Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

savages

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    Most people like the comfort of thinking that something is right. Thinking that something is right allows action in a direction. Not thinking that anything is
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 4, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Most people like the comfort of thinking that something is right.
      Thinking that something is right allows action in a direction. Not
      thinking that anything is right is the cause of miasmal angst and
      isolationism in ordinary Americans. They need the comfort of a sense
      of rightness. During the cold war communism gave direction to national
      security, in fact for most people involved with security, it excused a
      ridiculously uninformed patriotism into all manner of obtuse and
      inhumane activity. In the security world there has always been a wall,
      a higher clearance, which required an appeal to an operatives idealism
      to hide the motivations for such activity. The old security world is
      crumbling because idealism is no longer a reliable tool. We are today,
      as a national entity on the world stage, the least secure we have ever
      been. Why? Quite simply, because we have allowed capitalism itself to
      be taken over by those with the most money. It is absolutely the large
      corporation that has ruined our national security, and immolated all
      its agencies.

      Once corporations simply funded activities, now they own the agencies.
      Their idea of a "new world order" is a corporate controlled planet
      that serves their executives first. The battle for this country, for
      the ordinary citizen, will not be won or lost on the picket line, at
      the pulpit, or even the ballot box. We have already given the
      corporate entity the right to secrecy while giving up our own right to
      personal privacy. Everything of life is now measured by purchasing
      power. We passed, some years ago, the last point of no return for a
      peaceful resolution for the ordinary American citizen. Jimmy Carter
      sold his soul to it, and it was over. There will be no more good men
      in political office, only agenda ridden fools, and bumbling pork
      barrel drunks. Those in charge now are the worst kind of man for the
      future of this world: terrified men of action.

      In the world of security agencies, things work and get done because of
      an heirarchy. Secrets are revealed stingily on a need to know basis.
      One always thinks someone above them knows something more. Today we
      have no national security because the top secret, and the ultimate
      motivation, is known. Security now, is just damage control, the
      limitation of information. There are no national secrets. Corporations
      agendize all our national security activities. They are the black hand
      at the top. Some good men have thought and argued in the past that
      this was inevitable, and not necessarily a bad thing, and
      characterized it as "creeping capitalism", the winning of the world
      for democracy so to speak. Sadly democracy and capitalism have proved
      to not be the same thing. We have failed to protect the small
      businessman, the ordinary family provider, and instead greedily and
      fearfully ruined his uninformed ideological dreams.

      Ironically, freedom itself is responsible for that. Partly it is the
      wealthy craving an addictive buzz of pseudo-freedom, the freedom to
      play at anything at all, who slobber to buy its assurance like a drug.
      For the informed it is the fear of what they are and worry about what
      will be left. Still we need not be hopeless because we are without
      resources or uninformed. The true nature of literature is such, that
      there really are no secrets. This in itself assures that no man is
      actually ever permanently dominated by another. The failure of any
      dominion is inevitable; even though the sorrow of deluded conquest is
      ongoing and inescapable. If I am vouchsafed free untouchable to live
      at all, it may be noted by some as proof of the soundness of the
      story; and though a dark Englishman once scripted the self made noose
      as resolution, that was an error in plot, for I cannot end within the
      story at all, having come into it only invented as hoped to be. As
      what I am, I can only read the end of the story and close the book on
      the very old broken promise of what I was expected to be. Now, in this
      brave new world, all the promises are about to be broken.

      Trinidad
    • Knott
      Yikes, man, do you drink a LOT? Your pie-in-the-eye vision is empty of a few things: good reason and a solution being some of these. You are paranoid,
      Message 2 of 6 , Mar 5, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Yikes, man, do you drink a LOT? Your pie-in-the-eye vision is empty of a few things: good
        reason and a solution being some of these. You are paranoid, delusional, and you believe
        everything you say. I think that makes you more dangerous than a corporation.

        > We are today,
        > as a national entity on the world stage, the least secure we have ever
        > been.

        How do you measure that? By relative paranoia or a poll taken on AOL?

        > It is absolutely the large
        > corporation that has ruined our national security, and immolated all
        > its agencies.

        Again, you offer no substantiation -- as if your saying it makes it so...

        > We have already given the
        > corporate entity the right to secrecy while giving up our own right to
        > personal privacy.

        OK, so you say corporations have secrets...lets grant that even if it isn't proven and move
        on. Just hold this thought a moment, because it is about to be contradicted...

        > Secrets are revealed stingily on a need to know basis.
        > One always thinks someone above them knows something more.

        So, from secrets, we go to 'some' secrets...You see the damn breaking...

        > Today we
        > have no national security because the top secret, and the ultimate
        > motivation, is known. Security now, is just damage control, the
        > limitation of information. There are no national secrets.

        ...and then all is an open book. In the matter of just a few sentences. And the conclusion
        rings that there is no secrecy. so which is it?

        > We have failed to protect the small
        > businessman, the ordinary family provider, and instead greedily and
        > fearfully ruined his uninformed ideological dreams.

        By gawd, with the evil Jimmy Carter at the helm (former owner of the Carter Evil Worm
        farm and brother to the great Billy of Billy Beer brewing, which is responsible for 'piss-in-
        a-can')

        > Ironically, freedom itself is responsible for that.

        Freedom is responsible for worms and 'piss-in-a-can'...gotcha.

        > Still we need not be hopeless because we are without
        > resources or uninformed.

        Wait, are we reversing the motor again? there are no secrets but we are uninformed? if you
        are saying that the average person doesn't pay attention to everything, um, well, what are
        ou really saying? One cannot (as Sean Connery did in playing Zed in the awful movie
        Zardoz) learn by osmosis.

        > The true nature of literature is such, that
        > there really are no secrets.

        So, there are no secrets...again, but we don't know anything? so we are told everything and
        there are secrets because we are too stupid to understand what we are told...or we don't
        pay attention....don't care...forgive me if I am swirling in the logic of on-again, off-again.
        Or the on-again-off-again logic.

        > This in itself assures that no man is
        > actually ever permanently dominated by another. The failure of any
        > dominion is inevitable

        OK, so the evil corporation of worms and piss-in-a-can driven by Jimmy Carter (in his very
        smart pickup truck) to the brink of extinction by corporations who keep secrets very well
        to themselves so that everyone else knows them and assures their own destruction...got it.
        But wait...doesn't that contradict the idea that "We have already given the corporate entity
        the right to secrecy while giving up our own right to personal privacy. Everything of life is
        now measured by purchasing power. We passed, some years ago, the last point of no
        return for a peaceful resolution for the ordinary American citizen." because if everything
        'assures its own destruction', it is likely that anything established (corporate entities,
        purchasing power, ordinary citizens) will eventually be vanquished...unless I am really
        reading in too hard here...

        > the sorrow of deluded conquest is
        > ongoing and inescapable.

        Are you talking about your own post? it seems to me deluded conquest to assume you
        know anything at all...and then back to the first sentence, and i am in finnegans wake all
        over again...

        > As
        > what I am, I can only read the end of the story and close the book on
        > the very old broken promise of what I was expected to be.

        Such an inconclusinve conclusion where the author blames the reader, who is himself, for
        the catastrophy of the problem of becoming less than he should have in the book that he
        had written about himself in delusion which was, of course, the truth, because there were
        no secrets. riverrun

        What I really want to know (because I won't have time to see the movie) is that if there is
        an 'evil Jimmy Carter' does he sit on the right or left shoulder, and does his Billy Beer
        swilling brother sit on the other in the angel costume, or is it just one of those standard
        hollywood tricks of imposition, an impostor, or some clever character actor playing the
        part, like Marion Lorne?

        You sound, sir, like a young deranged poet. and while I admire the energy, I believe far too
        much of it is derived from anger and other conditions.

        Dr. Bombay
      • Trinidad Cruz
        ... or is it just one of those standard hollywood tricks of imposition, an impostor, or some clever character actor playing the part, like Marion Lorne? I
        Message 3 of 6 , Mar 5, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Knott" <knott12@...> wrote:

          "or is it just one of those standard hollywood tricks of imposition,
          an impostor, or some clever character actor playing the part, like
          Marion Lorne?"

          I could see you characterizing an overview of my posts here as
          "pastiche", but then that could be said of many posters here. Of
          course to describe such a view of my thought one would actually have
          to have read many posts, and then found them to be incongruous with
          one another. The real question is: should I take it as flattery,
          morbid curiosity, or something darker yet? I do not mind being
          characterized as idiosyncratic like Lorne, as we are all unique,
          except when that criticism is a broad brush to dismiss my thinking as
          pop-art. In that case, as I have often remarked, I have difficulty
          considering the source to be anyone other than an agendized political.
          However in this case, and because of recent posts, I will give you the
          benefit of the doubt, though I still wonder why you purposely ignore
          the Huxley intimation into the short "story" of the post itself. Good
          literary criticism opens avenues of discussion rather than dismissing
          the obvious. Often times in literature the obvious is there for
          unobvious reasons, but then I expect you know that. I cannot be
          dragged into pop-conspiracy theory so why try. I wait on the
          conscience of others, as much as they wait on mine. Scientific
          endeavor is full of its own sad stories, but it is all literature, and
          emotionally, so very individual.

          On most normal mornings I am so distracted as I drink multiple cups of
          coffee, that I have fallen into a habit of taking a new spoon out of
          the drawer to stir each new cup. A friend of mine remarked the other
          day: "I see it's a four spoon day." Today I was careful to use the
          same spoon over for each refill. At this point I wonder why, and
          actually, which one of us is the more idiosyncratic? Would it matter
          to you how many spoons I use?

          cream and sugar
          Trinidad
        • Knott
          ... I think, and perhaps it is only my myopia, that if one is standing on a stool in a barroom-- or perhaps in a town square as you prefer the perception of
          Message 4 of 6 , Mar 5, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            > At this point I wonder why, and
            > actually, which one of us is the more idiosyncratic? Would it matter
            > to you how many spoons I use?

            I think, and perhaps it is only my myopia, that if one is standing on a stool in a barroom--
            or perhaps in a town square as you prefer the perception of self--then what he utters
            should be considered, lest it be misconstrued.

            That is not to say that many of the best orators beveled and twitched their meaning along
            the way of discourse, metering it to reaction of the crowd...but that even explains less why
            you can't see to keep to your point from one end of a diatribe to the other: you at your
            keyboard are not reacting to a crowd.

            The lack of clarity is bad tactic--at least from my perspective/opinion.

            if you want to prove the worth of your thoughts and why they are so important to utter,
            you might start from being able to follow them yourself to a logical conclusion. Without
            that, and you will forgive the assumption, a discourse lacking logic, lacks logic...and the
            logic therein being suspect, is suspected...and suspected it is suspect, and suspect, not
            quite disproved, but very well nearing that on a rational basis. And perhaps logic is my
            own dysfunction--but i am always curious as to how someone is so sure: and he who
            speaks with the loudest surity always gets my response.

            You proclaim that we are all in various stages of being tricked by large ominous things like
            goverments and corporations, but i am looking into your words and finding trickery,
            panhandling, vacant claims, monomanic devolving, uncontrolled deconstruction. i think
            you get caught up in the sound of your ideas more than the logic of them...and that loops
            me back to my chorus;

            How on earth do you know?

            As ignorant as a pea in its pod I pretend to be able to read your words, words of others,
            words of my own...I light matches because I am fascinated with the fire, keep my fingers
            clear because i am pretty certain i will get burned--pea with fingers that I am. I know
            nothing more than what i utter is what i accept as my own stupid conclusion and
            reconcilliation of perspective, and hope to have one thing when the thought is all done
            (beside the ridiculous joy of silly construction, and perhaps a larf - har har): that I haven't
            said a thing that I can't lay tracks to, and reasonable fess to my conclusions--be they
            simply nonsense--and that I hopefully retain some consistency because for some reason i
            see it as important to linear discussion (I can be wrong). Mostly that means I say nothing
            at all...but I often have fun saying it.

            you, sir, on the other hand, point a somehow knowing finger at the source of all our woes
            in the lying, cheating secretive, not so secret, unable to keep a secret, government,
            corporation, Jimmy Carter, who kills us all for the joy of twisting a knife. it is a theme that
            runs through your writings, it seems ("I cannot be dragged into pop-conspiracy theory so
            why try." -- TC be damned) with the hint that it is all obvious.

            Well, this ignorant pea doesn't see that it is obvious, and shouts outloud that there is no
            proof to the pudding, be it a dessert while I am part of the entree (and that is, mind you,
            only in the sence that I am sensless when eaten, not at all that i am the main course).

            what am I saying, I think it is this;
            At least while I speak I know I am uttering nonsense and try not to treat it like some truth.
            You sir, seem quite the opposite in that you weave such a trail that you can't decipher
            truth (if there is such a thing) from fiction, and choose whatever it is that you said to be
            the whole truth and nothing but, whether it is butt or knott, butter nut, or believing it is
            not butter. You cover parts of your trail with a shawl, with a wiggle of a branch, by walkig
            in running streams--and mostly by blaming someone else who is inferior and can't grasp
            your superior 'meanings'. it is not hard to find a lack of congruity in your writings without
            a lot of study...I have read many over the years now, and yours ring because I cannot
            believe that someone with so naughty a vocabulary (that is sheer monstrosity so that it
            aught not be bared in the boys locker-room shower, less yet public), should state so much
            with so little, and so little with so much.

            it is as if you are some type of sycophant looking into a mirrored room (Lucas Samaras
            '66), seeing so many of himself to please that the double-speak reaches decible levels in
            echoing that rupture the eardrum, strike balance from the pose, and yet the words
            continue while you fall deaf and dumb to them, ears bleeding, mouth agape.

            it is unfortunate that your friend's comment caused you to change your use of spoons, but
            it is apparent that your behavior is often this way. i don't care how many spoons you use,
            but your commitment to the notion of how many you should use is obvious by how easily
            the hot breath of another can may the conviction sway.

            [just a little tip on literature: that construction is a well known one where the author comes
            back to the beginning for the end making it all seem nice and tidy...even if perhaps it was
            not.]

            Three Lumps
          • ana barrientos
            Do you all really think your goverment is the only responsible of the insecurity you feel in your country? Where I live is the same!!! The need of possesions
            Message 5 of 6 , Mar 5, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Do you all really think your goverment is the only responsible of the insecurity you feel in your country?
              Where I live is the same!!!

              The need of possesions in the human being ( things, power, fun, etc.) makes the crowd justified their actions,
              I blame the famous GLOBALIZATION
              It is taking the people to lose authenticity.
              We, the thrird world are paying a very high price in it,becuse we don't have too much to offer; but a lot to receive.
              I believe we all citizens in the world are responsible, because we choose the comfort of silence.

              Yesterday a man was killed in my city , because two college students were bored and decide to have fun making a robbery, how can we explain that??!!!
              What are we, the people who are supposed to think, have to do??
              Is the crowd attached to the aesthetic stage forever?

              Trinidad Cruz <cruzprdb@...> wrote: Most people like the comfort of thinking that something is right.
              Thinking that something is right allows action in a direction. Not
              thinking that anything is right is the cause of miasmal angst and
              isolationism in ordinary Americans. They need the comfort of a sense
              of rightness. During the cold war communism gave direction to national
              security, in fact for most people involved with security, it excused a
              ridiculously uninformed patriotism into all manner of obtuse and
              inhumane activity. In the security world there has always been a wall,
              a higher clearance, which required an appeal to an operatives idealism
              to hide the motivations for such activity. The old security world is
              crumbling because idealism is no longer a reliable tool. We are today,
              as a national entity on the world stage, the least secure we have ever
              been. Why? Quite simply, because we have allowed capitalism itself to
              be taken over by those with the most money. It is absolutely the large
              corporation that has ruined our national security, and immolated all
              its agencies.

              Once corporations simply funded activities, now they own the agencies.
              Their idea of a "new world order" is a corporate controlled planet
              that serves their executives first. The battle for this country, for
              the ordinary citizen, will not be won or lost on the picket line, at
              the pulpit, or even the ballot box. We have already given the
              corporate entity the right to secrecy while giving up our own right to
              personal privacy. Everything of life is now measured by purchasing
              power. We passed, some years ago, the last point of no return for a
              peaceful resolution for the ordinary American citizen. Jimmy Carter
              sold his soul to it, and it was over. There will be no more good men
              in political office, only agenda ridden fools, and bumbling pork
              barrel drunks. Those in charge now are the worst kind of man for the
              future of this world: terrified men of action.

              In the world of security agencies, things work and get done because of
              an heirarchy. Secrets are revealed stingily on a need to know basis.
              One always thinks someone above them knows something more. Today we
              have no national security because the top secret, and the ultimate
              motivation, is known. Security now, is just damage control, the
              limitation of information. There are no national secrets. Corporations
              agendize all our national security activities. They are the black hand
              at the top. Some good men have thought and argued in the past that
              this was inevitable, and not necessarily a bad thing, and
              characterized it as "creeping capitalism", the winning of the world
              for democracy so to speak. Sadly democracy and capitalism have proved
              to not be the same thing. We have failed to protect the small
              businessman, the ordinary family provider, and instead greedily and
              fearfully ruined his uninformed ideological dreams.

              Ironically, freedom itself is responsible for that. Partly it is the
              wealthy craving an addictive buzz of pseudo-freedom, the freedom to
              play at anything at all, who slobber to buy its assurance like a drug.
              For the informed it is the fear of what they are and worry about what
              will be left. Still we need not be hopeless because we are without
              resources or uninformed. The true nature of literature is such, that
              there really are no secrets. This in itself assures that no man is
              actually ever permanently dominated by another. The failure of any
              dominion is inevitable; even though the sorrow of deluded conquest is
              ongoing and inescapable. If I am vouchsafed free untouchable to live
              at all, it may be noted by some as proof of the soundness of the
              story; and though a dark Englishman once scripted the self made noose
              as resolution, that was an error in plot, for I cannot end within the
              story at all, having come into it only invented as hoped to be. As
              what I am, I can only read the end of the story and close the book on
              the very old broken promise of what I was expected to be. Now, in this
              brave new world, all the promises are about to be broken.

              Trinidad





              Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

              Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist



              SPONSORED LINKS
              Philosophy book Merleau-ponty

              ---------------------------------
              YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


              Visit your group "existlist" on the web.

              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


              ---------------------------------





              ---------------------------------
              Yahoo! Mail
              Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • the_mourning_train
              I agree wih Dr. Bombay... romanticising the past and dreading the future for unfounded reasons kind of paints the portrait of an angry, anxious poet who has a
              Message 6 of 6 , Mar 8, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                I agree wih Dr. Bombay... romanticising the past and dreading the
                future for unfounded reasons kind of paints the portrait of an angry,
                anxious poet who has a heavy amount of psuedo-conviction.

                Your writing is beautiful though.

                Hopefully we'll see some poems from you.

                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Knott" <knott12@...> wrote:
                >
                > Yikes, man, do you drink a LOT? Your pie-in-the-eye vision is empty
                of a few things: good
                > reason and a solution being some of these. You are paranoid,
                delusional, and you believe
                > everything you say. I think that makes you more dangerous than a
                corporation.
                >
                > > We are today,
                > > as a national entity on the world stage, the least secure we have ever
                > > been.
                >
                > How do you measure that? By relative paranoia or a poll taken on AOL?
                >
                > > It is absolutely the large
                > > corporation that has ruined our national security, and immolated all
                > > its agencies.
                >
                > Again, you offer no substantiation -- as if your saying it makes it
                so...
                >
                > > We have already given the
                > > corporate entity the right to secrecy while giving up our own right to
                > > personal privacy.
                >
                > OK, so you say corporations have secrets...lets grant that even if
                it isn't proven and move
                > on. Just hold this thought a moment, because it is about to be
                contradicted...
                >
                > > Secrets are revealed stingily on a need to know basis.
                > > One always thinks someone above them knows something more.
                >
                > So, from secrets, we go to 'some' secrets...You see the damn breaking...
                >
                > > Today we
                > > have no national security because the top secret, and the ultimate
                > > motivation, is known. Security now, is just damage control, the
                > > limitation of information. There are no national secrets.
                >
                > ...and then all is an open book. In the matter of just a few
                sentences. And the conclusion
                > rings that there is no secrecy. so which is it?
                >
                > > We have failed to protect the small
                > > businessman, the ordinary family provider, and instead greedily and
                > > fearfully ruined his uninformed ideological dreams.
                >
                > By gawd, with the evil Jimmy Carter at the helm (former owner of the
                Carter Evil Worm
                > farm and brother to the great Billy of Billy Beer brewing, which is
                responsible for 'piss-in-
                > a-can')
                >
                > > Ironically, freedom itself is responsible for that.
                >
                > Freedom is responsible for worms and 'piss-in-a-can'...gotcha.
                >
                > > Still we need not be hopeless because we are without
                > > resources or uninformed.
                >
                > Wait, are we reversing the motor again? there are no secrets but we
                are uninformed? if you
                > are saying that the average person doesn't pay attention to
                everything, um, well, what are
                > ou really saying? One cannot (as Sean Connery did in playing Zed in
                the awful movie
                > Zardoz) learn by osmosis.
                >
                > > The true nature of literature is such, that
                > > there really are no secrets.
                >
                > So, there are no secrets...again, but we don't know anything? so we
                are told everything and
                > there are secrets because we are too stupid to understand what we
                are told...or we don't
                > pay attention....don't care...forgive me if I am swirling in the
                logic of on-again, off-again.
                > Or the on-again-off-again logic.
                >
                > > This in itself assures that no man is
                > > actually ever permanently dominated by another. The failure of any
                > > dominion is inevitable
                >
                > OK, so the evil corporation of worms and piss-in-a-can driven by
                Jimmy Carter (in his very
                > smart pickup truck) to the brink of extinction by corporations who
                keep secrets very well
                > to themselves so that everyone else knows them and assures their own
                destruction...got it.
                > But wait...doesn't that contradict the idea that "We have already
                given the corporate entity
                > the right to secrecy while giving up our own right to personal
                privacy. Everything of life is
                > now measured by purchasing power. We passed, some years ago, the
                last point of no
                > return for a peaceful resolution for the ordinary American citizen."
                because if everything
                > 'assures its own destruction', it is likely that anything
                established (corporate entities,
                > purchasing power, ordinary citizens) will eventually be
                vanquished...unless I am really
                > reading in too hard here...
                >
                > > the sorrow of deluded conquest is
                > > ongoing and inescapable.
                >
                > Are you talking about your own post? it seems to me deluded conquest
                to assume you
                > know anything at all...and then back to the first sentence, and i am
                in finnegans wake all
                > over again...
                >
                > > As
                > > what I am, I can only read the end of the story and close the book on
                > > the very old broken promise of what I was expected to be.
                >
                > Such an inconclusinve conclusion where the author blames the reader,
                who is himself, for
                > the catastrophy of the problem of becoming less than he should have
                in the book that he
                > had written about himself in delusion which was, of course, the
                truth, because there were
                > no secrets. riverrun
                >
                > What I really want to know (because I won't have time to see the
                movie) is that if there is
                > an 'evil Jimmy Carter' does he sit on the right or left shoulder,
                and does his Billy Beer
                > swilling brother sit on the other in the angel costume, or is it
                just one of those standard
                > hollywood tricks of imposition, an impostor, or some clever
                character actor playing the
                > part, like Marion Lorne?
                >
                > You sound, sir, like a young deranged poet. and while I admire the
                energy, I believe far too
                > much of it is derived from anger and other conditions.
                >
                > Dr. Bombay
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.