I'm assuming now, just for the sake of argument...That we have if not catastropic failure, then severe failure that leaves millions dead from disease/starvation/rioting/military involvement. America's infrastructure, damaged, but not destroyed, survives. Think of the clock having rolled back to a 1918 timeframe technologically speaking. We have the knowedge, but not the means to immeadiately re-institute it.

Question: The politcal hacks which led us down this darkened path...Do we scrap the system? Or do we re-establish a new order in which the ordinary man truly has a say, like the founding fathers intended?

Just for S&G and arguments sake...

-- Billy-Boy (Rakkasn@Yahoo.com), September 30, 1999

Answers

Could you describe exactly which order it is that the founders intended in which the ordinary man truly has a say?

Would that be the one where only landowning white men are allowed to vote? I doubt it.

How does this system you have in mind work?

JZ

-- Jeff Zurschmeide (zursch@cyberhighway.net), September 30, 1999.

Rather than pick at a piece of the Potential Politically Incorrect aspects, Why don't you answer the question. "...we deem these truths to be self evident...that all men are created equal" Back in 'th day' it might have been only the white founded gentry of the society, but I'm more refering to ordinary men as a 'label group' for ALL of mankind...you simp...

-- Billy-Boy (Rakkasn@Yahoo.com), September 30, 1999.

Are you confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution? The Declaration talked about "all men,:" but the Constitution set up a system whereby only white men could vote, black people were 3/5 of a person, for census reasons, and U.S. Senators were elected by state legislators, not the "ordinary man."

-- Kurt Ayau (Ayau@iwinet.com), September 30, 1999.

yet again a non-answer...whats up with you all...

-- Billy-Boy (Rakkasn@Yahoo.com), September 30, 1999.

And then they went and started screwing up the US Consitution and letting non freeholders vote for Senators and things have not been right since.

A land owning white man,

-- chicken farmer (chicken-farmer@ y2k.farm), September 30, 1999.

The United States in it's present form does not survive. Neither will 2/3 of our people.

What is left may become a miniscule Nation-State in the Phoenix of a new global order(See Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott's comments since 1992).

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), September 30, 1999.

BB--

Interesting question, and the answer obviously depends on how far south the infrastructure goes in Jan, Feb, and March. To set the stage for my answer: I think most on this forum agree that economic depression if not a given, is extremely likely. Personally, I am expecting a five or so--intermittant power outages, some disorder, lots of bankruptcies and some starvation. Rioting in LA of course. But in the middle-run, I think we get it mostly back together.

My answer to your question: Personally, love the Constitution. I don't think it is a good idea to try to rewrite something that big and that important in a period of disorder.

Furthermore. The common man and woman DO still have a voice in this government, they mostly just chose not to use it. Most folks have their politicians sold to them like detergent. Lots of expensive commercials designed by marketing experts who know you better than you know yourself.

And since those commercials are expensive, policy falls into the hands of well-heeled special interests. Apalling. But no one took our freedom. We continue to allow it to dribble away.

So. If it's a five or six, and they manage to cobble together some sort of electoral process by the summer, do this. Vote the bastards out. Democrat or Republican, there's little difference these days. Throw all of them out. Let's go for %100 percent turnover. Vote the Reform Ticket, Libertarian, third-party, fourth-party, that weird Buddist Sunshine party, or for the Demo or Repub that's on the outs, but anyone IN...has got to GO.

And for Pete's sake, people--start paying attention to policy and politics. It's only barely less important than your own heartbeat.

(I stole that last line)

And you can stop worrying about Strobe Talbot. He's a flaky academic blue-skying for the media. Worry about getting your own butt informed and down to the voting booth when there's an election.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

-- William in Dallas (bcheek@onramp.net), September 30, 1999.

Dallas Bill,

Talbott may be a flake (I agree), BUT HE'S DEPUTY SEC. OF STATE fer crying out loud!!! He's in the power-position of making his sicko fantasy a reality...you and I are not.

Seeing the handwriting on the wall is equal to keeping the heartbeat of freedom beating.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), September 30, 1999.

William makes good points, If I had my druthers we wouldn't change much-- just go back to the original--PC dweebs don't come back with that 3/5ths and landowner crap you know what I mean -- and yes Senators should be appointed and not directly elected, the founders had a very good reason to set it up that way. The only change I would make is to allow congress to overturn the supreme court without an amendment, something like 75% vote and the Presidents signature. The Judiciary was never intended to be as powerful as it is today, in fact in the Federalist Papers I believe Madison describes the Judiciary as the weakest of the branches. Very different from how it has turned out.

-- Tom (thomas_irr@ena-east.ericsson.se), September 30, 1999.

A strictly constitutionalist state...That would be nice. Utilize the original amendments as a basic structure, and de-centralize the fed.gov. return the power to the states and to the people!

-- Billy-Boy (Rakkasn@Yahoo.com), September 30, 1999.

...and my thanks to the intelligensia who have responded so well.

-- Billy-Boy (Rakkasn@Yahoo.com), September 30, 1999.

If the system really goes south, don't expect to see the 50 states anymore. Political entities may form along regional lines (Pacific NW: OR, WA, IA, BC; Northeast: New England, Maritime Prov; Southeast; Midwest; Great Plains; etc, etc...) Expect that regional power centers will form around large military bases, especially land-power bases (Army, Marines). The Sovereign Republic of Texas, for example, may have its armed forces based on the old 3rd Army Corps at Fort Hood, Texas. The Armed Forces of the Republic of Cascadia might be headquartered at Ft. Lewis, WA. Interesting speculation. Politics will be local (like everything else). Some areas will have warlords and "robber barons", some areas will be completely lawless, some areas may have elected govts and law and order, some areas may reconstitute under clan or tribal lines. Big cities will probably empty out (disease, danger, famine) and townships will probably be the main political entity. It would probably be fun to write a fiction novel about it, were it not for the fact that it might actually become a reality.

-- rob minor (rbminor@hotmail.com), September 30, 1999.

As quoted from Shakespeare: "First we kill all the lawyers!"

-- cody (cody@y2ksurvive.com), September 30, 1999.

rob--

Your post reminded me of a sci-fi novel from the early 80s I think, called The Texas-Israeli Wars: 1999. ABC war in early 90s devastates US. Israel manages to stay out, so they do pretty well and start hiring out as mercenaries. Texas secedes from the Union taking oil reserves and untouched Rio Grande Valley ag resources. Of course the secession is managed by the big money boys. John Wayne is a national icon and they have the "Sons of the Alamo" aka SA or "skyshirts" for their blue uniforms doing a SS turn. Tank battles in Dallas, pretty enjoyable yarn. You might run across it in a used bookstore.

And INVAR...you don't really think a DEPUTY Sec of State has any power do you? Please. He's a well-educated bureaucrat running his mouth. Believe me, if he's one of the point men for the NWO, we'll whack those guys hands down.

The New World Order can't be any more competant than the Old World Order,

-- William in Dallas (bcheek@onramp.net), September 30, 1999.

The framers introduced the restrictions on the franchise into the Constitution in order to get the slave-holding states to ratify it. Otherwise it wouldn't have happened. Probably would have had trouble with some delegates in the Northern states too without the land-owner requirement. Without that ratification we'd be reading a very different history here.

Politics is compromise. Always has been, always will be. Only way to avoid it is go to a fuhrer-prinzip a la Jenghiz Khan, the Russian Czars, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot -- and take your chances. It may go your way, and it may not.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), September 30, 1999.

"It would probably be fun to write a fiction novel about it..."

It's already been written. Read A Canticle for Leibowitz, by Walter Miller.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), September 30, 1999.

Dallas Bill,

I can only hope you are right with all my being.

Unfortunately, not only are Clinton's elitist lackey's really running the show (read Boy Clinton by R. Emmett Tyrell or Unlimited Access), the bible disagrees with that notion. So by watching what they DO and not necessarily by what they say...I think Talbott's ideas are policy, not fantasy.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), September 30, 1999.

According to In the Absence of the Sacred, the Failure of Technology and the Survival of the Indian Nations by Jerry Mander, our form of government drew largely from the Iriquois', with several profound differences. The latter had no executive branch, moreover, important decisions required unanimous approval among the entire adult population before action could be taken.

It had struck me after reading that book (many years ago) that the model of pure democracy worked for the Iriquois largely because their members shared a common set of values and because cooperation was universally recognized as essential to survival. Their system being anathema to competition, I couldn't fathom it working successfully for our country, or for any country in general.

To the extent that upcoming events bring about autonomy for local communities, there may be a chance for some to move toward a cooperation based model. But regarding the original question, I don't know that I could have faith in any hierarchical system. Those persons and institutions vested with power seem to always manage to acquire ever more.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), September 30, 1999.

Before you can even guess at what things will be like post-Y2K, first you have to decide how you think each of these will have been affected by the effects of Y2K:

1) Who will still be alive? What will their health situation be like? Lifelong mental retardation due to malnutrition during childhood is common now in much of the Third World; imagine if this is widespread here just for a couple of years...

2) Who will possess what? Account for pre-crash stockpiling, subsequent looting, and subsequent production or lack thereof. Trade/raw materials supply options AS THEY EXIST THEN are critical to this, especiallywith respect to the production aspect.

3) Where will people be at this point? Include all the varying degrees of voluntariness of the types of likely migration. IMO expect lots of movement away from deserts/disease/civil disorder/cities, and toward food/water/economically recovering locales.

4) Who will control who, and how closely? I suspect that at least some currently existing government units will continue to exist and that they will be strong where they have a man with a gun, but not much of a factor elsewhere. What local (< 1/4 of a county, often?) groups will form? Those of similiar origin/values/wealth/situation are likely to band together first, and show little tolerance of different others not at least as strong.

5) How will people's mentalities change? Think about alterations in memes, what is considered unspeakable/not open to discussion, formative experiences, changes in philosophy/theology, etc. Sorokin, Maslow, Desmond Morris, etc. will be invaluable authors to read for insights on this aspect.

6) How will resource availability change? Examples could be a) oil wells that needed constant pumping to stay usable may not receive it in 2000, and will be lost as oil sources; b) mines that need water pumped out constantly may be flooded; c) forestation/tree cover may be radically different in many areas; traditional fire extinguishing operations in rural areas are likely to not be performed much in 2000, so huge tree losses from wildfires will be possible, while most/all trees may have been cut down for fuel in populated areas.

Hope that I spark some more in-depth thinking on this line.

my site: www.y2ksafeminnesota.com

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), September 30, 1999.

"Throw all of them out. Let's go for %100 percent turnover. Vote the Reform Ticket, Libertarian, third-party, fourth-party, that weird Buddist Sunshine party, or for the Demo or Repub that's on the outs, but anyone IN...has got to GO."

Now you're talkin'.

I'm a Lib, but I'ld jump ship in a heart beat if you can show me something better. The CURRENT system sucks, plain and simple. We have a bunch of fat, rich, and happy fucking morons making the laws that run our lives.

I ain't happy, but what can I do? Take arms and blow the crap out of the system? I may hate TPTB, but I respect everyone, and I couldn't live with myself if it comes down to a revolt.

I love this country, but I hate the current state.

www.libertarian.org

Or show me something better!!!!!

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 30, 1999.

Preserve the Constitution.

Destroy fractional banking by taking all your money out now.

Convert your wealth in tools and gold.

Forbid private money to be given for electing anyone.

Separate business from the state just as religion and state are separate.

pass a 3 strikes you are out for abuse of jusicial discretion.

Remove prisons and establish exile regions where criminals are permanently isolated but barbarian cruelty is prevented and death is no longer a punishment acceptable to civilized humans.

Make education and medicine free and equal for all,

secure free speech limited to telling the truth...punish lies.

Forbid private insurance companies , pierce the veil of corporations.

Limit the right to ownd land to a maximum of 1000 acres.

Protect children and families.

Keep an eye out for cult abuses and cast the light of ridicule upon false profets

plus mose.... a form of punishment

-- Arthur (ArthurRex@Camelot.grail), October 01, 1999.

Interesting reading for a non-US resident.

Frankly, it seems from over here that your nation (and mine of course) would be impossible to manage by any means other than those currently employed . . to wit . .

A wealthy upper-echelon influencing policy in order to maximise economic performance (and thereby their position) and maintain a stable society in which to operate. This benefits the majority of ordinary people, (and lets not forget you have possibly the highest average standard of living of any significant nation on earth), however, within this system, small disaffected groups will naturally be created based on . .

a) Informed ideological opposition to the current system. (politics) b) The economically underprivilaged. (unemployed, ghettoised etc) c) Special interest groups. (white-supremacists, pro-lifers, ecologists, christian reconstructionists etc) d) Opportunists. (organised crime, lobbyist/pressure groups etc) e) Outside Influence. (Overseas interests, immigrant representatives, cultural leaders etc)

These people, while given the democratic right to exist (within the law) and work to gain support and influence within the limitations of the democratic system in use, are generally kept in check by the system of marginalisation through information control. Hence, those organisations who gain the most influence are those who understand the system, and work within it. They employ PR people, they make slick adverts and publicity material, and they try not to sound too extreme.

This works because the majority of ordinary people remain, for most of their lives, outside of the influence of extremist groups, (with the powers-that-be controlling most of the mainstream media). Thus, they are mostly small-beans, and will remain so. In extreme cases they are forced to take extreme measures for publicity (even to the degree of committing antisocial, disruptive, or terrorist acts), thereby marginalising them further in the minds of the average citizen. Naturally enough, the better the average standard of living in a country, the harder it is for opponents of the system to gain support. Its the "If it aint broke, dont fix it" mentality.

To advocate the dismantling of the current system in its entirety, or any kind of similar drastic change, if undertaken without a carefully controlled transition period, is to set out upon a path to feudalism, civil war, and chaos.

Ask yourself how many issues an uncontrolled populace could find to fight about. What do people disagree on now ? Their acceptance of policies they disagree with is part of a social contract based on compromise. The advantages gained under the system outweigh the annoyance of an official policy you disagree with.

Even a skilled intellectual (in the mould of your founding fathers), faced with the task of drafting an acceptable and relevant new constitution, would (in the far more complex and culturally- interwoven society you now inhabit), come across countless "hot- potato" issues, which would potentially create new and different disaffected groups.

Under this supposed new system, what would the new administration's policy be on say race-relations, gay rights, abortion, religious freedom, foreign policy, economics, taxation ? And how do you sell your particular policy to those who dont agree with it ?

What's the motivation for these people to accept a compromise with you ? Where is your "carrot on a stick" ? The current system (generally) offers peace, the opportunity to maintain a secure and comfortable environment for your family, a stable (reasonably fair, reasonably accessible) legal system, a system of laws which tends to protect the majority (in general), and a host of other benefits. No it isnt perfect. Please feel at liberty to describe, in detail, your concept of a system that would work better IN PRACTICE. (And dont forget to list the benefits . . gotta have that carrot)

You aren't arguing for change per-se, you're arguing for a game of musical chairs. By definition, your current leaders are elected by a system which is as democratic as can be expected, and even if it is the case that most people are politically naieve, and choose their representatives based on nothing more than slick marketing, it is still voting by majority, and if thats what the majority choose, you advocate repression if you attempt to deny the outcome.

Maybe under a new system you would be able to assert more influence (for your own particular ideology) upon the policy makers, and maybe you'd bring about change in line with your opinions, but beware. The "sheeple" of today could easily become the "INVARs" of tomorrow.

Put simply, you may not be in love with the system, but you cant hide from the fact that it provides you with an abundance of both opportunities and facilities, more so than any other place you can name. The argument you put to the majority, when the rhetoric is washed away is . .

"Do you want to run the risk of losing your consumerism, comforts, stability, security and opportunity, in order to play a more direct role in the formation of policies you agree with."

And I'll bet one of my English pounds to one of your American dollars that most people's answer would be . . "Thanks, but no thanks".

Just my 10p (thats 2 cents, roughly)

Kind Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), October 01, 1999.

Fascinating ideas, folks, but I suspect that the following two statements will hold:

1) There will be a tremendous amount of finger pointing as the post-Y2K blame game is played out to the hilt. Who knew about what was coming, who should have known, who said what, wrote what, did what, etc., will be examined by "outraged" politicians who felt that they had been "mislead".

2) Things will continue pretty much like before.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 01, 1999.

Yes, be careful. As Wolverine points out, a bunch of us sheeple might get the silly notion that we need to return to God and our foundational roots as a nation without apology. That would be too extremist for socialized Brits like himself.

It's too bad, but some of us don't like that we've lost our freedom and adbicated personal responsibility to government and litigation.

Some of us don't like being enslaved to an out of control government that destroys its own people through punative taxation and even outright annihilation.

Yes, be careful. We don't want a bunch of faithful self-reliant patriots running around that won't tolerate nonsense.

We don't need extremists like these.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 01, 1999.

INVAR

you said it . . . SOME of you.

Just not enough right now to make a difference at the polls.

Which means your options are to either work for support within the system, (like I said), or take over by force, thereby forcing an unwilling majority to abide by your view of what's right. Thats called DICTATORSHIP. You advocate that do you ?

I note that your only response to what I wrote is sarcasm.

Interesting that in terms of the content of my message, you found nothing with which you could take issue or challenge on a factual or empirical basis.

I dont doubt that there are many things about the status quo that you dont like. Labelling your opinions "patriotic" or "self-reliant" or "faithful" may make you feel better, but self-praise is no reccomendation (as my grandma used to say), and it doesn't add to the quality of your argument.

The only approximation to a statement of policy which I can detect in your post seems to be the desire "to return to the foundations of your nation". You mean back to the annihilation of the native population, gun-fuelled lawlessness and the dominance of the fastest draw, slavery of non-whites, disinterested and isolationist foreign- policy and a social structure based on the ownership of land ? Or do you mean some other rosy-tinted vision of the good old days of "The little house on the prairie" which exist only in a hollywood producers mind ?

Rather you than me in either case.

Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), October 01, 1999.

Wolverine,

I didn't address your points as I was merely responding (in sarcasm yes) to your barb about me. But okay....let's play.

Support to change within the system is not even remotely possible. You do not slowly change corruption, you must root it out and start anew. When you go to the dentist to have a cavity filled, does he not remove ALL the decay, lest the breakdown in integrity continues even after it's filled? If the consensus is realized that we have a burdensome, corrupt tyranny for a government, then our duty as Americans is to OVERTHROW the tyranny (like we did with your king George III's hold on our freedoms), which is WHY we have a Second Ammendment to the Constitution to begin with.

As far as a takeover by force and FORCING the majority to accept a moral code....that won't happen either. In order to change the express elevator to hell our nation is on, it would require an individual about-face within our families and too much of our population is on the government tit, and steeped in self. (On a side note; I love the hypocrisy of how you Socialists always rail on how the Right forces our morality and codes on you, but it's okay for you Leftists to force your nonsensical Socialist crap on the rest of us....but you being a Brit, I can understand how you fail to understand our American heritage as you're used to dictated and parcelled-out pieces of freedom. No offense intended towards Andy here).

As far as challenging your assertions in your post, again I was addressing your personal barb. However, your suggestion that a "carefully controlled transition" period is needed to make an easy change is a fantasy. To make the kind of changes needed to the yokes placed on our necks, you need a revolt, either by peaceful mandate at the polls (which will not happen) or by force (which also will not happen). I cite the American Revolution as evidence, and every other conflict man has been engaged in to make governmental change.

As far as labels go, I can care less what you think of them. You aren't even an American so I won't even waste the time.

But your next is truly choice:

"The only approximation to a statement of policy which I can detect in your post seems to be the desire "to return to the foundations of your nation". You mean back to the annihilation of the native population, gun-fuelled lawlessness and the dominance of the fastest draw, slavery of non-whites, disinterested and isolationist foreign- policy and a social structure based on the ownership of land ? Or do you mean some other rosy-tinted vision of the good old days of "The little house on the prairie" which exist only in a hollywood producers mind ? "

To be blunt, YES. Which of our nations has become the dominant Superpower this century? It certainly wasn't yours now was it? All of the forgings that built us up went into the result of America being the beacon of freedom to the world. I am sick of you Socialists trying to make us feel guilt about the foundations and buildings of our nation. Yes we wiped out the Indians, to the victor go the spoils. As far as slavery and the other blood, sweat and tears that went into making this nation, I think we have atoned in blood for those transgressions.

As far as land ownership, you have no right to balk as YOUR monarchal system of Nobles has kept the private ownership of land within the royalty of family lineage. We kicked your proverbial Red Butts in the 1700's, and rescued your miserable, whining selves twice this century...so spare me the "our Foundations were unfair" bullcrap. Your governmental system is no pillar of virtue and you have therefore no grounds to criticize the foundations of ours. But you are an Elitist and I would expect nothing less of you.

Yes, better me than you to desire freedom, the pursuit of happiness and the practition of my Faith without impediment by a governmental authority that seeks to regulate every fiber of my being.

But you won't understand that. You're a Socialist.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 01, 1999.

Socialists and Conservatives are both full of it.

To the intelligent nonsense that both W & INVAR lay down seems squallid and bankrupt in the face of the cosmic event we are about to experience.

England and America are imitations and conclusions of the Roman Empire. The same greatness and vices of Rome are reflected in both. Disintegration is evident in both.

America had the gift of a constitution that was never fully implemented but managed to keep the melting pot from burning up into total chaos. Manifest Destiny echoes in INVAR right wing self righteousness and flag waving.

INVAR said: "Yes we wiped out the Indians, to the victor go the spoils. As far as slavery and the other blood, sweat and tears that went into making this nation, I think we have atoned in blood for those transgressions."

His dismissal of two centuries of genocide in the Americas is as crass and far from reality as can be. We paid for it? Really? Ask any Amerindian in the depressed reservetions of North America. Are the blacks, the Hawaiians justifies in feeling traumatized? We are a long way from being one nation indivisible with freedom and justice for all.

Human brutality in the western social conception has always been barely under control. Both England and America and the rest of the modern world have yet to become civilized.

The constitution was an almost accidental beginning. Human rights and the enforcement of same is another tiny hope in the darkness.

The bugbear of private property must be limited in a limited world or we perish..."simple as that".

No justice tempered by compassion means no peace and no security therefore the gun will rule unless we act swiftly toward civilized solutions.

We must not not destroy the good, be it from English, American, Iroquois, Roman, or any culture ....protect good seeds and rip out the poisoned weeds...beware of greed, hypocrisy, lust for power. Beware of fanatical religious or political doctrines.

Fight now for Freedom ( a freedom limited by that of others) for civil rights limited by the rights of others, for environment so that all life may continue...stop acting out of personal or cultish or political pride. Evil and stupidity are brother and sister

Preserve the Constitution and reinforce our freedom and control over our government.

Destroy fractional banking by taking all your money out now. Convert your wealth into tools, trade items, silver and gold.

Forbid private financing of elections. Prohibit lobbying by corporations. Separate State from business just as State and Religion are separate.

Punish severely Judicial abuses of discretion. Proven judicial injustice must be a felony punishable like any felony.

Dismantle the prison system and establish isolated exile islands where criminals are permanently remuved from civilized society. A human body should never be locked in a cell. Remove from criminals access to society. End barbarian cruelty and death as punishments these are not acceptable retributions to truly civilized humans.

A civilization must treasure its human potential and provide free education and medicine for all its citizens. Since we claim to be created equal to not protect the health of all people and to fail to educate all our youth is to be hypocrits, it denies any claim to civilization. .

Free speech must be protected except for false and deceiving speech. Freedom to speak the truth - yes! But let each takes a serious risk with lies for no freedom can be guaranteed to lies. Slander, calumnies and false information is damaging thus it cannot be protected.

All insurance must be nationalized. Car insurance, for example, should be part of the cost of Gasoline so that the cost will be proportionately shared according to amount of travel. Corporations must not have rights like individuals. Corporate veil must not be allowed to protect directors or stockholders from wrong doing.

The right to own land must be limited to a maximum of (1,000?...5,000?...10,000? acres because on a limited planet no one can have unlimited rights to own land.

Protect children from the evil of abuse.

Help family life.

Guarantee privacy.

Punish police brutality severely.

Prevent cult abuses.

Cast the light of ridicule upon false prophets.

Provide voters with free education and give a second vote to all who have a high score on the history of our country and current events.

All tax should be sales tax and contract tax so that privacy and freedom are restored and the burden is fairly shared without the need of the yearly frantic run and IRS police action and abuse of our freedom.

Renew and reform everything that is wrong by establishing citizens committees. Insist on builting local economies independent from the rest of the country and the world.

Teach youth how to think and how to research.

Are these only dreams?

I do not think so. I do not buy the story..."the poor will be always with us." No eskimo or american indian of the plain was poor beyond remedy withing his tribe.

We are a sick civilization Y2K mnay be an awesome blessing in disguise.

Stand up like Men and Women. Make ready to fight for your rights if you have to.

-- Arthur (ArthurRex@Camelot.grail), October 02, 1999.

Arthur,

Your Leftist Utopian dream cited above is nothing but a sick Socialist Nightmare.

First, if you dislike the "genocidal" history of how we got here as a nation, what have YOU done to atone for it if you are burning with guilt? As far as the sad visitation of our history on the Amerindians, it is done. If our history burns you with so much wracked guilt, leave and start your own island nation somewhere. But my guess is you're enjoying the benefits of the "genocidal" foundations on which we derrive our current prosperity.

Your Amerindian laments are as useless as the British lamenting the loss of the Colonies. Many tribes were violent Barbarians that slaughtered their neighbors without mercy. Ask a Chickesaw Ancestor about the Blackfeet or other murderous tribes. You've apparently bought into the Leftist "Pocohantas" Bullcrap about all indians being "Peace and Earth-Loving" tribes. Indians today have rights and perks granted to them by the Federal government that ordinary citizens do not have. They are as free to pursue wealth, liberty and happiness just like any other person within our borders. Many today in-fact are doing just that. So cut the crap about our "sins of the past". Our great nation has blessed the globe with our bounty, our ingenuity, our compassion and our freedom. We weren't perfect, but until now, no other civillization of man has been as great a benefactor to its own people and the globe as America has been.

That being said, I do not deny the great evils and injustices we have committed and are commiting. Our judgement is at hand. So if you relish the thought of our national annihilation, the sins of our people will soon bring the punishment deserved.

Your other points about limiting private property, national insurance, guarantees of child welfare, free education and destruction of a death penalty for murderers proves that you have either never read the Constitution , or you wish to continue using it for toilet paper like the other Socialist Democrats of Bill Clinton's ilk.

To realise what you intend, you would need a totally involved and domineering government to ensure the execution of these "freedoms" you outline. Limiting property? That limits liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How long before you decide we need to limit wages? How long then before you limit free speech?

Free insurance? Who pays for that? What kind of bureaucracy will need to be constructed to enure THAT monstrosity works? I think Medicade and Medicare should serve as proof that "National Insurance" doesn't work in a free society.

In your Leftist Utopia outlined above, who is going to decide what a "Fanatical Religion" is? What steps will you employ to prevent such "fanatics" to practice their religion? What about a "cult"? Who will determine who is a "cult" and who is acting "cultish"? Define "Cultish".

In your Hitlarean world, who will determine what truth is? Will be the truth of your ideology, or that of someone else? Will it be by mob consensus?

No Arthur, what you prescribe is nothing but Socialistic Slavery disguised as Democracy. I for one will NEVER abide in such nonsense and will oppose such moronic attacks on my personal liberty with extreme predjudice.

But have hope Arthur. Everything you outline for us above I am sure will become the Law of the Globe with the new governance that will arise from our ashes. You shall have your ideology ensconced in a new global "Nation-State" Utopia. Strobe Talbott and you share the same vision for the globe, and I'm afraid you indeed shall have it.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 03, 1999.

INVAR,

Boy, you really have a bee in your bonnet about socialism dont you ? And I wonder if you even understand the meaning of the word. I'd be interested to know where you heard from me that I was a socialist. Even in the British understanding of the term, I'm really not a radical leftist (if thats what you mean by "socialist"), I'm more of a democratic center-left type (there, have some more ammunition for your diatribes).

The word "Socialism", when used by Americans, seems to be one of those labels like "libertarian" which can mean 10 different things to 10 different people, (most of which often seem to be the polar- opposites of each other). Are we talking Karl Marx socialism ? British Labour movement socialism ? National Socialism ? Maybe you could explain YOUR understanding of the word.

Your response contains so many inaccuracies and simple contradictions that its hard to know where to start, but, as you said . . "I'll play".

You wrote . .

I didn't address your points as I was merely responding (in sarcasm yes) to your barb about me. But okay....let's play.

If you perceived my use of your name in my first post as a "barb", then I fear you are verging on paranoia. I used your name simply to indicate those persons demonstrating a "revolutionary, ideologically driven voice of opposition". If that is inaccurate, or you take it as a barb, I apologise, but every posting I've ever read from you indicates that I'm not too wide of the mark, and why would you see that as insulting anyway ? Surely if you believe the current system as SO evil, then being a voice of opposition is a proud endeavour.

Support to change within the system is not even remotely possible. You do not slowly change corruption, you must root it out and start anew. When you go to the dentist to have a cavity filled, does he not remove ALL the decay, lest the breakdown in integrity continues even after it's filled? If the consensus is realized that we have a burdensome, corrupt tyranny for a government, then our duty as Americans is to OVERTHROW the tyranny (like we did with your king George III's hold on our freedoms), which is WHY we have a Second Ammendment to the Constitution to begin with.

I contest that there are many examples in the modern era of corrupt and tyrranical systems being overthrown from within, and in 99% of cases, bloodlessly and with no overt revolution.(see "velvet revolutions" etc in E.Germany, Poland, Hungary, Romania, S.Africa). I also assert that the concept of "revolutionary struggle" in the traditional use of the term, is redundant. The world has changed such that the complexity and sheer size of our social systems prohibits the overthrow of the system by uprising. Your analogy is interesting. I would counter by pointing out that if you go to your dentist with a cavity in your tooth, he does not tend to whip out a baseball bat and stove in your entire mouth. Individual elements of the system can be changed, sometimes radically, but within the scope of the system as a whole. If you want to change the entire system, it would have to involve many many operations of the micro-surgery type rather than a brutal amputation of the head and torso, as you seem to suggest.

As far as a takeover by force and FORCING the majority to accept a moral code....that won't happen either. In order to change the express elevator to hell our nation is on, it would require an individual about-face within our families and too much of our population is on the government tit, and steeped in self. (On a side note; I love the hypocrisy of how you Socialists always rail on how the Right forces our morality and codes on you, but it's okay for you Leftists to force your nonsensical Socialist crap on the rest of us....but you being a Brit, I can understand how you fail to understand our American heritage as you're used to dictated and parcelled-out pieces of freedom. No offense intended towards Andy here).

Here we go again. Explain to me exactly how a democratically elected government adopting policies in the public domain, and then being RE-ELECTED on a similar platform represents "leftists forcing our socialist crap on the rest of you". Are you trying to say that despite being elected by a majority to rule, it is inappropriate for the government to ask you to comply by their decisions if you dont agree with them ? What puts you above the law ? If you dont like the "socialist crap" (as you call it), then get someone elected who you like better. I'm sure George W could use some help. In terms of my inability (being British) to understand American Heritage . . well, maybe I will always see those things from a diffrerent perspective than you, granted, but are you suggesting that an objective external viewpoint is invalid ? Then why do you deem it acceptable for you to comment on anything outside of the USA ? You are making assumptions about me and my countrymen, which seems to contradict the main point of your argument.

As far as challenging your assertions in your post, again I was addressing your personal barb. However, your suggestion that a "carefully controlled transition" period is needed to make an easy change is a fantasy. To make the kind of changes needed to the yokes placed on our necks, you need a revolt, either by peaceful mandate at the polls (which will not happen) or by force (which also will not happen). I cite the American Revolution as evidence, and every other conflict man has been engaged in to make governmental change.

You're gonna have to explain this for me . . "To make the kind of changes needed to the yokes placed on our necks, you need a revolt, either by peaceful mandate at the polls (which will not happen) or by force (which also will not happen)". So, if neither will happen, then the status quo (by definition) will continue. Whats your point ? Also, the fact that you allude to "yokes on your necks", simply underlines my point about your being part of a minority. If the majority feel that a government is a yoke on their neck, they vote it out. Whats the problem ?

You also assert that the American War of Independence was an armed struggle to bring about governmental change. I suppose loosely it can be seen that way, although in detail, there were so many other factors at work that the argument seems massively over-simplistic. Wasn't it also a struggle against Imperialism, a protest against unfair taxation, land ownership, trade and export rights ? And a cultural battle to win the right to resolve locally issues of identity, religion, cultural difference ? It seems to me that it was all of those things. It was a long way from being a simple struggle between two political ideologies. You sail close to the line of literal accuracy, but the significance of the analogy to your argument is limp, at best.

As far as labels go, I can care less what you think of them. You aren't even an American so I won't even waste the time.

But your next is truly choice:

"The only approximation to a statement of policy which I can detect in your post seems to be the desire "to return to the foundations of your nation". You mean back to the annihilation of the native population, gun-fuelled lawlessness and the dominance of the fastest draw, slavery of non-whites, disinterested and isolationist foreign- policy and a social structure based on the ownership of land ? Or do you mean some other rosy-tinted vision of the good old days of "The little house on the prairie" which exist only in a hollywood producers mind ? "

To be blunt, YES. Which of our nations has become the dominant Superpower this century? It certainly wasn't yours now was it? All of the forgings that built us up went into the result of America being the beacon of freedom to the world. I am sick of you Socialists trying to make us feel guilt about the foundations and buildings of our nation. Yes we wiped out the Indians, to the victor go the spoils. As far as slavery and the other blood, sweat and tears that went into making this nation, I think we have atoned in blood for those transgressions.

Yet more simplistic reasoning. You are coming clean as an advocate of "might is right" on the one hand, and then claiming citizenship of a "beacon of freedom to the world" on the other. Those arent neccessarily mutually-exclusive, but one does not lead to the other either. So its OK that you slaughtered the native population, because eventually you gave it up and allowed a lot of disenfanchised people to emigrate to your country ? Is that really what you're trying to say ? Aside from the fact that your current dominance of the world can be almost entirely put down to the fact of the incredible natural resources you inherited, and the economic power that went with it. Prior to your "empire", the British played the same trick, exploiting every external country it could "assimilate" (fuelled by the Industrial revolution) and building with the resources to create global dominance. We simply grew out of it. It came to a point where the citizens of this country could no longer allow it's representatives to take a free hand in subjugating dominion states just in order to reap economic rewards. The change was slow, and driven by public awareness of the issues. Even if sometimes it took an armed struggle to oust our forces, eventually we saw the wisdom in letting people determine their own destiny. Your country's current economic imperialism, while gentler, is no less exploitative, and no more justifiable. For an advocate of individual freedom, you sure seem smug about your country's imperial endeavours.

As far as land ownership, you have no right to balk as YOUR monarchal system of Nobles has kept the private ownership of land within the royalty of family lineage. We kicked your proverbial Red Butts in the 1700's, and rescued your miserable, whining selves twice this century...so spare me the "our Foundations were unfair" bullcrap. Your governmental system is no pillar of virtue and you have therefore no grounds to criticize the foundations of ours. But you are an Elitist and I would expect nothing less of you.

Now you're frothing. Firstly, you need to bone up on modern British systems of land-ownership. (And be careful, because if you're against the concept of family lineage as a system of class, and advocate a fair meritocracy and sharing of wealth based on work and effort, then you too are espousing socialist goals. Something wrong here surely.) Put simply, your image of modern Britain seems to stem from some Hollywood idea of "happy serfs" and "lords of the manor". Well it 'aint like that no more bud. Yes our system still contains some archaic and anachronistic elements, but over the years they have been progressively diluted to the extent that most of them (Royal family, house of lords, landowning dukes and barons) are nowadays little more than powerless fancy-dress tourist attractions, giving Canon-weilding American tourists somewhere to go to spend their sight-seeing dollars, and keeping the cities uncluttered for the day to day operation of business.

By your shady reference to having "saved our whining asses", I assume you refer to the last 2 world wars, (in both of which you arrived at "drinking-up time" with a crate of beer and a pleasant naievete, which undoubtedly contributed much to the final result, but does not negate the years of painful and bloody resistance which preceded your reluctant participation). Indeed, in the last face-off, it took a Japanese attack to persuade you that it wasn't a bad idea to stomp this Nazi deal back under the rock it crawled out from, and incidentally we are still repaying (financially) the debt of your "assistance" to this day. Thanks.

And by that I dont belittle or deny the incredible scarifice made by individual citizens of your country, I simply question your high- handed statement that you "saved our asses". We weren't doing that badly without you, and while you definitely speeded up the resolution, you should remember that without the early and determined stand we took against Naziism, the eventual impact upon your Nation when it did stand up and resist the world-domination aims of Hitler would have been a hundred times more severe. American foreign policy regarding world affairs prior to the cold war always tended on the insular side, and I object to you making it sound like you're our big brother constantly stepping in to beat up the bullies when we bite off more than we can chew.

Yes, better me than you to desire freedom, the pursuit of happiness and the practition of my Faith without impediment by a governmental authority that seeks to regulate every fiber of my being.

But you won't understand that. You're a Socialist.

No I'm not, and by the way, using the terms "You're an elitist" and "Better me than you to desire freedom" so closely together in you post makes you look like nothing more than a ranting political lightweight who doesn't understand the terms he uses so glibly. YOUR elitism is what shines through here, in the idea that YOU have the answers for America's woes, and that you have some God-given right to get your way regardless of what the majority want. I'm just as idealistic as you, I simply respect the principle of "Majority rules", yes, even where the majority is wrong, or disinterested. If the majority in this country returned an administration I felt as powerfully-negative towards as you clearly do for your current Presdint, I'D LEAVE AND GO LIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE. Isn't that what they say about America . . . "Love it or leave it ?"

Well it is the way it is, and unless you can get your man VOTED into the mansion, now may be the time to start looking for beach-front property in Paraguay. Or simply fess-up to being an advocate of dictatorship, so long as it's on YOUR terms.

Kind Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), October 04, 1999.

I notice you rail-on quite a bit about "over-simplistic" perception or explanation. Sometimes Wolverine, Truth is quite simple...and usually, the simplest explanation is the truth. I disdain the extraordinary efforts the elitist intelligencia goes to towards creating ridiculous levels of gray to peel apart like an onion skin, instead of the simple black and white truth staring at them in the face.

I know why and how this is done, and it is nothing short of a tool towards redefining what the clear truth is.

As I have not the time today to respond point by point to your last, I will do so this evening. There are plenty of points to take to task, and I wish to take the proper time to do so.

BTW, my understanding of how the majority of land deals are transacted over there in merry old England comes from one of my best friends who resides in Anerly, London. So my perspective is his, as he is an Englishman.

More later.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 04, 1999.

INVAR

I look forward to reading your response.

While you're about it, how about explaining for me (scientifically, unarguably, unambiguously) just how one may tell the difference between YOUR truth, and SOMEONE ELSE'S truth ? Which is the true truth ? Does it depend where you stand ? Is truth an absolute ? How does one recognise it ? Does strength of belief indicate "trueness" of truth ?

I think you see my point.

BTW - never heard of Anerly, but regards to your friend anyway.

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), October 04, 1999.

Okay, I'm back and having digested your diatribe Wolverine, I shall attempt the proverbial rebuttal....

First however I'd like to address your impeccable impression of Pontious Pilate in your last.

Truth. Truth is of God first and foremost. He is Truth as revealed in His Word, and all else follows from there. I've already gone through the days of Atheism and Agnosticism, so my understanding comes from revelation and research through study. Truth is self-evident when observed on the clarity of experience, history and effect.

However, Truth is not observed often with agreement. This is where you and I are I believe. I do not hold that all truth is perception, but our cultures today will go to extremes to cloud truth and obscure truth with "perceptions" that are fed for consumption as truth (ie: Bill Clinton did not have sex with "That woman...", because it all depended on what the definition of "is" is.). In my estimation of the evidence, as to his testimonial contradictions and other evidence, he did IN FACT have sex with "That woman..."

Perhaps we are having an argument of perception, but I view our American History upon the fruits of which myself and society have benefited like no other society in the history off man. That is my evidence and the platform upon which I will form all of my argument. I will not bandy semantics like our president, nor nitpick. I will speak boldly and with no apology. I do not hold to "Gray areas" or "open-mindedness" upon accepting foreign impressions without study, reproof and wisdom. I do not accept the modern elitist depiction of intelligence as one who accepts all views blindly. My views are through study, experience and viewing the evidence or fruits. I judge on those criteria.

Now the fun part.

>>>"I contest that there are many examples in the modern era of corrupt and tyrannical systems being overthrown from within, and in 99% of cases, bloodlessly and with no overt revolution. (see "velvet revolutions" etc in E.Germany, Poland, Hungary, Romania, S.Africa)."<<<<<

They were bloodless only because the parties in power put up no harsh military defense of their power for myriad reason. Ie: The handwriting was on the wall, the military had joined with the rebellions, etc., etc. That 99% figure you cite had better be for the examples you mentioned because I have statistics about the revolts and revolutions and assaults on uprisings that have cost millions of lives, and made this last century the bloodiest in the written history of man.

>>>"I also assert that the concept of "revolutionary struggle" in the traditional use of the term, is redundant. The world has changed such that the complexity and sheer size of our social systems prohibits the overthrow of the system by uprising."<<<

Wrong. Bosnia and Kosovo are but two small recent examples. The world hasn't changed as much as you pretend. Man's fruits are the same. Nothing is new under the sun, and nothing is so different about man's nature than it was over 6,000 years ago. We suffer for the same inane sins and consequences as did our ancient ancestors. Our technology only makes the human bloodbaths more effective, virulent and costly. I'll cite East Timor as a perfect example of how trying to work within a system for change peacefully, leads to annihilation. The East Timorease would have been better served with an armed revolt. They would not have been slaughtered like cattle.

>>>"Your [dental]analogy is interesting. I would counter by pointing out that if you go to your dentist with a cavity in your tooth, he does not tend to whip out a baseball bat and stove in your entire mouth. Individual elements of the system can be changed, sometimes radically, but within the scope of the system as a whole. If you want to change the entire system, it would have to involve many many operations of the micro-surgery type rather than a brutal amputation of the head and torso, as you seem to suggest."<<<

Nice attempt at diversion here with pseudo-intellect on the point, but no cigar. You know perfectly well the intent of that analogy, and that it fit well with the discussion of the tooth representing the vessel of decay, not the head and torso. To save the head from further decay and disease, you ROOT-OUT the tooth, or vessel of decay. In the analogy, the decaying tooth represented the decay in our American government. You either drill-out the decay and FILL IT with that which will protect the remainder and not permit the decay...or you PULL THE TOOTH, and replace it completely to prevent the entire head from becoming infected. However it is done, hammer/chisel, drill, doorknob or skilled dentist....you REMOVE THE DECAY to preserve the soul. I hadn't even remotely suggested brutal amputation of the head or torso in my analogy. That is a contrived conclusion you drew to the analogy in order to score intellectual points. Sorry, no score.

>>>"Explain to me exactly how a democratically elected government adopting policies in the public domain, and then being RE-ELECTED on a similar platform represents "leftists forcing our socialist crap on the rest of you". Are you trying to say that despite being elected by a majority to rule, it is inappropriate for the government to ask you to comply by their decisions if you don't agree with them ?<<<"

Firstly, Clinton WAS NOT ELECTED BY A MAJORITY. He won with less than 41% of the vote both times. When he and Hillary decided to implement their Nationalized "Health-Care" scheme, effectively taking over 1/7th of the U.S. economy and making over 60 new federal felonies, including the seeing of a doctor NOT approved within the "system", the nation with a loud shout said "NO!" Clinton now is implementing that very same health-Care program PIECEMEAL, via executive order and political strongarming. I call that "Cramming it down our throats". The same can be said with Tobacco laws and suits, and passing laws forcing us to accept things we find anathema. In our society today, you can burn an American flag as an expression that is celebrated....but will go to jail for burning the Gay rainbow flag. This is what I mean by Leftists "cramming it down our throats".

As an American, if 90% of the people wanted guns outlawed, I would not comply. I hold to the Constitutional Rights granted for permanent protection my God-given inalienable right to possess firearms. We are not a pure Democracy...that is Mob Rule. We are a representative republic, with a system of checks and balances. The balance being the people...of whom our government is derived. And as a free people, WE consent to be governed within the means outlined in the Constitution. But the Founders knew people were inherently evil, and a mob of evil is even worse...so they outlined our rights as God- given...meaning they already existed and that no law shall be passed to prohibit. If they violate the written laws of our Founding Documents, then I rescind my consent to be governed by their yoke, because then our Constitution is invalid and worthless.

I don't expect a Brit like yourself to understand it. My government may ask me to comply, but if it violates my God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights, then as a vigilant guard of ALL our freedoms...then the answer is "no." Period. End of sentence.

>>>"What puts you above the law ? If you dont like the "socialist crap" (as you call it), then get someone elected who you like better. I'm sure George W could use some help."<<<

I am not above the laws of God, or the Constitution. But we had a duty as American Citizens to be ever vigilant of assaults on our Liberties. Complacency, sloth and the selling of our birthrights are things we were charged to stand against. As far as getting someone elected whom I like better, I might as well wish for natural ice floes in the desert. As some others have pointed-out, it is a "Good Ol' Boys club".. I know, I was heavily involved with the Republican party. What we need is to root-out and forbid career politicians. This is what was initially intended in our foundation but as with everything else...became corrupted. George W. in my opinion has been annointed...not elected.

>>>"In terms of my inability (being British) to understand American Heritage . . well, maybe I will always see those things from a different perspective than you, granted, but are you suggesting that an objective external viewpoint is invalid ? Then why do you deem it acceptable for you to comment on anything outside of the USA ? You are making assumptions about me and my countrymen, which seems to contradict the main point of your argument. "<<<

Not at all. You have deemed my views extreme and absurd. From your Leftist/Centrist British view, I suppose I can see how you would assume that. But I will be the arrogant American here to state your views on me, our history, and my ideology are invalid as far as I'm concerned. You are free to spout whatever ~ism's you want to, I will simply point out in disagreement with those things that assail my American sensibilities. I comment as I desire from the perspective of a Conservative in both political and religious ideology...and without apology. I do so proudly because of what we had accomplished as a nation to benefit the entire globe this century, and to cite the superiority of our freedoms over other government that has subjugated their peoples. But now we have sold-out our sovereignty, and our sensibilities.

>>>""To make the kind of changes needed to the yokes placed on our necks, you need a revolt, either by peaceful mandate at the polls (which will not happen) or by force (which also will not happen)". So, if neither will happen, then the status quo (by definition) will continue. Whats your point ? "<<<

The point is that a revolt is needed to recapture our freedoms and restore the government as it was intended by the Founders. But I'm not stupid. Neither peaceful nor forceful means will be employed by our people to defend us, as they are all fat and drunk with prosperity by the enemies that will crush us from within. We are a nation fast- asleep in drunken stupor whilst arguing about what "WE" want next..

>>>"Also, the fact that you allude to "yokes on your necks", simply underlines my point about your being part of a minority. If the majority feel that a government is a yoke on their neck, they vote it out. Whats the problem ? "<<<

The problem is that the majority LIKE the yoke around their neck because they have been deceived into believing that the yoke is a pretty necklace. Once they are enslaved because of their indifference to the yoke they once wanted on their necks because it was sold to them as golden, then soon it will find its way onto MY neck.

>>>"You also assert that the American War of Independence was an armed struggle to bring about governmental change. I suppose loosely it can be seen that way, although in detail, there were so many other factors at work that the argument seems massively over-simplistic. Wasn't it also a struggle against Imperialism, a protest against unfair taxation, land ownership, trade and export rights ? And a cultural battle to win the right to resolve locally issues of identity, religion, cultural difference ? It seems to me that it was all of those things. It was a long way from being a simple struggle between two political ideologies. You sail close to the line of literal accuracy, but the significance of the analogy to your argument is limp, at best. <<<"

There you go again. In a nutshell, and in the simplest, most pure and true reason the War of Independence was fought (Based on the writings of the founders), was that they didn't want to abide in the yoke the King was placing with more links upon their necks. They demanded the rights to be FREE to determine the course of their own destiny, and not by some far-away magistrate's leave. I verbally demand my inalienable God-given rights to determine my own destiny, and not by some far-away special-interest group that just lobbied Congress to outlaw smoking/drinking or profanity in all public bars.

>>>"You are coming clean as an advocate of "might is right" on the one hand, and then claiming citizenship of a "beacon of freedom to the world" on the other. Those arent neccessarily mutually-exclusive, but one does not lead to the other either. So its OK that you slaughtered the native population, because eventually you gave it up and allowed a lot of disenfanchised people to emigrate to your country ? Is that really what you're trying to say ?"<<<

Yes. Both your country and mine were birthright blessings from God. Your heritage is that of Jacob's son Ephraim, while I herald from the birthright nation promised to Mannassah. The were both brothers of Jacob, and as Issac pronounced blessings on them, the younger brother Mannassah was to become greater than his brother Ephraim, who was to become a great Commonwealth of nations, that would have control of the world's seagates. But because of their sins, those blessings were witheld for 1,260 years. Do the math from the time of Jacob's sons, and you will arrive at some interesting dates. We had a manifest Destiny, to become the great superpowers we have become....and the world has been blessed as we have been abundant. No civilizations in the history of man have done what our two "Empires" have done fro the benefit and detriment of mankind. Those fruits show me that ours was an heritage of Divine blessing. I will choose not to wrack myself with guilt over a past I wasn't involved in. We are just enjoying the blessings or cursings of the works of the past....and I daresay the numbers show more have prospered from our two empires than have suffered. Man is not perfect, but to-date no empires have made such positive impacts on so many cultures, and saved the globe from such unspeakable horrors as our two. You may choose to writhe in agony over HOW we arrived at our pinnacle status...I choose to writhe at how we have fallen from our pinnacle status.

"Aside from the fact that your current dominance of the world can be almost entirely put down to the fact of the incredible natural resources you inherited, and ecoans omic power that went with it. Prior to your "empire", the British played the same trick, exploiting every external country it could "assimilate" (fuelled by the Industrial revolution) and building with the resources to create global dominance. We simply grew out of it. It came to a point where the citizens of this country could no longer allow it's representatives to take a free hand in subjugating dominion states just in order to reap economic rewards. The change was slow, and driven by public awareness of the issues. Even if sometimes it took an armed struggle to oust our forces, eventually we saw the wisdom in letting people determine their own destiny. Your country's current economic imperialism, while gentler, is no less exploitative, and no more justifiable. For an advocate of individual freedom, you sure seem smug about your country's imperial endeavours. "<<<

Every nation Britain has left to self-govern has eventually fallen into old tribal squalor and civil chaos. Do a study on Ghana. It's sickening. You gave them EVERYTHING they needed to be an African Superpower. They squandered it all in three years. It is yet too soon what shall happen to Hong Kong, but once the money stops flowing into China from Western Capitalism due to Y2K or a banking collapse....look for Hong Kong to be assimilated like the Borg. You didn't GROW out of imperialism...you gave it away, and the blessings of civility and prosperity you brought were lost.

Britain and the U.S. were model nations that were meant to be looked- up to and emulated by other nations. Sure that sounds arrogant, but for our people and those of the world that looked to us with hope it sure wasn't. We failed to carry out our Divine purpose, because we have become complacent and "intellectually insane".

I'll leave out the discussion of our calvary charge in both WWI & II, for another thread someday.

>>>"YOUR elitism is what shines through here, in the idea that YOU have the answers for America's woes, and that you have some God-given right to get your way regardless of what the majority want. I'm just as idealistic as you, I simply respect the principle of "Majority rules", yes, even where the majority is wrong, or disinterested. If the majority in this country returned an administration I felt as powerfully-negative towards as you clearly do for your current Presdint, I'D LEAVE AND GO LIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE. Isn't that what they say about America . . . "Love it or leave it ?" <<<"

We don't have "Majority Rules" here. It was supposed to be a Representative Republic. When the populace in the majority was wrong, it was the fortitude of the Representatives to make sure Right was preserved. I cite the marches and struggles of the blacks here in the '50's and '60's. The majority wanted segregation and the persecution of blacks. It took a struggle, even violence to bring the issue to the fore, and it was the elected Representatives who even went against their own constituents to do what was RIGHT. Unlike yourselves in Britain, we have an obligation to uphold the Constitution and ALL our freedoms by making sure NONE of them are infringed on. There is no other nation to go to that held the same beacon of freedom and opportunity. So it is our duty to resist, and to fight, for the preservation of our Rights as they were written. We are not to abide sin, because in doing so we condone it. Likewise we should in no ways abide a treasonous, lying, adulterous president who can be bought and sold by avowed enemies of our state. In doing so, we condone the actions.

>>>"Well it is the way it is, and unless you can get your man VOTED into the mansion, now may be the time to start looking for beach-front property in Paraguay. Or simply fess-up to being an advocate of dictatorship, so long as it's on YOUR terms. "<<<

No sir. God's terms. And the terms that were written down over 200 years ago.

'Til Wednesday

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 05, 1999.

good to see you again, arthur! good posts. your email address has changed. care to send me the new one? -- Alan

-- alan (foo@bar.com), October 05, 1999.