Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic FamilyDissolution

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
been
and are the true seat of democracy. The freedom (to vote) that men
have
had to fight for; women have had naturally even under the most
repressive
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
the
rich dominate them); then that is the way it shall be. The women have
thus
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
countries.
So it is no wonder that women would chose to continue this society
when
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
pwer
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
us.
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
of
haves and have-nots in the Islamic world. -but not by enslaving any in
the
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
the
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
US).
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
so
much destructiveness of life themselves, that they themselves became
the
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.
Yet
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
an
independent party apart from the 3rd world which is too downtrodden
and oppressed to defend itself. -To act against the rich in ways which
may
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
spared.
And now the kingdom of God exists not in any temple, but all over.
What
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
these
terrorists have done.
Since I have rejected terrorism as an acceptable way to get things
done (becausethrough relying so heavily on destructiveness, it becomes
the
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
Isriael.
The reason I rejected terrorism was because it was too destructive.
But
under special ciercumstances where one is unable to escape
destruction:
where destruction is forced on one: where destruction is unavoidable:
then
my objection due to destructiveness is invalid and no longer applies.
If
some forse makes your life so unbearable that it isn't worth living,
then a suicide bombing is a reasonable answer to that situation
because
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
concern.
-Once an overwhelming destructiveness is present and exists; I reject
thearguement that it can be contained -that some can be made to bear
the
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
a
self defense right to retaliate or that it cannot be prevented for
that
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
against
thosewho had not caused their destruction. So here, my objection to
this
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
of
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
existance.
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
bad
as fundamentalist islamic regims like under the taliban. Oh, not for
us
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
stopthe
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
oppressing
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
that
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
incursions
into Palestinian territory. Isrial is being the control freak now:
-trying to hold onto economic oppression of the Palestinian people
while
trying to stamp out their retaliation for the hell that Isrial puts
them
through.
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
othercultures.
And the Arabs have come up with a way in which an oppressed people
may
share their oppression with their oppressors -the suicide bombing.
Otherwise an oppressed people has little option but to sit there and
take
it: and although they are justified in retaliating in self defense
against their oppressor, they are otherwise pretty ill equiped to do
so
-being put down by the oppression from their oppressor.
As the islamic world has given us the new idea of (or new application
of)
the suicide bombing, which has validity in a limited number of
situaitions ie only where an oppressor is oppressing one. (such as
what
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
primitive
groups have been forced to take it and have not been able to return
the
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
to
them. However, these advanced societies seem to make it a point to
return
the destruction which individuals do to society, back upon them (ie
the
concept of justice againsy crimminals). Perhaps because they view the
individual as a technololgical primative (compared to the group as a
whole).
When the US wiped out the American indians, that was OK because they
were
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
they
were primitives. When Isrial cuts power and water lines; places
concrete
barriers,buldozes and shells Palestinian areas, that's OK, because
that
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
what
it dishes out at the hands of a more technologically primitive
culture.
(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
Palestinians
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
an
advanced one. As of late, these technologically primitve societies
have
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
showing
that superior technological might and riches don't matter: what goes
around DOES actually come around.
The more technologically primitive Palestinians are inescapably caught
in
a destructive situation. That is basically a hell for them. And they
are
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
needs
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
(or
destructiveness), that that is the wise course. I guess my position on
the Palestinian suicide bombing is that I understand it and that I
don't
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
what
they want to more technologically primitive societies and be able to
getaway with it. And that just because the Palestinians have only
rocks,
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
a
right (of self defense) to retaliate -that by their retaliation, they
are
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,
then
it would all be over in short order and would not continue to fester
on
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
oppression
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
who
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
just
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
and
are not forced into destruction and destructiveness, but if they
choose
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
the
right of retaliation that nobody else has, due to Isrieli oppression,
and
also recognize that the Palestinian people have been able to express
that
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
what
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
able,
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
a
part of that destructive situation. So at this point, I will not be
participating in or helping the Palestinians with their suicide
bombings.
My life is still worth living without being a suicide bomber or
otherwise
being involved in destructiveness. And I caution others against
getting
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
Quada.
We had no other choice. But I caution against going after other groups
in
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
against
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
that
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
bombings
will backfire against Arab extremism. -with their extreme intolerance
of
other cultures/religions, they may themselves be the target of suicide
bombings by those whose lives they have made too miserable to live.

FamilyDissolution

🔗frog3ie <frog3ie@...>