On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 05:16:45AM +0800, David Palmer. wrote: > On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:57:12 -0400 > Roberto Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > klaus imgrund wrote: > > >>>>Anyplace where there is a large group of young males who express a > > > > > >>>>desire to kill Americans AND is unchecked by their government is a > > > > > >>>>legitimate target. It's the "unchecked by their government" which > > >is >>>the key. Yes, we are inconsistent about who we went after > > >first -- that >>>is political reality. > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>You going to GPL those guys? > > >>> > > >> > > >>NAZIS !!! > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Who? The FSF? > > > > No. I made an unsuccesful attempt at invoking Godwin's Law: > > > > ********* > > http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html > > > > Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows > > longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler > > approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this > > occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has > > automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law > > thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread > > length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized > > codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to > > invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful. > > ********* > > > > I thought since we hit the point of dicsussing terrorism, Nazis > > weren't a stretch, and the discussion had lost any vestiges of > > usefuleness(relating to the GPL). Of course, since my mention was > > with the specific intent of activating Godwin's Law, it didn't work. > > > > -Roberto > > > > One of the most central policies of the German Nazi party was the > banishment of national boundaries, a centralised world government, and > international free trade.
Nazi Germany set out to do this by conquering other countries the way the old colonial powers did. Nowadays this is political suicide because it makes the powerful country look bad. Think of the U.S. in Vietnam. So nowadays the way the Ruling Classes operate is to finance corrupt third world governments that will do the dirty work for them. Think of the Reagan administration's secret support for the contras in Nicaragua, they had to do it secretly, because contrary to what many people think, people in the U.S. wouldn't put up with that sort of thing nowadays. Also the U.S. is most definately opposed to a centralized world government, as is made clear by their hatred for anything international, e.g. the *United Nations*, the *International Criminal Court*, etc. This is a government that is pretty much in bed with private power (corporate capital). Private power wants just enough government to protect private power. And the U.S. is *only* interested in free trade between unequal countries. That is to say the U.S. wants free trade with poor countries, not with rich powerful countries. Even so, the U.S. has a good deal of protectionism. Just to give one example, the softwood lumber industry in Canada is going through some problems because the U.S. is putting a huge duty on it, and this is hurting the construction industry in the U.S. through higher costs of building materials. Another example is the U.S. duty on imported sugar, which is pushing the U.S. candy industry to build factories in Canada, where they can get cheap imported sugar, etc. Bijan -- Bijan Soleymani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.crasseux.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
