>
SRF Walrus
Mt. Washington, Ca
Open discussions about SRF
Gold Community SRF Walrus
    > Not the Main Stream
        > WORLD CRISIS: What is Destroying the United States? 		New Topic    Add Reply

Page 1 2 3 4 5
<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Author Comment
etzchaim
Registered User
(12/2/03 5:56 pm)
Reply 		Re: sweet etzcahim tells soulcircle to get .........
Soulcircle, if you're still here, I'm not sweet, and it really does piss me off that you have somehow come up with this idea that I don't care because I can see the same pattern in history over and over again. The only answer I have is education by any means possible and attempting to raise the level of consciousness, usually on a one on one basis with the students I know, many of whom are under this impression that if they go out and yell and scream at this or that rally or some protest, that it's actually going to have an effect. It has no effect. I quit going to peace rally's before the Iraqi war because of the hatred and violence I saw in them. They weren't about peace. They were about ideologies and trying to force people to hold those ideologies.

What really bugs me is calls for vague revolution, as if that will do something, and finger pointing from leftists at other leftists for not being as upset as they are and for having different opinions. Getting all upset isn't going to do anything, except make you upset.

It's not that I think that we had much of a choice in the last election, but Bush won because of the Green party. Leftists dividing the only opposition to who we have now. It frightens me. The Right, especially the Christian Right is organized beyond any Leftist wildest dreams, and Leftists point fingers at one another and can't articulate themselves, me as case in point. Pun intended.

On Starhawk and the other true believers in a non-violent, woman ruled pre-male-dominated past. I see no evidence of it and am convinced it's another myth. I'd have to pull out a few Archeology magazines to give specifics, but enough bashed in skulls and missiles have been found at prehistoric sites to convince me that primitive people were not peaceful.

I also see absolutely no evidence of women being any more capable of producing a peaceful world than men have. I think men have become a scapegoat for women who want to believe in their own superiority, so I actually reject Starhawks site and all such sites that claim that it's only since men took over that we've become violent. I know she's really into peace, and I don't knock that. I also know that when I was in a Covenant of the Goddess coven, the same collective of covens that Starhawk is in, there was infighting galore, especially when all the covens got together at the annual Merrymeet. I watched a witchtrial among witches once. It was fascinating, and no, it wasn't any more peaceful than male dominated systems. Just a different approach to power and control, more subtle.

I know a whole lot of feminists who think that cultures that worship goddessess are better for women. No amount of actual data from these cultures (take India, for example, where things are just beginnning to improve for women) can convince them that goddess worship doesn't mean women have any rights, and no amount of very obvious and large collections of round balls made out of stones, with no other purpose but use as missiles for lobbing at the enemy (what? Abstract art?) will convince people who want to believe that the pre-male-dominated world was peaceful. It's a nice thing for women to tell themselves, but I just don't think it's true.

So, go, Soulcircle, I have had enough of the 60's and old school feminism. I'm going to continue talking students into going into the environmentalist and alternative versions of thier careers they are afraid will not make them enough money to live on. I'm working on the Fundamentalist Christian student with the good heart, so that someday he may actually see beyond the agenda of the Religious Right and not support them. He's a Poli-Sci major. Mostly I'll try to teach the kids I meet to think and not react, and not get caught up in the emptiness of the media culture and the myths that surround them.

Vandana Shiva's awsome, by the way.

Ringbearer7
Registered User
(12/2/03 9:21 pm)
Reply 		Re: Punk Yogi is right
"Is is an age old, cheap tactic, Ringbearer, that when a person doesn't want to read an article, he or she merely disses the source. That way baby and bathwater all go down the drain with one deft pull of the plug."

I wasn't dissing - I was dismissing. I have read LaRouche and have also heard him speak. I have given him fair time. That I now don't bother much to analyze his writings is simply a matter of efficiency - there are plenty of other political commentators that have yet to prove themselves to be nutcakes.

"Whether or not you agree with the attestation that British high wealth and synarchism are a credible influence behind the our country's decay..."

I don't know very much about the Martinist (which LaRouche claims to be at the origin of the synchranists) other than that they are closely tied to the Freemasons. The Freemasons and related groups were strongly persecuted by the Nazis. In fact, it was the Nazis (and their European collaborators) that were trying to tie the Jews and the Masionic groups together into some sort of secret conspiracy to take over the world - just like LaRouche does. In my opinion, LaRouche is basically just repeating propaganda created by European fascist and anti-Semites...and he has the gall to call others Nazis!?!? Give me a break.

"what we all should be agreeing on is that the economic infrastructure of our country is in really bad shape."

Personally I am doing quite well. The stock market has been going up for 9 months now. GDP growth is at a record high. Unemployment going down. Yes, the national debt is at a historical high but so is the the cost a movie, e.g. when my mom was a kid she could go see movie for 10 cents. Now when measured in terms of % of GDP the national debt is historically not at an unreasonable level (39%.) In the 60's it was as high as 50% and after WWII was over 60%. Sure it would be great to have no national debt but we have been in much worse shape in the past.

Here is an interesting article (Washington Post 1985) on LaRouche: www.washingtonpost.com/wp...e/main.htm

I especially like the following quote from the article which pretty much distills the essence of LaRouche's dialectical technique (and also illustrates why I don't bother to read his ramblings.):

In a letter LaRouche wrote in November to The New Republic magazine, in response to an article about his ties to federal agencies, one passage reads: "The most relevant point is my support for the view that a review of physics from the vantage point of the Gauss-Dirichlet-Riemann approach to topology and electrodynamics affords us not only a more accurate picture than the Maxwell-Boltzmann approach, but a more direct and easier approach to comprehension of fundamentals."

Give me a break.







Punk Yogi
Registered User
(12/3/03 4:05 am)
Reply 		Ring-a-ling -- Is Ringbearer7 In the house?
Well then, I wonder: You have entered a pizza parlor, have sat down and studied the menu ... and then you tell the waiter, "I don't like pizza. It's just a bunch of useless carbs and calories. And furthermore, I have great doubts about the chef who might work here."

The waiter looks at you quizzically and says, "So, um, what is it you want to order?"

And you growl, "Well it certainly isn't pizza for one thing!"

Privately, in some corner of the mind, the waiter thinks: "Give me a break"

======

On the subject of economics, don't you think that its a problem and not a positive indicator when both the national debt and the cost of a movies are high? What's the advantage? To whom? Are you inferring that increased profits for Tom Cruise will eventually trickle down to your wallet? With respect to the percentages of GDP you quoted, isn't it also important to consider the kinds of industries constituting the GDP. At present, about 60% of the current GDP consist of Real Estate transactions. Less than 10% is derived from Securities and Commodities. So your 9 month investment "happy meal" is not an accurate indicator of where the economy is headed for all people in the United States. Personally, however, I do wish you greater prosperity regardless of overall circumstances.

The 60% GDP in Real Estate is not as rosy as it seems. Real Estate does not add productivity to the economy. It benefits lending institutions and the people who can afford to rent or sell properties but it doesn't provide a baseline benefit for the masses. Consider the fact that Real Estate prices are grossly hyperinflated and, therefore, fictitious at best. Houses, which is what the majority of transactions are for the average folk, appreciate in value but they depreciate structurally unless money is pumped into them for maintenance. Houses are a liability for most people, not an asset. Maybe its different for the few Donald Trumps out there who are making mega-deals. Though I wonder.

So if 60% of the GDP is fluff and bubbles but the "not-unreasonable" 39% national debt is solid as nails... I think we got a problem, Houston!

Assuming your stats are accurate about the GDP being over 60% in the late 1940s and 1950s, that doesn't mean that the economy was worse. In that era, most Americans were patriotically loyal to American businesses: only 4 percent of the cars Americans purchased were built outside the United States , a bit more than 4 percent of the steel, less than 6 percent of televisions, radios, and other consumer electronic products, and only 3 percent of machine tools according to Robert B. Reich in The Work of Nations. These statistics indicate that the elevated spending in the United States during the 1950s was offset by the fact that the money was being reinvested back into the American economy which was actually producing real goods, not bubbles and fluff.

Just as some of you have not had direct experience with some of the craziness at the heart of the SRF organizational structure, so I have been immune to encountering zealous Larouche followers. I therefore have no opinion, such as you do, as to how much of a nut the guy really is. I mean, let's get real here, in passionate politics, they're all more or less nuts. Even smiling Clinton has Somalia bleeding in his background. Everyone has an agenda, my friend.

Larouche, for whatever agenda he may have, is still an undeniable source of good intelligence. The Washington Post article you sent links to another article in which a number of highly ranked government officials commend him on that level:

Some Officials Find Intelligence Network 'Useful'
www.washingtonpost.com/wp...larou1.htm

Hey, if this nut has useful intelligence, I want to be in on it. I'll put up with his foibles just like I put up with you guys and you put up with me and we all have put up with our parents and have formerly put up with our wonderful cult of SRF. Wise ant .. salt and sugar.

If you've got your antihistamines handy, you might take a dose and then read this article by a Larouche writer. It's all about Real Estate and the Economy. I can't guarantee you won't get an allergic reaction, but you can at least die wiser.


'Fannie and Freddie Were Lenders:
U.S. Real Estate Bubble Nears Its End
www.larouchepub.com/other...e_mae.html

'Nuff 4 Now
PY

Edited by: Punk Yogi at: 12/3/03 4:13 am
soulcircle
Registered User
(12/3/03 5:29 am)
Reply 		thanks for the Washington Post link
Punk Yogi thank you

Ringbearer7
Registered User
(12/3/03 8:34 am)
Reply 		Re: Ring-a-ling -- Is Ringbearer7 In the house?
"On the subject of economics, don't you think that its a problem and not a positive indicator when both the national debt and the cost of a movies are high? What's the advantage? To whom?"

It is a matter of scale. A dollar today is not the same as a dollar 50 years ago. People get paid more per a year and movies cost more too. I'm not really sure if this is bad or not. I am not a economist...but unlike LaRouche I am a reasonably decent topologist.

Anyways, LaRouche has been pronouncing world financial disasters for 30 years now and has have ever been wrong. Yes, if he continues this he will eventually be correct...someday. But he has proven himself wrong too many times to be considered a reliable source. Just because some nuts in the Reagan admin like him does not mean much to me. Who are you gonna believe? An ignorant, uncompassionate, homophobic Republican or a caring, wise, open and affirming Democrat?

After the NBC broadcast, Democratic National Committee Chairman Charles Manatt called on President Reagan "to end the shocking White House involvement with the bizarre, extremist cult of Lyndon H. LaRouche . . . . It is absolutely incredible that a ranking NSC staff member . . . would have anything to do with the LaRouche people."

Anyways, thanks for the article. I haven't finished reading it yet but it is interesting.

Ringbearer7
Registered User
(12/3/03 8:37 am)
Reply 		Re: thanks for the Washington Post link
What about the Washington Post link that I offered? No thanks for that? Are you afraid to admit that you are becoming a true-believer in yet another "cult?"

bsjones
Registered User
(12/3/03 3:01 pm)
Reply
ezSupporter
 Re: thanks for the Washington Post link
a topologist?

cool

i've studied that a little.

Punk Yogi
Registered User
(12/3/03 10:11 pm)
Reply 		To Ringbearer7
To Ringbearer7

I did read the article; in fact, I believe I read it some time ago. It was published in 1985. That's 18 years ago, you know.

I noticed that the the Larouche group doesn't appear on the Washington Post cult chronology during the 90's stretch. The negative press from the Heritage Foundation think tank is specious considering it is a major front for the Bush/Cheney/NeoCon axis. The DNC ... I'm not sure how much of the negative slander on his character is truth and how much is spin. It's smacks of the same rhetoric we saw being fomented with the Paramahansa Yogananda / Erskine scandal... now in its current incarnation as the Paramahansa Yogananda / Dhirananda scandal.


By the way, are you aware of DNC Chairman Charles Manatt's connections to Dominican Republic drug money as well as the infamous CIA operative and drug smuggler Barry Seal.

www.narconews.com/USDominican1.html

As for the following quote:

"The most relevant point is my support for the view that a review of physics from the vantage point of the Gauss-Dirichlet-Riemann approach to topology and electrodynamics affords us not only a more accurate picture than the Maxwell-Boltzmann approach, but a more direct and easier approach to comprehension of fundamentals."

You've seem to have quoted this out of context. And having done so, its hard to fault him at face value just because he uses a lot of multisyllabic terms that look like gobbledygook.

1) What this quote appears to be is his most relevant point of a series of points he was making on some subject. It looks as if you took the tail end of an argument and chopped off its head and midsection.

2) His case seems to be that physics and its fundamentals can be viewed from different paradigms. He is proposing that we embrace the concept of a metaphysical basis of physics (the GDR approach) rather than one based on materialism and statistical mechanics (the MB approach).


This is supported by a letter Gauss wrote to his friend Hansen on December 11, 1825: "These investigations lead deeply into many others, I would even say, into the Metaphysics of the theory of space..." ( topology?).

Larouche is merely resurrecting the old Platonic / Aristotelean dialectic. I believe the context you left out has to do with how our specific mode of conceptualizing the physical universe ends up framing the way we see reality even in the social and political sphere. Looks as if Plato snagged Larouche as one of his true believers.

Speaking of which.. . Your comment about me being a true believer was totally stupid. Are you personally a billionaire? But you take an interest in the principles of the cult of capitalism enough invest and maybe even dance with glee around your swelling 9 month stock portfolios. If a person plays a few rounds of golf on the greens does that automatically give him a membership at the country club? Borrowing ideas from people does not equate to a slavish devotion to their person.

It all gets down to Babaji's counsel to be like the wise ant. Everything is of mixed character in this world. And so basically Babaji is saying that I can take a good idea from anywhere I damn well please.

By the way, I found a perfect cult for you to join since you seem to be showing signs of becoming one of its true believers:

It's called The Cult of Figwit

Nameless elf gets cult Rings status (Lord of The Rings)
news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/h...937745.stm


Say hi to Frodo
PY

Edited by: Punk Yogi at: 12/3/03 11:00 pm
Ringbearer7
Registered User
(12/4/03 12:52 am)
Reply 		Re: To Ringbearer7
"I noticed that the the Larouche group doesn't appear on the Washington Post cult chronology during the 90's stretch."

What about SRF?

"By the way, are you aware of DNC Chairman Charles Manatt's connections to Dominican Republic drug money as well as the infamous CIA operative and drug smuggler Barry Seal."

Title of article the link you supplied:

"Charles Manatt, Clinton's New Ambassador to the Dominican Republic Demonstrates the Importance of Drug Money to Election 2000 and to Al Gore"

Cool! I always thought Gore was a crook!

Concerning LaRouche's goobledygood:

"His case seems to be that physics and its fundamentals can be viewed from different paradigms. He is proposing that we embrace the concept of a metaphysical basis of physics (the GDR approach) rather than one based on materialism and statistical mechanics (the MB approach)."

I don't think it has anything to do with a metaphysical basis of physics. GD&R are mathematicians, not philosophers. Their work is not accessible without years of training in mathematics. The point I was making is that LaRouche, in all likelihood, has not even a basic understanding of the mathematics created by Gauss, Dirichlet and Riemann but nevertheless throws about these names and terms around to a general audience without explanation. Why does he do this? In order to gain power over his audience; to make himself into an unassailable authority. I think this is a common technique and LaRouche uses it well...and often.

"Speaking of which.. . Your comment about me being a true believer was totally stupid."

I don't think I called you a true believer. If I did that was not my intention, because I really don't believe you are. Soulcircle is another matter however...

"But you take an interest in the principles of the cult of capitalism enough invest and maybe even dance with glee around your swelling 9 month stock portfolios."

I don't own any stock, but I am doing very well with my work...Of course family ties to Dick Cheney and membership in several secret societies hasn't hurt any either. ;-)



YellowBeard420
Registered User
(12/4/03 2:24 am)
Reply
Re: Now that we're done being deprogrammed
Etzchaim wrote (12/2/03): "fed up with the self-rightious, control freak deprogrammers on the Walrus"

Hey, that sounds like me! But Etz, guess what? I actually agree with *all* your points here, not some -- all. I'm very impressed. You seem to be doing all right. It looks as though you are the last one who needs deprogramming here; you don't seem to be carrying much mental baggage. Your thought process is flowing like music here. It's truth that I hold most dear, and I'm hearing it here from you. That's why I have to comment here. I hate to speak against some of Punk Yogi's views because I love his SRF fiction that he's written. He's a great writer and I admire that. Few things I read actually make me laugh out loud -- his comedy material is wonderful and really hits the spot for me. But the conspiracy theory stuff is kind of 'out there', like Area 51 'out there'. Punk's probably not going to write any happy stuff for me now, but I have to stand up for what is truth, where ever it comes from regardless of the consequences.

Etz wrote (11/29/03): "Crazy. We're all crazy...that's what's destroying America."

I'm sorry, but this is the truth of the matter.

> "He thinks that if we remove Cheney and the other alleged Nazis and Satanic Beings, it would actually do something. It won't. The problem is much deeper. Other Satanic Beings would just rise to replace the ones we've removed, and really, the Devil is in the details." (Etz, 12/1/03)

Once again, very true. This is so plainly obvious that I cannot understand what is stirring in peoples minds preventing them from seeing this. I suppose it's simply the projection of all the nastiness within ourselves onto external entities. I'll try to work it out later, no need to get into a YellowBeard rant here.

One thing disturbing that I noticed in Punk Yogi's article was the use of "we" and "us" always in reference to the United States. Personally, I view this as tribalism. I think when we use the terms "we/us" it should refer to every single human being and creature crawling on this great earth. Anything less is a crime against the Self with resides in all things equally.

Once again, I'm very sorry, but this is just flat out insane (I'll explain why after the quote):

"Since that time, to the present, you had the continuation of this kind of operation, trying to destroy the United States—the War of 1812 involvement against us, was an attempt to destroy the United States. Other things were done: The war with Mexico was an attempt to destroy the United States. The Civil War was organized by these people, to destroy the United States. The occupation of Mexico, in 1863, was done from there, as part of an effort to destroy the United States. And, the thing was, it was not just our country they wanted to destroy: They wanted to destroy the tradition of the American Revolution, of the American republic, because we represented the alternative model to this Anglo-Dutch Liberal parliamentary form of government, which the British ruled."
-- Punk Yogi (11/28/03)

These cults [or is it just a single one, I'm not real sure on the details of this particular conspiracy theory, forgive me, there's a lot of material on this thread] are pretty darn impressive to be able to instigate all these events. It's like saying they have the power to make the sun rise. All this talk about people out to trying to destroy the Holy republic of the United States -- it's excessive paranoia -- "we" are not that important so as every one is out to get "us". Now I personally do happen to live in the United States, but I certainly do not think the world revolves around "us". This just sounds like post 911 paranoia. This is why we're at war, because of paranoia similar to this reasoning. They're out to get us. We must defend ourselves -- attack, attack, attack. The end is coming ... nooo!

> "if Cheney remains in office through the coming election, next year, you must not expect the United States to survive: It will not." -- Punk Yogi

Our survival is at stake! We must move into immediate action without thinking -- kill everyone who is not American! God help us.

Punk Yogi
Registered User
(12/4/03 2:51 am)
Reply 		Re: To Ringbearer7
"The point I was making is that LaRouche, in all likelihood, has not even a basic understanding of the mathematics created by Gauss, Dirichlet and Riemann but nevertheless throws about these names and terms around to a general audience without explanation. Why does he do this? In order to gain power over his audience; to make himself into an unassailable authority. I think this is a common technique and LaRouche uses it well...and often."



His throwing about of names and terms to a general audience without explanation is quite discourteous, isn't it? Your theory is entirely plausible. But it was never an issue for me personally. I can often interpret complex texts at first reading, so his stuff just seemed erudite but not incomprehensible. Ever try reading Noam Chomsky? He's got a very dry style which put me off when I first read him.

Could it be he's a geek?
Could it be he's a wannabe of philosophy?
Could it be he's the devil in disguise?
Could it be shadows making patterns in our eyes?

He who knows knows, naught else knows


Edited by: Punk Yogi at: 12/4/03 3:54 am
Punk Yogi
Registered User
(12/4/03 3:47 am)
Reply 		Hi Yellowbeard :-)
"It looks as though you are the last one who needs deprogramming here; you don't seem to be carrying much mental baggage."


Swami Deprogram-ananda ... formerly know as the huckster Yellowbeard.



"I hate to speak against some of Punk Yogi's views because I love his SRF fiction that he's written. He's a great writer and I admire that. Few things I read actually make me laugh out loud -- his comedy material is wonderful and really hits the spot for me. But the conspiracy theory stuff is kind of 'out there', like Area 51 'out there'. "

I am a very good man, but a very bad wizard.



"Punk's probably not going to write any happy stuff for me now, but I have to stand up for what is truth, where ever it comes from regardless of the consequences."


Please repeat:

I, Yellowbeard, am a very deserving person
I deserve happy stuff.
I deserve to have happy stuff written for me ... by Punk
I will stand up for truth even in a moving car in a tunnel
Regardless of the consequences..... ooops @$@#$!@#%% Crash
I Yyehlowbeer d have a hed a chhe



Crazy. We're all crazy...that's what's destroying America."

Oh really? And for a moment there I thought it was the ozone layer.



> "He thinks that if we remove Cheney and the other alleged Nazis and Satanic Beings, it would actually do something. It won't. The problem is much deeper. Other Satanic Beings would just rise to replace the ones we've removed, and really, the Devil is in the details." (Etz, 12/1/03)

Punk thinks we should wipe the mold AND fix the roof.




This is so plainly obvious that I cannot understand what is stirring in peoples minds preventing them from seeing this. I suppose it's simply the projection of all the nastiness within ourselves onto external entities. I'll try to work it out later, no need to get into a YellowBeard rant here.

It's called common human stupidity.... with emphasis on the word "common"



One thing disturbing that I noticed in Punk Yogi's article was the use of "we" and "us" always in reference to the United States.


Ahem! Punk never uses "we" or "us" when talking about the abstraction called the people of the United States. Punk even avoids using the term "America" when in reference only to the United States as there is also Central America and South America. The article, incidentally, is not Punk Yogi's article. He has no claim of ownership on it. I believe the article belongs to a Mr. Lyndon Larouche. Punk merely made the mistake of posting it on the Walrus.



Personally, I view this as tribalism. I think when we use the terms "we/us" it should refer to every single human being and creature crawling on this great earth. Anything less is a crime against the Self with resides in all things equally.

Have you forgotten about the creatures in other galaxies? That would be entirely and indubitably and galactico-politically incorrect.




"Since that time, to the present, you had the continuation of this kind of operation, trying to destroy the United States—the War of 1812 involvement against us, was an attempt to destroy the United States. Other things were done: The war with Mexico was an attempt to destroy the United States. The Civil War was organized by these people, to destroy the United States. The occupation of Mexico, in 1863, was done from there, as part of an effort to destroy the United States. And, the thing was, it was not just our country they wanted to destroy: They wanted to destroy the tradition of the American Revolution, of the American republic, because we represented the alternative model to this Anglo-Dutch Liberal parliamentary form of government, which the British ruled."
-- Punk Yogi (11/28/03)



"Since that time, to the present, you had the continuation of this kind of operation, trying to destroy the United States—the War of 1812 involvement against us, was an attempt to destroy the United States. Other things were done: The war with Mexico was an attempt to destroy the United States. The Civil War was organized by these people, to destroy the United States. The occupation of Mexico, in 1863, was done from there, as part of an effort to destroy the United States. And, the thing was, it was not just our country they wanted to destroy: They wanted to destroy the tradition of the American Revolution, of the American republic, because we represented the alternative model to this Anglo-Dutch Liberal parliamentary form of government, which the British ruled."
-- Larouche (11/28/03)





"we" are not that important so as every one is out to get "us". Now I personally do happen to live in the United States, but I certainly do not think the world revolves around "us".\

Ooooooh don't say that too close around Bush. He's planned an endless war against the forces of global terrorism and he needs your tax dollars to fight against the evil al-Qachadoodle




> "if Cheney remains in office through the coming election, next year, you must not expect the United States to survive: It will not." -- Punk Yogi


"if Cheney remains in office through the coming election, next year, you must not expect the United States to survive: It will not." --Larouche



Exhibit A:
"Our survival is at stake! We must move into immediate action without thinking -- kill everyone who is not American! God help us. " -- Yellowbeard


Ladies and gentlemen allow me to present to you conclusive evidence that Yellowbeard reads but doesn't comprehend. [see Exhibit A above]

Edited by: Punk Yogi at: 12/4/03 3:58 am
YellowBeard420
Registered User
(12/4/03 6:25 am)
Reply
Re: Hi Yellowbeard :-)
Punk Yogi wrote: "The article, incidentally, is not Punk Yogi's article. He has no claim of ownership on it. I believe the article belongs to a Mr. Lyndon Larouche."

Ahh, no wonder, I thought the writing style wasn't up to your standards -- I was thinking that you must have been inebriated while writing it. Alrighty, this is the work of the conspiracy theory guy that everyone's talking about here. You think I would have caught on with the "by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr." written above it. Looks like I'm the one that's inebriated.

> "I was going to do something similar up there in Vermont yesterday, at the university at Middlebury, but they wanted me to shorten the presentation from three-quarters of an hour to a half an hour, which I did." (Larouchy)

I was thinking, "this is pretty neat, Punk Yogi must be a university professor or something; he's out lecturing."

Lesson learned, I'll do some homework before jumping into threads. The views were so insane, I just had to say something immediately. It's like getting hit with a stick, you say ouch instantly.

> "Have you forgotten about the creatures in other galaxies? That would be entirely and indubitably and galactico-politically incorrect." (Punk Yogi)

No I did not. I just couldn't come up with a nice way to word them in. :)

> "Punk's probably not going to write any happy stuff for me now." (YellowBeard)

YellowBeard often talks like a child. I don't like to surround myself with psychological defenses and pretenses. I always try to speak from the heart as best as I can. If we don't actually live the spiritual life, and merely talk about it, there's really no point in the whole affair outside of limited entertainment value. I consider this a strength and not a weakness as most look at it. The world can be very crisp and fresh through these eyes. Without this innocence, what room is there for love?

soulcircle
Registered User
(12/4/03 8:43 pm)
Reply 		Punk Yogi....Cheney's Reply
larouchepub.com/other/200...reaks.html

Ringbearer7
Registered User
(12/4/03 10:38 pm)
Reply 		Re: Punk Yogi....Cheney's Reply
Soulcircle,

As part of a smear campaign someone wanted me to share the following link with you:

www.conspire.com/larouche.html

Do you like the Grateful Dead? :-)

Edited by: Ringbearer7 at: 12/4/03 11:08 pm
soulcircle
Registered User
(12/4/03 11:13 pm)
Reply 		Re: Punk Yogi....Cheney's Reply
I like politically conscious hard-hitting hip hop
KRS-ONE was the most recent concert

OneTaste
Registered User
(12/4/03 11:39 pm)
Reply 		Larouche Plays Dead
Ringbearer, I can't thank you enough for that link. As the resident Deadhead around here, I loved it. Larouche’s stunning leaps of illogic are almost as amusing as his fractured syntax. Bush has nothing on him in the latter regard.

I thought MK-ULTRA was the CIA’s doing, not British Intelligence. The things I learn here.
:rolleyes

Ringbearer7
Registered User
(12/5/03 12:11 am)
Reply 		Re: Punk Yogi....Cheney's Reply
Hip hop? Aren't you a bit old for that? ;-)

Politically conscious? What does that mean? Would Dick Cheney qualify? I would imagine he is quite conscious of politics. But I can't see him being into Hip Hop however.

Here's a piece about the young man who died in Germany under suspicious circumstances (as mentioned in the LaRouchie article you suplied):

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...cult09.xml

You have let you imagination go free so many times in extrapolating the faults of SRF and the evil intentions of the SRF leadership. Can you create an ode for this young man whose life was taken from him by a cult of a different sort?

Here's another article you might like from the Pasadena City College paper.

www.pcc-courieronline.com...ouche.html

"School is a bunch of bullshit and you should join the movement fulltime."

Hey, some of my students came to me telling me that the LaRoucies were telling them this too. Cool. Must be one of their selling pitches.

You know Soulcircle, the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.

Ringbearer7
Registered User
(12/5/03 12:39 am)
Reply 		Re: Larouche Plays Dead
You are most welcome.

"I thought MK-ULTRA was the CIA’s doing, not British Intelligence. The things I learn here."

You are missing the point I am afraid. Ultimately this all stems from a Jewish-Freemason alliance started in the late 1700's which precipitated the French revolution and currently plots to establish a world government. The CIA and British Intelligence (along with the Grateful Dead, Beatles, Chia Pets and Niel Diamond) are merely cogs in the machinery that was set in motion centuries ago. Of course these ideas are nothing new and are fully supported by the theory of p-analogues developed by Hausdorff, Klein, and Kolmogorov and the obvious conclusions by Wiener concerning the folding of the periodic doubling of space and its impact of population dynamics in a Baire space with periodic boundary conditions. Of course, it is clear to the layman that the Grateful Dead will automatically arise given the correct boundary conditions. It is these boundry condtions that we must wrest from the control of Jewish-Freemason cabal if we to ever have any hope of living peacefully without the threat of Chia Pets taking over our organic vegtable gardens. God help us.

OneTaste
Registered User
(12/5/03 1:19 am)
Reply 		Re: Larouche Plays Dead
Quote:
Of course these ideas are nothing new and are fully supported by the theory of p-analogues developed by Hausdorff, Klein, and Kolmogorov and the obvious conclusions by Wiener concerning the folding of the periodic doubling of space and its impact of population dynamics in a Baire space with periodic boundary conditions.


Uh, RB, must you always belabor the obvious? The above really should go without saying, hmm?

Page 1 2 3 4 5 << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Email This To a Friend Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies Click to receive email notification of replies
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies Click to stop receiving email notification of replies
jump to:

- SRF Walrus - Not the Main Stream -



Powered By ezboard® Ver. 7.32
Copyright ©1999-2005 ezboard, Inc.