Why are the Chinese...

Joe Fineman wrote:
> generalconyers.TakeThisOut@googlemail.com writes:
>
>> ...having the Olympics? Or rather, shouldn't we be boycotting it?
>
> See G. Orwell, "The Sporting Spirit". I ignore the Olympics wherever
> they are.


....and I wrote a moment ago:

>
> The preparations for the Beijing Olympics have been ghastly even
considered by themselves, in ways ranging from unfair water diversions
to cruel mass killings of the city's cats.
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/27/world/main3883686.shtml
>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_...icle_id
>
> (Further evidence for my long-standing theory that fear and dislike
of cats is the surest sign of a fascist.)
>
>
> /M
>


But I'd also meant to ask, can anyone think of a way to boycott these
particular Olympics more affirmatively if one passively wouldn't have
watched any Olympics anyway?

Frustrating, isn't it, this whole notion that one's power as a citizen
derives from one's power as a consumer to patronize or boycott. It's a
nice idea until you realize that, the less money you have, the less
citizenship you have. Seems better to operate otherwise on principle,
even though money does in practice buy influence most of the time. Every
once in a long while, plain numbers, even of people without money, do
matter, e.g. on election days.

/M
 >> Stay informed about: Why are the Chinese... 

On 16 Mar, 23:38, Joe Fineman <jo....TakeThisOut@verizon.net> wrote:
> generalcony....TakeThisOut@googlemail.com writes:
> > ...having the Olympics? Or rather, shouldn't we be boycotting it?
>
> See G. Orwell, "The Sporting Spirit".  I ignore the Olympics wherever
> they are.

Yeah cos' someone being better than someone else at something is a
uncomfortable thought for you, Uncle Joe, eh?
 >> Stay informed about: Why are the Chinese... 

On 17 Mar, 06:05, Martha Bridegam <bride....TakeThisOut@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Joe Fineman wrote:
> > generalcony....TakeThisOut@googlemail.com writes:
>
> >> ...having the Olympics? Or rather, shouldn't we be boycotting it?
>
> > See G. Orwell, "The Sporting Spirit".  I ignore the Olympics wherever
> > they are.
>
> ...and I wrote a moment ago:
>
>  >
>  > The preparations for the Beijing Olympics have been ghastly even
> considered by themselves, in ways ranging from unfair water diversions
> to cruel mass killings of the city's cats.
>  >
>  >http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/27/world/main3883686.shtml
>  >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in....
>  >
>  > (Further evidence for my long-standing theory that fear and dislike
> of cats is the surest sign of a fascist.)
>  >
>  >
>  > /M
>  >
>
> But I'd also meant to ask, can anyone think of a way to boycott these
> particular Olympics more affirmatively if one passively wouldn't have
> watched any Olympics anyway?
>
> Frustrating, isn't it, this whole notion that one's power as a citizen
> derives from one's power as a consumer to patronize or boycott. It's a
> nice idea until you realize that, the less money you have, the less
> citizenship you have. Seems better to operate otherwise on principle,
> even though money does in practice buy influence most of the time. Every
> once in a long while, plain numbers, even of people without money, do
> matter, e.g. on election days.
>
> /M

What about a poverty Olympics? I suppose it would be unfair in the
sense of it would be an organized inequality of inequalities, but
still...

Hey, your stuff about Birth of a Nation reminded me of Susan Faludi's
latest book.
 >> Stay informed about: Why are the Chinese... 

I would boycott the olympics, but the thing is my training is going
really well. I only need to shave another 6 seconds off my time and I
can run in the 100m
 >> Stay informed about: Why are the Chinese... 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Why are the Chinese... 

On 20 Mar, 17:04, henry... RemoveThis @eircom.net (Henry) wrote:
> Martha Bridegam <bride... RemoveThis @pacbell.net> wrote:
> > generalcony... RemoveThis @googlemail.com wrote:
> > > Musso was just a lefty who followed the money. He'd generally fit in
> > > the collectivist fantasies of the upper middle class left, be they in
> > > San Fran or Milano.
>
> > "Believe, Fight, Obey"?
>
> > You don't know from upper middle class, let alone left.
>
> There seems to be a lot of that going around.
>
> I'm always amused by these wingnut clowns who claim that the Nazis were
> leftist. 'Yes! Yes!', they insist. 'Don't you know what _Nazi_ means?!?
> It means National _Socialist_ !!! See?!?'
>
> cheers,
>
> Henry

The Nazi Party was a collectivist political organisation, economically
well to the left of the British Labour Party, which is - sarcastic or
ironic jokes and observations aside - a socialist party. That is a
fact, Henry; get used to it. It was socialism geared towards fanatical
nationalism, as opposed to internationalism.
I notice you are not archiving your posts. Coward.
 >> Stay informed about: Why are the Chinese... 

generalconyers DeleteThis @googlemail.com wrote:
> On 20 Mar, 17:04, henry... DeleteThis @eircom.net (Henry) wrote:
>> Martha Bridegam <bride... DeleteThis @pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> generalcony... DeleteThis @googlemail.com wrote:
>>>> Musso was just a lefty who followed the money. He'd generally fit in
>>>> the collectivist fantasies of the upper middle class left, be they in
>>>> San Fran or Milano.
>>> "Believe, Fight, Obey"?
>>> You don't know from upper middle class, let alone left.
>> There seems to be a lot of that going around.
>>
>> I'm always amused by these wingnut clowns who claim that the Nazis were
>> leftist. 'Yes! Yes!', they insist. 'Don't you know what _Nazi_ means?!?
>> It means National _Socialist_ !!! See?!?'
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> Henry
>
> The Nazi Party was a collectivist political organisation, economically
> well to the left of the British Labour Party, which is - sarcastic or
> ironic jokes and observations aside - a socialist party. That is a
> fact, Henry; get used to it. It was socialism geared towards fanatical
> nationalism, as opposed to internationalism.
> I notice you are not archiving your posts. Coward.
>


Henry, unfortunately times have changed to the point where merely
repeating a cod-historical absurdity like that doesn't finish the
conversation any more. You have to explain why it's absurd or people
will take it at face value.

To explain: the N*zi Party was the prototypical fascist organization. It
glorified big business, authority, tradition, racial "purity," violent
scapegoating in the name of law and order, dictatorial top-down control
by a charismatic leader, and, as Robbie says, fanatical nationalism. It
was not only non-democratic, it promoted contempt toward democratic
approaches to government. It characterized the role of the citizen as
almost entirely private, to be dominated by work, family and faith, with
the exception of uncritical acclamation for the leader's monopoly of
civic affairs, and cheerfully acceptance of duties such as military
service if imposed by the leader.

It was ergo not socialist. Wikipedia doesn't do badly on a definition of
socialism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

/M
 >> Stay informed about: Why are the Chinese... 

On 23 Mar, 18:35, Martha Bridegam <bride....TakeThisOut@pacbell.net> wrote:
> generalcony....TakeThisOut@googlemail.com wrote:
> > On 20 Mar, 17:04, henry....TakeThisOut@eircom.net (Henry) wrote:
> >> Martha Bridegam <bride....TakeThisOut@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>> generalcony....TakeThisOut@googlemail.com wrote:
> >>>> Musso was just a lefty who followed the money. He'd generally fit in
> >>>> the collectivist fantasies of the upper middle class left, be they in
> >>>> San Fran or Milano.
> >>> "Believe, Fight, Obey"?
> >>> You don't know from upper middle class, let alone left.
> >> There seems to be a lot of that going around.
>
> >> I'm always amused by these wingnut clowns who claim that the Nazis were
> >> leftist. 'Yes! Yes!', they insist. 'Don't you know what _Nazi_ means?!?
> >> It means National _Socialist_ !!! See?!?'
>
> >> cheers,
>
> >> Henry
>
> > The Nazi Party was a collectivist political organisation, economically
> > well to the left of the British Labour Party, which is - sarcastic or
> > ironic jokes and observations aside - a socialist party. That is a
> > fact, Henry; get used to it. It was socialism geared towards fanatical
> > nationalism, as opposed to internationalism.
> > I notice you are not archiving your posts. Coward.
>
> Henry, unfortunately times have changed to the point where merely
> repeating a cod-historical absurdity like that doesn't finish the
> conversation any more. You have to explain why it's absurd or people
> will take it at face value.
>
> To explain: the N*zi Party was the prototypical fascist organization. It
> glorified big business, authority, tradition, racial "purity," violent
> scapegoating in the name of law and order, dictatorial top-down control
> by a charismatic leader, and, as Robbie says, fanatical nationalism. It
> was not only non-democratic, it promoted contempt toward democratic
> approaches to government. It characterized the role of the citizen as
> almost entirely private, to be dominated by work, family and faith, with
> the exception of uncritical acclamation for the leader's monopoly of
> civic affairs, and cheerfully acceptance of duties such as military
> service if imposed by the leader.
>
> It was ergo not socialist.

It was collectivist. It had all of the above but it was collectivist
and is, therefore, more close related to socialism than socialists
like to think. Hence your squawking.


Wikipedia doesn't do badly on a definition of
> socialism:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
>
> /M- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
 >> Stay informed about: Why are the Chinese... 

On 23 Mar, 18:53, henry....RemoveThis@eircom.net (Henry) wrote:
> <generalcony....RemoveThis@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Coward.
>
> You, who change your online identity as often as most people change
> their socks, have the nerve to call anyone else 'coward'? That's a good
> one.
>

My posts are pretty recognisable. The vast majority have been done as
ROBBIE.



> Robbie, you can blather on all you want. Nothing you say will
> retroactively make the NSDAP into a 'left' organisation. That is the
> historical fact; get over it.

Examine their economic, civic and social arrangemensts; they were
collectivists. Get over it.
 >> Stay informed about: Why are the Chinese... 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Why are the Chinese... 

generalconyers.TakeThisOut@googlemail.com wrote:
> On 23 Mar, 18:53, henry....TakeThisOut@eircom.net (Henry) wrote:
>> <generalcony....TakeThisOut@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Coward.
>> You, who change your online identity as often as most people change
>> their socks, have the nerve to call anyone else 'coward'? That's a good
>> one.
>>
>
> My posts are pretty recognisable. The vast majority have been done as
> ROBBIE.
>
>
>
>> Robbie, you can blather on all you want. Nothing you say will
>> retroactively make the NSDAP into a 'left' organisation. That is the
>> historical fact; get over it.
>
> Examine their economic, civic and social arrangemensts; they were
> collectivists. Get over it.
>
>


Then arguably the British monarchy is "collectivist" too because the
monarch is said to embody the nation. In fact, by you, everybody's
"collectivist" except Robinson Crusoe. I suppose "everybody" includes
Nazis, but so what?

/M
 >> Stay informed about: Why are the Chinese...