From: oldwifetale@yahoo.com   
      
   On Thursday, October 2, 2014 6:13:51 AM UTC-7, joshb wrote:   
   > Op 2014-10-02, yanowis@gmail.com schreef :   
   >    
   > > Like the John Wayne types. I do however fear the amerikan   
   >    
   > > nightmare of kapitalism run amok. The kind that created global   
   >    
   > > warming and is destroying Inuit homelands. They were warning   
   >    
   > > us years before it became chic. I fear for my Native forests,   
   >    
   > > salmon that they will be forced into extinction by GE trees   
   >    
   > > and GM salmon. Let's battle the windmill of communism or   
   >    
   > > Muslim terrorists and ignore real problems and the real   
   >    
   > > battlefield. Then we'll all be extinct. Problem solved.   
   >    
   >    
   >    
   > That is how it will go, but it is an interesting effort to try   
   >    
   > to figure out how it should have gone. Nobody will listen but,   
   >    
   > what else is there to do. It's not that I want to harp on the   
   >    
   > same thing all the time (giving everyone their share of land)   
   >    
   > but it seems to me that saying "though shall not be greedy" is   
   >    
   > not going to be enough. The capitalist system creates landless   
   >    
   > unemployed people on the one hand, and the extremely greedy and   
   >    
   > wealthy on the other (capitalist oligarchy). From above comes   
   >    
   > never ender greed and destruction of nature with great power,   
   >    
   > and from below comes poverty that likewise needs to drill freshly   
   >    
   > into the natural resources. In the middle are the so called   
   >    
   > entrepreneurs, who have the means to exploit natural resources   
   >    
   > and often need to work extremely hard to pay all the taxes that   
   >    
   > fund the Oligarchy their wars and the unemployement benefits that   
   >    
   > the landless unemployed need to survive. It is easy to see how   
   >    
   > nature will be the thing that will be the punching bag, with    
   >    
   > nobody really caring for it through their desperation or criminal   
   >    
   > nature in the case of the Oligarchy.   
   >    
   >    
   >    
   > In case communism is defined as a plan-economy (which is how it   
   >    
   > usually is done), you get something like work-brigades run by   
   >    
   > the Communist Party oligarchy. It seems to me that this is the   
   >    
   > same as the capitalist oligarchy in an advanced state of capturing   
   >    
   > all wealth, albeit with a different rethorical sause. The experience   
   >    
   > in Russia with Communism seems to support such an analyses.   
   >    
   >    
   >    
   > Giving everyone land is however not the ultimate answer either,   
   >    
   > because everyone can still demand a larger share, and by that the   
   >    
   > whole nature is destroyed also. However I think that in a land   
   >    
   > distribution system, there is less desperation at the bottom, no   
   >    
   > over arching Oligarchy of evil, more power of the common people in   
   >    
   > their Governments (because land is power also in politics). There   
   >    
   > is therefore more chance that nature will be more protected in   
   >    
   > a land distributive system. The great love of wild nature that    
   >    
   > many common people have could be enough. If not, then society will   
   >    
   > go through catastrophes until it learns or is extinct. Land   
   >    
   > distribution to all by law could help in the preservation of nature   
   >    
   > (which in my view should already initially exclude lands set aside   
   >    
   > for nature; so the People would only use a defined amount that is   
   >    
   > small enough to have a healthy wild nature besides it.)   
      
      
   That's all well-intentioned, i'm sure, but the point here is 'alliance'.    
      
   If your country is at war with another country, and members of your country   
   form alliances with members the opposing country, what would you call that?   
      
   Do you think it would be wrong for your country to investigate that situation?    
      
   This isn't about being afraid of some 'boogey man' as Monica keeps trying to   
   assert. In the 70s it was about Communism during the Cold War years involving   
   two powerful nations with nuclear weapons and the ability to annihilate each   
   other.    
      
   This isn't about not caring for rivers, salmon and modified foods. It's about   
   the reasoning behind COINTELPRO which was a 'counter intelligence program'   
   generated from the suspicion that several "radical" activist movements were   
   involved with the    
   Communist Party and members of enemy nations (at that time). If bombs were   
   being made, weapons being smuggled, kidnappings being planned, and so on... by   
   groups who seemed to also have connections with people in or from the 'enemy   
   nation', those groups    
   were considered 'radical' in those days.   
      
   COINTELPRO crossed many lines involving the civil rights that are supposed to   
   belong to every American citizen, and no one is saying otherwise, and no one   
   is 'supporting' those tactics. However, because of its subsequent notoriety,   
   all other aspects of    
   that operation are essentially swept under the rug. Especially, it seems, by   
   the groups who were being investigated. Whenever *anyone* starts to really   
   learn about it, and asks questions such as, "Well, *was* there a Communist   
   connection?" - they are    
   accused of being part of COINTELPRO. If that person also happens to be against   
   Communism as an alternative replacement system for America, then it is even   
   worse. For some reason *that* person suddenly becomes *the enemy*. For some   
   reason *that* person    
   isn't anti-American enough to be asking questions. I found that response   
   somewhat alarming since "exposing the truth" was such a big factor in the   
   movements i'd always supported and encouraged.   
      
   A lot of the activists involved at that time say that the deaths that occurred   
   were the result of 'acts of war', and i understand that. What i don't   
   understand is how an American counter-intelligence program is perceived as   
   unjustified in covertly    
   investigating groups that claimed to be at war with America. Is that   
   considered wrong or immoral? What if there were activist groups today   
   suspected of doing the same thing, but with different enemy nations? Any   
   *thinking* person has got to ask these    
   kinds of questions, because if they don't, then history is distorted on *all*   
   sides of the issue.    
      
   Most of the activist groups claimed to be peaceful protesters, but when people   
   live by the motto of "by any means necessary" and "the enemy of my enemy is my   
   friend", actions do reflect that. With COINTELPRO it seems the 'means' they   
   used were equally    
   objectionable to groups that were being investigated and to normal Americans   
   who stand up for civil rights. But what about the 'means' that were being used   
   by some of the activists?    
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)