November 2004 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Mr. Blue Goes Deaf When He Sees Red
by Tyler Durden 13 Nov '04

13 Nov '04

That's the thing that sucks. The US's Liberals are almost as fascisistic as the clouds of middle-counrty hillbillies. I figured that out as a Brooklyn HS teacher when I realized the true meaning of an oft-repeated phrase of the time: "STAY IN SCHOOL". -TD >From: "R.A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net >Subject: Mr. Blue Goes Deaf When He Sees Red >Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 22:16:19 -0500 > >Mostly because I sent his "Declaration of Expulsion" here... > >It's entirely possible that, absent a physical threat to keep the country >together, we have all the necessary ingredients to go the way of the Soviet >Union someday, and devolve. > >Cheers, >RAH >------ > ><http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?print=yes&id=5750> > >HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE: The National Conservative Weekly Since 1944 > >Mr. Blue Goes Deaf When He Sees Red > >by Mike Thompson >Posted Nov 12, 2004 > > Twenty-four hours after the dramatic U.S. presidential-election results >were validated, Human Events Online published my essay (which I had been >hatching for two weeks), "Declaration of Expulsion," a slightly satiric >proposal to kick out of the Union the 12 most liberal states, either to >join the People's Socialist Dominion of Canada or, on their own, go >straight to Hell. > > Within hours (and I do not claim that my piece was a causal effect), >liberal voices formed into an enthusiastic chorus for roughly the same >idea: Democrat gurus Lawrence O'Donnell and Robert Beckel, as angry talking >heads on two separate TV news shows, taunted the newly solid-Republican >South (all states of which actually are overfed "welfare clients" of the >affluent, heavily taxed North, huffed O'Donnell) to secede, for the second >time since 1860; The reliably opportunistic Internet erupted with "I >Seceded" T-shirts for sale, plus the mocking map of a 31-Red-state nation >called "Jesusland," and An e-mail rapidly circulating among liberals touted >creation of the country of "American Coastopia," whose upscale Atlantic- >and Pacific-rim inhabitants joyfully would (what else?) fly over Fly-Over >Country to get away from "rednecks in Oklahoma and homophobic >knuckle-draggers in Wyoming." > > Then came confirmation of the growing fascination for dividing what once >was "one nation indivisible," when Manhattan-based liberal talk-show host >Alan Colmes invited me to be a guest for 15 minutes on his late-night radio >program. > > My on-air "15 minutes of fame" would mushroom into 45 minutes of >defamation: "Why are you so intolerant of liberals?" asked Herr Colmes, who >apparently had forgotten that he was supposed to ask me when I had stopped >beating my wife. I explained to him factually that more liberals than >conservatives publicly are advocating dissolution of the Union, and that >the issue, in either event, is not intolerance but rather >insolubility--that is, there is no middle ground, no compromise possible on >most CultureWar issues. > > "That's exactly what intolerance is!" asserted the intolerant >talkmeister. > > "Listen carefully, Alan," I urged. "If you want Congress to pass a >10-dollar minimum wage and I want an eight-dollar cap, it's possible for us >to compromise at nine dollars. But how do we compromise on abortion? Shall >we kill only half as many babies? How do we compromise on gay marriage? >Shall we allow a lesbian to marry a lesbian but forbid a man to marry a >man? There are too many of these insoluble differences between the Red >states and the Blue states." > > "I can't believe how intolerant you are!" screamed Alan. > > Soon a self-identified lesbian called in breathlessly to confess "intense >fear of intolerant Red states." (Why, I thought, was she phoning a radio >show in the middle of the night instead of her local 911 operator?) The >perceptive host again verbally pounced on me, his guest, who safely lives >in the brimstone warmth of Red Florida: "Do you think, Mr. Thompson, that >this woman is evil or immoral?" > > "Alan, I have no idea who the woman is," I answered. "I have just met her >anonymously over the phone. All I know is that she has made a bad choice of >lifestyle, because lesbians have a documented higher rate of alcoholism, a >higher rate of mental problems and a higher rate of suicide than >heterosexual women." > > Alan, who apparently is aurally challenged, now was in the full-boost >stage of liberal ballistics: "What do you mean, this woman RAPES other >women? You are filled with hate! How DARE you say such a thing!" > > "Rape?" I asked, flabbergasted. "I said RATE--as in 'suicide rate.' >RATE--as in 'alcoholism rate'! Please listen to me, Alan. Is your phone >bad?" > > With no apology to his mystified guest, Alan disconnected the lesbian's >call and radically changed the subject: "Do you think John Kerry is a >traitor?" > > "Yes, Alan. One who commits treason," I observed coolly, "by definition >is >a traitor. Kerry went to Paris and consulted with our Communist Vietnam >enemies, not with U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Subsequently, >Kerry publicly endorsed the outrageous Communist 'peace plan,' not his own >country's plan. > > "In uniform, Kerry during the war and under oath before the U.S. Senate >also accused his fellow American soldiers of indiscriminately raping and >killing Vietnamese civilians and destroying their villages just for the fun >of it--false charges that were welcomed and used by the Communist nation's >cruel jailers for years to torture American prisoners. Therefore, Mr. Kerry >is a double traitor." > > Unguided-missile Colmes finally reached the smoking-burnout stage, >spewing >invectives and ridicule at me as fast as his facile, bifurcated tongue >could wag. > > "How can you just sit there and libel a statesman like John Kerry?" he >sputtered. > > "How dare you sit in judgment of a great American patriot!" > > My answer: "Apparently you have forgotten, Alan, but you asked me to 'sit >in judgment' of John Kerry--you asked me if I thought he was a traitor. I >didn't bring up the subject." Pausing, I asked, "By the way, can you tell >your audience how the Constitution defines a traitor? Go ahead. Surely you >must know." > > Retorted Prof. Colmes testily: "I'm not going to play your little quiz >game!" > > "It's not a game, Alan," I said. "Are you ignorant and don't know the >answer, or are you afraid to speak the truth? The Constitution defines a >traitor as someone who in time of war adheres to our enemy and gives the >enemy 'aid and comfort'--those are the exact words. Listen, Alan, listen." > > His response was a curt good-bye before going to the final break of the >hour to promote rupture-easers and get-rich-quick books from unknown >con-artists. > > When I submitted "Declaration of Expulsion," I felt a bit like Jonathan >Swift must have when he wrote "A Modest Proposal," a tongue-in-dark-cheek >suggestion that the "excess" babies born to Irish Catholics should be eaten >by Englishmen as a cheap source of meat. After my 45-minute broadcast >encounter with a typical American liberal, however, I believe that >expulsion of the most egregiously leftwing states is anything but a slight >"joke'; it is, in fact, clearly the serious and necessary path for rescue >and revival of the United States of America. > > I am also sure that God will be understanding when the U.S.A., a reborn >nation with revised borders, reaffirms the entire First Amendment and does >not change its name at this time, even if well intended, to Jesusland. > > >-- >----------------- >R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> >The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.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'

2 1

Freedom of Expression
by Major Variola (ret) 12 Nov '04

12 Nov '04

At 09:41 AM 11/10/04 -0500, R.A. Hettinga wrote: >Those who love operas get what they want, and those who love rock and roll >get what they want, and both can live in peace with one another. Not if that manic-depressive, mother of controlled-substance-abusing spawn named Tipper Gore had maintained the power that she rode when her "Internet-Inventing" husband was fighting for his moronic political life. She would have banned R&R, see the Mothers of Prevention album, by the premiere American composer of the 20th century, among others. Not that I wouldn't pay good money to see her, William Cohen's bipolar negress, and Condosleeza Rice duke it out, in a tub of Jello (tm), on pay-per-view, officiated by the elder lackey Powell's FCC son officiating, of course. My money's on Rice, she knows how to fight, damn the collateral damage, full speed ahead.

1 0

Mr. Blue Goes Deaf When He Sees Red
by R.A. Hettinga 12 Nov '04

12 Nov '04

Mostly because I sent his "Declaration of Expulsion" here... It's entirely possible that, absent a physical threat to keep the country together, we have all the necessary ingredients to go the way of the Soviet Union someday, and devolve. Cheers, RAH ------ <http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?print=yes&id=5750> HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE: The National Conservative Weekly Since 1944 Mr. Blue Goes Deaf When He Sees Red by Mike Thompson Posted Nov 12, 2004 Twenty-four hours after the dramatic U.S. presidential-election results were validated, Human Events Online published my essay (which I had been hatching for two weeks), "Declaration of Expulsion," a slightly satiric proposal to kick out of the Union the 12 most liberal states, either to join the People's Socialist Dominion of Canada or, on their own, go straight to Hell. Within hours (and I do not claim that my piece was a causal effect), liberal voices formed into an enthusiastic chorus for roughly the same idea: Democrat gurus Lawrence O'Donnell and Robert Beckel, as angry talking heads on two separate TV news shows, taunted the newly solid-Republican South (all states of which actually are overfed "welfare clients" of the affluent, heavily taxed North, huffed O'Donnell) to secede, for the second time since 1860; The reliably opportunistic Internet erupted with "I Seceded" T-shirts for sale, plus the mocking map of a 31-Red-state nation called "Jesusland," and An e-mail rapidly circulating among liberals touted creation of the country of "American Coastopia," whose upscale Atlantic- and Pacific-rim inhabitants joyfully would (what else?) fly over Fly-Over Country to get away from "rednecks in Oklahoma and homophobic knuckle-draggers in Wyoming." Then came confirmation of the growing fascination for dividing what once was "one nation indivisible," when Manhattan-based liberal talk-show host Alan Colmes invited me to be a guest for 15 minutes on his late-night radio program. My on-air "15 minutes of fame" would mushroom into 45 minutes of defamation: "Why are you so intolerant of liberals?" asked Herr Colmes, who apparently had forgotten that he was supposed to ask me when I had stopped beating my wife. I explained to him factually that more liberals than conservatives publicly are advocating dissolution of the Union, and that the issue, in either event, is not intolerance but rather insolubility--that is, there is no middle ground, no compromise possible on most CultureWar issues. "That's exactly what intolerance is!" asserted the intolerant talkmeister. "Listen carefully, Alan," I urged. "If you want Congress to pass a 10-dollar minimum wage and I want an eight-dollar cap, it's possible for us to compromise at nine dollars. But how do we compromise on abortion? Shall we kill only half as many babies? How do we compromise on gay marriage? Shall we allow a lesbian to marry a lesbian but forbid a man to marry a man? There are too many of these insoluble differences between the Red states and the Blue states." "I can't believe how intolerant you are!" screamed Alan. Soon a self-identified lesbian called in breathlessly to confess "intense fear of intolerant Red states." (Why, I thought, was she phoning a radio show in the middle of the night instead of her local 911 operator?) The perceptive host again verbally pounced on me, his guest, who safely lives in the brimstone warmth of Red Florida: "Do you think, Mr. Thompson, that this woman is evil or immoral?" "Alan, I have no idea who the woman is," I answered. "I have just met her anonymously over the phone. All I know is that she has made a bad choice of lifestyle, because lesbians have a documented higher rate of alcoholism, a higher rate of mental problems and a higher rate of suicide than heterosexual women." Alan, who apparently is aurally challenged, now was in the full-boost stage of liberal ballistics: "What do you mean, this woman RAPES other women? You are filled with hate! How DARE you say such a thing!" "Rape?" I asked, flabbergasted. "I said RATE--as in 'suicide rate.' RATE--as in 'alcoholism rate'! Please listen to me, Alan. Is your phone bad?" With no apology to his mystified guest, Alan disconnected the lesbian's call and radically changed the subject: "Do you think John Kerry is a traitor?" "Yes, Alan. One who commits treason," I observed coolly, "by definition is a traitor. Kerry went to Paris and consulted with our Communist Vietnam enemies, not with U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Subsequently, Kerry publicly endorsed the outrageous Communist 'peace plan,' not his own country's plan. "In uniform, Kerry during the war and under oath before the U.S. Senate also accused his fellow American soldiers of indiscriminately raping and killing Vietnamese civilians and destroying their villages just for the fun of it--false charges that were welcomed and used by the Communist nation's cruel jailers for years to torture American prisoners. Therefore, Mr. Kerry is a double traitor." Unguided-missile Colmes finally reached the smoking-burnout stage, spewing invectives and ridicule at me as fast as his facile, bifurcated tongue could wag. "How can you just sit there and libel a statesman like John Kerry?" he sputtered. "How dare you sit in judgment of a great American patriot!" My answer: "Apparently you have forgotten, Alan, but you asked me to 'sit in judgment' of John Kerry--you asked me if I thought he was a traitor. I didn't bring up the subject." Pausing, I asked, "By the way, can you tell your audience how the Constitution defines a traitor? Go ahead. Surely you must know." Retorted Prof. Colmes testily: "I'm not going to play your little quiz game!" "It's not a game, Alan," I said. "Are you ignorant and don't know the answer, or are you afraid to speak the truth? The Constitution defines a traitor as someone who in time of war adheres to our enemy and gives the enemy 'aid and comfort'--those are the exact words. Listen, Alan, listen." His response was a curt good-bye before going to the final break of the hour to promote rupture-easers and get-rich-quick books from unknown con-artists. When I submitted "Declaration of Expulsion," I felt a bit like Jonathan Swift must have when he wrote "A Modest Proposal," a tongue-in-dark-cheek suggestion that the "excess" babies born to Irish Catholics should be eaten by Englishmen as a cheap source of meat. After my 45-minute broadcast encounter with a typical American liberal, however, I believe that expulsion of the most egregiously leftwing states is anything but a slight "joke'; it is, in fact, clearly the serious and necessary path for rescue and revival of the United States of America. I am also sure that God will be understanding when the U.S.A., a reborn nation with revised borders, reaffirms the entire First Amendment and does not change its name at this time, even if well intended, to Jesusland. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.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

Stewart, Esq
by Major Variola (ret) 12 Nov '04

12 Nov '04

Moses Washington Sitting Bull Bin Laden Let my people go, Any Questions? >"I believe that entrenched institutions will not be changed except by violence," Stewart said. "I believe in the politics that lead to violence being exerted by people on their own behalf to effectuate change." Stewart cited the American Revolution and the struggle to end slavery as such examples but emphasized that she did not support terrorism, saying, "I do not believe in civilian deaths or wanton massacres.">

1 0

Gov't Orders Air Passenger Data for Test
by R.A. Hettinga 12 Nov '04

12 Nov '04

<http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&u=/ap/20041112/ap_on_re_us/pa…> Yahoo! Gov't Orders Air Passenger Data for Test Fri Nov 12, 2:35 PM ET By LESLIE MILLER, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The government on Friday ordered airlines to turn over personal information about passengers who flew within the United States in June in order to test a new system for identifying potential terrorists. The system, dubbed "Secure Flight," will compare passenger data with names on two government watch lists, a "no fly" list comprised of people who are known or suspected to be terrorists, and a list of people who require more scrutiny before boarding planes. "Secure Flight represents a significant step in securing domestic air travel and safeguarding national security information, namely, the watchlists," the Transportation Security Administration said in a notice announcing the order. Currently, the federal government shares parts of the list with airlines, which are responsible for making sure suspected terrorists don't get on planes. People within the commercial aviation industry say the lists have the names of more than 100,000 people on them. The order follows a 30-day period during which the public was allowed to comment on the Secure Flight proposal. About 500 people commented on the plan; the overwhelming majority opposed it, saying it would invade their privacy and infringe on their civil liberties. An airline industry representative said the carriers, which support the plan, are studying the order. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.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

Survey: People want receipt showing how they voted
by R.A. Hettinga 12 Nov '04

12 Nov '04

<http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2004/nov/12/517815076.html> Las Vegas SUN Photo: Larry Lomax Las Vegas SUN Today: November 12, 2004 at 9:43:50 PST Survey: People want receipt showing how they voted LAS VEGAS SUN An Election Day poll in Las Vegas indicated that 81 percent of voters surveyed want to take home a private "ATM style" receipt to verify for themselves their vote was counted correctly, a consulting group said Wednesday. Lombardo Consulting Group said it surveyed 362 voters in conjunction with political science professor Michael John Burton of Ohio University. Given a choice between leaving a voter-verified paper ballot at the polling place or taking home a receipt, 60 percent of those asked said they preferred take-home receipts and self-verification, and 36 percent said they preferred the idea of leaving a paper ballot with election officials. Nevada Secretary of State Dean Heller, the man responsible for overseeing elections throughout the state, opposes giving voters a printed receipt, however. He said that while it may sound like a good idea, it could lead to many problems. An employer could require a worker to show his receipt to prove he voted a certain way, or the worker could be subject to loss of his job if he didn't follow the wishes of the employer, Heller said. Unions could require a member to verify he voted a certain way in order to keep his membership, said Heller. Any of those actions would be illegal, however. Heller also said the printed receipts could lead to electioneering problems. He referred to a ruling from his office that a casino could not give free meals to customers who showed records that they had cast their ballots. None of the problems he cited would be caused by voters themselves, however. Nevada was the only state to use "statewide" voter-verified paper ballot printers attached to electronic voting machines on Election Day. In a press release, Burton said that "many voters thought a private receipt that they could take home would be the best way to know if their vote was counted correctly. People are used to getting receipts from ATMs or gas stations -- and they liked the idea of getting a receipt from the voting booth." During the election in Nevada, voters were instructed by poll workers to compare their vote selections on the electronic screen with what was printed on the voter verified paper ballot scroll. The paper ballot scrolls were retained by election officials for use in post-election audits or recounts. The survey also examined voter interaction with Nevada's voter-verified paper ballot machines and found that only 31 percent of the voters actually compared the entire paper ballot to the machine ballot in order to ensure their vote was recorded accurately. Lombardo Consulting Group is a corporate and political public opinion research firm with offices in Washington, D.C., and New York City. Complete survey results can be found at http://www.lombardo consulting group.com /docs/ nvvotersurvey.pdf -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.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

Bin Laden Has "Religious Approval" To Use Nuke
by R.A. Hettinga 12 Nov '04

12 Nov '04

<http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm> The Drudge Report Support The DrudgeReport; Visit Our Advertisers FORMER HEAD OF CIA'S OSAMA BIN LADEN UNIT SAYS THE QAEDA LEADER HAS SECURED RELIGIOUS APPROVAL TO USE A NUCLEAR BOMB AGAINST AMERICANS Fri Nov 12 2004 12:02:34 ET Osama bin Laden now has religious approval to use a nuclear device against Americans, says the former head of the CIA unit charged with tracking down the Saudi terrorist. The former agent, Michael Scheuer, speaks to Steve Kroft in his first television interview without disguise to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, Nov. 14 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network. Scheuer was until recently known as the "anonymous" author of two books critical of the West's response to bin Laden and al Qaeda, the most recent of which is titled Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. No one in the West knows more about the Qaeda leader than Scheuer, who has tracked him since the mid-1980s. The CIA allowed him to write the books provided he remain anonymous, but now is allowing him to reveal himself for the first time on Sunday's broadcast; he formally leaves the Agency today (12). Even if bin Laden had a nuclear weapon, he probably wouldn't have used it for a lack of proper religious authority - authority he has now. "[Bin Laden] secured from a Saudi sheik...a rather long treatise on the possibility of using nuclear weapons against the Americans," says Scheuer. "[The treatise] found that he was perfectly within his rights to use them. Muslims argue that the United States is responsible for millions of dead Muslims around the world, so reciprocity would mean you could kill millions of Americans," Scheuer tells Kroft. Scheuer says bin Laden was criticized by some Muslims for the 9/11 attack because he killed so many people without enough warning and before offering to help convert them to Islam. But now bin Laden has addressed the American people and given fair warning. "They're intention is to end the war as soon as they can and to ratchet up the pain for the Americans until we get out of their region....If they acquire the weapon, they will use it, whether it's chemical, biological or some sort of nuclear weapon," says Scheuer. As the head of the CIA unit charged with tracking bin Laden from 1996 to 1999, Scheuer says he never had enough people to do the job right. He blames former CIA Director George Tenet. "One of the questions that should have been asked of Mr. Tenet was why were there always enough people for the public relations office, for the academic outreach office, for the diversity and multi-cultural office? All those things are admirable and necessary but none of them are protecting the American people from a foreign threat," says Scheuer. And the threat posed by bin Laden is also underestimated, says Scheuer. "I think our leaders over the last decade have done the American people a disservice...continuing to characterize Osama bin Laden as a thug, as a gangster," he says. "Until we respect him, sir, we are going to die in numbers that are probably unnecessary, yes. He's a very, very talented man and a very worthy opponent," he tells Kroft. Until today (12), Scheuer was a senior official in the CIA's counter terrorism unit and a special advisor to the head of the agency's bin Laden unit. Developing... -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.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

Re: China's wealthy bypass the banks
by Tyler Durden 12 Nov '04

12 Nov '04

>That is the revisionist version - that china was a free and >capitalist society, therefore freedom is not enough to ensure >modernity and industrialization - a proposition as ludicrous as >similar accounts of more recently existent despotic states. I can't tell if you're arguing me with or just yourself. You seem to equate disagreement with your assessment with a viewpoint that is completely opposite. To say that China was "despotic" would, on average, be accurate. But then again, one must remember that a form of despotism where the despots are months away is very different from modern forms of despotism. Today's China is in some ways similar to China during many dynasties. The emperor sleeps some insect with a big, fat stinger awakens him and then he gets mad, swats it, and then goes back to sleep. When the locals are fairly certain the emperor is sleeping soundly, they go about their business. Call it despotism if you want, but really it's essentially Chinese. -TD

2 1

Re: China's wealthy bypass the banks
by Tyler Durden 12 Nov '04

12 Nov '04

Ah. This is an interesting point. The Qing were 1) Manchus (ie, not Han Chinese)...they were basically a foreign occupation that stuck around for a while; and 2) (Nominally Tibetan) Buddhists. Although they of course adhered to the larger Confucian notions, they in many ways deviated from mainstream Confucian beliefs. Also, you need to get more specific about WHEN during the Qing dynasty you believed this occurred. During the 19th century this is most certainly NOT true, and there are many famous naval battles that occurred between the British and the Chinese navies (in fact, the famous Stone Boat in the Summer palace was built using funds that were supposed to pay for real ships). But perhaps you meant ocean-going boat ownership by private individuals, and that is certainly something that was a BIG no-no during many epochs of Chinese civilization. And indeed, this is probably precisely why the Chinese had to defend themselves from British attack, rather than the other way around. But this has nothing to do with Confucianism per se, but is more directly related to good old traditional Chinese xenophobia. In the end, Chinese unification was probably a devil's bargain. It created a far more stable "nation", but at the cost of human freedom. But it's not precisely like this was imposed on the populace from without...that it was successful at all in a place as large and remote as China is a testimony to Chinese dislike of "Wai Guo" culture. -TD >From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> >To: cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net> >Subject: Re: China's wealthy bypass the banks >Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:11:09 -0800 > > -- >ken wrote: > > > And when was this stagnation? > >R.A. Hettinga wrote: > > Two words: Ming Navy > >For those who need more words, the Qing Dynasty forbade >ownership or building of ocean going vessels, on pain of death >- the early equivalent of the iron curtain. > > --digsig > James A. Donald > 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG > Iw7Wkew4KTQWmS2lvvIMd7+fR3rWAWagnqJ4cF0k > 4Ee4DcVaw474VQFVRrwVAXR4XZSXiaNtRuKXYpsBo

2 1

Re: China's wealthy bypass the banks
by Tyler Durden 12 Nov '04

12 Nov '04

OK, Mr Donald. You clearly imagine the China of 2,500 years ago to operate like a modern 20th century nation-state. You need to rethink this, given a few simple facts: 1. There were no telephones during Confucious' time. 2. Several provinces of China are larger than all of Western Europe. Even a very high-priority message could take months to propagate. 3. "Control' of China 2500 years ago was almost nonexistent. It was a geographically, ethnically, and linguistically diverse set of quasi-nation-states. To even imagine them to be anything like a modern nation state indicates you are extrapolating your bizarre little philosophical universe well beyond the breaking point. (But then again, that wasn't too hard!) 4. Event the early Ryu-Jya (Legalists) were nothing like what you imagine modern laws to be. In fact, their activity probably centers on creating an established set of standardized weights (ie, for weighing food and whatnot). "Law" in early China was NOTHING like what you imagine it to be, and was a higly decentralized affair. Indeed, modern China is rapidly 'deteriorated' into the same. As for... >Which is a commie nazi way of saying that the the Confucians >were not a heck of a lot different from the legalists - and the >legalists set up an early version of the standard highly >centralized totalitarian terror state, which doubtless appears >quite enlightened to the likes of Tyler Durden. Again, you seem to visualize me as (-1) times yourself, or basically your old commie self. The point I continue to harp on (and that you fail to understand) is that, despite how well one may argue that one sees reality 'objectively' (and others don't), completely alternate viewpoints are possible and very often held by others throughout the world. An action like the US in Iraq (irregardless of what you believe the objective reality to be) is futile precisely because it only re-inforces the world view of the locals (ie, that the US is a giant, bullying oppressive regime that has stuck it's big dick into the holy land and needs force to remove it). In other words, perception is often reality, and until you (and others like you) accept that, then we'll continue to have bloodbath after bloodbath, initated by 'Christian' and 'Islamic' true believers alike. -TD >From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net >Subject: Re: China's wealthy bypass the banks >Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:41:20 -0800 > > -- >On 12 Nov 2004 at 9:51, Tyler Durden wrote: > > As far as I'm concerned, what Kung Tze does ca 5 BCE is > > really consdolidate and codify a large and diverse body of > > practices and beliefs under a fairly unified set of ethical > > ideas. In that sense, the Legalists were merely a refocusing > > of the same general body of mores, etc...into a somewhat > > different direction. One might call it a competing school to > > Kung Tze de Jiao Xun, but I would argue only because, at that > > time, Kung Tze "authority" as it's known today was by no > > means completely established. But in a sense, the early > > legalists weren't a HECK of a lot different from Confucious. > >Which is a commie nazi way of saying that the the Confucians >were not a heck of a lot different from the legalists - and the >legalists set up an early version of the standard highly >centralized totalitarian terror state, which doubtless appears >quite enlightened to the likes of Tyler Durden. > > --digsig > James A. Donald > 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG > k9Dumf7XMAhNCRDuxNd2aKQtrN2PqD2p2l3TDcjw > 4SMVqw0LGnr3oZKU5v0WQpooJ4tKHdZvNiokzj2e9

2 1