2005-04-03 12:57:24 ET
DAMN LIBERAL PINKO FAGGOTS
Really, it was the conservatives who sold Saddam his arsenal in the first place, and he's not even a terrorist even though they now like to call him one, even though he and Bin Laden are in opposing Muslim sects and are therefore mortal enemies and what-not. The conservatives sold the Afghans their arsenal to "fight communism" with, too. Peachy, great to see that worked out so well for the US of A.
Were they really planning this far forward just to make sure that there would be something to fight about so that they could further their corporate bullshit through application of military force?
I don't get the labelling of people as "liberals" (or "pink"), as nobody in the US government actually is a liberal. There is no liberal establishment in the US. Talk to actual balanced world governments, and you'll find that US politicians come in two forms: Far right, and much further right.
Someone once "made up" a "conspiracy theory" story, saying that what the tin-foil hat crowd believes is going on is only a dramatization, and the real conspiracy is simply opposition of "leftism" in order to reinforce traditional values (read: mired in ancient paradigms and unable to socially or politically evolve). That was supposed to be a hyperbole, a "take that, tin-foil hat crowd, this is exactly how ridiculous your ideas are" sort of thing, but I find it to be the most believable. Why? This fight against radical ideas keeps the top on top and the bottom on bottom -- the goal of all world powers is to stay in power. What's so hard to believe about that? Why are conspiracy theories discounted as insane ramblings when they are based on simple facts such as the "iron law of oligarchy?"
Every time I try to share "radical" ideas, people try to rebut with "ZOMG BUT THEN U HAVE ANARCHY!" My thoughts, recently, though I've not had a chance to share, are "So fucking what?" What is "anarchy" anyway? Let's dissect. An-archy -- no authority figures. People seem to think that anarchy implies chaos, but this is not so. Usually the people who argue against anarchy will say that it's obvious that the behavior of animals is the model for the behavior of an anarchic situation. Usually these people are also religious, in the sense that they practice a religion (as opposed to following a spiritual lifestyle). Don't creationistic religions hold that we are above the animals, crafted with intelligence, free will, etc? Shouldn't we be able to govern ourselves? "He maketh me to lie down in green pastures," doth he not? Self-governance should be enough for these religious folks, and yet they continue to be brainwashed by tradition.
I don't need authority figures. I'm evolved enough to make decisions for myself and gather with other people to accomplish things that need to be done for the advancement of mankind and so on without someone else to forcably organize my doing so. I'll never see it happen, though, and I say this because I've lost my faith in the rest of humanity. There are more people just like me, and without any faith in each other, we'll never see this through the way it could be.