Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
11-28-2012, 08:34 PM,
#91
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
(11-28-2012, 08:00 PM)GasseGeir Wrote: We're actually very much in agreement. Trouble is, however, that many anarchists also reject the chieftain principle. What they seem to want is a kind of "extreme democracy" and extreme relativity. There is a natural order and Common Sense, and they seem to want to go against this.
[...]

How an anarchist society chooses to organize itself is not my concern. Who am I to decide for a masochist if he/she wants to be a humiliated slave by a sadistic dominatrix. That's their problem. That's what anarchism is about. As long as they don't force me to play their games I'm happy to leave them to their devices. I consider anarcho-primitivism to be superior to other forms, like anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-communism. That doesn't mean that I'll force fellow anarchists, be it capitalists or communists to live like me.

About the "chieftain principle" there have been anthropological studies proving that there is no such thing. People are egalitarian by nature, not because someone whispered in their ears in compulsory school what is the politically correct way to think.

(11-28-2012, 08:00 PM)GasseGeir Wrote: [...]
Anarchists can't do business very well. David Rockefeller, Bill Gates and Donald Trump can. Not because they might have been born rich, but because they understand structure and organization. They're definitely not anarchists. You can hardly build a large hotel chain or run an airline on an anarchist principle. You need centralization of power and hierarchy. You need a whole buch of rules and punishments for those that don't follow them. Anarchists think we can do without rules, except the old "just be nice to everybody and they'll surely be nice to you." Try to introduce anarchy in f.ex. the USA today. People would run amok and kill each other. You need someone who stands for order and leadership.
[...]

Being rich today doesn't mean they'll be just as rich in an anarchic society. Maybe they were lucky, maybe they benefited from State regulation. And anarchists understand structure and organization, they're not mentally inept. They have a problem with arbitrarily imposed structure and organization.

Punishment can be as simple as ostracism. Amazon and ebay work like that. If you do a crappy job you get crappy reviews which limit your ability to do crappy jobs in the future. In a tribal society ostracism and/or taboos work the same. Of course, you could devise a hugely complex and expensive system in which to incarcerate people for imaginary crimes against fictitious entities and still be within the bounds of anarchism, as long as those that might be put through that punishment agree to the rules beforehand. In practice this is highly unlikely for empirical reasons and energy economization.

(11-28-2012, 08:00 PM)GasseGeir Wrote: [...]
One sad fact that at least is very true today - is that most people seem to be quite dumb. They cannot be responsible for themselves. It'd be like the children running the kindergarten. A total dictatorship ruled with an iron hand would actually maybe be the best today. Provided that the dictator has the best interests for his people in mind. We could use someone like Ghaddafi - with all the guns in the world behind him. Then we could really see some positive changes. Smile

I'll be interested to know how a dictator could ever define what's good for a "quite dumb" person considering that morality is subjective. Dumb people might die early as a consequence of their actions or receive support from compassionate people that don't force their "compassion" and values on them. I don't see that as a problem.

About the current state of affairs in the USA (and the world actually) I believe that civilization will collapse from a number of reasons: energy availability decline, resources decline (function of energy), environmental change and natural ecosystems destruction, to name the most important. This will inevitably send the population crashing down. It's a matter of adaptation to this scenario that might determine if we start living in an anarchistic way as our ancestors did for most of our history or die in the attempt to preserve "progress" (hint: beware of technosalvationists Icon_biggrin)

Most people are dumbed down by compulsory education. Once that stops they won't be dumb anymore. That's why people need to spend so much time in school: to adapt to the ever more increasing complexity of their environment and to accept the premise that their environment must be the way it is. This is the acculturation of civilization.
Reply
11-28-2012, 11:36 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-29-2012, 12:05 AM by macfadden.)
#92
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
(11-28-2012, 07:23 PM)fujiinn Wrote: I don't understand what you mean when referencing Nietzsche's opinion.

You mentioned subjective morality and then cited the golden rule, in response I provided a link to some basic information on what is by far the most dominant system of morality on the earth.

The golden rule is a slave morality and should be denounced and repudiated.

(11-28-2012, 07:23 PM)fujiinn Wrote: The rest of your reply is unresponsive to my question. Maybe I've phrased it wrong. Let me try again: If people are mainly driven by greed or lust for power and material goods, why would a theory implying occult forces and known simply as NWO is needed to explain what is happening in the world? The point of this question has to do with Occam's Razor.

What kinds of "occult forces" are you referring to? Anyway I tthink Philip K Dick answered your question when he summed it up as follows: “They want to be the agents, not the victims, of history. They identify with God's power and believe they are godlike. That is their basic madness. They are overcome by some archtype; their egos have expanded psychotically so that they cannot tell where they begin and the godhead leaves off. It is not hubris, not pride; it is inflation of the ego to its ultimate — confusion between him who worships and that which is worshipped. Man has not eaten God; God has eaten man.”

I think the NWO is an exclusive ideology advanced by elitists who are obsessed with power and fascinated by all the wondrous possibilities that exercising that power may open to them.

(11-28-2012, 08:34 PM)fujiinn Wrote: People are egalitarian by nature


Good one. You are joking right? Do you know what counter-dominant behavior is? Do you know why some of our primitive ancestors adapted counter-dominant behavior as a strategy? BTW, is your name andre by any chance? Lulz.
Reply
11-29-2012, 07:19 AM,
#93
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
(11-28-2012, 11:36 PM)macfadden Wrote:
(11-28-2012, 07:23 PM)fujiinn Wrote: I don't understand what you mean when referencing Nietzsche's opinion.

You mentioned subjective morality and then cited the golden rule, in response I provided a link to some basic information on what is by far the most dominant system of morality on the earth.

The golden rule is a slave morality and should be denounced and repudiated.
[...]

It is my opinion that the Golden Rule is the only sensible morality. That doesn't mean that I'll force others to live by it. That doesn't mean I'm a defeatist pacifist. If you want to call it a slave morality, go ahead, I don't mind Icon_biggrin

(11-28-2012, 11:36 PM)macfadden Wrote:
(11-28-2012, 07:23 PM)fujiinn Wrote: The rest of your reply is unresponsive to my question. Maybe I've phrased it wrong. Let me try again: If people are mainly driven by greed or lust for power and material goods, why would a theory implying occult forces and known simply as NWO is needed to explain what is happening in the world? The point of this question has to do with Occam's Razor.

What kinds of "occult forces" are you referring to? Anyway I tthink Philip K Dick answered your question when he summed it up as follows: “They want to be the agents, not the victims, of history. They identify with God's power and believe they are godlike. That is their basic madness. They are overcome by some archtype; their egos have expanded psychotically so that they cannot tell where they begin and the godhead leaves off. It is not hubris, not pride; it is inflation of the ego to its ultimate — confusion between him who worships and that which is worshipped. Man has not eaten God; God has eaten man.”

I think the NWO is an exclusive ideology advanced by elitists who are obsessed with power and fascinated by all the wondrous possibilities that exercising that power may open to them.

Occult means hidden. As far as I know we don't know who the people described by Philip K. Dick are. We don't have their names, faces, etc. If we do have them, why is the "truther" movement not dealing with them instead of wasting time. If they're dead all our problems will fix themselves.

(11-28-2012, 11:36 PM)macfadden Wrote:
(11-28-2012, 08:34 PM)fujiinn Wrote: People are egalitarian by nature
Good one. You are joking right? Do you know what counter-dominant behavior is? Do you know why some of our primitive ancestors adapted counter-dominant behavior as a strategy? BTW, is your name andre by any chance? Lulz.

I'm guessing that you think that hunter-gatherers will equally share the meat from the hunt when it's enough to go around but fight for a larger share when it's not enough. Do you have some real-life examples?

I'm not andre and I don't understand your obsession regarding him. Has he done something to you? As far as I know he's preaching total fascism not anarchism.
Reply
11-29-2012, 07:59 AM, (This post was last modified: 11-29-2012, 08:01 AM by macfadden.)
#94
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
(11-29-2012, 07:19 AM)fujiinn Wrote: I'm not andre and I don't understand your obsession regarding him.

Lulz. What a funny thing to say for someone who has no idea who andre is.
If you're not andre then you're either parroting him point by point, word for word, or you're parroting whoever he is parroting. Maybe it is just a coincidence or maybe great minds really do think alike Wink .

Anyway, I am obsessed with andre, I'm a huge fan. He is a highly gifted imbecile who offers endless delight for any who have a true appreciation of teh lulz.
Reply
11-29-2012, 08:31 AM,
#95
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
(11-29-2012, 07:59 AM)macfadden Wrote:
(11-29-2012, 07:19 AM)fujiinn Wrote: I'm not andre and I don't understand your obsession regarding him.

Lulz. What a funny thing to say for someone who has no idea who andre is.
If you're not andre then you're either parroting him point by point, word for word, or you're parroting whoever he is parroting. Maybe it is just a coincidence or maybe great minds really do think alike Wink .
[...]

I know who andre is. You yourself let us know on the forum about him. And I've know even before that. If you think that anarchism = fascism, well, this brings us to the next point:

(11-29-2012, 07:59 AM)macfadden Wrote: [...]
Anyway, I am obsessed with andre, I'm a huge fan. He is a highly gifted imbecile who offers endless delight for any who have a true appreciation of teh lulz.

... talking about imbeciles Confused
Reply
11-29-2012, 01:18 PM,
#96
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
Quote: fujiinn wrote

This looks like you don't actually believe in property rights at the point of punishing people that transgress against you using as proxy some of your belongings, as long as they don't believe in property rights. Why is this important?

I don't care who believes what they believe and why, they can believe whatever they want, beliefs don't mean jack shit.

They just can't initiate aggression because a non-aggressed individual free to think and create is the basic unit of all progress, in principle, even if that progress is only growing a friggin apple tree in your back yard.

It is an INALIENABLE, SELF EVIDENT truth and therefore a right derived from that truth. No more proof is necessary to prove it anymore than saying 'The sun shines.'

This is the requirement for any advanced civilization and all other things being equal, the more of this freedom you have, the more your society will progress.

This ONLY applies to societies that have stomped USURY into the toilet boil where it belongs since usury is the UBER-FRAUD of all frauds and initiations of aggression into the very blood of nations.

There is no point in even discussing anything if you're still living on a friggin plantation owned by a bunch of usurious Jew bankers.

16 countries at the turn of the 20th century and now 155 countries the world over have a Rothschild controlled central band through the BIS, central bank of the central banks. Go listen to that Stephen Goodson / Deanna Spingola audio I posted a few posts previous to this.

And obviously, there is no such thing as 'rights' without property rights since the fruit of your labor is what represents how much energy you have expended in a positive, constructive, wealth creating direction, even as little as growing a garden and that is required for your very survival. And it is THAT that can be taking away from you by some other human or neanderthal entity who prefers to sit on their ass and not work, such as members of a certain tribe we all know and are supposed to love so much as our 'staunch allies.' Taking the representation of your expended energy from you is the equivalent of making you a slave.

I'm not the biggest Alice Ronenbaum fan but I don't think what Ayn Rand said about the Indians vs. European civilization is 'fucked up' at all. The Indians did not have a concept of rights so how can they even complain about somebody 'violating their rights' ? It's only by the white man's concept of rights that they even can conceive of 'rights' and they couldn't then, they only can now. In their own tribal existence, might made right and that was it.

You're assuming that the white people would have killed them all off anyway which is bullshit. They could not and did not want to fit into the white societies and decided to attack the whites. They should have smart enough to realize that they had a snowball's chance in hell and submitted to the conquering civilization and they would have saved themselves a lot of massacres.

They were warring tribes who scalped each other, looted each other and took each other as slaves. They were basically 'savages' exactly as she describes - hunters and gatherers. If the Indians weren't 'savages' then who the fuck was ?

Who qualifies to be called a savage ? Do you have to be an outright cannibal before the bullshit Marxist programming of leftist political correctness can allow the label of 'savage' to be applied to a people ?

The African bushmen ? Oh no, god forbid you should call them 'savages,' the guys with the plates in their lips, your multi-cultural programming might go into cognitive dissonance overdrive malfunction and you'd better censor your thoughts real quick or people might call you raciss. LOL

I'm sick of hearing about the plight of the Indians.

You live by the sword, you die by the sword. In fact, the crazy fuckers didn't even have swords, they had bows and arrows and tomahawks.

This doesn't mean that they should have tried to genocide them out of existence but they should have known better than to try to fuck with people who had the weapons to completely destroy them.

Being somewhere first, doesn't mean a damn thing. Nobody has a 'right' to vast areas of land just by sitting on it and certainly not those without even a concept of rights constantly engaged in violating the rights of others which they have no idea even 'exist' or should be protected.

The Indians did not build anything in America. America was named and built by the Europeans. They tamed an entire continent in a hundred years while the Indians if left to their own devices would still be hunting and gathering and scalping each other instead of getting drunk on their reservations running tax-free casinos.

And please provide a link or a reference for your quotes if possible. What book is that Ayn Rand passage from ? How do I know she even wrote that and why should I take your word for it ?

If you read my posts you will see that every single quote I post has a reference, either the book or article it was taken out of and / or a link to where it can be read.


Quote:http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWscalping.htm#source


Scalping


v Primary Sources v

The removal of the skin covering the top of a person head during or after a battle dates back to the Scythians (c. 400 BC). The Visigoths also took scalps during the wars with the Anglo-Saxons in the 9th century. When the Europeans first visited America they observed that the Huron, Chichimec, Iroquoi and Muskhogean tribes scalped enemy warriors. The Spanish administrator of Mexico, Francisco de Garay, reported in 1520 of seeing the "cutting of the skin off the entire head and face, with hair and beard". However, there is no evidence that the majority of Native American tribes at this time were involved in scalping.

In 1688, the French-Canadians began paying for every enemy scalp. This encouraged the emergence of groups trying to make a business out of scalping settlers. The British responded in 1693 by announcing that they would pay money for the scalps of Frenchmen and their Indian allies. As much as £100 was obtained for an important scalp.

In 1777, Jane McCrea,

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWmcCrea.htm

the fiancée of a soldier serving with General Burgoyne's army, was captured by Indians allied to the British. Then during a dispute between two warriors, Jane was scalped. General Burgoyne did not punish the guilty men for fear of breaking the alliance with that tribe. This decision enraged local Americans and many men now joined in the struggle against the British. It was later claimed that the death of Jane McCrea greatly aided the rebel cause and contributed to the defeat of Burgoyne's army at Saratoga. The incident continued to be used as propaganda against the English and the story was immortalized by John Vanderlyn's painting, The Death of Jane McCrea, in 1804.


This policy of scalping spread to the Americans during the 19th century and they paid bounties for the scalps of troublesome tribes such as the Apache.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWapache.htm

The idea of scalping as an act of revenge was adopted by the Plains tribes during the Indian Wars.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWplains.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWindianwars.htm

[Image: WWscalping3.JPG]
The Death of Jane McCrea by John Vanderlyn (1804)

The scalp was usually taken from a dead enemy. Pierre Pouchot saw soldiers being scalped in about 1760: "As soon as the man is felled, they run up to him, thrust their knee in between his shoulder blades, seize a tuft of hair in one hand and, with their knife in the other, cut around the skin of the head and pull the whole piece away." Some warriors gained status by scalping a man during combat. This involved making a knife incision around the scalp lock and pulling the hair back very quickly. Although extremely painful, being scalped alive was not always fatal.

A full-scalping would often lead to serious medical complications. This included profuse bleeding, infection, and eventual death if the bone of the skull was left exposed. Death could also occur from septicemia, meningitis or necrosis of the skull.

The fashion of head shaving, except for a small lock of hair, on the crown of the head, developed amongst the Plains Indians.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWplains.htm

This hair covered about two inches in diameter and therefore only a minor wound would result from being scalped. However, it was a great insult for a Native American to be scalped while still alive. For example, the Arikara tribe would treat a scalped warrior as an outcast.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWarikara.htm

Native American tribes used scalping to persuade Americans from abandoning the idea of taking their land. Nelson Lee was unlucky enough to captured by the Comanche tribe.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWleeNelson.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWcomanche.htm

"During all the time they were thus exhibiting the result of their savage work, they resorted to every hideous device to inspire us with terror. They would rush toward us with uplifted tomahawks, stained with blood, as if determined to strike, or grasp us by the hair, flourishing their knives around our heads as though intending to take our scalps. So far as I could understand their infernal shouts and pantomime, they sought to tell us that the fate which had overtaken our unfortunate companions not only awaited us, but likewise the whole race of the hated white man. All the dead, without exception, were scalped and the scalps, still fresh, were dangling from their belts."

After the battle had finished the warrior would clean and dry the scalp. Thomas Gist witnessed this while he was being held prisoner. "The men began to scrape the flesh and blood from the scalps, and dry them by the fire, after which they dressed them with feathers and painted them, then tied them on white, red, and black poles".

[Image: WWscalping1.jpg]


v Primary Sources v

(1) Travels in New France by J. C. B (1760)

http://www.amazon.com/Travels-In-New-France-J-C-B/dp/B000H412OW

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/1998/scalping.html

"this horrible custom was practiced by these savages alone, and sprang from their own barbarism, for it seems never to have existed in any other nation, not even among nations, who, like them, have never received any idea of civilized life."2

"When a war party has captured one or more prisoners that cannot be taken away, it is the usual custom to kill them by breaking their heads with the blows of a tomahawk. When he has struck two or three blows, the savage quickly seizes his knife, and makes an incision around the hair from the upper part of the forehead to the back of the neck. Then he puts his foot on the shoulder of the victim, whom he has turned over face down, and pulls the hair off with both hands, from back to front... This hasty operation is no sooner finished than the savage fastens the scalp to his belt and goes on his way. This method is only used when the prisoner cannot follow his captor; or when the Indian is pursued... He quickly takes the scalp, gives the death cry, and flees at top speed. Savages always announce their valor by a death cry, when they have taken a scalp... When a savage has taken a scalp, and is not afraid he is being pursued, he stops and scrapes the skin to remove the blood and fibres on it. He makes a hoop of green wood, stretches the skin over it like a tambourine, and puts it in the sun to dry a little. The skin is painted red, and the hair on the outside combed. When prepared, the scalp is fastened to the end of a long stick, and carried on his shoulder in triumph to the village or place where he wants to put it. But as he nears each place on his way, he gives as many cries as he has scalps to announce his arrival and show his bravery. Sometimes as many as 15 scalps are fastened on the same stick. When there are too many for one stick, they decorate several sticks with the scalps."

(2) Thomas Gist, journal entry (14th September 14, 1758)

http://dpubs.libraries.psu.edu/DPubS?service=Repository&version=1.0&verb=Disseminate&view=body&content-type=pdf_1&handle=psu.pmhb/1172181847#

"The men began to scrape the flesh and blood from the scalps, and dry them by the fire, after which they dressed them with feathers and painted them, then tied them on white, red, and black poles, which they made so by pealing the bark and then painting them as it suited them."

(3) Pierre Pouchot, Memoirs on the Late War in North America Between France and England (1765)

http://archive.org/details/memoiruponlatew00houggoog

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Pouchot

"As soon as the man is felled, they run up to him, thrust their knee in between his shoulder blades, seize a tuft of hair in one hand and, with their knife in the other, cut around the skin of the head and pull the whole piece away. The whole thing is done very expeditiously. Then, brandishing the scalp, they utter a whoop which they call the 'death whoop'... If they are not under pressure and the victory has cost them lives, they behave in an extremely cruel manner towards those they kill or the dead bodies. They disembowel them and smear their blood all over themselves."

(4) Mary Jemison, A Narrative of the Life of Mary Jemison (1824)

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWjemisonM.htm

"It is a custom of the Indians, when one of their number is slain or taken prisoner in battle, to give to the nearest relative to the dead or absent, a prisoner, if they have chanced to take one, and if not, to give him the scalp of an enemy. On the return of the Indians from conquest, which is always announced by peculiar shoutings, demonstrations of joy, and the exhibition of some trophy of victory, the mourners come forward and make their claims. If they receive a prisoner, it is at their option either to satiate their vengeance, by taking his life in the most cruel manner they can conceive of; or, to receive and adopt him into the family, in the place of him whom they have lost. All the prisoners that are taken in battle and carried to the encampment or town by the Indians, are given to the bereaved families, till their number is made good. And unless the mourners have but just received the news of their bereavement, and are under the operation of a paroxysm of grief, anger and revenge; or, unless the prisoner is very old, sickly, or homely, they generally save him, and treat him kindly. But if their mental wound is fresh, their loss so great that they deem it irreparable, or if their prisoner or prisoners do not meet their approbation, no torture, let it be ever so cruel, seems sufficient to make them satisfaction. It is family, and not national, sacrifices amongst the Indians, that has given them an indelible stamp as barbarians, and identified their character with the idea which is generally formed of unfeeling ferocity, and the most abandoned cruelty."

(5) George Ruxton, Adventures in Mexico and the Rocky Mountains (1847)

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWruxton.htm

"Seizing with his left hand the long and braided lock on the centre of the Indian's head, he passed the point edge of his keen butcher-knife round the parting, turning it at the same time under the skin to separate the scalp from the skull; then, with a quick and sudden jerk of his hand, he removed it entirely from the head, and giving the reeking trophy a wring upon the grass to free it from the blood, he coolly hitched it under his belt, and proceeded to the next; but seeing La Bonte operating upon this, he sought the third, who lay some little distance from the others. This one was still alive, a pistol-ball having passed through his body, without touching a vital spot. Thrusting his knife, for mercy's sake, into the bosom of the Indian, he likewise tore the scalp-lock from his head, and placed it with the other."

(6) Anna Jameson, Winter Studies and Summer Rambles (1838)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Jameson

http://www.amazon.com/Winter-Studies-Rambles-Canadian-Library/dp/0771099622

"Apropos to scalps, I have seen many of the warriors here, who had one or more of these suspended as decorations to their dress; and they seemed to me so much a part and parcel of the sauvagerie around me, that I looked on them generally without emotion or pain. But there was one thing I never could see without a start, and a thrill of horror - the scalp of long fair hair."

(7) Lewis Morgan, Kansas and Nebraska Journal (June, 1859)

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWmorganL.htm

"The Minnetaree village is a large village of dirt houses. Soon after we arrived the people who crowded the bank commenced a scalp dance on the top of the bluff in front of the pickets. They used two drums, like tambourines, which were beat by the dancers themselves, and they danced in a ring from right to left about 30 in all, one-third of them women. They all danced. The women sang in a sort of chorus, with their voices an octave above those of the men. The step was the up and down on the heel step. They were celebrating the taking of the Sioux scalp we heard complained of at Fort Pierre. This morning I met the 3 who took the scalp, painted and dressed, coming through the village towards the boat, and walking side and slide, singing their exploit. The dance, the song, the music, and the step among all our Indians came out of one brain. "

(8) Nelson Lee, Three Years Among the Comanches (1859)

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWleeNelson.htm

"I soon became aware that the only members of the party who escaped the massacre, which proved to have been bloody as it was sudden, were Thomas Martin, John Stewart, Atkins, and myself.

Their next step was to collect the plunder. In this, they were, indeed, thorough. Not only did they gather up all our buffalo skins, Mexican blankets, rifles and revolvers, culinary utensils, and the like, but the dead bodies were stripped to the last shred, and tied on the backs of their mules. Nothing was left behind. By this time the morning light began to break on the eastern mountains, and preparations were made to depart. Before starting, however, they unbound our feet, conducted us through the camp, pointing out the stark corpses of our butchered comrades, who had lain down to sleep with such light and happy hearts the night before. The scene was awful and heart-rending beyond the imagination of man to conceive. Not satisfied with merely putting them to death, they had cut and hacked the poor, cold bodies in the most brutal and wanton manner; some having their arms and hands chopped off, others emboweled, and still others with their tongues drawn out and sharp sticks thrust through them. They then led us out some three or four hundred yards from the camp and pointed out the dead bodies of the sentinels, thus assuring us that not one of the entire party had escaped.

During all the time they were thus exhibiting the result of their savage work, they resorted to every hideous device to inspire us with terror. They would rush toward us with uplifted tomahawks, stained with blood, as if determined to strike, or grasp us by the hair, flourishing their knives around our heads as though intending to take our scalps. So far as I could understand their infernal shouts and pantomime, they sought to tell us that the fate which had overtaken our unfortunate companions not only awaited us, but likewise the whole race of the hated white man. All the dead, without exception, were scalped and the scalps, still fresh, were dangling from their belts."

(9) Mary Smith, included in the History of La Salle County (1877)

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWsmithM.htm

"The report of the unfortunate young women (Frances and Almira Hall) communicated to their friends and relatives, on their return from captivity, although treated with less severity, cannot fail to be read with much interest - they state, that after being compelled to witness not only the savage butchery of their beloved parents, but to hear the heart-piercing screeches and dying groans of their expiring friends and neighbors, and the hideous yells of the furious assaulting savages, they were seized and mounted upon horses, to which they were secured by ropes, when the savages with an exulting shout, took up their line of march in Indian file, bending their course west; the horses on which the females were mounted, being each led by one of their number, while two more walked on each side with their bloodstained scalping knives and tomahawks, to support and to guard them - they thus travelled for many hours, with as much speed as possible through a dark and almost impenetrable wood; when reaching a still more dark and gloomy swamp, they came to a halt. A division of the plunder which they had brought from the ill-fated settlement, and with which their stolen horses (nine in number) were loaded, here took place, each savage stowing away in his pack his proportional share as he received it; but on nothing did they seem to set so great a value, or view with so much satisfaction, as the bleeding scalps which they had, ere life had become extinct torn from the mangled heads of the expiring victims! the feelings of the unhappy prisoners at this moment, can be better judged than described when they could not be insensible that among these scalps, these shocking proofs of savage Cannibalism, were those of their beloved parents! but their moans and bitter lamentations had no effect in moving or diverting for a moment the savages from the business in which they had engaged, until it was completed; when, with as little delay as possible, and without giving themselves time to partake of any refreshment, (as the prisoners could perceive) they again set forward, and travelled with precipitancy until sunset when they again halted, and prepared a temporary lodging for the night-the poor unfortunate females, whose feelings as may be supposed, could be no other than such as bordered on distraction, and who had not ceased for a moment to weep most bitterly during the whole day, could not but believe that they were here destined to become the victims of savage outrage and abuse; and that their sufferings would soon terminate, as they would not (as they imagined) be permitted to live to see the light of another day!"

(10) Herman Lehmann, Indianology (1899)

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWlehmann.htm

That night we came in contact with a company of men and had a little fight. We killed one white man and captured fifteen horses. I think this must have been near Ballinger. We came down to Pack Saddle in Llano County and there had a terrible fight with four white men. We were in the roughs and so were the whites, so neither had the advantage, but we routed them in about a half hour. I think I wounded one of the white men severely. I had a good shot at him, but they all got away.

We wended our way from there to House mountains, and there we captured a nice herd of horses, and this increased our drove to fifty. We went our same old route up the Llano river, but the rangers got on our trail and followed us up through Mason county, but we made for Kickapoo Springs, but the rangers had changed horses and were giving us close chase. We changed horses often and rode cautiously and made our escape, but we were followed to the edge of the plains. We reached home safely and with all our horses, but the Mexicans had again joined our squaws, and this time they had plenty of mescal and corn whiskey, and tobacco in abundance. We all got drunk and one hundred and forty Indian warriors and sixty Mexicans went on a cattle raid. West of Fort Griffin, on the old trail, we ran into a big herd being driven to Kansas. There were about twenty hands with the cattle. We rushed up and opened fire. The cattle stampeded and the cowboys rode in an opposite direction. There were enough of us to surround the cattle and chase the boys. We soon gave the boys up and started for Mexico with the herd, but the second day we were overtaken by about forty white men, who tried to retake the cattle, and in the attempt two Mexicans and one Indian were killed - the Indian was shot through the neck - and we had four horses killed. We repulsed them and got possession of two of their dead, who were promptly scalped. We put the scalps of those boys on high poles and had a big feast and war dance. We slew forty beeves and roasted them all at once. We kept up a chant and dance around those scalps day and night.

(11) John F. Finerty, Warpath and Bivouac (1890)

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWfinertyJ.htm

The skull of one poor squaw was blown, literally, to atoms, revealing the ridge of the palate and presenting a most ghastly and revolting spectacle. Another of the dead females, a middle-aged woman, was so riddled by bullets that there appeared to be no unwounded part of her person left. The third victim was young, plump, and, comparatively speaking, light of color. She had a magnificent physique, and, for an Indian, a most attractive set of features. She had been shot through the left breast just over the heart and was not in the least disfigured.

Ute John, the solitary friendly Indian who did not desert the column, scalped all the dead, unknown to the General or any of the officers, and I regret to be compelled to state a few - a very few - brutalized soldiers followed his savage example. Each took only a portion of the scalp, but the exhibition of human depravity was nauseating. The unfortunates should have been respected, even in the coldness and nothingness of death. In that affair, surely, the army were the assailants and the savages acted purely in self defense. I must add in justice to all concerned that neither General Crook nor any of his officers or men suspected that any women or children were in the gully until their cries were heard above the volume of fire poured upon the fatal spot.

[Image: Scalping_Victim.jpg]


Still want to cry a river of tears for the Indians ?
Reply
11-29-2012, 08:19 PM,
#97
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
Rights don't exist. Prove me wrong. And what the fuck is progress? You don't even know what that means.

Negentropic, I guess you're a hypocrite. You say that what people believe means jack shit but you believe in property rights which you are ready to defend because you can't live but a sedentary life. That's what the natives did, they've protected their way of existence. Their only fault was that they didn't see the land as an object to be exploited. Otherwise their "rights" would have been infringed anyway by the colonists. Remember all the treaties that were signed and broken?

Look here: http://concen.org/forum/thread-47783-lastpost.html if you want to find out why all the scalping stuff you've mentioned is just bullshit.

Source: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Ayn_Rand
Reply
11-29-2012, 10:34 PM,
#98
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
I haven't 'mentioned' anything about Indians and 'scalping.' I've provided historical accounts with links. You want to ignore them and pretend they're all lies and promote your own bullshit, leftist official history about what a bunch of 'peace loving,' 'pipe smoking' hippies the Indians really were, go ahead, who's stopping you ?

I didn't post them for you. Who cares what you have to say ?

I post for any of the thousands of people who have already read this thread and THEY CAN MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS, who has the real facts or whose brain is operating closer to that which we call 'reality,' me or you.

Rights come from being human and having a bigger brain than apes. Humans have the brain capacity to make choices and therefore to make the RIGHT or WRONG choices. If you DENY that humans are able to perceive a complex reality and make choices then you deny that 'rights' exist which is like saying humans are no different than animals and operate only on instinct but the very fact of you even DENYING THAT RIGHTS EXIST prove that you are thinking and making choices as to 'what exists' and 'what does not exist' and therefore you negate yourself.

The RIGHT choices benefit the organism, the WRONG choices hurt it. This is the root of all MORALITY and ethics, it has nothing to do with 'doing for others,' you 'do for others' only when 'doing for others' is seen by you in the higher light of long-term self-interest as being 'GOOD FOR YOU.'

Therefore, on a more advanced level, you can spend your whole life teaching others things with very little salary and direct montary reward and still consider this absolutely rewarding to you spiritually in the longer term, so you keep doing it. The intellectual exercise becomes its own reward and it is perceived correctly by you as 'good for others' and 'good for you' at the same time, if you are an intellectual of this type since an ENTIRE SOCIETY and revolution can be created by your efforts in the future and even this is like a long-term project with each step of the way, each victory being its own reward.

Capiche ?

Therefore, PROTECTING your ability to MAKE CHOICES is FUNDAMENTAL.

And that is the basis for rights being SELF-EVIDENT. There is nothing more to 'prove.'

This is the ONLY and basic individual right, the right to think and make moral choices unmolested. Property rights are an extension of the 'right thinking' that created wealth versus the 'wrong thinking' that lost it or the 'predatory thinking' which took it from someone who did the 'right thinking.' Therefore, the predator, or the SAVAGE, modern or ancient, is penalized and punished in this system and if he won't learn his lesson, he risks being penalized OUT OF EXISTENCE.

You violate my right to make my own moral choices for my own good or harm and there is no voluntary government formed to protect it in the region like from a Sheriff on down, then it is ENTIRELY within my own natural right to DEFEND those rights myself, with a gun, a kung fu kick to your nuts, or a big fat lie that sends you down the river chasing ghosts, etc.

Put that in your Indian pipe and smoke it right after you hang that scalp on your your tomahawk.Icon_biggrin

[Image: scalping.jpg]

The great dictatorial leader is also not necessarily automatically 'BAD' in any shape or form.

A great leader is basically in the tradition of the tough fathers of the past who used to whip some sense into their kids or smack you in the head to discipline you but DID IT FOR THE RIGHT REASONS most of the time and therefore you respected them and did not hold it against them. When you became a man and benefited greatly from the discipline and toughness that your father instilled in you, you understood.

The extension of the firm or tough but benevolent father figure is the 'great leader'

When this is someone who is MORE LIKELY TO BE RIGHT or make the RIGHT moral choices than anyone else in the country or region that he's leading then he becomes one of the great monarchs of the past, or a Hitler or a Mussolini or Chavez in Venezuela today (how would you like your gas to be 30 cents a gallon, huh ? ) and the country as a whole prospers.

And as far as 'Fascism' goes, all you guys robotically using 'Fascism' as a synonym of 'evil repressive government force,' this poster from the era of Mussolini's Fascism in Italy tells you all that you need to know about them and why Ezra Pound, a Jeffersonian American patriot and an extreme individualist, bohemian artist and free thinker who took orders from nobody, also happened to be pro-Fascist:

[Image: boccasile.jpg]

"Fascism only regiments those who can't do anything without it. If a man knows how to do anything it's the essence of fascism to leave him alone."~Ezra Pound

If you know anything about conspiracy history at all, you should know that Eustace Mullins was a nobody until Ezra Pound started teaching him in the nuthouse where he was locked up for 13 years. Mullins is the guy who wrote "Murder by Injection," "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" and "The World Order," amongst many other famous books and is the guy without whom the G Edward Griffin book "Creature from Jekyll Island' which Alex Jones promotes so much would not even exist since it was plagiarized from Mullins without credit. So basically a guy who was PRO-FASCIST, Ezra Pound is responsible for probably the most significant cross-section of the entire conspiracy / troof movement today, from Alex Jones on down and YET, Alex Jones spends all day, every day BASHING the ANTI-USURY, anti-communist, anti-free-masonry regimes of Fascism, who basically did, in fact, accomplish in their era, even if only for a short period, what he's supposedly trying to do in his by promoting a castrated wimp like Ron Paul ?

ha ha ha hee hee hee ho ho ho whooha ! LOL

Let's call him then what he is a total clown shill and a deliberate distorter of history with no respect even for the origins of the modern troof movement itself.

http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=44181

More on Mussolini and Fascism here:

The Mark Weber Report: What Really was Fascism? Changing Views of Fascism, Facts vs. Propaganda

May 9, 2012

http://reasonradionetwork.com/downloads/tmwr/VoR-The_Mark_Weber_Report-20120509.mp3

Description: Fascism is one of the most often misused and widely misunderstood political terms. Publicists of both the left and right use the term “fascist” not to describe but to discredit and smear adversaries. “Fascism” is often inaccurately used as a synonym for tyranny, militarism, Nazism, racism, or capitalism. During the first 13 years of Fascist rule in Italy, the regime and its leader (“Duce”), Benito Mussolini, were widely admired in the US and other countries. They earned praise, for example, for resolutely uprooting mafia criminality. Attitudes in the US changed after the Italian subjugation of Ethiopia in 1935-36, and as Mussolini aligned Italy ever more closely with Hitler’s Germany. The image of Mussolini and Fascism that prevails today is largely the product of World War II propaganda.


My Autobiography by Benito Mussolini (1928) - pdf download here:

http://archive.org/details/MyAutobiography


"The nation has not disappeared. We used to believe that the concept was totally without substance. Instead we see the nation arise as a palpitating reality before us! ... Class cannot destroy the nation. Class reveals itself as a collection of interests—but the nation is a history of sentiments, traditions, language, culture, and race. Class can become an integral part of the nation, but the one cannot eclipse the other. The class struggle is a vain formula, without effect and consequence wherever one finds a people that has not integrated itself into its proper linguistic and racial confines—where the national problem has not been definitely resolved. In such circumstances the class movement finds itself impaired by an inauspicious historic climate" -- Benito Mussolini
Reply
11-30-2012, 07:51 AM,
#99
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
Keep dreaming you've proven rights. About your historical facts who's smoking that indian pipe?
Reply
11-30-2012, 06:16 PM,
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
what historical facts?
Reply
11-30-2012, 08:29 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-30-2012, 08:42 PM by macfadden.)
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
(11-29-2012, 08:31 AM)fujiinn Wrote:
(11-29-2012, 07:59 AM)macfadden Wrote:
(11-29-2012, 07:19 AM)fujiinn Wrote: I'm not andre and I don't understand your obsession regarding him.

Lulz. What a funny thing to say for someone who has no idea who andre is.
If you're not andre then you're either parroting him point by point, word for word, or you're parroting whoever he is parroting. Maybe it is just a coincidence or maybe great minds really do think alike Wink .
[...]

I know who andre is. You yourself let us know on the forum about him. And I've know even before that. As far as I know he's preaching total fascism not anarchism.

If you think that anarchism = fascism, well

You are a liar, you know very well that andre is promoting the same crap, you two are obviously working together because you both are promoting the same primitivist sustainability crap and doing it by parroting each other word for word

Here is andre's website: http://realitysituation.com/ where you'll find him shilling the same propaganda you have been shilling in every post you have made on this forum, I don't expect it will come as much surprise to you however as both of you idiots are obviously a couple of moronic cohorts in asinine cahoots with each other.

So don't play dumb with your "If you think that anarchism = fascism" B.S. and your "As far as I know he's preaching total fascism not anarchism" B.S., you know exactly what I'm talking about and you know "anarchism = fascism" ain't it.
Reply
11-30-2012, 10:33 PM,
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
Negentropic got banned? Anyone know why?
Reply
11-30-2012, 10:41 PM,
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
(11-30-2012, 10:33 PM)GasseGeir Wrote: Negentropic got banned? Anyone know why?

I banned him. Unbanned him and put him on probation - just asked him to follow some easy rules, gave him some warnings. Just simple respect for our volunteer mod staff's rules - hence the mod staff themselves.

He's anti-authoritarian by nature as much, if not all of us, are but he burned up all of his many chances to comply with the staff's direct instructions on his posting constructs and delivery methods.

More on it here.. members can post about this topic of Negentropic here and only here please. http://concen.org/forum/thread-47530-post-252600.html#pid252600
There are no others, there is only us.
http://FastTadpole.com/
Reply
11-30-2012, 10:43 PM,
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
Thanks. You are cool. On The Icke forum you'd get banned simply for asking. OK, I shan't say more about it now.
Reply
12-01-2012, 05:09 AM,
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
(11-30-2012, 08:29 PM)macfadden Wrote: You are a liar, you know very well that andre is promoting the same crap, you two are obviously working together because you both are promoting the same primitivist sustainability crap and doing it by parroting each other word for word

Here is andre's website: http://realitysituation.com/ where you'll find him shilling the same propaganda you have been shilling in every post you have made on this forum, I don't expect it will come as much surprise to you however as both of you idiots are obviously a couple of moronic cohorts in asinine cahoots with each other.

So don't play dumb with your "If you think that anarchism = fascism" B.S. and your "As far as I know he's preaching total fascism not anarchism" B.S., you know exactly what I'm talking about and you know "anarchism = fascism" ain't it.

Some people are demented. I'm sorry for your illness.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Hidden Systems That Have Frozen Time and Stop Us Changing The World nofunclub 0 1,275 07-30-2014, 04:58 AM
Last Post: nofunclub
  CNN - Piers Morgan vs Larry Pratt - Gun laws "debate" fujiinn 9 3,177 01-12-2013, 01:12 AM
Last Post: R.R
  GMO Ticking Time Bomb datars 0 1,026 10-05-2012, 12:30 PM
Last Post: datars
  Ron Paul Owns Warmongers During Fox News Debate - 12/15/11 Solve et Coagula 0 887 12-25-2011, 11:05 PM
Last Post: Solve et Coagula
  The great thermate debate JFK 82 38,156 12-04-2011, 08:05 PM
Last Post: nwo2012
Information Google pulls the same shit it bashes China for... (this is worth your time to read) h3rm35 3 2,057 10-20-2010, 01:21 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  Oil of Wight: Under-fire BP boss Tony Hayward takes time out to enjoy Cowes Week --- 2 1,411 06-19-2010, 07:56 PM
Last Post: ---
Question What is a True Manchurian Candidate? NickHedge 0 3,762 04-29-2010, 10:56 PM
Last Post: NickHedge
  Extra! Extra! Read All About It!!! The Truth About Al Qaeda Told For the First Time! NickHedge 2 1,476 04-26-2010, 04:09 AM
Last Post: h3rm35
  Kucinich Forces Congress to Debate Afghanistan h3rm35 0 976 03-06-2010, 10:21 PM
Last Post: h3rm35

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)