Mel Gibson's DUI and drunken rant

by **professorpan** » Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:52 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I say again, The Founders advocated the complete and total removal of all government. They were anarchists first and foremost.<hr></blockquote> You are way out of your depth, Roth. That is utter nonsense. I'll be happy to examine any documentation you can provide that the U.S. founders advocated "complete and total removal" of government.

by **robertdreed** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:54 am

"Can someone give a SHORT historical description of the emergence and nature of the 40 million evangelical christians in the USA ? and what is the deal between Catholics and protestants in north american POLITICS in the present ?" Garry Wills book Under God is a good place to start reading on the origins of that uniquely American variant known as Fundamentalist Christianity. Sara Diamond has a good book about the fundamentalist evangelicals, too. I forgot what it's called, it's relatively recent.

by **rain** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 2:36 am

Lady Almina Victoria Marie Alexandra Wombwell <a href="http://www.thepeerage.com/p8095.htm#i80947">www.thepeerage.com/p8095.htm#i80947</a> She was the daughter of Alfred de Rothschild and Marie Wombwell not Captain Frederick Charles Wombwell Almina married George Edward Stanhope Molyneux Herbert, 5th Earl of Carnarvon. 'Tut, Tut' <a href="http://www.highclerecastle.co.uk/Front/House_Dining.htm">www.highclerecastle.co.uk...Dining.htm</a> ..... ........ Alfred Charles de Rothschild (20 July 1842 - 31 January 191<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> was the second son of Lionel de Rothschild and Baroness Charlotte von Rothschild of the prominent Rothschild family. As a young man, Alfred attended Trinity College, Cambridge, England, to study Mathematics. It was at Trinity College that Alfred formed a lasting friendship with the Prince of Wales, later King Edward VII. Alfred left Cambridge University without a degree. At the age of 21 Alfred took up employment at the N M Rothschild Bank at New Court in London. It was there that he learnt the business of banking from his father and made valuable contacts in European banking circles. In 1869, at the age of 26, Alfred became a director of the Bank of England, a post he held for 20 years. In 1892 he was one of those who represented the British Government at the International Monetary Conference in Brussels. Upon the death of his father in 1879, Alfred inherited a 1,400 acre estate centered on Halton in Buckinghamshire. As Alfred lacked a country retreat and the Halton estate did not provide one, Alfred set about building a house in the style of a French chateau. Work started around 1880 and Halton House was finished in July 1883. Alfred remained in residence at Seamore Place in London and only ever used Halton House for social purposes. Although Alfred never married, it is commonly acknowledged that he had a daughter born out of wedlock, Almina Wombwell, 5th Countess of Carnarvon, by Marie Wombwell. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by the government of France. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_de_Rothschild">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alf...Rothschild</a> ........ Dear Lord Rothschild, I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet. "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation. Yours sincerely, Arthur James Balfour <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration,_1917">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bal...tion,_1917</a> ...... The future rebuilding of the Holy Land for the house of Judah and the building of the New Jerusalem in the Western Hemisphere for the house of Joseph are associated with the return of the Messiah to the earth. Of this era, the 1845 Proclamation of the Twelve (MFP 1:252-66) says: He will assemble the Natives, the remnants of Joseph in America; and make them a great, and strong, and powerful nation: and he will civilize and enlighten them, and will establish a holy city, and temple and seat of government among them, which shall be called Zion. And there shall be his tabernacle, his sanctuary, his throne, and seat of government for the whole continent of North and South America for ever. In short, it will be to the western hemisphere what Jerusalem will be to the eastern…. The city of Zion, with its sanctuary and priesthood, and the glorious fulness of the gospel, will constitute a standard which will put an end to jarring creeds and political wranglings, by uniting the republics, states, provinces, territories, nations, tribes, kindred, tongues, people and sects of North and South America in one great and common bond of brotherhood. Truth and knowledge shall make them free, and love cement their union. The Lord also shall be their king and their lawgiver; while wars shall cease and peace prevail for a thousand years [pp. 259-6<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/alien.gif ALT="0]"> . <a href="http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/gospel/last_days/new_jeru_eom.htm">www.lightplanet.com/mormo...ru_eom.htm</a> ....... Archbishop Raymond Burke established the Canons Regular of the New Jerusalem in the Diocese of La Crosse (Wis.) on June 22nd, 2002. The Canons relocated to the Archdiocese of St. Louis in November of 2004. <a href="http://www.canonsregular.com/">www.canonsregular.com/</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rain@rigorousintuition>rain</A> at: 8/4/06 12:50 am

by **rothbardian** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 2:39 am

Nemo-- I think you may have a notion that true anarchists are those who tear down and destroy the existing government, then sit around amidst the rubble of destruction, smoking marijiuana (or something)...as they would have absolutely no further plans. They would just continue to live amidst the rubble, and deliberately and specifically remain completely unorganized. But that notion, that picture...comes to us, courtesy of the PTB-dominated mainstream media and academia. It's baloney. Any serious, scholarly definitions of anarcho-capitalism or libertarian 'privatized government' delve extensively into all the organizational aspects of community. In the meantime, the agenda of modern-day libertarian thinkers/scholars/academians/writers is exactly identical to that of the original Founders...and exactly identical to the proposals of the Declaration of Independence: Get rid of the tyranny...then set up our lives in such a way as to secure freedom. The problem (in my view) with almost all of the 9/11 researchers and conspiracy investigators (such as Alex Jones, David Ray Griffin, Morgan Reynolds) is they are not proposing an anarchistic REMOVAL of government. They're proposing a cutesy "make-over" of government. "Let's move this couch over here. Put that plant over there". We might as well call in Martha Stewart. You can get rid of Bush and Cheney as a superficial measure, but you will have accomplished nothing. They have a thousand more psychopaths where those two came from. --------------- Pan, Pan, Pan-- What are we gonna do with you? It is obviously complete nonsense to say I am 'out of my depth' as you know nothing about what I've studied, what I've read, or what I know. Here we have, again, your distinctive signature-- a heavy dependence on 'personal jab' gimmicks. If only, only, only you could have a nice, polite conversation, minus the silly patronizing and various insult techniques, that would be truly enjoyable. Alas, you are incapable so far. You seem to have a good mind and a capability of carrying on an interesting conversation...but you've got this mean streak and condescension issue. I don't play that. If you don't make nice, it's because you're insecure in your arguments (as I see it). The old saying "Insult is the sign of an exhausted mind"-- has stood the test of time. Anyway, if you'd truly be "happy to examine any documentation", you can start with the Declaration of Independence, where they advocate the complete removal of any government (i.e. anarchy) that has become tyrannical. Their instructions as to what is to follow the establishment of this anarchy.....well, there are no specific instructions. They advise us to organize ourselves in any way that makes us happy. So in no uncertain terms they prescribe total anarchy in the face of tyranny...and after that we are free-- free to organize our lives as we see fit. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rothbardian>rothbardian</A> at: 8/4/06 12:43 am

by **Dreams End** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 2:49 am

So what was that whole Constitution thing?

by **rothbardian** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:48 am

DreamsEnd-- What about the Constitution? I'm simply saying if you want to get rid of tyranny, you have to become uncompromisingly anarchistic. You have to advocate anarchy. The Declaration of Independence advocates total anarchy--the utter removal of any government which is tyrannical. I think that for us to save ourselves, we need to follow the advisory of the Declaration. But under present conditions, the PTB-owned mainstream media and academia (and those that are intimidated or swayed by those elements) would have great success against a call for complete removal of what has become a hugely tyrannical system. They would simply cry "Anarchy!". And if the Founders were still alive they would say-- "You got that right! That's exactly what we proposed in the Declaration." There is NOTHING sacrosanct about the Constitution. Certainly not at this point I would think most people realize (especially here at RI) that the Constitution has long been raped and pillaged by the PTB, and almost completely corrupted and emasculated by them. The Constitution is obviously not stopping the PTB's world domination schemes. Shutting down the government and shutting down the PTB's access to tax dollars and worldwide military machines, is what will stop them. I've said it before-- if these evil people had to spend their own money for their world conquest schemes, they'd be out of money in a month. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rothbardian>rothbardian</A> at: 8/4/06 1:53 am

by **rain** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:59 am

Aarrrgh........ it never ends..... The Puritans are a really interesting group in apocalyptic history, because they really saw the prophecies of great blessings to the ancient Israelites applying to themselves. And they read the prophecies in terms of the political crisis of the mid-17th century in England, and viewed not only the Roman Church but the leaders of the Church of England in apocalyptic terms, as a kind of demonic force that had perverted the true faith, and that it was their mission as Puritans to literally purify the Church of evil and to bring about the kingdom of Christ, the true kingdom of Christ. So mid-17th century England was another one of those moments when apocalypticism really bursts through into the public realm. The energy of Puritanism was really an apocalyptic energy. ... The Puritans, coming out of the intensely apocalyptic political climate in England, in their own day, see now the possibility of literally creating, in what they saw as a new and empty world, the millennial kingdom, the vision of a truly righteous nation that had been perverted first by the Catholic Church and then by the leaders of the English Reformation. Now, in New England, this vision could be realized. There [are] really two strands of apocalypticism, I think, in New England Puritan sermonizing. There's the vision of the New Jerusalem, the city on a hill. This is the chosen land for the new Zion. Increase Mather, the father of Cotton Mather, certainly expresses this theme in his sermons. There's also the darker, more apocalyptic and frightening vision of a time of destruction coming. And Michael Wigglesworth, for example, prominent New England Puritan, in his book The Day of Doom, describes the moment of Christ's return and the shock of those who are unprepared for the return. The Day of Doom was a bestseller in Puritan New England. ... The idea of the New Jerusalem arises from ... very powerful and moving descriptions in the Book of Revelation that in the last days, literally a New Jerusalem, a new heaven and a new earth, shall be created. The old earth shall pass away and shall be no more. These are tremendously powerful images. And New England Puritans--at least some of their leaders--were convinced that this moment had come; that God was preparing the way for the creation of this New Jerusalem in New England <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/puritans.html">www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/fr...itans.html</a>

by **rain** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:28 am

geez roth, I thought your observations on the social engineering were really good, and, I appreciate the problems with the 'just needs tinkering with' crowd, but if you're reading 'total anarchy', I'm wondering who's side your on. how does this relate to your 'gentle' Mid-west thumpers? who, to continue with the fairy-tale, are trapped under the enchantment of the evil sorcerers, but they're apparently not showing any discomfort with their predicament. poor little victims. just where does the buck stop? but let's not offend anyone's delicate sensibilities. an interpretation that the 'founding fathers' were advocating 'anarchy' I could only attribute to an utter misrepresentation. 'anarchists' are only useful as a whip-cracking exercise. Jefferson's proposal <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1000.htm">etext.virginia.edu/jeffer...ff1000.htm</a> ostensibly on a 'generational' basis, was not adopted. anyone in the least bit curious about nineteen years? in other places it's known as the metonic cycle, apparently eaten by Zeus. I'd say, he ate it 'cos then it's his, he owns it, and nobody else. Jupiter Island anyone ? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rain@rigorousintuition>rain</A> at: 8/4/06 5:25 am

by **rothbardian** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:54 am

rain-- Maybe you could rephrase your question about Midwesterners and 'anarchy'. I don't think I quite understand.

by **Sarutama** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:44 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.<hr></blockquote> That seems, at least to me, to be saying "Get rid of the government that doesn't work and institute a new one that you think will". Thats a fair bit different from total anarchy.

by **professorpan** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:01 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>If only, only, only you could have a nice, polite conversation, minus the silly patronizing and various insult techniques, that would be truly enjoyable. Alas, you are incapable so far. You seem to have a good mind and a capability of carrying on an interesting conversation...but you've got this mean streak and condescension issue.<hr></blockquote> That's your take. I don't think I'm being mean or condescending when I suggest you are out of your league in saying that the founders were anarchists. Overthrow of tyrannical government is not equivalent to espousing anarchy. Your suggestion that they are one and the same indicates to me that you are not well-versed in political history. Sorry. Point out to me some documentation that the founders of the U.S. advocated anarchy or the removal of all forms of government. Then I'll refrain from saying you're wrong. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=professorpan>professorpan</A> at: 8/4/06 9:03 am

by **eroeoplier** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:56 am

"...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..." <a href="http://worldcantwait.org/images/aug06ad.pdf">worldcantwait.org/images/aug06ad.pdf</a> (advertisment in Thursday's New York Times) Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=eroeoplier@rigorousintuition>eroeoplier</A> at: 8/4/06 9:58 am

by **Sarutama** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:12 pm

You are taking that quote out of context. The full sentence is: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.<hr></blockquote> Forgot about the whole "...and to institute a new government" part.

by **johnny nemo** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:43 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Nemo-- I think you may have a notion that true anarchists are those who tear down and destroy the existing government, then sit around amidst the rubble of destruction, smoking marijiuana (or something)...as they would have absolutely no further plans. They would just continue to live amidst the rubble, and deliberately and specifically remain completely unorganized. But that notion, that picture...comes to us, courtesy of the PTB-dominated mainstream media and academia.<hr></blockquote> Let's see how some modern anarchist act.... In 2003 in San Francisco, "Black Bloc" anarchists broke windows at several businesses and on a pair of police cars during their rampage. They spray-painted buildings and other objects with graffiti. They burned trash, climbed onto a cable car, and later tossed bottles and other objects at mounted police who were trying to control them, thereby endangering the other peaceful demonstrators. Anarchist Black Cross members currently go through firearms trainings via its Tactical Defense Caucus and state: We believe in direct resistance to achieve a stateless and classless society. Some balk at supporting anyone accused of so-called violent acts, thus insinuating that anyone who resists oppression and takes up arms in self-defense, engages in economic sabotage against the state or capitalists, or rebels during a revolutionary insurrection is not worthy of support. The message is clear: do not resist. Our message is exactly the opposite, and this is what we work to support. We share a commitment to anarchism as opposed to liberalism and individualism or legalism; self-defense as opposed to dependence on the state; and solidarity as opposed to sectarianism in struggling for a more just world. Just face it, the spirit of the violence has poisoned the anarchist movement since Guy Fawkes tried to blow up the King and Parliament in 1605. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>You can get rid of Bush and Cheney as a superficial measure, but you will have accomplished nothing. They have a thousand more psychopaths where those two came from.<hr></blockquote> "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson I see and hear this defeatist, fatalist crap all the time. There are thousands of middle class "crusty" anarchos roaming the country, living on the streets, preaching this "Smash The State" credo over and over before they pan-handle enough money to get drunk and pass out in the gutter. They're just a bunch of middle-class wanna-bes vacationing on someone else's dime, rationalizing their apathy by deluding themselves that they're "living outside the system", when they are, in fact, merely leeching off of the hard work of the working class that they are too lazy to join. As to the Libertarians....almost all of their platforms are a shortcut to thinking. Abolish government and if we don't end up with roving gangs of psychopaths and thieves, we'll all be enslaved by companies, like we were prior to the Labor Reforms of the early to mid 20th century. Wake up, man. Anarchists and Libertarians didn't get rid of slavery, child labor, company stores, segregation and all the other evils of the system. Some, like Mother Jones's march to end child labor, may have drawn attention to the problems, but it was legislators like Democratic activist Frank Walsh who got the laws made that ended company stores and instituted labor reforms for working people. Saying "Government is bad, so let's get rid of government" is as intelligent as saying "All crime is committed by the living, so let's kill everyone".

by **rothbardian** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:45 pm

Sarutama-- I don't see how Eroplier's quote is out of context at all. How so? The Declaration states- "...laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." So you anarchically abolish the current government, then you reestablish your community on non-coercive principles...after all, the Declaration says we can. Anarcho-capitalism proposes organizing our community on principles of privatization. The Declaration gives us the option of organizing our community in whatever manner we please. Privatized government is anarchy. What we have here is a difference in our definitions. Anarcho-capitalists are talking about the removal of a coercive tyranny. It has never meant the removal of organization and order. That notion comes strictly from the PTB-dominated media and academia..and some of you are clinging to rather steadfastly, I think. It is this notion that says 'anarchy' is to be described as...people destroying a government and then simply sitting among the ruins, staring forlornly into space. That is a misconception. That is NOT the correct definition for anarchy. Not according to the leading scholars/intellects who ARE anarcho-capitalists.

Mel Gibson's DUI and drunken rant

Re: anarchy

havanagila

Re:not the fairy-tale

The Declaration of Independence and Anarchy

Re: The Declaration of Independence and Anarchy

Re: The Declaration of Independence and Anarchy

Re: The Declaration of Independence and Anarchy

bands of guerillas

Re: bands of guerillas

Declaration of Anarchy

Re: The Declaration of Independence and Anarchy

Re: Declaration of Anarchy

re: Declaration of Anarchy

Re: re: Declaration of Anarchy

Re: re: Declaration of Anarchy

Who is online