I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in [democratic nations of ] the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men all equal and alike, incessanlty endeavouring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest, - his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind; as for the rest of his fellow-citizens, he is close to them, but he sees them not; - he touches them, but he feels them not; he exists but in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country.

Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labours, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness: it provides for their security, principal concerns, directs their industory, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances - what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living ?

Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range, and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things: it has predisposed men to endure them, and oftentimes to look on them as benefits.

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends it's arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characaters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided: men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

-What Sort of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear

Alexis de Toqueville, 1835

-- Count Vronsky (vronsky@anna.lit), October 19, 1999

Answers

Sysman,

Don't leave us hanging ... who DID invent the BWAHAHAHAHAHA phrase? I always assumed it was Paul Milne.

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), October 19, 1999.

Alexis de T. was way out in front on most things about this country.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), October 19, 1999.

I figured that we invented BWAHHAHA... but some nice person pointed out that I was incorrect.

And, we didn't invent the tinfoil hat either...

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

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), October 19, 1999.

PWWWWAAAAAAAHAHAAAAAAAHAHAHOOOOOOOO.

(Sorry, Ed. Just wasn't expecting to see your name at the bottom of that post! You must be snowed in? Cabin fever? Just kidding.)

:)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), October 19, 1999.

Hi Ed,

I was thinking of this line, or one like it:

"I've worked in the net for 7 years. I have been into chat rooms and IRC channels for the same amount of time.

"BWAHAHAHAHAHA" = "LMAO" or "ROFL" "get a clue" or "what a dipshi."

in this thread:

Bwahahahahahahaha

Just a self-reported comment from someone that may have seen it before the 2 years that this GREAT forum has been up.

See ya, boss...

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

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), October 19, 1999.

PS

And Ed, isn't your new e humpty something or other..... <:)))=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), October 19, 1999.

The CONCEPT of sheeple has been around many thousands of years. "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want..." Interestingly, the conservative/patriot movement many years ago either coined or at least popularized the actual term "sheep + people = sheeple" to refer to the general public -- those not aware of their being manipulated by the PTB.

And yet, the conservative/patriot movement is comprised of some of the biggest sheeple when it comes to blindly accepting fairy tales and superstitions (i.e., concepts such as "God" and the arbitrary moralities, especially sexual, supposedly "revealed" to various prophets).

-- A (A@AisA.com), October 19, 1999.

Hey Ed,

If you discover the true origin of the phrase, BWAHAHAHAHAHA, would you also please kindly find out who owns the copyright?

[Grin]

-- Marianne Michaels (scipublic@aol.com), October 19, 1999.

'blindly accepting fairy tales and superstitions (i.e., concepts such as "God" and the arbitrary moralities, especially sexual, supposedly "revealed" to various prophets).'

-- A (A@AisA.com), October 19, 1999. ____________________________________________________________________

Huh!

True there is much superstition crept in, like Santa, the bunnie thing, halloween, but...

Bet you observe some of that!

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), October 19, 1999.

A,

Stop Trolling! You know very well that the "God=superstition" debate is pointless; one which has no winners. If God could be "proved" based upon some empirical evidence, then the requirement of "faith" becomes unnecessary.

-- TM (mercier7@pdnt.com), October 19, 1999.

I was all set to say that this thread had veered WAY off-topic. Then I reread the subject line for the thread.

Judging only by the subject line, the de Toqueville quote (which I loved, BTW) was less on-topic than the follow-ups!

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 19, 1999.

Mark: The belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc., comes from the same "place" as the belief in "God." Indoctrination by elders plus naivete. Most children, however, outgrow the beliefs in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. (Except, in the case of political liberals, who don't outgrow the belief in Santa Claus.)

TM: And since the concept of "God" cannot be proved (the burden of proof is on the one making an assertion), then faith (belief in the imaginary/superstition) is necessary is necessary to keep the sham continuing.

-- A (A@AisA.com), October 19, 1999.

Who cares where "sheeple" initiated? It still sucks.

-- Ann E. Body (noone@noplace.nowhere), October 19, 1999.

BWAHAHA... (etc) originated as the stereotypicall villainous laugh of the turtle villian in Nintendo's Mario 64.

-- Count Vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), October 19, 1999.

And done superbly by "Dr. Evil" (Mike Myers) and henchmen in the Austin Powers movies.

-- A (A@AisA.com), October 19, 1999.

A,

I understand that our discussion is a bit OT, but if I could please beg your indulgence and continue on...

You responded to me by saying "...since the concept of "God" cannot be proved (the burden of proof is on the one making an assertion), then faith (belief in the imaginary/superstition) is necessary is necessary to keep the sham continuing."

You consider God to be nothing more than a concept or a figment of someone's imagination; being in the same class as elves, faeries, goblins, unicorns, leprechauns etc. I can easily understand your position, and find it a quite normal, or at least not uncommon.

What I take issue with is the implied contention that you make concerning faith. You will probably agree with me that no one can live long without exercising faith to one extent or another. The use of paper money is a great study in the faith that man exercises on a day to day basis... who in their right mind would exchange a very valuable commodity for paper with dead guy's faces on it?....My point being that men and women exercise faith in not only one another, but in concepts and ideas that are often times vague and not easily understood. But just because the idea is difficult to grasp and explain doesn't mean that it isn't real. Consider the topic of Love. I could spend a lifetime talking to you about the effects of love and love-lost (as if the world greatest writers, thinkers and musicians haven't done it already!), but I'll NEVER be able to PROVE to you that I've ever actually fallen in love! You can't touch love. You can't smell love. It can't be heard , seen, or tasted. But you and I know that unmistakable SOMETHING we can only describe with 4 letters...L.O.V.E. Unless you experience love, it remains but a concept. Once you've experienced it, it can never be a concept or idea again. So it is with God.

For you to say that God cannot exist based solely upon your lack of sensory evidence is a poor exuse. I submit to you that if God would choose to make a guest appearance into your life, there would be no mistaking it for superstition or folklore.

-- TM (mercier7@pdnt.com), October 19, 1999.

I don't know about God, but love obviously does not exist.

-- mr x (x@x.x), October 19, 1999.