I might not have understood the original piece. I am not sure I even got
the e-mail that started the whole thing, and I don't know if I can find
the "Protocols of Zion" passage again but I definately did read it and
understand it. That part is exactly what makes the thing so offensive.
There is more that one way of being anti-semitical, unwitting or not. The
implication of it is that since the "Protocols" were trumped up, the
accusations against the capitalists may be trumped up. Every pack of
scoundrels in the past 55 years has used this false analogy to hide from
justified criticism and exposure. This insults the victims of the nazi
horror and because the reverse implication of it is that if the
accusations laid against capitalists are substantially true, there may have
been something to the protocols, threatens jews. As for the effect on the
people who are making the criticism and exposure of capitalism...
Well, shake your heads and think about it again. I can't take the time
right now to go through the whole thing phrase by phrase and explain all
the implications.
It seems that the businesses that were attacked were starbucks and
MacDonald's types of facilities, not mom and pop stores. Use your
imagination about how I take the theory that because we are going after
corporados we will start going after plumbers with vans, too.
SXXX! Are the Corpos paying you to write this?
Tim R.
P.S. Aren't you the guy about six months ago who was ranting to have Serbia
invaded, razed to the ground, plowed with salt, and its population deported
to the four corners of the earth, in order to bring peace to the Balkans?
>Tim,
>
>You most certainly did NOT understand the piece correctly the first time.
>You treated it as an anti-semitic comment, and then later admitted that you
>had missed the phrase "trumped up" in reference to the protocols of Zion.
>
>In now calling it the "poor little persecuted billionaires" retard's
>debate, you are showing that you still miss the point of Ed's comparison. Ed
>was concerned that some very ordinary non-rich people were having their shop
>windows broken and being labeled as evil capitalists. I don't entirely agree
>with Ed's comparison, but he has a valid point: that revolutionaries with a
>rigid ideology often end up persecuting a lot of the people they should be
>helping, e.g., the kulak peasant farmers in the Soviet Union.
>
>If we take a formal definition of capitalist as someone who invests his own
>money in tools and equipment for the purpose of making more money, then it
>covers not only Bill Gates but some very ordinary, even some very poor
>people.
>
>My wife is technically a capitalist. Five years ago she took out a $60,000
>mortgage to build a horse barn and she owns 12 horses with a total value of
>about $25,000. We take in six horses for board, and she offers riding
>lessons on our own horses. The only problem is that so far the expenses
>considerably exceed the revenues. She is forever taking money from her
>elementary school teacher's salary to buy hay for the horses. We think that
>the stable should begin to show a small profit three years hence after the
>mortgage is paid off.
>
>Living in rural Simcoe County, I've employed plumbers who are technically
>capitalists. They own a battered old van and a large number of tools. They
>buy plumbing supplies and charge the customer a markup on the ones they
>install. Judging from their lifestyle, I would say that they make about the
>same income as an ordinary working stiff factory labourer like me--about
>$25,000 to $35,000 annually.
>
>And how about the single mom I met five years ago? She had just got herself
>off welfare by making and selling dolls. She bought her parts at craft
>shops, sewed them together in original designs and sold them at a markup.
>She was totally thrilled when she discovered that the garbage at my factory
>included dozens of small plastic dust caps which substituted admirably for
>one of the doll parts, thereby saving her 50 cents per unit. Now there's a
>capitalist for you!
>
>So, Tim, the fact is, you have trouble understanding plain prose let alone
>something with a smidgin of irony like Ed's posting. I don't know what you'd
>make of real thoroughgoing irony. I suppose if you had lived in the 18th
>century, you would have tried to get the Very Reverend Jonathan Swift
>charged with cannibalism ("A Modest Proposal") and blasphemy ("An argument
>against abolishing Christianity").
>
>Personally I find the idea of you setting yourself up as a Commissar of
>Coherent Thought quite chilling.
>
>Victor Milne
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Tim Rourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: December 11, 1999 1:04 AM
>Subject: Aw, jeez...
>
>
>> ...they've managed to drag me back into the "poor little persecuted
>> billionaires" retard's debate.
>>
>> I have read over the piece that I commented on in the first place,
>several
>> times, very carefully. I understood it correctly the first time and every
>> time I reread it it gets more offensive. You'll notice that when some fool
>> says something really ridiculous and gets challenged on it, he or she
>> tries to get out of it by saying it was intended to be 'ironic.' They
>> wouldn't know irony if it bit them. What this piece is, is false
>> association.
>>
>> At least an idiot with access to the internet isn't as dangerous as an
>> idiot with access to a car, but unmoderated e-mail lists are still pretty
>> scarey things. They are something like first year university philosophy
>> classes.
>>
>> As I have said before, free speech is for those who are capable of
>thinking
>> coherently.
>>
>> Tim R.
>>
>>
>>
