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

Re: [existlist] savages

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.