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


Expand Messages
  • frog3ie
    First I wish to share some websitesThen the present Arab controversy. Oh yes, one more thing: Do you think we(the poor and middle class) owe the rich control
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 24, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      First I wish to share some websitesThen the present Arab controversy.
      Oh yes, one more thing: Do you think we(the poor and middle class)
      owe the rich control over our sexuality so that they may continue
      their system of dominance? -see the 'family dissolution' website.

      So, here are those websites:


      It is ironic that throughout history when men have had the vote; that
      it is truely only women who have really had the vote, and who have
      and are the true seat of democracy. The freedom (to vote) that men
      had to fight for; women have had naturally even under the most
      regims. It's just they haven't realized they have this power and have
      allowed others to dominate them and run their lives and take this
      power away from them. Yes, even today and full knowing about their
      power: if
      women decide to serve the rich and be their slaves (by choosing to
      have enough offspring to continue the society under a situation where
      rich dominate them); then that is the way it shall be. The women have
      spoken and that is the way it shall be. And here in America, women
      have it pretty well compared to 3rd world countries and Islamic
      So it is no wonder that women would chose to continue this society
      we compare it to the stark differences which exist in other societies.
      But in 3rd world countries where birth rates are high, the method of
      power is out of place and unlikely to have much of an effect. Islamic
      countries, however, may be another matter. Here, women can gain great
      strides in treatment and rights by using the method.
      One of the side effects of the method is that the society under
      discontinuing their next generation, experiences a higher standard of
      living (because resources are not used in the raising of offspring and
      are free for other things). So if the women of the Islamic world
      decide to excersize their power, then we may feel even more Islamic
      wielded at us even in addition to what we have experienced so far.
      But I wish to jump ahead in time beyond the present Islamic conflicts,
      and express the predicted limitations as well as accomplishments of
      'the method'.The rich through globalization seek to subjugate all of
      They seek to sort us into haves and have-nots where there are enough
      have-nots to
      service the haves. But this will not work because with the use of the
      method, this system can be eliminated in the developed countries.
      (Women can by excersizing their power, force the rich to make life
      good for
      all within the developed countries. -Otherwise they would bring an
      enslavement society envisioned by the rich for the developed
      countries, to an end.) This is an accomplisment of 'the method'.
      Otherwise the rich through globalization were poised to divide our
      population in developed countries into haves and have-nots just like
      in 3rd world countries.
      'the method' acts as an insurance against them even trying this (in
      addition to the democratic political processes already in place).
      But as for 3rd world foreign countries (wherever there is high birth
      rates), the rich will enslave and plunder these people , and there is
      nothing 'the method' will do to help these people. People of developed
      countries will be content to live off the labor of 3rd world
      countries, and developed country women will not act to upset this
      system as they will have it pretty good and won't want to change that.
      This is a limitation of 'the method'. So who will bother to champion
      the rights of the enslaved in the 3rd world?
      Well apparently the islamic fundamentalists have taken issue with the
      rich in response to what the rich are doing in the Islamic world. Yet
      I don't think the rich are doing much enslaving in the Islamic world
      like they do in the 3rd world. The Islamic position is a strong one
      economically in that some of them control the key resource of oil.
      What the rich have done is to facilitate the creation of a condition
      haves and have-nots in the Islamic world. -but not by enslaving any in
      Islamic world. This is done by giving wealth to those in the Islamic
      world who control oil. Those who have no say over this oil, are then
      left behind as the 'have nots'. Their condition has not been harmed by
      rich; it is just that they have been left out of the wealth the rich
      have bestowed on their fellow arabs. Being more control freaks than
      even the rich, the arab fundamentalists have noticed the disruption
      in their culture that the introduction of thes oil wealth to some has
      caused, and have acted to put a stop to it -by attacking the rich (the
      But what I take issue with and place the most emphasis on is: what is
      destructive and destructive to life. When the rich enslave 3rd world
      people; that is destructive to their lives. When wealthy jews and the
      rest of europe enslaved the germans after WW1, that was destructive to
      their lives. When hitler killed those jews and took their money to run
      his war machine; that was even more destructive to life. The glaring
      flaw of Hitler and the 9-11 terrorist attacks, is that they contained
      much destructiveness of life themselves, that they themselves became
      problem instead of being a solution to act against the destructiveness
      of the rich which we will always have.
      Being enslaved and oppressed leaves those under such in the 3rd world
      in a poor state to retaliate for the destruction the rich do to them.
      these are the only people who should (it would seem) have a right to
      retaliate (as a matter of self defense).
      We need in the US, in addition to 'the method' (which is incomplete
      and doesn't help the plight of the 3rd world), a new 'fundamentalism',
      home grown in the US which champions the plight of the 3rd world, as
      independent party apart from the 3rd world which is too downtrodden
      and oppressed to defend itself. -To act against the rich in ways which
      be illegal, but in ways that are not so destructive -which minimize
      destruction to human life. When Jesus spoiled the money tables of the
      money changers in the temple, I'm sure there could have been charges
      brought for destruction of property etc; but even so, none of the
      money changers were killed or maimed. There lives and bodies were
      And now the kingdom of God exists not in any temple, but all over.
      I'm saying is that we as fundamentalists can do a lot better job
      acting as
      an independent party championing the rights of the oppressed than
      terrorists have done.
      Since I have rejected terrorism as an acceptable way to get things
      done (becausethrough relying so heavily on destructiveness, it becomes
      problem instead of a solution; and because those under oppression are
      often too weak to retaliate due to their oppression); I thus cannot
      leave this subject without commenting on the suicide bombings in
      The reason I rejected terrorism was because it was too destructive.
      under special ciercumstances where one is unable to escape
      where destruction is forced on one: where destruction is unavoidable:
      my objection due to destructiveness is invalid and no longer applies.
      some forse makes your life so unbearable that it isn't worth living,
      then a suicide bombing is a reasonable answer to that situation
      something that makes your life so unbearable that it isn't worth
      living, is itself quite destructive of your life. With a large
      destruction and destructiveness already present and rampant in your
      area; and act by you
      to suicide bomb, will just shift the destruction around, which is
      irrelevent to the overall amount of destruction which is my only
      -Once an overwhelming destructiveness is present and exists; I reject
      thearguement that it can be contained -that some can be made to bear
      burden and suffering so that others may live well. I only seek to
      eliminate the destructiion from existance in the first place. So that
      ifone group is oppressing another group, that second group I feel has
      self defense right to retaliate or that it cannot be prevented for
      group to retaliate and spread the destruction around. Usually those
      who are enslaved or oppressed are pretty powerless to retaliate and so
      they suffer in silence. But with the suicide bombing concept, even the
      oppressed and weak can put an end to suffering and tryu to change
      things for the better. And the oppressor will get an unwelcome
      and unexpected taste of their own medicine.
      Let us be specific and analyze the situations we see around us. In the
      case of the Palestinians the case can be made that Isrial has at least
      in part and recently been responsible for making life unbearable for
      Palestinians living in refugee camps -ging in and bombinb and
      buldozing their houses etc. So they get some of their own medicine.
      But in the case of the suicide bombers who flew the planes into the US
      buildings, I make a distinction. Even though they are both arab
      suicide actions, I beg to list them as quite different animals.
      Basically the US was not doing anything to make thes arab's lives
      miserable. They acted out of an extreme intolerance of other
      religions/cultures; and not out of being trapped by any destruction.
      They initiated this destruction for the most part. An obsessively
      controlling islamic fundamentalism was making these people's
      lives miserable if they didn't do the suicide, just like the
      controlling japaneese system trotted out their soldiers to be
      kamakazies. So in my book, the arabs that blew up our buildings
      were just like the japaneese kamakazies -they failed to give their
      destruction via their suicide to what was making their lives
      miserable enough to go suicide -their own system. They may have
      believed there was a clash between their culture
      and ours and that they needed to act in defense of their culture; but
      in terms of destructiveness: they initiated destructiveness when they
      were not under destruction themselves or aimed their destruction
      thosewho had not caused their destruction. So here, my objection to
      terrorism, remains, because they acted not out of being trapped of
      destruction or of having destruction forced on them; but out of being
      free of us harming them. They are thus the instigators and initiators
      destruciveness where no destructiveness existed before. Thus they are
      part of the problem concerning the problem of destructiveness and not
      the solution.
      Now that I've opened the can of worms of the Palestinian question, my
      comment wojuld not be complete without an overall picture. Here we
      have the tiny nation of Isrial in the middle of the islamic world.
      And oh what a stink there is. The arab nations have all risen up
      to not even accept the existence of it. Not only the Paalestinians,
      but all of islam is just intolerant of any other culture/religion
      but their own. The taliban excemplified this by their imprissoning
      workers for preaching Christianity, and by their destruction of
      buhdist monuments. Even the Palestinian leadership seems not to be
      interested in peace with Isrial, but with wiping Isreal from
      This has been my overall veiw of
      the middle east situation, and basically arab intolerance of any
      religion/culture but their own. This being said, however, the present
      Isrieli response is not much better. Even though the Arab attitude
      seemspretty negative at first, at least they are up fron about their
      negativity: -As oppression from a materialistic system can be just as
      as fundamentalist islamic regims like under the taliban. Oh, not for
      in the US but in 3rd world countries and China and N Korea who's labor
      supplies the rich (much in the US). Along this line, I must point out
      that it seems that Isrial is oppressing the Palestinians economically.
      Isrial at this point seems willing to take any drastic action to
      suicide bombing terrorism. Yet they have been unwilling to do thething
      that would stop it -that is put a wall between themselves and the
      Palestinians and militarily patroll that wall to keep anyone from
      crossing. No, there are still checkpoints and Palestinians are still
      allowed to go in and out. Isrial doesn't care much about the economic
      lives of the average Palestinian as they put concrete barakades in
      Palestinian lands to make travel difficult within the Palestinian
      teritory for the average Palestinian, which does nothing against
      terrorism. Why do they still allow Palestinians into Isrial? The only
      reason I come up with is that they benefit economically from them and
      treat them basically as well treated but slave labor. They are
      them economically. This is not to say that the Palestinian's lot isn't
      improved and that they don't depend upon this relationship. Its just
      Isrial benefits more, and is economically oppressing the Palestinians.
      Atthis point, I think it would be better for the Palestinians if there
      was a wall between the 2 peoples. Any benefit the Palestinians gain by
      working in Isrial, seems to be offset by Isrial's destructive
      into Palestinian territory. Isrial is being the control freak now:
      -trying to hold onto economic oppression of the Palestinian people
      trying to stamp out their retaliation for the hell that Isrial puts
      Plus, Arabs may have reason for their intolerance of other cultures,
      due to the aggressive nature of some other cultures (like
      capitalism-Christianity) which seem to take over and replace
      And the Arabs have come up with a way in which an oppressed people
      share their oppression with their oppressors -the suicide bombing.
      Otherwise an oppressed people has little option but to sit there and
      it: and although they are justified in retaliating in self defense
      against their oppressor, they are otherwise pretty ill equiped to do
      -being put down by the oppression from their oppressor.
      As the islamic world has given us the new idea of (or new application
      the suicide bombing, which has validity in a limited number of
      situaitions ie only where an oppressor is oppressing one. (such as
      seems to be occuring in the present Palestinian situation.) -As the
      Islamic world has given us a new idea, I return the favor with the new
      idea concerning how women can irradicate oppression directed against
      them. Since the Islamic world is one of the worst repressors against
      women; they are likely to be the most affected by this new idea. Well,
      here's to positive change and freedom from oppression.
      There is the saying what comes around goes around or what you sow you
      shall reap. But this has oftentimes been a joke. Throughout history
      thosegroups with an advantage in technological might have been able to
      stickit to those groups more primitive in technology, and the
      groups have been forced to take it and have not been able to return
      destruction done upon them back to their more technologically superior
      oppressors. So generally, it has not been true on earth that the
      destructiveness done by a technologically advanced group is returned
      them. However, these advanced societies seem to make it a point to
      the destruction which individuals do to society, back upon them (ie
      concept of justice againsy crimminals). Perhaps because they view the
      individual as a technololgical primative (compared to the group as a
      When the US wiped out the American indians, that was OK because they
      primitives. When the Ausies wiped out the bushmen, that was OK because
      they were primatives. When the Russians under the tzar wiped out
      primitive fishing peoples on northern islands, that was OK because
      were primitives. When Isrial cuts power and water lines; places
      barriers,buldozes and shells Palestinian areas, that's OK, because
      keeps the Palestinians more technologically primative and dependent on
      Isrial; so that its OK to go over and shoot a bunch every so often
      because they're more primitive. But unlike untold other primitive
      cultures, the Arabs are proving to be different. Now the rich and
      technologically advanced group (backed by US technology) is getting
      it dishes out at the hands of a more technologically primitive
      (The technology of explosives is fairly primitive for a governmental
      group, especially if one is unable to develop a delivery system other
      than delivery by a human suicide.) (Say, if the lives of the
      were made worthwhile with suffering aleviated, I bet they wouldn't so
      readily commit suicide if their lives were more worth living. A little
      foriegn aid and development might work wonders here.)
      Technologically advanced societies have had a free hand dispensing
      destruction to lesser developed societies. Hey, that's not fair that
      thistechnologically more primitive society is holding its own against
      advanced one. As of late, these technologically primitve societies
      been fighting back. We technologically primiteve Americans outdid the
      more advanced British. Vietnam taught us a lesson concerning more
      technologically primitive societies. And now the Palestinians are
      that superior technological might and riches don't matter: what goes
      around DOES actually come around.
      The more technologically primitive Palestinians are inescapably caught
      a destructive situation. That is basically a hell for them. And they
      giving what they get via their suicide bombings, thus pulling their
      oppressors into that hell. One may argue one way or the other whether
      suicide bombing is right or OK or wrong or that it is an evil that
      to be stamped out. But whait I would like to point out is that this is
      irrelevent. What IS relevent is the concept that destruction and
      destructiveness is hell: that where there is destruction and
      destructiveness; that is hell. And that if we are able to avoid hell
      destructiveness), that that is the wise course. I guess my position on
      the Palestinian suicide bombing is that I understand it and that I
      think it is necessarily wrong. On the other hand, I don't think it is
      right either, due to the destructiveness involved. But I have no stake
      orinterest in seeing technologically advanced and rich societies do
      they want to more technologically primitive societies and be able to
      getaway with it. And that just because the Palestinians have only
      while others have machine guns and tanks, doesn't make Palestinians
      inferior in my eyes nor having less rights. And just like when
      presidentBush tells a basically imprisoned Yasar Arafat that he could
      do more
      (insinuating that he is the cause of the violence in the middle east);
      I also realize that only those who are oppressed by an oppressor, have
      right (of self defense) to retaliate -that by their retaliation, they
      not initiating destructiveness, because destructiveness is already
      present by other actors, so that their retaliation (which contains
      destructiveness) often acts to end destruction, just like the justice
      system does destruction to criminals for the destruction that they
      originate, and thereby reduces the destruction ie destruction turned
      back on itself. If we gave them both big guns and let them fight it
      out in a
      controlled fashion, whereby all who didn't wish to be a part of this
      could leave the area and be safely separate from their foolishness,
      it would all be over in short order and would not continue to fester
      and on. Those who hate each other can kill each other; while those who
      renounce this foolishness will be able to leave this foolishness; and
      it will all be over.
      Just as Bush lays it on Arafat, I also lay it on Arafat that he and
      his people are the only ones with the right of retaliation for
      done by Isreal (but realize that they are ill equiped to do so due to
      their more technologically primitive condition, just as Arafat is in a
      technologically primitive condition as a leader, being basically
      imprisoned); and of course that Isriel has right of retaliation for
      destruction originated by Palestine -but this right has already been
      approved and is not in question; but that it is only the Palestinians
      are going to have trouble excersizing this right; just like oppressed
      peoples, because they are oppressed, they have trouble returning the
      destruction of their oppressor, due to being oppressed; or perhaps
      because they are more technologically primitive;-but this conditionof
      technological primitivity is usually the result of outside oppression.
      Actually, those who are more technologically advanced need to set a
      better example and not be aggressors, because they have a choice here
      are not forced into destruction and destructiveness, but if they
      destructiveness by choice anyway, they are the worst examples of an
      advanced society and are bound to destruction themselves, eventually.
      Just as Bush lays it on Arafat, I also lay it on Arafat that he has
      right of retaliation that nobody else has, due to Isrieli oppression,
      also recognize that the Palestinian people have been able to express
      right through their suicide bombings, even though most technologically
      primitive people's have been unable to express this retaliation-self
      defense right that they have.
      But what I would like to point out is that this is irrelevent. That
      is relevent is the concept that destruction is hell. -That if one is
      able, they should get away from and not be a part of destructive
      situations. The Palestinians are trapped and unable to get away from
      their destructive situation. Anyone who is able and technologically
      I recomend that they get away from this destructive situation. As for
      myself, I do not live in Palestine, and am not otherwise trapped by a
      destructive situation. So in this case, I choose to be away and not be
      part of that destructive situation. So at this point, I will not be
      participating in or helping the Palestinians with their suicide
      My life is still worth living without being a suicide bomber or
      being involved in destructiveness. And I caution others against
      involved in these destructive situations under the reasoning of laying
      down international justice to try to irradicate suicide bombing
      because one feels it is wrong.
      With the trade center bombings; we had destruction thrust upon us and
      were trapped (in a destruction) and we were forced to go after Al
      We had no other choice. But I caution against going after other groups
      the name of anti terrorism. Destruciton and destructiveness is a nasty
      thing; and where we can avoid it I would recomend that we do so. Of
      course, that is only my recomendation. Each must chose for themselves
      which path they will take. I just wish to point out and caution
      being drawn into a destructive arena when we have a choice not to be
      drawn into a destructive arena and are not trapped into a destruction,
      under the reasoning that we are administering justice, or wiping out
      terrorism. I just want to point that out. People may choose to enter
      hell, but I just want that to be an informed decision. -To point out
      destructiveness is not lightly entered into, especially if one has a
      chance/ is able to avoid it.
      Another thing I wish to point out is that high technology won't
      necessarily save us. -The trade center highjackers used boxcutters for
      goodness sake. -not a very technologically advanced weapon.
      Finally I wish to say that in the long run, I think the suicide
      will backfire against Arab extremism. -with their extreme intolerance
      other cultures/religions, they may themselves be the target of suicide
      bombings by those whose lives they have made too miserable to live.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.