Daddy...

L

Lotus Mox

Guest
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?

A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.

Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.

A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.

Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?

A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.

Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of
mass destruction, did we?

A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll
find something, probably right before the 2004 election.

Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?

A: To use them in a war, silly.

Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to
use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we
went to war with them?

A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those
weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend
themselves.

Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had
all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?

A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.

Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those
weapons our government said they did.

A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those
weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.

Q: And what was that?

A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam
Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade
another country.

Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his
country?

A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.

Q: Kind of like what they do in China?

A: Don¹t go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic
competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in
sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.

Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American
corporate gain, it¹s a good country, even if that country tortures
people?

A: Right.

Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?

A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government.
People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and
tortured.

Q: Isn¹t that exactly what happens in China?

A: I told you, China is different.

Q: What¹s the difference between China and Iraq?

A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba¹ath party, while
China is Communist.

Q: Didn¹t you once tell me Communists were bad?

A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.

Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?

A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba
are sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Like in Iraq?

A: Exactly.

Q: And like in China, too?

A: I told you, China¹s a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the
other hand, is not.

Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?

A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some
laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business
with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being
capitalists like us.

Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and
started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans
become capitalists?

A: Don't be a smart-ass.

Q: I didn't think I was being one.

A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.

Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?

A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam
Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a
legitimate leader anyway.

Q: What's a military coup?

A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a
country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the
United States.

Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?

A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan
is our friend.

Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?

A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.

Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by
forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an
illegitimate leader?

A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he
helped us invade Afghanistan.

Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?

A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.

Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?

A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men _ fifteen of them Saudi
Arabians _ hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into
buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.

Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?


A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive
rule of the Taliban.

Q: Aren¹t the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off
people¹s heads and hands?

A: Yes, that¹s exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off
people¹s heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.

Q: Didn¹t the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars
back in May of 2001?

A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job
fighting drugs.

Q: Fighting drugs?

A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing
opium poppies.

Q: How did they do such a good job?

A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban
would have their hands and heads cut off.

Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people¹s heads and hands for growing
flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people¹s heads and hands
off for other reasons?

A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off
people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off
people's hands for stealing bread.

Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?

A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical
patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas
whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty
for women who did not comply.

Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?

A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.

Q: What¹s the difference?

A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest
yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for
her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool
of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except
for her eyes and fingers.

Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.

A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis
are our friends.

Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th
were from Saudi Arabia.

A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.

Q: Who trained them?

A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.

Q: Was he from Afghanistan?

A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a
very bad man.

Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.

A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.

Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald
Reagan talked about?

A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or
thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We
call them Russians now.

Q: So the Soviets _ I mean, the Russians _ are now our friends?

A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years
after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to
support our invasion of Iraq, so we¹re mad at them now. We're also
mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade
Iraq either.

Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?

A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French
fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.

Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn¹t do what
we want them to do?

A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.

Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?

A: Well, yeah. For a while.

Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?

A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him
our friend, temporarily.

Q: Why did that make him our friend?

A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.

Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?

A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we
looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.

Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically
becomes our friend?

A: Most of the time, yes.

Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically
an enemy?

A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can
profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the
better.

Q: Why?

A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for
America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes
war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we
attacked Iraq?

Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?

A: Yes.

Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?

A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells
him what to do.

Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because
George W. Bush hears voices in his head?

A. Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.

Q: Good night, Daddy.

-----------
Got this from another forum :), nicely describes the paradox US foreign politicy.
 
D

DÛke

Guest
...

Glück und Erfüllung!

I love Germans. They are too superior to Americans. Wait. Who isn't superior to Americans and lousy enigmas, excuses, and bluh-bluh-bluhs?

You see, if only they were at least honest with themselves, and lose such tags as "war for peace," "liberation," "democracy," "human rights," and...you know...their bluh-bluh-bluhs, there would be not much of a problem. If only they were decent enough, courageous enough of human beings, they would at least see that no war in history was done out disinterestedly, out of mere "good will," out of "a helping hand," that no human being is capable of committing disinterested, merely objective and righteous deeds. You see, my German friend, if Americans were in par with a decent level of humanity, they would know this, and not conceal their motives behind very comical notions, lying to no one, but to themselves. And again, only if there was the slightest whiff of self-respect, courage, sincerity…only if. But we are luckier to find an ape who has crossed the times of evolution and is reaching what we call “civility” by now, than finding an average American who has done the same. Like apes, they are usually busy with what they call "happiness," "pleasure," and...something strange, which they call, "the American dream." They have no time for you. The sad thing is, the entire world is trying to catch up with this false "dream," with this self-disrespect, aversion, dishonesty - the entire world - is in want to be American and American-like. They look at Americans with envious eyes...

...if only there was a way to show them that there is nothing to be envious of! That what they posses, the little they posses, is by far more human, more humane, more civil, indeed, more happy, more pleased, more at peace of mind, than any "American dream."

I, myself, would like to be disassociated from anything and everything American and Americanized. I washed my hands clean from this foul smelling zoo and its zoo-loving animals. [Edit]: This edit is merely to prevent a forthcoming idiotic commentry by any of our dear members - someone would, like before, take this very literarly: "aren't you using a computer!", "aren't you wearing American-inspired and fashioned clothes!" - they forget to see that my comments here are directed toward them, the people, the people as mere animals.[/Edit]

If the world desires a better future, America - as a superpower - must go. As a world-police and policy maker, as a world leader, it must go.

My question is...why does not the world revolt against this wretched excuse of a nation? Why does not France, Russia, Germany, China - all of whom opposed the invasion of Iraq - do something about it? - really stand up for what they believed to be unjustified?

You see, at the end, we must realize that, it is not solely Bush who obeys the voices in his head, but leaders in general. They, too, seek their interest and their only interest. And God knows what America has promised them only to keep them at bay...to keep them silent, to keep them inactive and mere onlookers.

Bush? He is one of many. He exists as the soul of most leaders, and as the soul of most Americans, and people in general. Detest him, and you will detest humanity as a whole.
 
B

Bob

Guest
Originally posted by DÛke
...

Bush? He is one of many. He exists as the soul of most leaders, and as the soul of most Americans, and people in general. Detest him, and you will detest humanity as a whole.
So I detest humanity? Ok, I can live with that.
 
R

Reverend Love

Guest
Duke I have to agree, I too love the Germans. Their social order is well preserved by a just and refined system .

Their politician's only speak about pressing issues, never relying on slander or the cheap tricks like my American politicians do.

Their economy continually produces astounding GNP levels which only many can aspire to.

Germany's public is a cool, calm, collected people who are rational in their displays of concern and are never subject to petty bias, unlike that of us Americans.

Again unlike my country, which must deal with it's multitude of differing ethos, races, and customs. Germany on the other had has come to reconciliation with itself as a socially diverse society and looks only towards their unified future.

Yep, Germany surely is a remarkable country overcoming all the problems which has so hobbled America for years.
 
L

Lotus Mox

Guest
originally posted by DÛke:
The sad thing is, the entire world is trying to catch up with this false "dream," with this self-disrespect, aversion, dishonesty - the entire world - is in want to be American and American-like. They look at Americans with envious eyes...
That's unfortunately true, as Reverend Love shown us, enough ppl in Germany are already americanized.
 
D

DÛke

Guest
...

Oh, Reverend Love, I'm not about to argue about those! But as you have read, I have taken enough consideration to edit my previous post to prevent such idiotic, very American (meaning, very stupid), replies. And would you like me to tell you why your reply is, without further ado, stupid? Because I clearly mentioned that I am speaking about the people, perhaps I should have said: I am mostly speaking to and against the average person? Would that prevent the future idiocy?

Look at Qatar, look at Kuwait...Egypt...Jordan...soon Iraq. Look at Western Europe...they are very well Americanized, like I generally mentioned.

Why I love Germans more than Americans? Why I still have faith in the filthiest of Arabs, those who have gone particularly foul due to severe Americanization? Just why?

Have you spoken to an average American, then turned around to speak, say, with a German? There is a difference. Yet again, there is the same difference between an American and almost anyone, even a damn Canadian. There is a sense of fresh air, of a vague sense of honesty and being honest with one's self - a vague sense - but is there nevertheless. An American, however, is your typical animal...his life detaches itself from all suffering, and views suffering as evil - very evil. In fact, he does not know what pain is. Could this misfortune be accredited to how America is the suffering inflictor, and not the sufferer? Could it be because America is the "player," the "leader," and thus the sword-holder, and not the weaker, therefore, the kneeler? And you see its citizens weary and at the same time thirsty for suffering; they avoid it whenever they can, but is there such a thing as avoiding life? No! So you see, we have their Hollywood, for example, which produces one violent movie after another; they have their rap, their metal, their punk...their "bad" attitude...they need some pain and painful subjects in their lives, these deprived humans! Unfortunately, they do not get enough doses of it. At times, when the Holy sky stretches open and rains with few airplanes, that they fear, and it becomes to them like a "world record," like a biblical date, one which must be recited at every conversation: "do you mean this happened before or after 9/11?" - such is the questions that prevail, as if it matters. But you know, it does matter. Events with such grand of a style they call "world changing events." The world will never be the same!!! - they say!

Kill a tree. The world will never be the same after. Kill a man, and the world will forever be changed. Do not kill the man, and the world will still change. Cry, and the world will have changed. Smile, and the world will change. Yet, that single 9/11 change is grand! Oh, we must pay respect! Because...it is American.

And that is why I will not recognize any person as a human being until he or she, through conduct, proves to be worthy of his rights. And in so far, as I see, very few Americans are worthy of the rights and freedoms they posses. Very few.

...and that the world are falling to Americanization, decaying as such, that is really our problem, and not terrorism, we the one's who have acquired a level of humanity who is slightly above the average animal. This is our problem, and no one else's, mainly because everyone else is the problem...
 
R

Reverend Love

Guest
Slow down the Troll motor Duke, I've already bit. Your gonna tire me out with all your fancy talk...

I'm sure your immense cerebral powers of insight have already informed you. I'm just a silly ignorant American. Stumbling through a world far too complex for my McBiggy Size Fries, McBiggy Size Coke understanding. References of Americanization spreading through hemispheres ranging across geography alien to my simple knowledge completely evade me. For this discussion not to simply be you conjuring images of depravation due to this Americinization-thinga-mabob. You’ll need to clarify it;


Look at Qatar, look at Kuwait...Egypt...Jordan...soon Iraq. Look at Western Europe...they are very well Americanized, like I generally mentioned.
What exactly is this Americanization? Is it related to SARS? Can I get it using a public restroom? Did it come from South America, thus the America insinuation?

When defining this big word please make sure you're quite thorough in it's meaning...a nice a long post would do fine...don't worry I'll read it twice.
 
T

train

Guest
from a dedicated Warmongering American...

"Darn Tootin'!!!..."
 
D

DÛke

Guest
...

Awww, missing the definition? I only alluded to it all too many times by far. The single utterance of the term "America," "American," and the symptom, "Americanization," has become foul-tasting, very bitter and unforgiving on the ends of my tongue! You must forgive my lack of consideration, my lack of over-simplification, indeed, you must forgive the entire pretense which I must fool myself into believing so as to pretend that I am speaking to someone worthy, that I am not simply wasting my time, that my words are not mere sighs in the wind. But you know, that suffering of mine, that embittered taste, that looking down, that pain of enduring the existence of puppets and puppet-masters, of zoos and zoo-keepers, of filth and filth-makers, filth preachers, filth liberators...you know, all that I appreciate! In fact, I love it. I do not call it evil, I do not call it pessimism, and I certainly do not look down at life, per se, but at the ugly fellows who blemish it, who uglify, who stink life if with anything, than with their presence as legitimate members of society. But forgive me here! I caught my humble self off-guard and uttering nonsense! I mistakenly uttered "legitimate members of society," which is really a contradiction, even an attack on a higher sense of taste, of looking in depth towards our problem, presupposing from the beginning that "legitimate" could exist as a collectivity, indeed, within and as a whole society. Perhaps that is our problem - that legitimacy runs away, and fades with the wind, that legitimacy experiences its downfall as soon as it becomes something average, collective, as soon as it becomes a so-called "society,” in which it turns into a collective sickness…

…but what is this? How could man exist without sociability! How could it be, that after all the nonsense of history, that man is, at the end, an unsociable animal, an animal that dislikes sociability, a lonely animal who only is capable of living in blessedness when he is alone. How could it be! What a task, what an endurance, what pain and suffering, what tears…who is able to live such a life?

…the illegitimacy of our conquest, perhaps, begins here. That Americans, of all people, are loneliness-fearing animals, therefore, are “sociable” animals, meaning, they refuse, avoid, and detest at all time high the sound of silence, the sound which leads one astray, the sound which, if heard with a light heart, can make one raise himself a little. Loneliness, to the modern man, amongst whom Americans stand as the most modern, is an evil, an “unnatural” consequence of what they call “bad attitude,” “rejection,” “antisociability.”

…how must they, the modernest of all moderns, cure this curse, this devouring and engulfing curse, this incurable pain? In this land, of all lands, an urgent antidote was needed – in all this land, multitudes upon multitudes, animals upon animals, slaves upon slaves, the stench of humanity, gather to coexist, but as the man animal that they enviably are, as animals, as humans and human-like, as subdued by Nature by force (as we all are), there is no such thing as one loving another in the sense that exists today, as that “generous,” “selfless,” “neighbor loving” sickness that predominates our virtues today, but there is a sense of overpowering, dominating, gaining control, subduing to one’s will what exists. In this land of the great stench, where the death and decay gathers in celebration, how could we tame such animals to form not just the “perfect” society, but the most inviting, the most parasitic, fungi, therefore the most growing, the most “active” if you will? Here, our great philosophers, moralists, idealists, religious clowns, and clowns in general, invented the idea of “tolerance.” The idea of tolerance. Where does one begin with this great folly? Let us begin from the beginning, once again, for your sake…

Man is by duty, by necessity, by law, a considerate animal…meaning, in constant fear and paranoia of negative consequences, suspicious of outcomes, fearful, paranoid, simply sickened. If we fear any negative consequence and therefore commit only that which is, at the end, pleasing – supposing we know the consequences before we commit the action – would there be a meaning to life? Is that not just paranoia and precisely the unwillingness to do what is unknown, what is unfathomable, what does not necessarily result in personal pleasure? In such cases where our desired, and indeed, the consequences themselves are all those of pleasure, choice is eliminated. But does not the idea of choice belong to our conceptions of pleasure? – after all, what is that constant noise and rumbling we hear about “individuality” and “freedom of choice”? And…does not choice also, necessarily, means blindness to the consequences, the ability to fathom and accept such a thing as a negative consequence, displeasing, displeasurable, altogether painful to one’s self and hurtful to others consequence; consequences that are life-threatening as opposed to life-preserving? – are such results not the essence of having a choice at all? Yet the moderns call it “freedom” when the results attained are exactly unfree, that is, when they are determined to yield pleasure and only pleasure, happiness, care-free-mindfulness, “well-being,” “good-will,” to yield what is expected, what is for long planned and worked for, to attain the “goal.” Who knows what could happen to a free man these days; he is a dangerous symbol, a living metaphor whose freedom is only half the crime; what a threat, what a crime towards the open and civilized society he must be. With free, here, I mean a man who acts without knowing, who simply acts with utmost innocence to the results of his actions, overtaken by that strange phenomena which is called “insanity” whose blindness is only fear inspiring, whose ignorance is enigmatic, refreshing, exciting even, yet is believe to be the greatest folly of modern times, without a doubt, of any era – “irrationality” is what it is called, and “reason” is its antidote, amongst reason we stumble on very obscure and smelly ideas, as “truth,” as “God,” as “religion, as “tolerance,” and still a long list and a longer history too profound and lengthy to do justice to. The free man: he tries to put his weight on those “innocent” animals, he attempts to shake them up, not out of purpose, but it is simply a consequence of his notable presence – he is “criminal by nature,” tough hearted, hardened, apathetic, a displeased tyrant – and we all know by now, that offending and as little as discomforting the very disgruntled and ever-longing “innocents” has become like a crime, a crime against their ideals, their happiness and their passions, their decay, and their greatest joke: liberty and liberation, or as I see it: deliberation. Not many are even willing to have their questionable clean ears exposed to something unpleasant or honest; not many want to take the long way, but they want something beautiful, something charming and flattering, something that does not “conflict” with their “interests,” or as our good leaders have been mouthing it, as the slaves have been mouthing it: they want something that is “tolerant,” very tolerant, to the point that tolerance is a virtue that we simply “cannot do without.” “Tolereance,” or, disrespecting others by concealing one’s distaste towards them, by not caring for them, not showing them what is better, indeed, if nothing, not being honest to one’s self. “Tolerance,” as the greatest invention since the invention of reason, it suggests that where love is nonexistent, where a willful respect of others is lacking, where the will itself is degenerate, where good manners are lacking, one is ought to “tolerate.” Tolerance, as a foundation of our “good” today, as a cheap, frumpish, dishonest type of love, as self-degradation and painful smiles; but, but…it is the only way we could manage our poor lives and living today, by putting shows and appearances. Let us be self-confronting for at least this once: can we do otherwise? Can we live without tolerance today? – because we seek the good consequence, and only the good consequence…and who knows how ill-natured and bad intolerance can be…who likes to face such a consequence? Who likes to follow that great path, that great forgotten path where you hear the sound of silence, where you are loneliness?

…Tolerating another’s bad tastes, tolerance in general is, in turn, a reward and a good consequence: he tolerates our bad tastes, he forgives our ill-breeding, our lack of knowing, our dogma and thirst for stupidity, and he wraps it all with a smile, and hands it to us as a present, as if he is doing us a favor, when precisely, he is washing his hands clean, giving up, and running away from the responsibility of knowing us, in teaching us, in persuading us. He is dismissing the difference between himself and others by tolerating them, he befriends their image, after it had been cleaned and “tolerated” through and though, after self-degradation, self-deluding, self-coloring has been fulfilled.

…“Yes, I disagree with you, but must we talk about this issue? Must we argue? Let us talk of things we posses in common, things we both adore; let us find common grounds; let us build common grounds…but before all of this, I need you to tolerate me, forget who I am, until we build a distraction, an entertainment at which we can stare and never find ourselves in silence, let us create new noise in which we can drown, let us do something, anything! Lest we argue about this issue again, and force ourselves apart from each other, into the curse that is loneliness!”

…At the end, the stupid befriends the stupid through unsatisfactory and disinterested series of love and lovemaking between man and those he “tolerates.” What a happy ending. But is it that happy? Is it happy at all? Look at its ugly face! And what an ugly face it has, this happiness of theirs – it has an “unconscious” behind it, it has concealed sicknesses forgiven by bad psychologists, psychologist who saw the sickness of the majority as the “nature in man,” as a “man with an unconscious,” as a “man with other motives,” indeed, at last, as a “man who does not know himself, who does not know what he really wants, who does not know what his motives are.” And this is only the beginning of the story. But the story is already too long…and I have made it longer still.

What is Americanization? It is a sickness, a decay of life, a vision which sees only “good,” which interprets only “good,” which has, as its truth, only “good.” What is good, for us, is what we conceal, what we deny, what we fear. Goodness is our enemy, it is the enemy of man. Freedom, goodness, “truth” – all are punishable concepts by the ruling classes, the puppets and their puppet-masters. This cancer, this red blemish ready to burst, is your America. Americanization – that is what I call a degenerating life form, any life form, when speaking about sick and sickening fellows who posses this zest for “tolerance,” for “justice,” for “good,” for “liberation.” Behind every one of these ideals we smell suspicions, and with that we become paranoid. “Tolerance,” or dishonest, uncaring, even hateful? Justice, or the punishment of all that is good, meaning, the punishment of all that which does not comply with the puppet’s good? Good, is it, or the denial of good? Crime, is it, or is it the simple loss of sanity, the simple loss of oppression, the breaking chains and muzzles, the sudden burst of one’s self, at the cost of any price, even the death of anything and anyone?

...we look down but we only see black stares! We see a nothingness that looks back at us and grins. "Surely this is not so!"; some of us look up, and cry: "Tell me this is not so!" Yes, tell us, that it is not so! Tell us that I am wrong. Forbid this from reality! Surely one is wrong, and not the majority; surely the majority over the minority; surely one cannot be right when one is alone, standing at the highest peak of the highest mountain! Surely. Surely! And we doubt ourselves. And we say No to ourselves. And we run.

...this curse, which fills even the greatest men with self-doubt; the sickness that harasses even the cleanest men! These puppets who slay any flying spirits! These charmers and actors of the spirit...

...what a mudhole it is. What is good? What is bad? You tell me. But beware, because the irony never fails to reveal itself; the irony, and the self-interest, the selfishness, and the hatred which many are willing to claim that they are free of. Free of, or are in denial of? That, too, is a long story...

...what is it you say? They are most likely in denial of? Well then! The story has just gotten shorter! In denial of themselves, no? In denial of life, in denial - dishonest, lying, corrupting, charming, and still in concealment, in a type of self-hate.

...it is impossible for man to hate himself, especially the majority? Here is my final statement: the majority, the great crowd, the commons, the average - they hate themselves.
 
T

train

Guest
But society, mere existence in most minds, is not about liking one's self...

It's about others liking you...

"That's what's sad...":rolleyes:
 
D

DÛke

Guest
...
train:

But society, mere existence in most minds, is not about liking one's self...

It's about others liking you...
Assuming, of course, that redirecting attention from one's self is not a way in which a man of American-caliber can, in return, fool himself into believing that he loves himself, that he "cares about himself." At the end, to be liked by others, to be adored, that is, to be their victim, that, too, can be self-love. Self-love...or self-hate?

Not that some don't love themselves! But most of those are unworthy to love themselves. Not every man is ought to love himself, that is a dirty claim.

What is "sad," actually, is that most people don't realize the magnitude of the "majority." They think being unpopular, unloved, rejected, that being an outcast is automatically the "good" thing I am speaking of here. Oh, not even close! There are some unworthy of love...unworthy of attention, even the majority casts them out. These loners say they had "castled themselves out" sometimes, that they detest the majority, that they don't belong to the majority, that they are individuals...

...but I have said it again and again: who doesn't claim this today? Even that little has been damaged by the touch of the majority.

You're an "individual." He's an "individual." She's an "individual." And you all are unique and "individual" and "special." But you have nothing of that sort to show for it...except, of course: "I am an individual!!!"

That is what is sad: when a puppet thinks its the puppeteer.
 
R

Reverend Love

Guest
I only alluded to it all too many times by far.
No kidding..it's like witnessing beatnik performance art.


What is Americanization? It is a sickness, a decay of life, a vision which sees only “good,” which interprets only “good,” which has, as its truth, only “good.” What is good, for us, is what we conceal, what we deny, what we fear. Goodness is our enemy, it is the enemy of man.
So what your saying is that this Americanization is good?
 
D

DÛke

Guest
...
RL:

So what your saying is that this Americanization is good?
Yes, what am I saying?

There is a slight difference between my saying "good" versus a simple good, free of quotation marks.

My proposition is this: what has been called "good" insofar is what is sickening, what is not good, and against good. It has been an ill-mannered, diseased infamy unlike any other.

The American "good" is that infamy. The world's "good" is growing to be, at large, that infamy...

I really thought I made myself clear. And they say I'm too blunt. Perhaps I am not blunt enough...
 

Ferret

Moderator
Staff member
Okay, I came in late on this one...

A German berating America...

<Ring Ring>
"Hello? Germany speaking."
"Hi, this is the pot. Just calling to tell you that you're black" (the colour, not African American).

As Duke has pointed out on a few occasions people don't seem to talk too much about Third Reich Germany as such a bad thing anymore and some day people will look back on Hitler w/ the same admiration that many have for such past leaders as Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. It's my opinion that in a couple generation people will look back on the Bush's the same way. They will be revered as great leaders and people like the Clintons will have the same reverence of James K. Polk (he did quite a bit, but short of listening to a They Might Be Giants song, can you name what he accomplished?).

You know, in these crazy days I miss The Cold War. At least the world had two countries to hate... :)

Seriously, I hate all countries. All of them. I hate all nationalities. I hate all political parties. I hate EVERYTHING that divides people into groups instead of emphasizing them as individuals.

-Ferret

"Nationalism? Just another form of cultism..."
 
R

Reverend Love

Guest
My proposition is this: what has been called "good" insofar is what is sickening, what is not good, and against good. It has been an ill-mannered, diseased infamy unlike any other.

The American "good" is that infamy. The world's "good" is growing to be, at large, that infamy...
Ooh ok.

Good is sick, which is not good and it doesn’t like itself. It's also been bad and has a famous bad disease which is unique.

America is genuine that good's bad disease which is unique is spreading to the rest of the world.

I see....well I'm gonna go to Wal'Mart now and buys some stuff....maybe I'll stop by McDonald's on the way home.


You know, in these crazy days I miss The Cold War. At least the world had two countries to hate...
I hear ya brother. Without the threat of nuclear armageddon hanging in the air what's a person to fear?


I hate EVERYTHING that divides people into groups instead of emphasizing them as individuals.
Sounds like you hate, hate.
 
D

DÛke

Guest
...

If there is a future, all American presidents, the entire Constitution, will be displayed as what is wrong with a nation. Bush will be at the bottom of the human ladder, along with many "good" Americans.

Hitler is a different case. Let us not downplay the man by comparing him to Bush.

And pardon me, Ferret...but if you detest nationalism that much, whatever happened to those few nationalistic outbursts of yours, those war-affirming cries?

Am I against war? Not at all. But let that war be for something grand...

...Bush's war is that of cancerous Americanization, of the spread of a disease.

..."emphasizing on individuals." People divide themselves and nothing else divides them. They should be divided! We are not equal. I don't want to hear of poor cries of something that caused the people to "divide." No. Every division, every hatred, and every detestable object and subject we live today is due to us, and not anything beyond us, not anything beyond our power, our control. Blame the people; blame yourselves.

...we should not focus on "individuals." The majority do not desire to be individuals. Those who claim to be individual are the most unfree, the most corrupt, the most damned I have ever seen so far. They have no use for freedom, merely, again, to distinguish themselves, hence, there is nothing about them that distinguishes them from the puppets under command. They are the ruled, and not the rulers. You are an individual? Show me how...

"Your most profound thought I want to hear, and I hope I have made it clear, that there is no shame, no hate, no detest here, that whatever it is that occupies your mind, that which makes you the profound individual that you claim to be, is, in fact, welcomed to be heard and obsereved. But again. It is your most profound thought I want to hear; your greatest worry, your greatest desire; I want to hear it all..." At the end, you will realize, from you answeres, if they are sincere ones, that you are nothing but a clone, nothing but a trace, nothing individual, unique...you are, a puppet, and the puppeteer. But your nationalism, your sense of pride, even your "dignity," renders you unable to admit that you are monsterous nothing...

And...

Reverend Love, that's the spirit. Now, I don't want to see any attempts on your side to mouth out what does not belong to your usual breath. Keep your mind focused on, say, Magic...or...Wal-Mart...alright? Better yet, go fall "in love," or something...
 
L

Lotus Mox

Guest
Originally posted by Ferret
Seriously, I hate all countries. All of them. I hate all nationalities. I hate all political parties. I hate EVERYTHING that divides people into groups instead of emphasizing them as individuals.

-Ferret

"Nationalism? Just another form of cultism..."
Yeah, nationalism is pretty stupid.
But why do you, in the very same post, understand my post as one of a German (a Nazi-German even (newsflash: we're living in 2003, not 1945)) and not as one of an individual?
 
D

DÛke

Guest
...
Mox:

But why do you, in the very same post, understand my post as one of a German (a Nazi-German even (newsflash: we're living in 2003, not 1945)) and not as one of an individual?
It is the way a man touched by a certain symptom would reason, or how should I put this more constructively? - it is the way he gets his revenge, consequently betraying what he projects as his identity, meaning, revealing himself from underneath layers of makeup.

Really, Mox! If you look at it from a certain degree, we have asked Ferret the same satirical question, which is, at the end, not really a question, but to prove our point: it is, in a sense, an answer and an arrow to what we call a...problem...to what we deem as "problematic," pathetic, ugly, unrefined, dishonest, shameless, undignified...or, to make this inexhaustible list more to the point, and to state it in a my manner of speaking: it is what I call...American...and to still dive deeper and to give a credit where credit is due, to point out at all such types of long-dead life-forms: it is what I call subhuman.

...it is our comedy and that certain grin on our faces. It is the very point of your thread!
 
R

Reverend Love

Guest
I think the Duke would be honored by your obvious homage. Kind of ironic don't you think?
 
Top