|
Cynical jaded New Yorker wants to know: When you lend someone
counterfeit money, are you still doing that person a good turn? Should
expect repayment, with interest? In real or counterfeit money?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 12:30
PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Klebnikov
Michael was just asking how the Russian
oligarchs would go about making use of Chechen freedom fighters; my point was
only that, in general, there is a surprisingly efficient global community of
violent men and no particular instance of thugs of two kinds working together
ought to necessarily be regarded as surprising. The
Korea-Birmingham(UK) connection was the subject of an episode of Panorama a
couple of weeks ago, which is why it stuck in my mind. NB that the
"Official" IRA is not the same thing as the "Provisional" IRA which put the
bombs in pubs (and neither is the same as the "Real IRA" which is the only
currently active nationalist terrorist group), and that the Officials have
been basically dormant since the 1980s.
dd
In a message dated 7/11/2004 1:20:45 PM Central Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's a useful
corollorary (?) of social network theory that almost all bad
lads are
joined up together, via a smallish number of "connected
node"
individuals. The North Korean government's forged $100
bills ended up financing the ecstasy trade in Birmingham, via the Libyans,
the mafiya and the Official (Maoist)
IRA.
dd
Comment
Explain the context of "bad" and why one would link the
government of North Korea with the Mafia . . . although I have no moral
gripe with counterfeit money. It is my understanding the biggest
counterfeiter of currency is the world today is the US government. Is not
fiat money counterfeit by definition?
Why is this important or rather what is the meaning?
I have no principle opposition to counterfeiting . . .
only bourgeois property. Do you mean Birmingham in Alabama or England? Just
curious. Does it follow that without the North Korea government there would
be no ecstasy trade in Birmingham? If not . . . what is the point of this?
Dope as consumption always drives private accumulation of
capital . . . going back to the evolution of spices and sugar as items of
trade. Molasses . . . liquor and opium came later . . . but its all dope . .
. converted into a "need" diving private accumulation.
Is this a moral position on how the IRA raises money? Is
it better to rob banks . . . cheat the tax man . . . or put a few products
in ones purse while shopping?
I am all ears.
Melvin P.
|
