From: horen@rs.com (Jonathan B. Horen)
Subject: Re: Who are the Occupiers?
Organization: Renaissance Software, Inc.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 03:00:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.210033.18492@dscomsf.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.165015.23880@rs.com>, horen@rs.com (Jonathan B. Horen)
>writes:
>
>>In article 708@dscomsf.desy.de, hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
>>writes:
>>>
>>>The claim that any culture has the right to raise itself to the status of law
>>is
>>>completely false. That has been the root of political oppression since
>>Soccrates
>>>was executed for opposing the cultural values of the state. There are no
>>nations
>>>and there are no states, only individuals.
>>
>>Sorry, but European-style (or any other, for that matter) anarchy has proved 
>>itself in each of the last three centuries to be (a) unworkable, and 
>>(b) unacceptable.
>
>If you had any historical knowlege you would know that three hundred years is
>about the time since the invention of the nation state. It is the idea of the
>nation state that caused the bloodiest wars of Europe.

That's right; and who creates/maintains the nation-states? Individuals. And
which came first -- nation-states or individuals? Individuals. Nation-states
are/were created because people want/ed them. States don't create people;
people create states. States don't kill people; *people* kill people.

It wasn't/isn't European nation-states which wouldn't stand for anarchy; it
was/is the people who live in those states, who eat, work, sleep, pay taxes,
and raise families, who wouldn't stand for anarchy.

And every one of them knew/knows that s/he was/is *already* an individual, and
did/does not require some puppy to "enlighten" them. You're a few years too
late -- Marx and Lenin are (finally) through, and people are now free to go
back to living-in/identifying-with "nation-states"

>>Don't even *think* that we Israelis are going to repeat you European's
>>mistakes and/or failures, however "noble" they might sound.
>
>You are trying to copy the greatest mistake of British policy ever, the
>occupation of Ireland. Machiavellis settlements strategy only works if the
>settlers become part of the community in the way that the Romans he cites did.
>It does not work when the settlements are merely fortified outposts of the
>occupying power. 

Uh-h-h, no. What we're trying to do is get back *our* land. Unlike the British
or the Italians or the Romans (or any others you might like to add), we are
not settling colonies for the "Mother-country across the ocean" -- we don't
want what's across the ocean (and they sure the hell don't want us, unless
it's for soap/gold-teeth).

>>As for "There are no nations and there are no states, only individuals",
>>well,
>>facile statements like this one only serve to illustrate the naivety,
>>shallowness,
>>and immaturity of your world view.
>
>Why do I repeat vulgar abuse? Because it shows more about the mind of the person
>who said it than the person who they are aimed at. Horen is a knee jerk
>nationalist, in fact a knee jerk nationalist who lives in the wrong country.
>Like all such people their brand of patriotism goes down well at home and badly
>in the rest of the world.
>

Sorry, but since when are words like "facile", "naivety", "shallowness", or
"immaturity" considered `vulgar abuse'?

>If he knew your politics he would know that I was echoing a statement by Margret
>Thatcher, "There is no such thing as society, only individuals in society". I
>don't suppose he is capable of understanding the ideas behind that statement
>either. 

Oh, you're just so *devastatingly* witty; so deep, so, so, *so full of shit*!

Asshole! Where did you *ever* get the idea that "society" is synonymous with
"nation"? And what in the *hell* do I care what Margaret Thatcher says about
society and individuals wrt one-another?

Are we supposed to think that:
	(a) Margaret Thatcher is profound
	(b) Phill Hallem-Baker "echoes" Margaret Thatcher

	thus

	(c) Phill Hallem-Baker is also profound?


>Who was it that was asking for more of the ideas like Ghandis?

I dunno, but it certainly wasn't Ghandi's children!