, two of them seriously. Most critically injured was Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak, who was struck by the bullet in the chest which then lodged in his spine. Version 4.9, Rev. 8C: The parade car moved slowly down the street as President-elect Roosevelt and Mayor Cermak smiled and waved. The car stopped and President-elect Roosevelt gave a speech while sitting on the back of the car. A man named Guiseppe Zangara pushed through the crowd. He fired five shots at the President-elect. The bullets hit four people and Mayor Cermak. Version 15.6, Rev. 7: On March 6, Mayor Cermak died from complications stemming from the shooting. The same day Zangara was indicted by a grand jury and charged with first degree murder in the death of Cermak. His trial began on March 9 and ended on March 11 with a guilty verdict and a death sentence. The prisoner was transported to the Florida State Prison at Raiford, where he was executed on March 20, 1933. Version 18.9, Rev. 5D: Mayor Anton J. Cermak died three weeks later, on March 8, 1933. His body was taken back to Chicago and buried in the Bohemian National Cemetery. Guiseppe Zangara was executed in the electric chair on March 21, 1933. That was only 13 days after Mayor Cermak died. Version 32.9, Rev. 12: Consider the case of Guiseppe Zangara, who was executed in 1933 for the attempted assassination of President-elect Franklin D. Roosevelt in which Chicago Mayor Anton J. Cermak was fatally shot. Zangara pleaded guilty in state court on March 10, was sentenced to death, and was executed on March 20 -- an interval of 10 days! Version 82, Rev. 5Q: After Roosevelt had delivered a speech in Florida on February 14, 1938, Guiseppe Zangara, an unemployed bricklayer, fired six shots from a handgun at Roosevelt from twelve yards away. The president-elect, who was sitting in an open car, was uninjured but five other people were shot, including Chicago mayor Anton Cernak, who was killed. Version 95, Rev. 8: On February 15, 1933, Guiseppe Zangara rose early...

1 0

IP: THE BATTLE FOR AMERICA'S SOUL
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 00:27:56 -0400 (EDT) From: <hsilver(a)pyx.net> To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Subject: IP: THE BATTLE FOR AMERICA'S SOUL MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: list Reply-To: <hsilver(a)pyx.net> *****NOTE****** The following article is intended for those who have attention spans and the abilitiy to focus and reason beyond 30 second sound-bites. If you are only capable of reading 30 lines of text of disjointed sloganisms and cliches, I would recommend you simply hit the delete key now and thanks for your time. For those who choose to actually fully read and think about the article below, I believe you'll find the arguments are well developed, forceful, compelling and exquisitly reasoned. I found the arguments presented in the article below as relevent and thought provoking as Fredric Bastiat's The Law, which is available at; http://www.jim.com/jamesd/bastiat.htm Bastiat's The Law was penned almost one hundred and fifty years before the article below.- Harley ************** Source: http://www.founding.org/tbfasshortversion.html THE BATTLE FOR AMERICAS SOUL By Balint Vazsonyi For thirty years now, the Liberal-Conservative debate has been raging in our country. Some of the participants bring to mind a passage from Dostoyevskys Crime and Punishment. Raskolnikov, while delirious in the Siberian prison hospital, has a recurring dream. In it, the whole world had been condemned to a terrible and strange plague. Some new sorts of microbes began to afflict people. "Men attacked by them," he writes, "became at once mad and furious. But never had men considered themselves so intellectual and so completely in possession of the truth as these sufferers, never had they considered their decisions, their scientific conclusions, their moral convictions so infallible..." One hundred-and-thirty years after those lines were written, it is disquieting to see just such "sufferers" among us today. Are we participants in a debate or are we fighting a virus? The following is an attempt to find some answers to sort out the sides, their origins, their purpose. THE QUESTION THAT MATTERS Scholars on both sides suggest that, during the 1960s, the original principles on which America was founded came to be interpreted in entirely new ways. It was this new understanding, so the suggestion goes, which led to fundamental changes in our thinking, our language, our institutions. Among other things, this altered reading also accounts for the radical shift in the meaning of the term, "Liberal." Is the national debate indeed a dialogue between two competing interpretations of what we shall call the American Construct? That, without a doubt, is the question that matters. If it is, then the word "debate" is entirely appropriate. If it is, then neither side can lay claim to the 'Truth.' If it is, then the more power to the winners may they alternate frequently, as behooves a democracy. Before we can decide, we need to remind ourselves of our spiritual and philosophical roots. We use the term American Construct here to represent the compendium of ideas and principles which issued from Franklins Poor Richard, Jeffersons Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, The Federalist Papers of Hamilton and Madison, all the way to the Bill of Rights. In order to qualify as indigenous, ideas and practices ought to be traceable to, or at least compatible with, the American Construct. The following key areas suggest some early answers. * The Constitution does not provide for Group Rights. Yet, a steadily growing number of groups is being granted an increasing number of rights. * Defense, for which the Constitution does provide, has been surrounded by an atmosphere of derision and hostility; the effectiveness of our armed forces is being diminished through inappropriate use. * Of the three branches of government, Congress is entrusted with the powers to legislate. Neither the Executive nor the Judiciary should presume such powers, yet both have done so with increasing frequency. * The constitutional guarantee for the freedom of speech becomes moot if the vocabulary is controlled by codes, regulations and punitive practices. * The protection of private property is no longer guaranteed if the Executive Branch can confiscate it under the pretext of arbitrary regulation. * Education used to be based on the best available information, the consensus of generations, and rewards designed to extract the best effort from all participants. Currently, information is being replaced by propaganda, consensus by the whim and din of activist groups, best effort by primitive egalitarianism. * Americans were supposed to be judged based on what they could do. Their prospects are now contingent on what (not even who) they are. * Morality and decency in human relations which once governed our society are being displaced by doctrines which do not, even, recognize the existence of values; the spirit of voluntarism is being choked by coercion. Accordingly, the argument that we are conducting a discourse within the American Construct cannot be sustained. That being the case, the alternative must be considered. If the debate has not been generated from within, it must be one between our own preexisting principles and ideas which are foreign in origin. Foreign ideas may be benign or hostile. Given the foregoing, as well as the ferocity of the assault over the past three decades, there is every reason to assume that they are the latter. If so, the very existence of our country, as we know it, is at stake. It is therefore of the utmost urgency to seek detailed answers to the question that matters. To begin with, new ideas are exceedingly rare. We may safely assume that most ideas, however differently they might be packaged, have been around for some time. The doctrines currently waging their battle inside America are likely to be old acquaintances, not brainstorms of the 1960s. There is some advantage to be derived: exploring the history and curriculum of old ideas provides clues about the path they are likely to follow again and again. As we encounter the alarming similarities between the so-called Liberal agenda and the practices of past regimes, there may be emotional barriers to overcome. How could decent, ordinary Americans take their cue from precedents they reject and abhor on a conscious level? Yet the facts speak for themselves. BOLSHEVISM FASCISM The conventional view, notwithstanding the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939, is that Communism and Nazism were opposites one on the extreme left, the other on the extreme right. At the time of the Spanish Civil War of 1936, Americans fell victim to the propaganda that Communists and Fascists ("Nazi" and "Fascist" will be discussed below) were enemies. In addition, the countless distinguished personalities who joined the North American Committee to Aid Spanish Democracy created the illusion that Communists were 'on the side of righteousness.' Unbeknownst to them, the Communist Party ran the entire organization. Rather than enemies, Nazism and Communism were the ultimate competitors. Each wanted to conquer and rule both over the physical world, and over the minds of people. The methods which were developed and implemented for the control of behavior took many forms, not all of them obvious or even unpleasant when dispensed in small doses. Yet they strike at the heart of human relations; they also severe the link between cause and effect, so essential in developing an individual's viability. First, we need to remind ourselves of key words which, in common usage, have taken on different connotations: Fascism, Nazism, Communism. Webster defines Fascism and Nazism in almost identical terms: "a centralized autocratic severely national regime;" "regimentation of industry, commerce and finance;" "rigid censorship, forcible suppression of opposition." The definition of Communism begins with "common ownership of assets." The subheading Bolshevism, however, resembles the wording applied to Fascism and Nazism. Webster comes remarkably close, but no fully-satisfactory definitions exist. In truth, they are simply so many variants of Socialism, and Marx himself was already at pains while writing the Communist Manifesto in 1848 to sort out the different kinds of Socialism. Initially, there appears to be a distinction between "National Socialism" (the German and Italian varieties) and "International Socialism" (the Russian Model), based on the difference in agendas as stated by the parties themselves. Reality, however, gives rhetoric the lie. Albeit without the Nuremberg Laws or prescribed physical characteristics, "The Soviet Man" was made the object of enforced worship just the same as was the Aryan hero - nothing international about that. Not even in the approach to the fundamental Marxian issue of ownership can we observe a substantial difference: The Program of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (the full name of the Nazi party) demands "the nationalization of all business enterprises that have been organized into corporations." A realistic examination of these seemingly opposite systems reveals them as mirror images, aspiring to a similar objective, applying identical methods, achieving comparable subjugation of people under their control, and pursuing the same enemies. Objective. The agenda underlying all operations calls for unlimited discretionary powers to be concentrated in the hands of a small, self-perpetuating group in which membership is by invitation only. Members of the group typically fall into two categories. One of these claims to know what is best for all people; the other simply wants unchecked power. The synergy is perfect: Ideologues need terrorists to retain physical control; terrorists need ideologues to supply intermittent explanations for the rule they maintain. It is only natural that the objectives include an effort to expand the number of those over whom power is exerted. Given the ultimate objective of concentrating all power in the hands of a single group, competing formations calling themselves "Fascist," "Nazi," "Communist," "Bolshevik," or "Maoist" must fight it out until only one of them remains operative, hence the insistence on being 'different.' Methods. (The reader is asked to compare these to present-day practices.) As well as control of the military and the police, successful exercise of power requires control of key institutions to replace or supplement brute force. The checklist includes news sources especially of the visual variety education, the judiciary, labor organizations, arts and entertainment, as well as a parental relationship between government and the governed. Required, also, is the attribution of infallibility at the top. A human replaces the object of religious worship, just as holiday celebrations of a political nature replace religious ones. Replacement of another kind is the renaming of streets, towns, institutions. The purpose is to do away with reminders of the past thus discontinuing history and to provide constant reminders of the present. The practice of discontinuing history is indispensable. Successive generations must be devoid of traditions and prevented from comparing past and present. It also 'justifies' revision of the entire academic curriculum, so that no subject would accidentally provide accurate information about history. While adults need the threat of punishment in order to 'forget' what they had learned, information can simply be withheld from young people and/or manipulated before it reaches them. Youth organizations were created with compulsory membership - except when exclusion was chosen as an instrument of humiliation. Hitler Youth, Komsomol, Pioneers put people in uniform at a young age, ensured their early allegiance to The Leader, and placed them under the command of a political appointee whose prerogative superseded that of both the parental home and the school. Finally, learned faculties were placed under the control of political operatives with little or no education. The corruption of education was matched by the corruption of the legal system. This required judges who would subordinate both their natural and learned sense of justice to what was declared to be "the higher interest of the community." For an example we quote marching orders issued by Hans Frank, President of the Academy of German Law and of the National Bar Association in the Third Reich: "The basis for interpreting all legal sources is the National Socialist Philosophy, especially as expressed in the party program..." Thus was born the concept of the political activist judge who wore the robe as no less a uniform than the black shirt or the red shirt. Controlling the behavior of the adult population required the most sophisticated approach, if outright terror was to be relaxed to any extent. Although Lenin and Stalin pointed the way and Mao Tse-Tung achieved the ultimate by making one billion people wear the same clothes, it was the Germans ever the theorists who supplied the terminology for the first tool. They called it "Gleichschaltung," which verbatim means "switching to being the same." The program called for total alignment with the goals of Nazi policies and placed everyone on the same level, creating the ultimate degree of conformity. Gleichschaltung operated at once on structural and cultural levels. Structurally, the first victim was federalism: Within days of Hitler's accession, the states had to cede authority to the central government. Next, the leadership and membership of every kind of organization had to become politically and racially correct. While a variety of agencies had the task of implementing the structural changes, as early as March 1933 a separate Cabinet Department was created for Josef Goebbels to oversee every aspect of the cultural scene, making certain that it was politically correct. Specific terms aside, the reality of all these regimes is the great flattening of society which is in full progress from day one. It is astonishing and frightening how little time it took both in Russia and in Germany to accomplish this task. Indeed, it should be noted that demolishing what centuries had built does not require even a single generation. The other tool had to do with groups. While it may appear contradictory to identify groups in a society having just experienced Gleichschaltung, contradictions do not represent obstacles in a totalitarian structure. Placing the emphasis on groups was as necessary as the leveling had been: It facilitated positive and negative imaging. This constant dichotomy of egalitarianism and group hatred provided a manipulative tool as simple as it was ingenious. Hitler used race and nationality, Lenin and Stalin mostly class the outcome was the same. Subjugation. (Please continue the comparison with current tendencies.) It is commonly known that the Gestapo was a state within the State, as was the Cheka/GPU/NKVD/KGB establishment. Their responsibility was not merely control but the maintenance of a permanent state of fear. Yet internal security organs, however large, could not by themselves see to that. Therefore, in one sense or another everyone was recruited to be an agent of fear. In Nazi Germany, as in Soviet Russia, children were encouraged to inform on their parents, neighbors on each other. Very soon it became a matter of reporting someone before someone reported you. It was possible to be reported for virtually anything, so that people grew fearful of doing or saying everyday, ordinary things. One could never be safe from somebody 'putting a spin' on the most innocent act or remark. Enemies. Whereas democracies associate enemies with physical attack or the threat thereof, both Nazism and Communism required at all times the existence of enemies, internal and external. The array of internal enemies would suggest a certain difference: Jews for the Nazis, "Class Enemies" for the Bolsheviks. However, the Russians had anti-Jewish pogroms long before Hitler and, later, significant numbers of Jews were exiled or killed as "exploiters." The aristocracy was looked upon just as much an enemy by the Nazis who were, after all, Socialists. The Church was regarded as an enemy by both, partly because it advocated morality, and because it, too, required allegiance and obedience and attitude reserved exclusively for The Party. "National Socialist and Christian concepts are irreconcilable," so Martin Bormann begins the Third Reich's definitive statement on the subject. Yet, it is in the realm of Nazism's and Bolshevism's external enemies that examination proves the most revealing. Experience confirms that the primary enemy in the eyes of Nazis and Communists alike was the English-speaking world, in all its manifestations. In my native Hungary, where Soviet occupation followed Nazi occupation, typically the same henchmen jailed the same persons for the same offense: Listening to an English-language broadcast whether in 1944 or in 1952. The reasons are obvious. To all those who would take over the world, Great Britain and the United States have been the main impediment. Philip II of Spain and Napoleon had known that already; Hitler and Stalin had to learn it anew. Neither German technological genius nor Soviet numerical advantage was sufficient to carry the day against Anglo-American resolve, because it was backed by principles, attitudes and traditions which had brought forth stable, productive, peacefully-evolving societies. And since language is the carrier of ideas, English words were perceived to be as menacing as Spitfire interceptors or nuclear submarines. The power of seminally English phrases like "My home is my castle" or "Innocent until proven guilty" is awesome. The strenuous efforts by Liberals to diminish the presence of English in contemporary America furnish additional proof. WHAT'S 'RIGHT' WHAT'S 'POSSIBLE' The epoch-making contributions of Germans from Luther to Goethe, from Bach to Wagner, from Gutenberg to Zeiss reveal a great similarity across the centuries, across the various fields of endeavor. From Luther's 'nailing his 95 Theses to the door' through Bach's The Art of the Fugue and Goethe's Faust to Wagner's Gesamtkunstwerk, the observer beholds the German tendency and capacity for seeking and creating the absolute, the all-encompassing, the ultimate. When applied to philosophy, this same tendency gave birth to Kant who declared his chief work free from error. He was followed by Hegel, who more or less declared the end of history. By this juncture, German philosophy had established its lineage all the way back to Plato, and regarded itself sole heir to the search for what is right. From that point onward, a seemingly endless succession of German thinkers, in a mostly descending sequence of brilliance and/or morality, began to convert philosophy into Social Dogma. Social Dogma is based on a simple assumption: That certain people know better what is best for all other creatures, and that such people possess the right to enforce their 'enlightened' beliefs because they shall lead the rest of us to a 'perfect' world. Taking his cue, perhaps, from what had begun in 1215 at Runnymede, it was John Locke who (nearly five hundred years later) identified and settled for attainable goals. He and Adam Smith seem to have broken with the two-thousand-year-old search for what is 'right,' and substituted an inquiry into that which is possible. It would be consistent with the previous argument to suggest that the sober modesty of Locke and Smith was as much a reflection on British temperament as Kant or Hegel was on the German. Be that as it may, the astonishing influence of their thought is comparable only to the success of the societies which paid attention to them. Without diminishing the significance of Locke's lasting pronouncements on the limited role of government, the separation of powers, the relationship of the individual to the community, or the full roster of civil liberties, one is tempted to say that his genius lay in the very acceptance of certain limitations, which is at the heart of his Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Free from what Friedrich Hayek calls the "fatal conceit," Locke presents his chief work fully cognizant of inconsistencies, perhaps to signal that these are forever inherent in the human condition. MONOLOGUES DIALOGUES It took another hundred years before Nietzsche would declare God "dead" but, by claiming to be free from error, Kant began what amounts to a monologue. Hegel and Marx continued the practice of dispensing monologues. By the time Marx appeared on the scene, German thinkers had succeeded in seizing center-stage from the French. Social Dogma was now ready to embark on the effort of replacing Christianity as the dominant religion, hence its first conquest in Russia where only a new orthodoxy was capable of upstaging the old one. Russia had produced no thinkers of its own and was in desperate need of alternatives. Yet, there may have been deep-seated reasons in Germany itself. After centuries of struggle for a consolidated German state, after centuries of religious contention between Catholics and Protestants, between Lutherans and Calvinists, the perceived need for a set of finite doctrines was approaching crisis levels. Social Dogma provided all answers, bypassed or eliminated 'troublesome' individual rights, and throve on group hostility. Because it does not accommodate contrary opinion and rules by decree without room for discussion, it must lead to intrusive government the ultimate embodiment of The Monologue. Where it ran its full course, it gave the world leaders like Lenin, and his two stellar disciples: Stalin and Hitler. By contrast, the founding of the United States of America occurred amidst a series of dialogues. Most notable among these was the long-standing disagreement between Jefferson and Hamilton. They and their contemporaries managed to divine from their studies of other societies an uncommon understanding of human nature. Postulating moral foundations as a given, these men created a framework which sought to limit secular laws, rules and regulations to the necessary minimum. They recognized that the fewer the rules, the broader the potential agreement. Broad agreement, in turn, results in less strife. Less strife leaves people free to create and accomplish. The fewer obstacles placed in the path of individuals, the less energy wasted in trying to overcome them. Nevertheless, they left the doors wide open for the continuation of the dialogue, enshrined in the American Construct as the system of checks and balances. PRODUCTION DISTRIBUTION Adam Smith sets the agenda at the outset of his The Wealth of Nations by discussing production and productivity. It is a study of constantly accumulating wealth, providing increased access to a growing number of participants. On the opposite side, Marx's chief argument concerns "surplus value" and to whom it ought to belong. (In fact, he presumes to determine to whom anything may belong.) From the outset, Social Dogma concentrates on distribution. Socialism is defined as distribution of the national product based on individual performance, Communism as distribution of the national product based on individual need. Social Dogma is unable even to think in terms of production, of increased availability. Instead, it is obsessed with the distribution of what it considers a finite quantity of goods. A review of the past thirty years in the United States will confirm these findings. American Liberals have concentrated solely on distribution. Emphasis was shifted from opportunity to entitlement. Instead of increased productivity, Liberal efforts are always directed toward increasing demands. These demands are for unearned participation in, and distributions from, the accomplishments of those who produce the nation's goods tangible and intangible. Those who would resist are branded with pejorative labels no self-respecting American is able to bear. Agendas of confiscation and of arbitrary distribution result in a downward spiral. With incentives shrinking, less and less is produced, consequently there is less and less to distribute. This, in a nutshell, is why welfare states invariably increase poverty. MINORITIES MAJORITIES Were it sensible and desirable in and of itself, 19th century German Social Dogma would still be irrelevant for the United States. It was devised under conditions and with societies in mind in which a minority enjoyed a high standard of living, while the circumstances of the "overwhelming majority" (in the words of Marx) were in urgent need of improvement. By the time Social Dogma launched its all-out assault on the American Construct during the mid-1960s the overwhelming majority of Americans had come to enjoy a higher standard of living than members of any previous society. How, then, was it possible for this patently alien, irrelevant doctrine to pervade our thinking, our language, our institutions? Social Dogma persuades its intended victims that it has people's best interest in mind, that it seeks peace, justice, and equality, that it is motivated by caring and compassion. Its ability to camouflage true intent and adapt to a specific scenario is matchless. It never admits to prohibiting freedom of speech; instead, it masquerades in the Third Reich as "allegiance to the Fuhrer," in the Soviet realm as "class struggle," in the United States as "politically correct vocabulary." It never admits to obstructing the path of the talented; instead, it decrees purification of the race (Third Reich), leadership of the proletariat (Soviet Union), affirmative action (United States). It never admits to confiscating the property of those who had succeeded; instead, it claims to recover "what the Jews had plundered" (Third Reich), to establish national ownership (Soviet Union), to protect the environment (United States). A convergence of unusual circumstances rendered Americans receptive, among them the ennui of the affluent, the Vietnam debate, the new preoccupation with clean water and air, the Civil Rights movement. Along with its staples of "peace," "social justice," and all-round 'goodness,' Social Dogma promised unlimited and unrestricted sex. Soon, an entire generation of Americans was convinced that their own existing ideals and aspirations blended naturally with Social Dogma, which merely expressed them in 'more precise and more global terms.' Thus, the interpretation of the Vietnam conflict was switched. No longer an effort by the Free World to contain Communist expansion, it became "the just struggle of a small people against the mighty Imperialists." The rising tide of legitimate concern for America's Blacks was harnessed to brand every person of white skin with the indelible stigma of racism, thereby eliminating any prospect of a resolution. The genuine compassion Americans feel toward the less fortunate was corrupted into the agenda of redistribution. Academic freedom in our universities was turned into a weapon to stifle academic freedom, just as Martin Heidegger Hitler's first appointee as University President, and still an object of academic worship in America had demanded in 1933. With utter disregard for the American experience which had proven the very opposite of Social Dogma at every turn, the minds of an entire generation were taken over completely, producing several million unwitting Fellow Travelers. Today, it is that same generation which performs mind-snatching on successive generations of children. They are stealing childhood from our children who are commandeered on the streets to march against ballot items they cannot possibly comprehend. Boys and girls are recruited to act as mouthpieces for activists on behalf of issues patently outside their youthful interests or grasp. A majority of them now believe they belong to a minority. Far from being encouraged to think of themselves as Americans, their sense of identity is imprinted with the stigma of separateness from their earliest moments of consciousness. The camouflage applied in this area bears the labels "self esteem," "role models," "roots." Most immigrants took their lives in their hands because in the country of their birth they could not get ahead, or could not get along (or both). What made the difference? Why have men and women Irish, Sicilian, Hungarian, Vietnamese and, yes, African made out so infinitely better over here than over there? The American Construct knew nothing about hyphens. If everybody was American, plain and simple, the curse of warring groups will have been eliminated and a community of individuals was free to evolve. Nearly two centuries later, the assault of Social Dogma was spearheaded by the arrival of the hyphen. The hyphen accomplished what the Wolfpack, the V1, the V2, and all the ICBMs of the Soviet Union could not. It created the seams at which America was to come apart. Meanwhile, a growing multitude of minorities is attempting the uneasy fit of employing Social Dogma developed to suppress the minority in a given society to gain objectives advocated by self-appointed leaders. Common sense would inform them that destroying the very structure in which they seek accommodation has never been a successful recipe. If the objective is to live inside a certain building, demolishing it and distributing the bricks is hardly the way to go. Social Dogma has yet to succeed in building anything at all. History has recorded its unparalleled record of destruction, which is why the so-called National Standards for U.S. History and for World History had gone to such lengths to eliminate the teaching of history in our schools. DEBATE OR WARFARE? And so we return to The Question That Matters. Communism and Nazism have demonstrated what might happen if Social Dogma governs. At the expense of the individual law, education, and human interaction of every kind will be subordinated to some "higher purpose," expressed always in terms of group identity. The agenda is prescribed and adjusted daily by those who claim to 'know best' what is appropriate for all creatures. During the 19th century, the clash between these conflicting views remained confined to writings. In 1914, the contest moved to the battlefield. Two World Wars and the so-called Cold War later the same battle continues to rage, now in the everyday life of America. It is, without doubt, a fight to the finish. Yet those who have been persuaded that we are debating merely different approaches to our shared American traditions remain the great majority. Decades of mind manipulation by social theorists, social dogmatists, has succeeded in distorting our vision. That which divided Kant from Locke, Marx from Adam Smith, separates Liberals from Conservatives in today's America. Significantly, Locke neither implied that he was privy to divine insight nor found himself in need of declaring God "dead" to make his point. English-speaking thinkers, unlike their German counterparts, did not seek to challenge religion an important distinction between the protagonists, still today. Securely anchored in their moral foundations, Conservatives can afford to pursue the dialogue as a process of discovery, amongst themselves and with the American people at large. Liberals must continue to rely upon their unrelenting monologue. Because in the short term dialogue can appear as uncertainty and monologue as strength, the time has come to distinguish between appearance and substance as follows: * The agenda of so-called Liberals in America rests on 19th century (German) Social Dogma. No alternative roots of significance are traceable. * Social Dogma is diametrically opposed the principles on which this nation was founded. * Social Dogma seeks to restrict freedom of speech, freedom of movement, advancement without discrimination, and the protection of private property. * Having lost two World Wars and the Cold War, Social Dogma continues to cast aspersions on our defense establishment, seeking eventually to destroy the capability of this country to resist and combat forces of oppression. * Social Dogma, unchallenged, has led to Bolshevism and Nazism. _________________________________________________________________ These are the origins, this is the true nature of the so-called Liberal agenda. Without comprehending it, we are unlikely to exorcize it. Some have argued that even the Liberal agenda has 'good' points, but then people were taken in by Hitler's Autobahns, Mussolini's success in getting the trains to run on time, or all those Five-Year Plans which were supposed really, but REALLY, to put food on Soviet tables. Remember Raskolnikov's visionary nightmare about the new microbes? "Men attacked by them became at once mad and furious. But never had men considered themselves so intellectual and so completely in possession of the truth as these sufferers, never had they considered their decisions, their scientific conclusions, their moral convictions so infallible..." We have identified the microbes and the plague they spread. We called the virus Social Dogma. Cataloguing the damage it has already caused to America is but a first step. Next, we must learn to differenciate between those who have been infected, and those who are actively spreading the virus. While the former may be cured, the latter need to be engaged head-on. _________________________________________________________________ © Copyright 1996 Balint Vazsonyi ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ********************************************** --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0