Messages In This Digest (10 Messages)
- 1.1.
- Re: Tradition From: carteblanche13
- 1.2.
- Re: Tradition From: barbtrad
- 1.3.
- Re: Tradition From: carteblanche13
- 1.4.
- Re: Tradition From: barbtrad
- 1.5.
- Re: Tradition From: carteblanche13
- 1.6.
- Re: Tradition From: carteblanche13
- 1.7.
- Re: Tradition From: scott_bisseker
- 1.8.
- Re: Tradition From: barbtrad
- 1.9.
- Re: Tradition From: carteblanche13
- 2.
- Reiki Share - Wollongong, 11/15/2010, 7:00 pm From: WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups.com
Messages
- 1.1.
-
Re: Tradition
Posted by: "carteblanche13" carteblanche13@yahoo.com.au carteblanche13
Tue Nov 9, 2010 6:10 am (PST)
--- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "barbtrad" <barbtrad@..com .> wrote:
> can we really completely separate the motivations of the Husseins and the Gillards? Aren't both seeking power over their people to push their own agendas even if that is at the expense of the living standards of their people? Only difference is one uses the machine gun, the other the propaganda machine.
Bill, I am dismayed by the vagueness, flim-flammery and (if you'll pardon the strong language) sheer nonsense in what appears to be your thinking. I am astounded, actually.
Firstly, one used a pistol - not a machine gun; secondly, the other used the -comparitively polite- combination of a run of the mill party leadership challenge plus the ripe opportunity presented by that party already having been given the overwhelming public mandate to form a government by the population of the nation a couple of years prior, plus the recognition of the fact that Mr. Rudd's duty as ice-breaker had been fulfilled, and that it was time to have someone running the country who was not a four-eyed megalomaniacal moralist, for the first time since the beginning of the millennium.
You are attempting to draw a potentially libellous comparison simply because both Mr. Hussein and Prime Mistress Gillard were/are pushy ambitious people - but only one of the two was a murderer and despot. Alright, the other one was a business lawyer, which is perhaps an equally incriminating avocation now that I think of it, and most probably speaks of nameless, and numerous, hidden depravities. But the two types do in fact belong to quite distinct categories in most sociologickal bestiaries.
To answer your question, "can we really completely separate the motivations of the Husseins and the Gillards", I think you'll find the answer is pretty solidly: yes, yes we can, actually - the motivations, the methods, the intentions and the rationale, yep, they're different, I think.
> Yes It is an unrealistic dream..Agreed. But that dream is what our particular brand of "Paganism" is all about. Its not that any of us really believe we, or even our children's children will ever see it.But who said it I cannot remember, but something about " if man can dream it.. then it can be done" Man dreamed about flying to the moon, so paint me pink and call me Sally, the dream became reality!
Hm.
> Or.. the establishment of a benevolent dynasty.. just perhaps? One that in generations to come may even be regarded as Gods??
And then when the crops/economy fails, to be overthrown in the inevitable republican uprising, or turned into merely symbolic figureheads ornamenting a democratic system involving a parliament.
But look - it's been done.
You don't seem to realise that all those medievalist fantasies you have about fiefdoms and running away to the bush when you get annoyed with the local despot in order to attempt to become one yourself, have all happened, and stopped, and become something else, because people got tired of the endless carnage.
You are yearning for something which has turned into something else, of its own accord.
> To attain the perfect government.. "First find the perfect person.. then make them an absolute dictator"
Better still : "perfect" each individual, and external government is no longer required.
Now that's a dream for us all - even public servants!
Best regards
C.B.
- 1.2.
-
Re: Tradition
Posted by: "barbtrad" barbtrad@yahoo.com.au barbtrad
Tue Nov 9, 2010 7:56 am (PST)
Hi CB.
--- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "carteblanche13" <carteblanche13@com ...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "barbtrad" <barbtrad@> wrote:com
> > can we really completely separate the motivations of the Husseins and the Gillards? Aren't both seeking power over their people to push their own agendas even if that is at the expense of the living standards of their people? Only difference is one uses the machine gun, the other the propaganda machine.
>
> Bill, I am dismayed by the vagueness, flim-flammery and (if you'll pardon the strong language) sheer nonsense in what appears to be your thinking. I am astounded, actually.
Well you shouldn't be.. We Barbarians think quite differently to the mainstream you know.
>
> Firstly, one used a pistol - not a machine gun;
Every time I saw footage of old Saddam he was firing an AK on full auto into the air, and presumably into his enemies when the camera was turned away. He may have used a pistol too, but for disposing of enemies the machine gun is way more effective.. Actually pistols are pretty inefficient in many ways.
secondly, the other used the -comparitively polite- combination of a run of the mill party leadership challenge plus the ripe opportunity presented by that party already having been given the overwhelming public mandate to form a government by the population of the nation a couple of years prior,
Give me the man with the gun every time... at least he's honest about it. Anyway wasn't Gillard's choice of weapon a knife applied to the back?
plus the recognition of the fact that Mr. Rudd's duty as ice-breaker had been fulfilled, and that it was time to have someone running the country who was not a four-eyed megalomaniacal moralist, for the first time since the beginning of the millennium.
Oh you are unkind CB! Imagine calling old fuddy-duddy Ruddy and Mrs Howard's little boy Johnny four eyed megalomaniacs, when its common knowledge they were both such lovely fellows.. Australia's answer to Donald Duck and Elmer Fudd.
>
> You are attempting to draw a potentially libellous comparison simply because both Mr. Hussein and Prime Mistress Gillard were/are pushy ambitious people - but only one of the two was a murderer and despot. Alright, the other one was a business lawyer, which is perhaps an equally incriminating avocation now that I think of it, and most probably speaks of nameless, and numerous, hidden depravities.
Indeed!
But the two types do in fact belong to quite distinct categories in most sociologickal bestiaries.
Perhaps.. but ponder on the offspring if they bred!
>
> To answer your question, "can we really completely separate the motivations of the Husseins and the Gillards", I think you'll find the answer is pretty solidly: yes, yes we can, actually - the motivations, the methods, the intentions and the rationale, yep, they're different, I think.
I don't know.. One shoots you in the back, the other stabs you in the back. Different methods admittedly but the same result.
>
>
> > Yes It is an unrealistic dream..Agreed. But that dream is what our particular brand of "Paganism" is all about. Its not that any of us really believe we, or even our children's children will ever see it.But who said it I cannot remember, but something about " if man can dream it.. then it can be done" Man dreamed about flying to the moon, so paint me pink and call me Sally, the dream became reality!
>
> Hm.
Hm! Come on CB surely you can shoot a few more arrows at that bit:-0
>
>
> > Or.. the establishment of a benevolent dynasty.. just perhaps? One that in generations to come may even be regarded as Gods??
>
> And then when the crops/economy fails, to be overthrown in the inevitable republican uprising, or turned into merely symbolic figureheads ornamenting a democratic system involving a parliament.
>
> But look - it's been done.
Unfortunately it has.. but only because the old ways of thinking were replaced by a desire for central Government. and the older Paganism was replaced... Greece and Rome have a lot to answer for methinks.
>
> You don't seem to realise that all those medievalist fantasies you have about fiefdoms and running away to the bush when you get annoyed with the local despot in order to attempt to become one yourself, have all happened, and stopped, and become something else, because people got tired of the endless carnage.
Stopped? Well ok, yes. But the philosophy survives and as in the words of the Necronomican.. "That which is not dead but yet may eternal lie and in strange eons even death may die".
>
> You are yearning for something which has turned into something else, of its own accord.
Not of its own accord, rather by fiendish manipulation from those who have souls of a quite foreign breed to those descended from the Old Gods.
>
>
> > To attain the perfect government.. "First find the perfect person.. then make them an absolute dictator"
>
> Better still : "perfect" each individual, and external government is no longer required.
>
> Now that's a dream for us all - even public servants!
Naa! Look around you CB.. see many people that could be perfected? I sure don't.. I do see plenty that are a waste of space, and ever shall be so regardless of any manipulation. Ye Gods and little fishes, you have named at least four yourself. Hussien, yep he's one, and Rudd, Howard and Gillard.. another three. Perfect each individual? Now there's a pipe dream indeed!
>
> Best regards..Likewise...Bill.
>
> C.B.
>
- 1.3.
-
Re: Tradition
Posted by: "carteblanche13" carteblanche13@yahoo.com.au carteblanche13
Tue Nov 9, 2010 9:02 am (PST)
--- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "barbtrad" <barbtrad@..com .> wrote:
>
> Hi CB.
>
> --- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "carteblanche13" <carteblanche13@com > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "barbtrad" <barbtrad@> wrote:com
> > > can we really completely separate the motivations of the Husseins and the Gillards? Aren't both seeking power over their people to push their own agendas even if that is at the expense of the living standards of their people? Only difference is one uses the machine gun, the other the propaganda machine.
> >
> > Bill, I am dismayed by the vagueness, flim-flammery and (if you'll pardon the strong language) sheer nonsense in what appears to be your thinking. I am astounded, actually.
>
> Well you shouldn't be.. We Barbarians think quite differently to the mainstream you know.
No, it's not the unorthodox quality of your thinking on this particular matter (the notion that Julia Gillard is just like Saddam Hussein) which astounds me, it's the fact that it doesn't make any sense.
> > Firstly, one used a pistol - not a machine gun;
>
> Every time I saw footage of old Saddam he was firing an AK on full auto into the air
Yes, but they are hard to carry inconspicuously. When he shot members of his cabinet during office hours, it was with his pistol. I trust this resort to cro-magnon methods of conflict resolution meets with your approval.
> secondly, the other used the -comparitively polite- combination of a run of the mill party leadership challenge plus the ripe opportunity presented by that party already having been given the overwhelming public mandate to form a government by the population of the nation a couple of years prior,
>
> Give me the man with the gun every time... at least he's honest about it. Anyway wasn't Gillard's choice of weapon a knife applied to the back?
No, it was a political party leadership challenge, which she won.
> > To answer your question, "can we really completely separate the motivations of the Husseins and the Gillards", I think you'll find the answer is pretty solidly: yes, yes we can, actually - the motivations, the methods, the intentions and the rationale, yep, they're different, I think.
>
> I don't know.. One shoots you in the back, the other stabs you in the back. Different methods admittedly but the same result.
Well, again, no, you are talking nonsense. The expression "to stab someone in the back" is a figure of speech, which is only loosely related to its subject, not literally. Look up the word "metaphor". At no time did she take up a piece of metal and insert it through Mr. Rudd's ribcage. On the other hand, Saddam did in fact shoot people to death using an actual gun in order to claim and to hold power.
You may not see it, but there is a difference. Rudd is still alive. I would perhaps have preferred if she had stabbed him through the heart with a wooden stake, so we could rest knowing we will never have Mr. Sheen as our P.M. ever again, but alas, she was too kind and diplomatic, so he's still lurking out there.
> > > Or.. the establishment of a benevolent dynasty.. just perhaps? One that in generations to come may even be regarded as Gods??
> >
> > And then when the crops/economy fails, to be overthrown in the inevitable republican uprising, or turned into merely symbolic figureheads ornamenting a democratic system involving a parliament.
> >
> > But look - it's been done.
>
> Unfortunately it has.. but only because the old ways of thinking were replaced by a desire for central Government. and the older Paganism was replaced... Greece and Rome have a lot to answer for methinks.
The earliest great civilisations we know of, the Egyptians and their ilk, were doing the whole centralised government thing a very, very long time before either of these places did it, and I would say, also a very long time before your heavily romanticised Dacian forbears had heard of Dacia.
> Stopped? Well ok, yes. But the philosophy survives and as in the words of the Necronomican.. "That which is not dead but yet may eternal lie and in strange eons even death may die".
But I don't see any philosophy (which was invented by the Greeks, by the way). I see comparisons between a pushy sheila from the unions and a Kurd-gassing thug, and then a nostalgia for what appears to be an unlikely mixture of Bag End and Vietnam, but not much philosophy.
> > You are yearning for something which has turned into something else, of its own accord.
>
> Not of its own accord, rather by fiendish manipulation from those who have souls of a quite foreign breed to those descended from the Old Gods.
"Souls of a foreign breed", or bodies too? Do you mean the Jews or the slavs?
How do you know who they are descended from, and whose gods are older? Or do you just invent myths to prop up your closed-circuit belief system (in which you play the eternal hero, and "they" the eternal villain) in the identical way in which Christians always come back to their belief system to justify their own equally idiotic sounding fantasy on a very tired old, ego-bound theme?
> > > To attain the perfect government.. "First find the perfect person.. then make them an absolute dictator"
> >
> > Better still : "perfect" each individual, and external government is no longer required.
> >
> > Now that's a dream for us all - even public servants!
>
> Naa! Look around you CB.. see many people that could be perfected? I sure don't.. I do see plenty that are a waste of space, and ever shall be so regardless of any manipulation. Ye Gods and little fishes, you have named at least four yourself. Hussien, yep he's one, and Rudd, Howard and Gillard.. another three. Perfect each individual? Now there's a pipe dream indeed!
Ah, I get it now. You're bitter that each of these four actually succeeded at "carving out a fiefdom". I'm actually proud of all of them, all except Saddam Hussein, who was a vulgar criminal by any standard, an actual enemy of his own people. The other three for all their flaws did/do in fact try to do their very best, such as it is, for all their wards (i.e. us), and yes, even Mr. Howard's heart was truly behind everything he did as being the best interests of the people he had been elected to represent, despite the often appalling mistakes he made. They each have different worldviews and priorities and personalities but despite their massive mistakes, I can in fact find something to admire about each of them - yes, even Mr. Rudd. I actually hated Julia Gillard and all her works before she became P.M. but now for some inexplicable reason I like her, probably because whatever she may be, she isn't a fucking conservative. I can't imagine how hard it must be to try to deal with the commercial media (who are all illiterate baboons with rabies), the opposition, on top of normal life, and try to run every single aspect of the entire nation - not just balance the books in a time like this, but the other 99.99999999999% of what statesmanship entails. And this, with tiny electoral terms such as we have in which to show twenty million people why renewal of one's contract is appropriate. I'm glad someone else is doing it quite frankly - it leaves me free to write here.
Best regards,
C.B.
- 1.4.
-
Re: Tradition
Posted by: "barbtrad" barbtrad@yahoo.com.au barbtrad
Tue Nov 9, 2010 3:39 pm (PST)
Hi CB.
Hmmm! Seems I should have heeded that old adage about politics and religion. But hang on, this is a list about religious.. or spiritual beliefs anyhow. Just should have avoided politics. We certainly have a mile wide gulf between our opinions politically. Well yeah, probably on religions too.In a lot of ways Religion and politics are intertwined IMO.
I think the argument is getting a bit too personal and heated. OK I'm probably politically to the right of Ghengis khan,and to me my ethnic linage is tied into my spirituality. So does that make me racist as your following comment seems to allude to?
Snip.""Souls of a foreign breed", or bodies too? Do you mean the Jews or the slavs?"" Snip.
Your replies seem to be getting a tad on the nasty side going by this.. And you have ridiculed my opinions ,which by the by a just as valid as yours, Nonsense you say actually.. Well how nonsensical is it to allege that someone descended from a Slavic tribe was calling Slavs foreign souls? As for Jews, well you are airing your ignorance in the heat of your political argument. Fact is CB I actually admire the Jews.. Why? Well they have adhered to their God and culture through thick and thin and always remained "a people apart" even though this has cost many of them their lives. While our heritage and spirituality has no links and not much other common ground to the Hebrew religion and culture, we do share this "Apartness". Anyhow enough on this.. we have been accused of being racist plenty of times before. And to be honest, if by that it is meant we are not subscribers to the socialist internationalist view.. then tough titty.
--- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "carteblanche13" <carteblanche13@com ...> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "barbtrad" <barbtrad@> wrote:com
> > > > can we really completely separate the motivations of the Husseins and the Gillards? Aren't both seeking power over their people to push their own agendas even if that is at the expense of the living standards of their people? Only difference is one uses the machine gun, the other the propaganda machine.
> > >
> > > Bill, I am dismayed by the vagueness, flim-flammery and (if you'll pardon the strong language) sheer nonsense in what appears to be your thinking. I am astounded, actually.
> >
> > Well you shouldn't be.. We Barbarians think quite differently to the mainstream you know.
>
> No, it's not the unorthodox quality of your thinking on this particular matter (the notion that Julia Gillard is just like Saddam Hussein) which astounds me, it's the fact that it doesn't make any sense.
Not to you perhaps, it makes a lot to me. What I'm saying and of course you don't agree is that whether a politician grabs power by force or trickery and lies ( and I'm not singling out your Ms Gillard here. they all seem to do it)its all rotten. At least the guy with the gun is a bit more honest in his skulduggery. Its like Ned Kelly and the banks At least Ned had the decency to bail you up with a gun before robbing you blind. The banks rob us blind, but like your pollies do it without a gun in your ribs, using lies and fraud.. you say that's better..I say its the result not the method that makes any never mind.
>
>
>
> > > Firstly, one used a pistol - not a machine gun;
> >
> > Every time I saw footage of old Saddam he was firing an AK on full auto into the air
>
> Yes, but they are hard to carry inconspicuously. When he shot members of his cabinet during office hours, it was with his pistol. I trust this resort to cro-magnon methods of conflict resolution meets with your approval.
> > secondly, the other used the -comparitively polite- combination of a run of the mill party leadership challenge plus the ripe opportunity presented by that party already having been given the overwhelming public mandate to form a government by the population of the nation a couple of years prior,
So he shot his rivals.. Not the first nor will be the last I'd hazard a guess. Do I approve of his methods? No, but I'm buggered if I think he's all that much worse than those who "assassinate" their rivals in more genteel ways.
> > Give me the man with the gun every time... at least he's honest about it. Anyway wasn't Gillard's choice of weapon a knife applied to the back?
>
> No, it was a political party leadership challenge, which she won.
Yeah, yeah whatever.
>
>
>
> > > To answer your question, "can we really completely separate the motivations of the Husseins and the Gillards", I think you'll find the answer is pretty solidly: yes, yes we can, actually - the motivations, the methods, the intentions and the rationale, yep, they're different, I think.
> >
> > I don't know.. One shoots you in the back, the other stabs you in the back. Different methods admittedly but the same result.
>
>
> Well, again, no, you are talking nonsense. The expression "to stab someone in the back" is a figure of speech, which is only loosely related to its subject, not literally. Look up the word "metaphor". At no time did she take up a piece of metal and insert it through Mr. Rudd's ribcage. On the other hand, Saddam did in fact shoot people to death using an actual gun in order to claim and to hold power.
There you go again belittling my opinions calling them nonsense. What I'm saying is whether power is attained by gun or trickery its not much better or worse.. you don't agree..CB I don't have a problem that you see things as you do, You seem to have one that I hold the opinions I do...Why?
>
> You may not see it, but there is a difference. Rudd is still alive. I would perhaps have preferred if she had stabbed him through the heart with a wooden stake, so we could rest knowing we will never have Mr. Sheen as our P.M. ever again, but alas, she was too kind and diplomatic, so he's still lurking out there.
OK I get the point..You are a Gillard fan.. and you have every right to be. I'm not and also have every right to that opinion. I should clarify here that it's not specifically Gillard I have a problem with, she is just one among many on all sides of the political fence I consider to be committing blatant fraud against the people of Australia. Hells Bells CB, I think I detested little Johnny Howard even more than Gillard. And for exactly the same reasons.
>
>
>
> > > > Or.. the establishment of a benevolent dynasty.. just perhaps? One that in generations to come may even be regarded as Gods??
> > >
> > > And then when the crops/economy fails, to be overthrown in the inevitable republican uprising, or turned into merely symbolic figureheads ornamenting a democratic system involving a parliament.
> > >
> > > But look - it's been done.
> >
> > Unfortunately it has.. but only because the old ways of thinking were replaced by a desire for central Government. and the older Paganism was replaced... Greece and Rome have a lot to answer for methinks.
>
> The earliest great civilisations we know of, the Egyptians and their ilk, were doing the whole centralised government thing a very, very long time before either of these places did it,
Before Greece and Rome? Agreed. But not as successfully I'd submit.
and I would say, also a very long time before your heavily romanticised Dacian forbears had heard of Dacia.
And I would say.. nonsense! The Dacians were an advanced lot even before the Egyptians. The legends allude to that even at the time of the great dispersion. The Dacians, during their long and arduous trek to their new homeland in the Carpathians left several legacies with those they encountered along the way..But historical documentation of events back that far is scarce indeed..and the legends are all we have ( similar to biblical accounts no?) Legends and only that deciphering the truth from the hype will always be problematic, as legends do contain a bit of glorification and hype by their very nature. It's all about belief not proof for a lot of us.
>
>
>
> > Stopped? Well ok, yes. But the philosophy survives and as in the words of the Necronomican.. "That which is not dead but yet may eternal lie and in strange eons even death may die".
>
> But I don't see any philosophy (which was invented by the Greeks, by the way). I see comparisons between a pushy sheila from the unions and a Kurd-gassing thug, and then a nostalgia for what appears to be an unlikely mixture of Bag End and Vietnam, but not much philosophy.
OK while it seems we have the gloves off.. Poppycock CB! The Greeks may have coined the name, but invented philosophy..which is the mindset and opinions of humans? Or more simply the way we see the world around us and relate to it...Come on now!
>
>
>
> How do you know who they are descended from, and whose gods are older? Or do you just invent myths to prop up your closed-circuit belief system (in which you play the eternal hero, and "they" the eternal villain) in the identical way in which Christians always come back to their belief system to justify their own equally idiotic sounding fantasy on a very tired old, ego-bound theme?
Gee CB.. what a cynical viewpoint. We have our beliefs.. our legends our ways which we have held to .. and yes these do keep us warm against the cold cynicism of a world we find alien and hostile.
>
>
> > > > To attain the perfect government.. "First find the perfect person.. then make them an absolute dictator"
> > >
> > > Better still : "perfect" each individual, and external government is no longer required.
> > >
> > > Now that's a dream for us all - even public servants!
> >
> > Naa! Look around you CB.. see many people that could be perfected? I sure don't.. I do see plenty that are a waste of space, and ever shall be so regardless of any manipulation. Ye Gods and little fishes, you have named at least four yourself. Hussien, yep he's one, and Rudd, Howard and Gillard.. another three. Perfect each individual? Now there's a pipe dream indeed!
>
> Ah, I get it now. You're bitter that each of these four actually succeeded at "carving out a fiefdom". I'm actually proud of all of them, all except Saddam Hussein, who was a vulgar criminal by any standard, an actual enemy of his own people. The other three for all their flaws did/do in fact try to do their very best, such as it is, for all their wards (i.e. us), and yes, even Mr. Howard's heart was truly behind everything he did as being the best interests of the people he had been elected to represent, despite the often appalling mistakes he made. They each have different worldviews and priorities and personalities but despite their massive mistakes, I can in fact find something to admire about each of them - yes, even Mr. Rudd. I actually hated Julia Gillard and all her works before she became P.M. but now for some inexplicable reason I like her, probably because whatever she may be, she isn't a fucking conservative. I can't imagine how hard it must be to try to deal with the commercial media (who are all illiterate baboons with rabies), the opposition, on top of normal life, and try to run every single aspect of the entire nation - not just balance the books in a time like this, but the other 99.99999999999% of what statesmanship entails. And this, with tiny electoral terms such as we have in which to show twenty million people why renewal of one's contract is appropriate. I'm glad someone else is doing it quite frankly - it leaves me free to write here.
Cant see much point arguing on and on to these points.. suffice to say we certainly view things very very differently..you seem to have faith in the system.. and have every right to. We don't. You seem, (forgive me if I'm wrong)to hold a socialist view.. where we subscribe to the view that 75% of the population are self centered, apathetic idiots and we live in a democracy! The inmates definably have taken over the asylum. Free thinkers or those who have very different world views are.. well just as you have done... accused of talking nonsense.
Probably better to agree to disagree CB? the debate is getting a bit too nasty and personal for my tastes.. Ok you are passionate in your opinions.. well I probably am too..I doubt we are going to find a lot of common ground..And are straying into more political ground than spiritual and on here that's probably getting off topic and we will have Tim looking for his moderators hat....
All the best anyway...Bill.
- 1.5.
-
Re: Tradition
Posted by: "carteblanche13" carteblanche13@yahoo.com.au carteblanche13
Tue Nov 9, 2010 6:57 pm (PST)
--- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "barbtrad" <barbtrad@..com .> wrote:
>
> Hi CB.
>
> Hmmm! Seems I should have heeded that old adage about politics and religion. But hang on, this is a list about religious.. or spiritual beliefs anyhow. Just should have avoided politics. We certainly have a mile wide gulf between our opinions politically. Well yeah, probably on religions too.In a lot of ways Religion and politics are intertwined IMO.
>
> I think the argument is getting a bit too personal and heated. OK I'm probably politically to the right of Ghengis khan,and to me my ethnic linage is tied into my spirituality. So does that make me racist as your following comment seems to allude to?
>
> Snip.""Souls of a foreign breed", or bodies too? Do you mean the Jews or the slavs?"" Snip.
>
> Your replies seem to be getting a tad on the nasty side going by this.. And you have ridiculed my opinions ,which by the by a just as valid as yours, Nonsense you say actually.. Well how nonsensical is it to allege that someone descended from a Slavic tribe was calling Slavs foreign souls? As for Jews, well you are airing your ignorance in the heat of your political argument. Fact is CB I actually admire the Jews.. Why? Well they have adhered to their God and culture through thick and thin and always remained "a people apart" even though this has cost many of them their lives. While our heritage and spirituality has no links and not much other common ground to the Hebrew religion and culture, we do share this "Apartness". Anyhow enough on this.. we have been accused of being racist plenty of times before. And to be honest, if by that it is meant we are not subscribers to the socialist internationalist view.. then tough titty.
I simply wanted to know what you meant by "souls of a foreign breed", that's all - and I agree that your outlook does resemble that of the hard-core type of Chosen, plus you're going on about a promised land as well. Perhaps there is more in common than you think.
If I have ridiculed your opinions it is because I cannot find sense in some of them, and whether they are equally as valid as mine or not is not, in my opinion, a matter of belief, but of demonstration.
> --- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "carteblanche13" <carteblanche13@com > wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > --- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "barbtrad" <barbtrad@> wrote:com
> > > > > can we really completely separate the motivations of the Husseins and the Gillards? Aren't both seeking power over their people to push their own agendas even if that is at the expense of the living standards of their people? Only difference is one uses the machine gun, the other the propaganda machine.
> > > >
> > > > Bill, I am dismayed by the vagueness, flim-flammery and (if you'll pardon the strong language) sheer nonsense in what appears to be your thinking. I am astounded, actually.
> > >
> > > Well you shouldn't be.. We Barbarians think quite differently to the mainstream you know.
> >
> > No, it's not the unorthodox quality of your thinking on this particular matter (the notion that Julia Gillard is just like Saddam Hussein) which astounds me, it's the fact that it doesn't make any sense.
>
> Not to you perhaps, it makes a lot to me. What I'm saying and of course you don't agree is that whether a politician grabs power by force or trickery and lies ( and I'm not singling out your Ms Gillard here. they all seem to do it)its all rotten.
But Julia Gillard did not claim power by trickery and lies, she was voted in as head of the party which had been voted in to form government by the people of the country. There is no trickery and there were no lies involved.
Your assertion that "it is all rotten" doesn't tally with your previously expressed admiration for people who seize control by violence as being "more honest" or something.
Based on your earlier remarks, it looks like what you want is a situation where the biggest nastiest alpha primate automatically floats to the top through violence, and this is supposed to be an improvement on a system where people can be elected in and out of office by those whom they serve (as opposed to exploit).
I am always happy to ridicule beliefs or opinions which I think are ridiculous. This is a ridiculous position to hold by any standard:
>At least the guy with the gun is a bit more honest in his skulduggery. >
No, he is NOT more honest : he is more violent, more stupid, and more primitive. That does not equal "more honest".
>Its like Ned Kelly and the banks At least Ned had the decency to bail you up with a gun before robbing you blind. The banks rob us blind, but like your pollies do it without a gun in your ribs, using lies and fraud.. you say that's better..I say its the result not the method that makes any never mind.
I'm with you about the banks. But the politicians and the banks are two different things. There is no such thing as a bank with its customers' best interests at heart, as their sole mission is to fleece everyone (that's what makes a good bank), and they were never ELECTED to do so. Politicians on the other hand are elected in - and out - by their constituents.
And regarding lies and fraud - well, I don't know how close you've ever been to the family of someone who has been killed, but I'd rather we had a tradition of lies and fraud at the heart of our culture than a tradition of murder.
> So he shot his rivals.. Not the first nor will be the last I'd hazard a guess. Do I approve of his methods? No, but I'm buggered if I think he's all that much worse than those who "assassinate" their rivals in more genteel ways.
But you said it is "more honest".
Gillard did not "assassinate" Rudd, she WAS VOTED IN BY HER PARTY DURING A RUN OF THE MILL LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE. That is what happens if you are a member of any political party.
Rudd is free -and alive- to challenge her again later on. He is free and alive to lurk until he becomes PM again. He is free and alive to defect to the enemy, to form his own party, or to retire from politics and follow his natural calling as a niche adult film star in the Netherlands when that time comes.
> > > Give me the man with the gun every time... at least he's honest about it. Anyway wasn't Gillard's choice of weapon a knife applied to the back?
> >
> > No, it was a political party leadership challenge, which she won.
>
> Yeah, yeah whatever.
Whether you were aware of it or can understand it or not (it seems anything more indirect than a bullet in the face escapes the subtleties of your mind), this is what happened, and there is nothing deceitful about it at all.
You seem to think that the leader of a party is more important than the party or the government of which they are just one administrative part. So did Kevin Rudd - this is the single reason he lost the confidence of his party. He was acting like a dictator.
> > > > To answer your question, "can we really completely separate the motivations of the Husseins and the Gillards", I think you'll find the answer is pretty solidly: yes, yes we can, actually - the motivations, the methods, the intentions and the rationale, yep, they're different, I think.
> > >
> > > I don't know.. One shoots you in the back, the other stabs you in the back. Different methods admittedly but the same result.
> >
> >
> > Well, again, no, you are talking nonsense. The expression "to stab someone in the back" is a figure of speech, which is only loosely related to its subject, not literally. Look up the word "metaphor". At no time did she take up a piece of metal and insert it through Mr. Rudd's ribcage. On the other hand, Saddam did in fact shoot people to death using an actual gun in order to claim and to hold power.
>
> There you go again belittling my opinions calling them nonsense. What I'm saying is whether power is attained by gun or trickery its not much better or worse.. you don't agree..
No, I don't agree, and yes, I am belittling your opinions, because they are in fact complete nonsense. To make the ridiculous, cartoon-like claims which you have made and pass them off as a "spiritually-sanctioned" political viewpoint, in complete ignorance of the actual record of events, and evidently also, in the absence of any actual contact with gun violence and its aftermath, strikes me as puerile.
Unless you were only joking, in which case it is funny.
>CB I don't have a problem that you see things as you do, You seem to have one that I hold the opinions I do...Why?
I don't have a problem, Bill: you can hold and express all the opinions you wish to, and I will never tell you to shut up, never censor you, and never deny your right to express them - even if they are completely insane (which something having no grounding in reality actually is).
I shall at the same time exercise my own prerogative in demolishing ridiculous arguments, whatever their source, and particularly if they are coming from a (any) religious motivation, because I despise religion categorically as a mental disease (spirituality on the other hand, I can live with).
> > You may not see it, but there is a difference. Rudd is still alive. I would perhaps have preferred if she had stabbed him through the heart with a wooden stake, so we could rest knowing we will never have Mr. Sheen as our P.M. ever again, but alas, she was too kind and diplomatic, so he's still lurking out there.
>
> OK I get the point..You are a Gillard fan.. and you have every right to be. I'm not and also have every right to that opinion. I should clarify here that it's not specifically Gillard I have a problem with, she is just one among many on all sides of the political fence I consider to be committing blatant fraud against the people of Australia. Hells Bells CB, I think I detested little Johnny Howard even more than Gillard. And for exactly the same reasons.
Well, I admit that I was impressed that her first act as P.M. was to instantaneously halt the Fuhrer Rudd's plan to fill Australia with immigrants to reach the UTTERLY INSANE goal of 50 million people by 2020. I wasn't even aware of this plan - and I don't remember ever being asked to vote on it. And I think she's right in making him foreign minister - he obviously prefers the way the rest of the world looks.
Thank god for the party leadership challenge is all I can say - it saves us from maniacs, both gun-toting and otherwise.
> > > > > Or.. the establishment of a benevolent dynasty.. just perhaps? One that in generations to come may even be regarded as Gods??
> > > >
> > > > And then when the crops/economy fails, to be overthrown in the inevitable republican uprising, or turned into merely symbolic figureheads ornamenting a democratic system involving a parliament.
> > > >
> > > > But look - it's been done.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately it has.. but only because the old ways of thinking were replaced by a desire for central Government. and the older Paganism was replaced... Greece and Rome have a lot to answer for methinks.
> >
> > The earliest great civilisations we know of, the Egyptians and their ilk, were doing the whole centralised government thing a very, very long time before either of these places did it,
>
> Before Greece and Rome? Agreed. But not as successfully I'd submit.
Actually, the Egyptians had the most stable society in history, far more so than the Romans, and for much, much longer. The Greeks and Romans were to a large extent consciously emulating them in many ways.
> and I would say, also a very long time before your heavily romanticised Dacian forbears had heard of Dacia.
>
> And I would say.. nonsense! The Dacians were an advanced lot even before the Egyptians. The legends allude to that even at the time of the great dispersion. The Dacians, during their long and arduous trek to their new homeland in the Carpathians left several legacies with those they encountered along the way..But historical documentation of events back that far is scarce indeed..and the legends are all we have ( similar to biblical accounts no?) Legends and only that deciphering the truth from the hype will always be problematic, as legends do contain a bit of glorification and hype by their very nature.
So you admit it is a hyped legend, not a fact, but we have enough tangible observable facts about the Egyptians to show that they had a powerful centralised government, a monumental culture, an empire, and writing, a long time before the Dacians.
>It's all about belief not proof for a lot of us.
Clearly it is. But did you know that that makes it completely meaningless as "truth" of any kind - and therefore, false?
> > > Stopped? Well ok, yes. But the philosophy survives and as in the words of the Necronomican.. "That which is not dead but yet may eternal lie and in strange eons even death may die".
> >
> > But I don't see any philosophy (which was invented by the Greeks, by the way). I see comparisons between a pushy sheila from the unions and a Kurd-gassing thug, and then a nostalgia for what appears to be an unlikely mixture of Bag End and Vietnam, but not much philosophy.
>
>
> OK while it seems we have the gloves off.. Poppycock CB! The Greeks may have coined the name, but invented philosophy..which is the mindset and opinions of humans? Or more simply the way we see the world around us and relate to it...Come on now!
Gloves!? But I thought you preferred guns?
> > How do you know who they are descended from, and whose gods are older? Or do you just invent myths to prop up your closed-circuit belief system (in which you play the eternal hero, and "they" the eternal villain) in the identical way in which Christians always come back to their belief system to justify their own equally idiotic sounding fantasy on a very tired old, ego-bound theme?
>
> Gee CB.. what a cynical viewpoint. We have our beliefs.. our legends our ways which we have held to .. and yes these do keep us warm against the cold cynicism of a world we find alien and hostile.
But you are the one who sounds cold and cynical, Bill, not me. "Guns are better than elections" is the mental vomit of a brain-damaged adolescent, and justifying its complete lack of common sense and basis in any kind of reality by saying "oh well it's our beliefs" does not do anyone (especially you) any favours whatsoever. Beliefs are no excuse for nonsense. I would have expected more from an adult who has evidently assumed a spiritual leadership role.
> > > > > To attain the perfect government.. "First find the perfect person.. then make them an absolute dictator"
> > > >
> > > > Better still : "perfect" each individual, and external government is no longer required.
> > > >
> > > > Now that's a dream for us all - even public servants!
> > >
> > > Naa! Look around you CB.. see many people that could be perfected? I sure don't.. I do see plenty that are a waste of space, and ever shall be so regardless of any manipulation. Ye Gods and little fishes, you have named at least four yourself. Hussien, yep he's one, and Rudd, Howard and Gillard.. another three. Perfect each individual? Now there's a pipe dream indeed!
> >
> > Ah, I get it now. You're bitter that each of these four actually succeeded at "carving out a fiefdom". I'm actually proud of all of them, all except Saddam Hussein, who was a vulgar criminal by any standard, an actual enemy of his own people. The other three for all their flaws did/do in fact try to do their very best, such as it is, for all their wards (i.e. us), and yes, even Mr. Howard's heart was truly behind everything he did as being the best interests of the people he had been elected to represent, despite the often appalling mistakes he made. They each have different worldviews and priorities and personalities but despite their massive mistakes, I can in fact find something to admire about each of them - yes, even Mr. Rudd. I actually hated Julia Gillard and all her works before she became P.M. but now for some inexplicable reason I like her, probably because whatever she may be, she isn't a fucking conservative. I can't imagine how hard it must be to try to deal with the commercial media (who are all illiterate baboons with rabies), the opposition, on top of normal life, and try to run every single aspect of the entire nation - not just balance the books in a time like this, but the other 99.99999999999% of what statesmanship entails. And this, with tiny electoral terms such as we have in which to show twenty million people why renewal of one's contract is appropriate. I'm glad someone else is doing it quite frankly - it leaves me free to write here.
>
> Cant see much point arguing on and on to these points.. suffice to say we certainly view things very very differently..you seem to have faith in the system.. and have every right to. We don't. You seem, (forgive me if I'm wrong)to hold a socialist view.. where we subscribe to the view that 75% of the population are self centered, apathetic idiots and we live in a democracy! The inmates definably have taken over the asylum. Free thinkers or those who have very different world views are.. well just as you have done... accused of talking nonsense.
You are the one propounding a fantastic belief system as a basis for a political viewpoint. I have no belief system, and base my political views on entirely pragmatic bases. You are entitled to think freely - and I encourage you to do so, hence my criticism. But justifying your viewpoint with a mere set of beliefs is NOT free thinking.
You have, in fact, talked nonsense, unless you were joking about guns and Gillard. It is not a personal comment for me to say as much.
> Probably better to agree to disagree CB? the debate is getting a bit too nasty and personal for my tastes.. Ok you are passionate in your opinions.. well I probably am too..I doubt we are going to find a lot of common ground..And are straying into more political ground than spiritual and on here that's probably getting off topic and we will have Tim looking for his moderators hat....
It is a shame that you insist on interpreting my criticism of your arguments and views as personal and nasty - yes, I am ruthless in dessicating ideas and opinions, but I have not at any time attacked you personally. I think there is a place for frank political debate on this forum, but as long as it is based in fact and comprehension, and when cartoon-like remarks about "killing people being better than voting" is openly and unapologetically ridiculed for the nonsense which it is.
Best regards to you and yours,
C.B.
- 1.6.
-
Re: Tradition
Posted by: "carteblanche13" carteblanche13@yahoo.com.au carteblanche13
Tue Nov 9, 2010 7:32 pm (PST)
--- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "carteblanche13" <carteblanche13@com ...> wrote:
>"Guns are better than elections" is the mental vomit of a brain-damaged adolescent
I withdraw this tasteless and offensive comment of mine on behalf of my 14 year-old brain-damaged nephew, who actually knows much better.
- 1.7.
-
Re: Tradition
Posted by: "scott_bisseker" nu_scott@hotmail.com scott_bisseker
Tue Nov 9, 2010 8:29 pm (PST)
Greetings All,
> To answer your question, "can we really completely separate the motivations of the Husseins and the Gillards", I think you'll find the answer is pretty solidly: yes, yes we can, actually - the motivations, the methods, the intentions and the rationale, yep, they're different, I think.
I personally for one am not so sure preferring instead to just remember that:
"The convoluted wording of legalisms grew up around the necessity to hide from ourselves the violence we intend toward each other. Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. You have done violence to him, consumed his energy. Elaborate euphemisms may conceal your intent to kill, but behind any use of power over another the ultimate assumption remains: "I feed on your energy."
-Addenda to Orders in Council
The Emperor Paul Muad'dib"
Subsisto
Scott
- 1.8.
-
Re: Tradition
Posted by: "barbtrad" barbtrad@yahoo.com.au barbtrad
Tue Nov 9, 2010 9:48 pm (PST)
Hi CB.
I know I said further discussion on the subject wasn't likely to benefit anyone, and I still think that...But as this seems a reasonable question I'll attempt to give you an answer..Mind you that answer will probably do nothing towards any common ground being found. As for the rest of this post...you obviously could never see how we view the world, let alone understand. So I'll just let your... well.. rather arrogant responses go over my head. This should be a case of two conflicting points of view, with due acknowledgment of rights to hold same.. and dare I say a modicum of respect for any world view other than your own? Certainly not someone preaching that they are "obviously" right and I'm obviously wrong.. nothing obvious about it CB. I understand what you are saying..I disagree strongly, but it IS a case of opinions, nothing is demonstratively right or wrong.. And I'll not continue while the debate has such a flavour to it.
You seem to have a huge problem with traditionalists who see any merit in their ancestral heritage.. trying to ram down my neck just how much better the crazy system we have now is in comparison..I'll leave you with this thought..Ghengis Khan boasted that a young virgin could walk from one end of his realm to another carrying a bag of gold in perfect safety.. today under your much vaunted system an old age pensioner risks life and limb at the hands of miscreants for a few lousy dollars in their purse. merely by venturing out their door.
--- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "carteblanche13" <carteblanche13@com ...> wrote:
Now to your question. I don't imagine for a moment you will either understand or agree, but you asked a civil question and I'll do my best to answer in a similar vein
>
> I simply wanted to know what you meant by "souls of a foreign breed", that's all -
A core element of our belief system involves "Spiritual Tribes". These are NOT based solely on racial parameters. Just for a start, there are many that, while racially identical to us are not of our spiritual tribe. So playing the race card wont make it a trump. There are spiritual tribes that are linked and can and do work very well with each other.. and racial boundaries may well be crossed. There are also spiritual tribes that hate each others gizzards. And NOT on racial grounds. I hope this explains what I mean by spiritual tribes and kin.. Probably doesn't, but oh what the heck!
Bill.
- 1.9.
-
Re: Tradition
Posted by: "carteblanche13" carteblanche13@yahoo.com.au carteblanche13
Tue Nov 9, 2010 10:08 pm (PST)
--- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "barbtrad" <barbtrad@..com .> wrote:
>
> Hi CB.
>
> I know I said further discussion on the subject wasn't likely to benefit anyone, and I still think that...But as this seems a reasonable question I'll attempt to give you an answer..Mind you that answer will probably do nothing towards any common ground being found. As for the rest of this post...you obviously could never see how we view the world, let alone understand. So I'll just let your... well.. rather arrogant responses go over my head. This should be a case of two conflicting points of view, with due acknowledgment of rights to hold same.. and dare I say a modicum of respect for any world view other than your own? Certainly not someone preaching that they are "obviously" right and I'm obviously wrong.. nothing obvious about it CB. I understand what you are saying..I disagree strongly, but it IS a case of opinions, nothing is demonstratively right or wrong.. And I'll not continue while the debate has such a flavour to it.
>
> You seem to have a huge problem with traditionalists who see any merit in their ancestral heritage.. trying to ram down my neck just how much better the crazy system we have now is in comparison..I'll leave you with this thought..Ghengis Khan boasted that a young virgin could walk from one end of his realm to another carrying a bag of gold in perfect safety.. today under your much vaunted system an old age pensioner risks life and limb at the hands of miscreants for a few lousy dollars in their purse. merely by venturing out their door.
What were you saying about lies and propaganda, Bill? Is it also one of your traditional beliefs that those who resort to violence in order to achieve their ends never use lies and propaganda in addition? History shows that the two go hand in hand - so either way, we're stuck with the latter - but the former is, in fact, optional. And I reject it.
Under Ghengis Khan's rule, it is likely that any gold-laden virgin who put this ridiculous propagandistic claim to the test and fell foul of THE REALITY would have been put to death as undermining his advertising.
That's where it gets you. You really haven't thought this through at all, have you.
' The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it!' - do you have a bumper sticker with this on it, except with "the Bible" crossed out and the word "tradition" stuck in its place?
C.B.
>
> --- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "carteblanche13" <carteblanche13@com > wrote:
>
>
> Now to your question. I don't imagine for a moment you will either understand or agree, but you asked a civil question and I'll do my best to answer in a similar vein
> >
> > I simply wanted to know what you meant by "souls of a foreign breed", that's all -
>
> A core element of our belief system involves "Spiritual Tribes". These are NOT based solely on racial parameters. Just for a start, there are many that, while racially identical to us are not of our spiritual tribe. So playing the race card wont make it a trump. There are spiritual tribes that are linked and can and do work very well with each other.. and racial boundaries may well be crossed. There are also spiritual tribes that hate each others gizzards. And NOT on racial grounds. I hope this explains what I mean by spiritual tribes and kin.. Probably doesn't, but oh what the heck!
>
> Bill.
>
- 2.
-
Reiki Share - Wollongong, 11/15/2010, 7:00 pm
Posted by: "WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups.com" WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups.com
Wed Nov 10, 2010 12:59 am (PST)
Reminder from: WitchesWorkshop Yahoo! Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/WitchesWor kshop/cal
Reiki Share - Wollongong
Monday November 15, 2010
7:00 pm - 8:00 pm
(This event repeats every month on the third Monday.)
Location: Smith Street, Wollongong
Notes:
Shares are open to Reiki people from any lineage and at any level - all who have been 'attuned' to Reiki are welcome.
Reiki shares are held every month on the 3rd Monday, every month from 7pm in the evening and all attendees will receive an intensive treatment from the group.
Contact Ali on 042 020 8879 or email alison@shamanicspirit.com.au
www.shamanicspirit.com.au
All Rights Reserved
Copyright © 2010
Yahoo! Inc.
http://www.yahoo.com
Privacy Policy:
http://privacy.yahoo.com/ privacy/us
Terms of Service:
http://docs.yahoo.com/ info/terms/
Need to Reply?
Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.
____________________ ooo)(0({O})0)(ooo____________________
Witches Workshop hold regular workshops see
http://www.witchesworkshop.com/Circle/circle_workshop.html
Keep up to date via our WitchesWorshop Facebook Page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sydney-Australia/WitchesWorkshop/135651219624
WitchesWorkshop and Witch Camp Australia also run camps
several times a year - check out our websites for updates.
http://www.witchcampaustralia.org.au
http://www.witchesworkshop.com
___________________________________________________________
The WitchesWorkshop egroup holds the expectation that a
tolerant and respectful dialogue be strived for in our
communication with other pagans, witches magicians, et al.
Members are encouraged to challenge anyone not adhering
to these principles & to notify owner.
info@witchesworkshop.com
___________________________________________________________
Witches Workshop hold regular workshops see
http://www.witchesworkshop.com/Circle/circle_workshop.html
Keep up to date via our WitchesWorshop Facebook Page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sydney-Australia/WitchesWorkshop/135651219624
WitchesWorkshop and Witch Camp Australia also run camps
several times a year - check out our websites for updates.
http://www.witchcampaustralia.org.au
http://www.witchesworkshop.com
___________________________________________________________
The WitchesWorkshop egroup holds the expectation that a
tolerant and respectful dialogue be strived for in our
communication with other pagans, witches magicians, et al.
Members are encouraged to challenge anyone not adhering
to these principles & to notify owner.
info@witchesworkshop.com
___________________________________________________________
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu