I know that not everyone here has access to The FORCES Tavern, but I've been having a really enlightening and exciting discussion there with FORCES CEO Gian Turci. I thought it would be of interest to others who have been reading this "Evil" series.
_________________________________________________________________
Dear WinstonSmith,

I have to say first of all that I no longer have much time to read, so I tend to glaze over things in the hope to find some bit that gives me a reason to read the rest.

That has nor been the case with your pieces. For the first time in a long time, I found myself glued to the screen for all parts, and eager to discover what would come next. I don’t hide that, at every line, I was looking for that little contradiction, that flaw in logic sequence that would have given me reasons to dismiss the whole thing as a logical non sequitur. Nor do I hide that I was “disappointed” at every paragraph because I found none – no conspiracy theory, no negligible evidence blown up to justify the umpteenth UFO/pie-in-the sky-like sighting. No Illuminati taking over the world. Just a logical sequence of thoughts on credible occurrences expressed with the modesty of the personal opinion. But those occurrences are not only real, but have a scientifically demonstrated foundation in the patterns of random natural selection.

So I am impressed. Impressed because you don’t make the evidence fit the theory, but you build a theory on the evidence. And that evidence is measurable, verifiable, repeatable, and sequential. Those are the marks of a theoretical and scientific mind.

Speaking at the personal level, your piece has acted on me like a nuclear force, binding together scattered notions and concepts previously kept apart by a nuclear repulsion force.

The postings are very interesting and I would like to propose publication, in four instalments, of your work on FORCES. The work is well written and it needs only little editorial work and the correction of a few historical imperfections. Considering that this is clearly something typed at the moment, your piece is extremely good.

What you call Neo-Communism could arguably be called neo-Fascism too, at least for the introductory, intermediate phase. Fascism, in fact, may be the “Third Way” proposed by Clinton. Furthermore, you are one of the few people who agrees with me when I say that the prosperity of the West and the liberty with it was the product of the sharp separation and defence implemented by 50,000 nuclear warheads against what is now freely lurking in the schools and in the ministries of “health” of many nations, especially the US. Neo-Communism (or Neo-Fascism, perhaps just for now) has found the perfect natural channel (the path of minimal resistance) with healthism and environmentalism – to the point that they are all one and the same. They both aim to:

• The destruction of the free and privately owned industrial systems, base of capitalism.
• The assimilation of individualism to collectivism.
• The total elimination of cultural distinctions as well as nations, in perfect tone with the International Socialism.
• The dishonest "adaptation" of science to ideology, very much along the Marxist lines.
• It has been said that epidemiological trash science such as that used against smoking is “a means for ensuring the distribution of wealth”- some sort of Robin Hood “steal to the rich to give to the poor” kind of rewritten history in socialist key as the Reds love to do. In reality Hood stole from the State (the king) to give back to the rich the money the king took from them as taxes. The poor were irrelevant to his adventures. In our case is “sue the rich with trash science to give to the proletariat”.

Your article is an eye-opener that deserves to be published – although you seem to fail (or you have not written yet) to indicate, with the same logic and clarity, how to effectively destroy this cancerous evil in white coats which is destroying free nations and western cultures. That would be an area to explore for sure. Given that the understanding of Satan is the first step for not falling into his Inferno, it is equally true that it is still no ticket to go to Heaven. That ticket is the way to destroy neo-Communism with the means we have, and in useful time.

I would like to entertain more thoughts with you either here or privately. My e-mail is gianturci@forcesitaly.org.

Take care and, once again, congratulations.
_________________
Gian Turci
__________________________________________________________________

Mr. Turci,

I am so grateful for your attention to my posts and your complimentary words. Thank you so much.

Your comments have also given me the opportunity to touch on some related points regarding these ideas.

First, I should note that this series of posts are not complete. I intend to write additional posts in this "Evil" series, which I was posting in one of the slower discussion sections near the bottom of the page on Speakeasy forum, because I felt they were a bit a broad in scope. I don't think that "Evil" will exceed ten posts, total, and could be as few as six.

"Speaking at the personal level, your piece has acted on me like a nuclear force, binding together scattered notions and concepts previously kept apart by a nuclear repulsion force."

I know well what you are speaking of, this frustrating sense of trying to pin down this huge and extremely apparent phenomenon of Nanny-state politics. We see it going on all around us, and we intuitively recognize it as a large macroscopic phenomena, but whenever we try to tackle it head on, we only do so by talking about the latest legislation or the latest fraud in science or public health. Talking about these things and displaying our opposition to them is essential, but I noticed that no one, including me, had a name for the whole, the colossal beast, the mass, the bulldozer pushing all of this along.

This presented a real problem for me because, as you pointed out, I'm not interested in conspiracy theories or supernatural phenomena. By nature, I'm a skeptic. I'm an agnostic. I don't believe that aliens have ever visited earth. I think Oswald shot Kennedy, the moon landing was real, and the Earth is round. What use are cabals when it is so much easier for someone to simply be dishonest with themselves and share their thoughts with anyone who will listen?

So, I found myself thinking about the things that are discussed by people like us not as individual happenings but as something big, that moves on its own. Thinking of these problems in this context, and researching the idea, also had the "nuclear force" effect on me that you describe.

I quickly discovered that smoking, in and of itself, was not the reason I spent my time thinking about this subject. Rather, the people who gather at FORCES and similarly themed sites, seem to be a particular cross-section of people. You'll notice that such places can not be defined by the criteria of 'people who smoke who also use the internet'. If people who smoked who also used the internet were the same people who gathered at such sites, there'd be tens of millions of hits on such sites.

Rather, the people who populate places like FORCES are people who seem to recognize that something larger is occurring and are able to recognize that smoking is the front line.. In the final analysis, it seems that little white sticks filled with tobacco, in and of of themselves, have little to do with why we do what we do. If you were to quit smoking, you'll find yourself up against the same force in your food. Give up your food of choice, and you find the same force in your entertainment venues. If you try to give up your entertainment venues, and try to live a life of intellectual stimulation, you find the same force in your venues of intellectual stimulation. In other words, this force just seems to be everywhere, trying to monopolize everything.

In this way, smoking becomes everything this problem is about. It's the front line and their must be continuous opposition from us there. If not, the dominos will simply fall more easilty.

We say that this force hates individuality, and that is very true, but I notice that it seems to hate something more specific, some specific individual human quality, and it occurs to me that this quality is something we call "solace". It seems to hate the idea that anyone should have a private enjoyment of anything, but that didn't seem quite right to me either.

I was reading Victor Frankl's short book "Man's Search for Meaning". Frankl's philosophy of Existential Therapy was grounded in his experience of having been interred in a Nazi concentration camp. One of the central themes that Frankl works with is that the Nazis worked very hard to cut off any source of individual enjoyment as an expression of autonomy.

In "Man's Search for Meaning" Frankl recounts how the only privacy one had was the privacy of their mind and their internal world, and how essential dilligent attention to maintaining one's internal state was necessary for survival, despite the incredibly overwhelming external circumstances. The only privacy was the privacy of a thought and the only victory over the Nazi oppressors was an internal victory of a hopeful or free idea, in an internal place where the attentive couldn't be touched, but the inattentive tended to be killed or eventually died because they were overwhelmed internally by their external circumstances. ( Ironically, one of the simple pleasures that Frankl repeatedly recounts being denied to camp prisoners is tobacco.)

It seems clear that destroying the enjoyment of simple pleasures, pleasures that provide solace against external circumstances, are always a clear target for oppressive forces. The oppressive forces, you'll notice, use the constant reinforcement of external circumstances to spread, to network out and lower resistance, for the purpose of making one vulnerable to ideas that they wouldn't normally accept if they lived their lives, as much as possible, by their internal motives.

All of us, undoubtedly, have to deal with external circumstances, and even define our lives by our ability to negotiate them. Long before anti-smoking came along, both people who smoked and didn't smoke had enough external demands to deal with. Throwing the additional burden of "the risks of smoking" onto those who smoke increased their internal anxiety to external forces. Throwing the extremely far-fetched demand of "dangerous secondhand smoke" onto the non-smoker creates additional external demands of non-smokers as well.

In our modern context, at least in the U.S., I see this trend being driven by forces that are opposed to Capitalism and seek collectivism via institutionalizing anti-capitalism in government policies. I see this as a movement toward a form of Communism, and it seems consistent with the twentieth century fears of what America would become under Communism.

Communism, also seem to take for granted that a "technocracy", or a society based on the findings of "experts", should make the larger societal decisions, and institutionalize them and apply them to people collectively. Of course, it is not the same old Communism, but New Communism, or Neo-Communism. Fascism seems to me to be more ground in nationalism and clearly defined group preferences. Again, though, these forces just are what they are and they don't seem to care what we call them.

Please know that I don't pretend to have absolute solutions to these great problems that we face. If I did, I'd have screamed them at the top of my lungs.

These are very big problems, much larger than ourselves, and they don't have a magic bullet solution, because these problems operate on much larger levels. It's possible that some solutions will occur to me as I continue writing the series.

I've said before that I'm taking a "heuristic" approach to posting these ideas, meaning that I seek to propose a new context for looking at this dangerous problem, and seek valuable input, like you've provided. This approach demands challenges and opposition. It is a larger-context learning approach, a participatory approach. It seems evident to me that we could use a new way of looking at these problems and once we know exactly what they are, I think it will become easier for solutions to grow organically and dynamically. Powerful forces get moving along by simple interactions at the bottom and perhaps if we have a new way of looking at these things, those interactions will become stronger.

Again, I intend to write further installments in this "Evil" series. I will provide a listng of material of interest, that helped me along with these ideas, at the end. The central idea here, this thesis of "Neo-Communism" and "Evil", though, I believe to be my own. I'm not aware of any other who has pursued these ideas with this perspective.

You have my word that I am not walking people down this path to try and sell them flying saucers, the graces of religion, Bigfoot, Amway, a newsletter or any kind of conspiracy theory or mysticism. I may touch on some of these phemonema, though, in an effort to explain why they exist because these are also patterns that naturally emerge in the formation of mass movements.

I would love to have them published on FORCES. Thank you again. I'll contact you shortly via the email you provided so we can discuss offline some minor questions that I have .

Sorry for running so long. I've actually trimmed this quite a bit. It's difficult not to be longwinded when discussing these complex things. Also, thank you for the excellent point about "Robin Hood". What you say is true and it really hadn't occurred to me before to see Robin Hood as an enemy of taxation and Big Government, though it is obviously the case.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Quoting Winston:

"Communism, also seem to take for granted that a "technocracy", or a society based on the findings of "experts", should make the larger societal decisions, and institutionalize them and apply them to people collectively. Of course, it is not the same old Communism, but New Communism, or Neo-Communism. Fascism seems to me to be more ground in nationalism and clearly defined group preferences. Again, though, these forces just are what they are and they don't seem to care what we call them. "


Dear Winston,

Please call me Gian. What I state below is just my opinion. I don’t expect to have all the answers or solutions either, and I actually hope to be wrong. You will see why. One more thing: English is not my mother tongue so, although I speak it fairly well, I hope that you'll forgive both the verbosity and the grammar!

I fully agree with your view that we are dealing with a form of Communism as collective mentality and perception. However, Fascism and Nazism are also collective mentalities although pointed, as you say, more towards nationalistic values than internationalist ones. The reason I bring neo-Fascism into the equation is because the apparent general ideological confusion of our times, while creating very little that is new, is “importing” and “recycling” elements of all previous beliefs. Furthermore, I live in the country that has invented Fascism and, for that very reason, it is less vulnerable to the lures, temptations and ideological infestations that currently affect the Anglo-Saxon world, which has always fought those ideologies and thus it has never experienced them on its own skin (that’s why they look so interesting now, although most Americans can’t even recognize them). As you know, after experiencing Fascism, Italy had the strongest Communist party in the world on this side of the Iron Curtain. Both have been experienced from within.

A preface is needed before deepening this issue.

In the current state of general ignorance caused by the decay of the educational system (especially, I am sorry to say, the Anglo-Saxon systems), when Fascism is mentioned Mr. John Q. Public thinks about the funny poses of Mussolini, the beating up of opponents and the castor oil drinking, as well as the lack of democracy. Furthermore, Mr. Public’s deteriorated intellect confuses freedom with democracy – a fatal error which inevitably leads to oligarchic management by committee, which is what we are experiencing today.

If the public (that is, the majority) no longer understands that personal independent freedom is the foundation of liberty, it follows that the public is happy to trade it in exchange for the illusion of security, health and protection. That in turn inevitably leads to the delegation and compartmentalization of an ever-growing number of specific tasks assigned to “experts” (who as such are piloting the public opinion) instead of being handled at the personal level because of insecurity and low personal self-esteem. The low self-esteem often comes from the consciousness of one’s own ignorance; thus the often illogical conclusion to delegate tasks to someone else instead of educating oneself.

The once again inevitable outcome of this process is that the “experts” will develop policies that are fit for an “average majority individual” who does not exist and thus fits no one -- but it sure oppresses the minorities, which automatically are perceived as a threat to such non-existing individual. That is how a brutal oppression is created in a perfectly functional democracy such as the United States is, for example -- although the most glaring example is the election of Adolph Hitler. The resulting effect is the devastating flaw of all collectivist systems that you mentioned in your essay: the illusion that the collective exceeds the sum of its components, whilst that miracle is reserved only to the individual human being. Hence absurdities such as “the majority can do no wrong”, and the – forgive the terms - mentally retarded notion that a crowd of one million idiots makes a collective genius.

The emerging pattern of the activities of those “expert committees” is the automatic and systematic elimination of liberty and the creation of a system to prevent the return of those liberties. That results, in many ways, in the feeling most people have today: that of suffocating in an ever-tightening dictatorship, and aggravated by the inability to put one’s hands around the neck of the faceless, nameless dictator. The fundamental purpose of any collective socialist or pseudo-socialist system is to subtly convince the people that the individual is powerless – and it works all the times!

This long preface has been necessary to put what follows in the appropriate light. Fascism is the son of socialism, thus a collective thinking by definition – a gateway, if you please, to an eventual second generation Communism. Anglo-Saxon John Q. Public does not seem to understand that Fascism is primarily an economic doctrine as much as Marxism is. It is the Third Way the Clintons have pointed out. A super-concentrated (and unfairly short) summation of Fascism (I don't know how to make a URL in this bloody forum: it is http://www.forces.org/articles/files/definition_of_fascism.htm) as such doctrine has been put together for the FORCES readers with the help of Wikipedia on the one hand and the consulting of Italian Fascism historian and honour committee member Prof. Giordano Bruno Guerri (http://www.forces.org/static_page/hc/guerri.php) on the other. I am sure that you will see in it indications of what is going on in the United States nowadays.

If we want to conquer a society such as the Anglo-Saxon one, which has always fought Communism – and Fascism - without ever experiencing them, it is clear the “Mr. Communism” cannot be applied all of a sudden as it would be too obvious and therefore a violent reaction would arise. Hence the need for the transitional step of a gentler and “adapted” Fascist approach first. Let it be clear at this point that I don’t believe that there is some “evil Master” or masters who pull the strings of history to achieve a Communist One World Order. Although catching the fantasy of the mediocre or unprepared, that kind of conspiracy theory does not stand any realistic logical analysis in the light of the reality that, today, people cannot spontaneously even set up the classic “piss-up in a brewery”, let alone take over the world.

Rather, it is an emerging pattern” as consequence of – but not limited to:

• The lack of an armed conflict that polarizes and defines freedom and oppression. The 50,000 nuclear warheads of the Cold War did just that, for threats stimulate juxtaposing the extremes. In the case of the West, the extreme was the affirmation and practicing of freedom, if for no other reason, to be right in the face of the Commies and with the same hidden feeling that smokers have today – that of smoking right in the face of an antismoker. Such feeling was not even conceived of when there was no antismoking oppression.

• The elimination of confrontation-competition between proud nations to follow the chimera of some classic liberalists that “unification and trade will remove the need for war through shared interests”. That is certainly true. But this la-la land, sort of flower children notion does not keep into account – or accept – the consequential fact that such process, to work, demands the levelling of cultural, political and economic differences. That is along with the imposition of supra-national (and super powerful) bureaucratic bodies that can command, regulate and IMPOSE such homogenization. The EU is a splendid example of that. All that is collective by definition. Thus the well-intentioned “pacifism through commerce” does not seem to keep into account the human need for confrontation. As it happens in biology the elimination of diversity leads to weakness, to protect against which we seek the power of the collective. The currency of that protection is, inevitably, personal liberty.

• The decay of general popular education due to past school system “reforms”. Ignorance reduces the brain’s ability to comprehend complex concepts regardless of its intelligence – hence the need to “dumb down” messages to elementary particles (i.e.: “smoking kills”). Hence the ever-increasing delegation of tasks (and power) to the “experts”, who are themselves victims and products of the same system. Hence the desire to “go collective” which, once again, stems from insecurity and inability to collectively comprehend complex phenomena as we no longer have the tools to do so. That is particularly ironic in the era of super-communication highways which mostly conveys, however, rivers of mundane and trashy information, responding to a market that demands just that.

All that – and more – forms the emerging pattern of collectivism in my opinion. It is not by design, but it is certainly a consequence of the three sub-patterns described above. Again in my opinion, the spontaneous result of the interaction of those three phenomena (and many other corollary ones) inevitably leads to some form of neo-Communism, with the transient phase of neo-Fascism as a trait-d’union economic and ideological doctrine. As we said, there is no room for free-wheeling individuals in those doctrines, spontaneity is discouraged and dissent is a moral and political crime.

Of course I hope that I am wrong. But, in my mind, unless the current trend is utterly destroyed (and it’s not going to be destroyed with whining and petitions or with no longer comprehensible intellectual speeches to crowds!), the inevitable outcome is a planetary public health (WHO/Big Pharma corporations), a planetary government (UN), a planetary trade regulator (WTO), and so on. Differences therefore, will HAVE to be eliminated (or, as it is said today, “made compliant”).

In such a world, eventually, there cannot be any smoking, drinking, “wrong” diet, free use of motor vehicles, truly free press and communication, or any private individual initiative which is not compliant with the superseding and infinitely expanding needs of the collective state.

And – unless some alien and evil star ship lands to threaten us – there will be nothing to measure our “progress” against. No reference and no knowledge of when and how to stop. If nothing is done, we seriously risk to experience the paradoxical reality of the black hole: the trillions of billions of tons of a star mass are shrunk into a nothingness with such gravity that not even light can escape – whether we talk about the light that eyes can see, or that of liberty and intellect.

I hope that my reference to neo-Fascism in my previous post is now clearer.

Take care.
_________________
Gian Turci
________________________________________________
'How do we change or perhaps make people aware of the emerging patterns? There seems to be a general attitude of "If it doesn't affect me, I don't care", or to reduce this even further, "better you, than me" With the continued "dumbing down" of people in general, and the population of the US specifically; How do we get the personal liberty ideology to a degree low enough to be understood by Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public while at the same time retaining the critical points of why they must act to prevent a "collective" mindset.' [Posted by LightningBoy.].

[Gian responded]

The “how” should be always follow the understanding of the “why”. One of the (sad) products of our time are, I believe, the “how-to” manuals: they tell you how to do things to obtain the “Buzz—Aaahh!” effect, without almost ever telling you why. Result: if one loses the manual is screwed. But if we know why we can always reconstruct the solution. We should also accept that there are no “guaranteed” or “correct” resolutions to certain situations.

This links also to the other posting about FORCES being an educational corporation, and thus we should educate. We are working quite hard at the development of portals that will do just that. However, I don’t share the pessimism of many. I don’t think that “nobody cares”, or that his universe is shrunk around his skin as if it was a condom. That may be the case for most, but there is still a huge minority that is hungry – not just for freedom, but for explanations. We may never be able to get rid of what makes us fundamentally humans: the ability to ask “why?” And as long as there is that, there is hope.

I think that the indifference of many is a form of a self-defence, a way of expressing desperation. Desperation because there nothing out there that satisfies their hunger. If so, “I will ignore my hunger because there is nothing I can do about it”. But, when presented with food, the hunger becomes overwhelming for self-preservation.

I think that the fundamental problems of our movement are two.

The first is the random conflictuality of the messages: there are those who believe that “smoking kills but not as much”, others who think that “active smoking kills but passive smoking does not” and so on in an infinite gradation reflecting different levels of absorption of the disinformation constantly pumped out by institutions, and filtered through one’s own political and social beliefs or character. From the point of view of those who are hungry for answers and are looking for them, therefore, there is no emerging pattern whatsoever that can be perceived consciously or unconsciously, but rather a random motion of conflicting messages against the antis that contain various degrees of concessions to the propaganda – the famous (I should say infamous) “smoking is bad BUT… approach. Compare that with the steadiness of the antismoking message. As learning about emerging patterns is essential (thanks again, Winston), our movement should also worry about creating a readable pattern of its own.

The second issue is perhaps even more fundamental than the first: EXPOSURE. Our only tool is the Internet. It is true that, POTENTIALLY, whoever puts a website up is exposed to the world. But there are tens of millions of websites in the world. This does not seem to sink in the heads of many. “I have the site up, I am exposing the frauds, I get few or no answers”. Conclusion: “The world is indifferent and it does not care” – or: “Everybody bought the lie, I feel so lonely now”. Both are dead wrong, as they ASSUME that “the world” has seen what they say and decided to ignore them. The fact is that the exposure has been probably to 1,000 people in 3 years!

The chances that the message reaches the masses are still minimal, and the chances that the masses see a coherent (not necessarily the same!) message are even less, as often the various groups "excommunicate" the others. That means that education, in our case, cannot reach the masses but through a trickle, thus people have no empowerment. One example ought to suffice: as the oldest surviving SRG is the British FOREST, FORCES is the oldest website on the net on this issue. Now try this: get in the street and stop people. Ask them if they know of FORCES. You’ll get a “huh?!...” Now ask the if they have heard of Rush Limbaugh. They’ll tell you “sure”. Some may call him names, but they know him. And we have been around 11 years, we publish in several languages and we are legally constituted in 4 different nations. Imagine other groups!

Conclusion: we don’t have sufficient exposure to pass a judgment on whether people are truly indifferent, for 99%+ of the people are ONLY exposed to the propaganda, as the mass-media do their best to gag the oppositions anyway. Thus people's decision is between what they ear day in and day out and what THEY DON’T KNOW. What would YOU decide?...

That is the very reason why the top effort is to be made to bring people to us and to get us known. Most people who discover us then “feel at home” in virtue of the fact that they have found us. Those people are still an infinitesimal percentage of the masses. So small, in fact, that there would be many zeros before the 1 and after the point – like 0.00001%!

Even in the assumption that only 5% of the smokers in America, for example, would agree with us and got educated, you would get well over 3 million people angry because they are aware of the fraud, thus ready to do something. See what 3 million pissed off people can do! But before enjoying that, we have to reach them!

I’ll stop here for tonight.
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Posted by WinstonSmith

If one wanted a practical first step to a solution, a "foot in the door", it would be to attack some of these problems at the fundamentals of policy. I think this can be done, at first, without even mentioning any specific product or current special-interest bugaboo.

As I pointed out in "Evil Part III", this collective pattern uses incrementalism as a method of growth and because these collectivist special interest groups have become institutionalized in government, they make for an especially destructive force.

There is a very legitimate question to be asked regarding government agencies and it is "What is your goal?" Institutionalized special interest groups always, I notice, have no stated purpose other than to perpetually feed on the green pastures of government and tax payer funding.

I think that a wider message, a good first step is to point out how incrementalism destroys freedom and breeds tyranny all for groups that have no stated goal. Environmental groups have the EPA to "reduce" emissions, to give us a "cleaner" environment and a "safer" world.

It seems perfectly reasonable to ask for specific criteria for these things, since it is The People's money that is being spent. When they say "We want a cleaner environment?" People should ask, "Okay, but precisely, in measurable terms, how clean do you want it?" Force them to give specific criteria, not nebulous mission statements, because we all know that meeting one set of demands only invites another set of demands. You can never, ever meet their goals, because they have none.

Someone right now is saying "God, that's old as dirt. It's been tried before." Yes, but not in the context of what we're up against today. I think you can make it a widely popular idea among conservatives, moderates and libertarians because it is such a reasonable question to ask.

If your Department of Health sets up a division in charge of anti-smoking and they establish a smoking ban in restaurants, they're going to say "we're not looking to ban smoking in bars." Of course they're going to do that. Otherwise, they would have closed up shop and gone home after they achieved their one stated goal, which they have achieved. If they're not looking to do anything further, then why are they still there?

I think that economic conservatives need to start asking NOT "Why does this government organization exist?" but "What is the specific goal of this government organization? Not a mission statement, or a philosophy, but a goal.

Essential organizations, like a Police force, also have nebulous goals. They want to "eliminate" crime, but if (big if) we can keep these special interests reigned in crime will be crime in a sense that everyone recognizes. Not even thieves and murderers think it would be a good thing for society if theft and murder were legal (if such people think of such things). Obviously, police will always be needed.

If government wants to up the ante, it should have to show its cards to the table. You can't make Big Government go away with this method, and yes, they will "find ways around it", but it will slow the process of incrementalist infrigment.

I can''t cover every specific way government spends money in an effort to explain how this would be effective, because this is not intended to be a one-size fits all solution. It is an approach, a mindset for asking the right questions.

quote:

I'll also remind you that if you have such distaste for what I'm writing down here in "the basement", and if it is really bothering you, no one is putting a gun to your head to read it.

This is all too true.
What is also true is that sometimes I have a tendency to be an insufferable ass.

Please accept my apologies for my regretable post.
Gary K.

Posts can aways be edited by the poster

I believe this fight needs to be attacked from all angles...without the thinkers, statisticians, marketing strategists, mathematicians, pollsters, joke-tellers and straight-forward sign-holding activists working together for the same goal, the socialists will keep winning over the masses [flock].

Whatever message will sink-in to the indoctrinated must be used, to understand the root of evil must be known. People (Sheeple) arrive at evil from different parts of the meadow and are acted upon as a group, because they are a group. Some are swayed by different environmental activities... whether they get prodded, find a prettier view on another hill, see the hidden knife of the rancher, don't like the buzz of the shearer, or get eaten by coyotes on the fringes. Most are not swayed at all, that needs to be understood.

This is not Just about Smoking......
Looking at my half-Australian Cattle Dog at my feet right now -I'd love to ask him why he herds the cats, but because he is also half-German Shepherd too, I may not get the answer I'm expecting...The Australian in him may say "I herd because I herd" the German in him may say " I herd them to protect you from them"

This message has been edited. Last edited by: gilster,

I read your posts and await the next with enthusiasm.

In my mind, you have brought it all together, and it is about much more than just smoking.

What other need would there be for such massive fraud on all these fronts? It is a means to an end, which I think the "Evil" and "New Communism" series links together very well.

quote:

What is also true is that sometimes I have a tendency to be an insufferable ass.

Me too, gk, that's why I'm gk backwards, I'm a** backwards, to be sure.

Agreed, Gilster, it takes all kinds, and when at times some of us act like a**'s, we can still help pulling the mighty cart out of any ruts and moving it always forward.

quote:

Originally posted by gkayser30:
Please accept my apologies for my regretable post.
Gary K.

There are powerful feelings involved in discussing these things. And, as Gilster, points out, it takes all kinds of different views to get things moving along.

Your apology is fully accepted.