I’m not telling you to shut up, only making an observation.

Carlos
Caracas, Venezuela

P.S: To Nobita 35 and to a certain degree Zoot Horn Rollo, count your blessings in Asia and other industrialized nations, it’s much better to live without certain freedoms but with economic prosperity like in Malaysia and Singapore, than to have them (these superficial liberties) but live in perpetual poverty, enduring high crime rates (9,000 + people murdered not because of dictatorship but for urban crime in Venezuela in 2005) and corruption like in Venezuela or many countries in South America for that matter.

All points well taken. I think our slight differnces may be over semantics. I define democracy as strictly majoritarian rule, where one person gets one vote. You define it as freedom of the people to govern themselves as they choose.

Would I prefer our present system over an authoritarian dictatorship? You bet!

But there are problems with representative democracy, if it iself is not limited according to certain First Principles. I think I was trying to say that America was losing sight of these first principles. These include basic human rights: the right to be alive, the right to freely associate and assemble as long as it is non-violent, the right to own acquire and sell property, and the right to think and read and speak as one chooses.

The “problem” with these basic principles is that they can become very inconvenient to some people at certain times. In an absolute democracy, they can be selectively voted out of existence “for the good of the people.” If I’m not mistaken, the Nazis were voted into power with the support of a majority of Germans.

So, if we could somehow live under a system which better protects the basic rights of man than democracy, I would choose it. The bottom line for me is not majority rule, but self rule.

Is this system a limited Constitutional republic? Perhaps. Is it anarcho-capitalism? I THINK it is, _IF_ everyone who were living under anarcho capitalism were freely choosing to do so.

Anyway. I think we can both agree that empty rhetoric that would insult the intelligence of any child’s mind–around the world–is very counter productive on the part of the US leaders. Do they really believe the BS that’s coming out of their mouths? How do they do it without laughing? That’s what I want to know.

Bin Ladin is 6 foot 6 or something like that …….what is your point ?

BJORN ,those “eh-rabs” as you call them were NOT Iraqis !!!! You are truly in the American majority !!!! You are an idiot !!!! The fact that you had to go through American history proves that “something” of a moral nature is bothering you…..Think the US was WRONG in attacking Iraq ???? Well IT WAS WRONG IDIOT !!!! Let us not forget Israel

I realize that democracy in many countries in the west has degenerated to a point where people actually have come to loathe it, but many of the things that you guys take for granted are still elusive to us.

Just because societies in the west have lost its vitality, robustness or perhaps even interest to maintain the checks and balances which are vital to a healthy democracy, it doesn’t mean that the concept of democracy itself, at least in its purest form i.e. a true movement of the people, should be consigned to the dustbin.

However, the Bush’s regime hypocrisy in promoting ‘democracy’ while doing the exact opposite is the real problem. Did you know that the Malaysian government used America’s pre-emptive strike policy and Guantanamo Bay as an excuse/example when they decided to detain people indefinitely wihout trial? Their reason: “If America, the leader of the free world could do it, why not us?”

Sorry for going a bit off-topic…

When will we ever learn????

========================================================================

THE RULES OF DISINFORMANTION–THE POLITICIAN’S CREDO

Note:
The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are
generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist
to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the
leadership, key players, or planning level of the organized crime syndicate
we know as government.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know,
don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc.
If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the
issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant./ Avoid discussing key issues and
instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being
critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as
the “How dare you!” gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers./ Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges,
regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other
derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method
works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public
can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors”. If you can
associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a
“wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man./ Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s
argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the
opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists
based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation,
or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their
significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the
charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of
the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule./ This is also known
as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as
variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such
as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”,”conspiracy
buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual
deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear
of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run./ In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent
or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be
fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet
and letters-to -the-editor environments where a steady stream of new
identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning
– simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and
never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s
viewpoint.

7. Question motives./ Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to
imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other
bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the
defensive.

(Varient: Divide and conquor by suggesting that if critics aren’t completely with the program, they side with the enemy. Edit Turbostang)

8. Invoke authority./ Claim for yourself or associate yourself with
authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to
illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn’t so without
discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

(Varient: Point out how a predecessor did the same thing in question or how other people of relevance “believed it too”. Edit Turbostang)

9. Play Dumb./ No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered,
avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any
sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a
conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news./ A derivative of the straw
man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make
charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it
can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it
dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent
charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be
associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash
without need to address current issues — so much the better where the
opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions./ Using a minor matter or
element of the facts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that
some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have
seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply
greater criminalities which, “just isn’t so.” Others can reinforce this on
your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for
“coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more
serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution./ Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events
surrounding the issue, and the multitude of players and events, paint the
entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following
the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address
the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic./ Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning
backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual
material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions./ Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to
solve the problem at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items
qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions./ This requires creative
thinking unless the act was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence./ If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you
won’t have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject./ Usually in connection with one of the other ploys
listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or
controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more
manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue”
with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to
avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents./ If you can’t do anything
else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses
which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and
generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you
avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their
emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by
then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs./ This is perhaps a
variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be
presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and
demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist,
but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be
safely destroyed or withheld, such as a shredded govt. study). In order to
completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and
be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are
acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other
authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence./ Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues
designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful
tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best
when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the
facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a parliamentary committee study, Supreme court test, or other
empowered investigative body.// Subvert the (process) to your benefit and
effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without true public input. Once
convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be acceptable to the
committee/court as evidence when properly handled, damaging evidence can be
discarded. For instance, if you own the judicial/committee officials, it can
insure an official hearing hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is
sealed, refused or buried and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once
a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the govt.
innocent, but it can also be used to obtain authority when seeking to extend
govt. powers) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth./ Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s),
leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via
scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes
favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so
authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions./ If the above does not seem to be working
to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of
unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them
as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics./ If the above methods do not prevail, consider
removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the
need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their meeting
with an accident, an arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their
character by release of damaging information, or merely by proper
intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish or seek less contentious employment./ If you are a key holder
of dirty secrets or otherwise overly operationally illuminated and you think
the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. Find a
cozy non controversial plumb in the public or private sector (secured with
your party loyalty) and evade the heat your policies have created. Or if you
really F****ED up a lot of people….vacate to a third world dictatorship
that understands your brand of politics where your tax swollen bank account
will allow you to live like a king.

Further additions by Turbostang:

26. Employ sunk-loss fallacy./ Justify further action or additional resources by claiming that if the failing venture in question is abandoned, the money/troops/time/whatever will have been lost or in vain. Considerd by economists to be irrational because it doen’t make for the best use of remaining resources. However, it is employed by politicians to make critics look wasteful.

And here’s a sign of the times – the end of empire – not only are Amerikans becoming even more gullible
and ignorant and more in debt they are also becoming shorter relative to the rest of the world:

“The Dutch were not noted for their height until recently. It was only in the 1950s that they passed the Americans, who stood tallest for most of the last 200 years, said John Komlos, a leading expert on the subject who is professor of economic history at the University of Munich in Germany. He said the United States has now fallen behind Denmark.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2006-09-16-dutch-tall_x.htm

( If only my name was truly Zoot Horn Rollo, and I were truly cool. Like the Real Zoot Horn, who played with the real Captain.

I must conceal my name and identity because I want my daughter to grow up in a home where her daddy remains gainfully employed.

I think I might change my moniker to another bizarre Star Wars alien action figure. Boba Fett, perhaps? No. Done to death. Snaggletooth? Noh. Must ponder that a bit…. )

What a bunch of stupid monkeys.

And we all know what happens to empires when they crumble.

For shame. Such potential.

Maybe if we act fast enough we can still fix it. The biggest terrorist in the world is the crackpot running america – Born again christainism at its very finest of idiocy.

God is watching. And he sees the truth.

His kingdom come, and his will be done.

On earth as it is in heaven.

Its time god sprang into action and took back his kingdom.

The only question really is – are you with me, or against me?

Cut off all their money. We know oil is the problem, so stop burning it.

Build a better society.

Fix this once and for all.

Peacefully.

Also true is the Mencken quote above posted by Zoot Horn Rollo. Which brings me to another Mencken quote applicable amid the current fearmongering:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Incidentally, it was Mecken’s birthday last Tuesday.

Finally, I must ask: Is the Zoot Horn Rollo who posted above the same Zoot Horn Rollo who played with Captain Beefheart on Trout Mask Replica?

The key word there is “faith.” Democracy is the official state religion in a country where most can be convinced of almost anything. Given enough time and CNN, the 9/11 highjackers will be North Korean or Venezuelan.

America IS a free country and in fact has been described as a “self governing” country. However, Americans as with most folks on this planet, are just just too lazy to govern themselves, stupid in effect.

Why, and what happened? Well the problem did not start on 911.

After the war in America to consolidate power (the so called “Civil War”) was concluded in 1865 a new method (or software if you will) to “administer” government (justice, et cet) was brought over in a rat infested British ship. This new software, which was to operate on the divers organs of republic (the “hardware” if you will – note: the State of California was organized under the constitution of 1849 as a “republic”) that had been established prior to 1865, was called a “municipal corporation(s)” (MC). The term “Municipal” and the law behind it of course comes directly from Roman Law and, though there is nothing inherently bad with Roman Law, this new software has caused havoc on the original republic hardware in America.

Ever try to run “Windows 98″ on a 486 computer . . .?

Simply put the use of MC across America to administer Justice, Government et cet DOES NOT WORK to the benefit of the general population (or works very nicely for the owners).

Why?

In America the Founding Folks (not without inherent problems) set up a Constitutionally Limited Republic (CLR – not a democracy though certain limited democratic principals were incorporated) where rights are held inviolable and may not be liened with out due process of law. Thus the rallying cry of the Founders under the CLR paradym was “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” (provided one does not violate an other’s rights). On the other hand, MC are privately owned and they administer Government, Justice, et cet in such a way that folks that operate the system are paid and paid very well. MC are operated “democratically” and their rallying cry is “Health, Safety, and Welfare.” The two are literally like mixing oil and water.

So how does does a MC work? Well just look around you.

Today there are over 84,000 MC across America (I recently went to Norway and was not too surprised to find that the lazy Norwegian royals manage their resources – spelled “subjects” – using MC too!). All cities, counties, schools, states, and even the offices of all the senators, representatives and the president too have been municipalized. The deal is it is voluntary (unlike Norway) to participate with MC. However, MC have turned into great revenue mills. That is, to re-venue everyone from their venue to the MC venue. Simply put it’s nothing personal, just business, MC simply want most if not all of the money in your pocket. To make it work the MC have created a “school” system which is nicely summed up by John Taylor Gatto at http://www.spinninglobe.net/againstschool.htm in his article “Against School”.

And MC, contrary to their published budgets and wringing of hands begging for more money, are rolling in bux. Please see http://www.cafr1.com for more on that subject.

Thus I do not and will not support any MC in any way including “voting” in their forums or sacrificing my children in their schools (again pls see John Taylor Gatto’s “Against School”). When one begins to understand this one can make sense out of nonsense such as marriage and drivers licenses, insurance, the war on drugs, not to mention the war on Iraq, the whole drama that swirls around gay “marriage” and so on (the underlying republics have nothing to say about license because the republic cannot impose “license” as license is a violation of inherent right to private property, contract, et cet). Because in America under the MC (where membership is voluntary unlike Norway where membership in MC is not voluntary), most rights, particularly the ones that can be supressed to raise a revenue, are made illicit/illegal and one thus one must petition the MC and pay a “fee” for a “license” to engage in the prohibited activity.

If at sometime I were allowed to vote for other than the members of divers MC boards I might consider voting.

However, in the mean time it is best to simply turn one’s back on all MC machination because after all MC are all a fiction anyway.

Bjorn

Bjorn Rafto
Fmr US Naval Officer
Structural Engineer