Rant of the Patriopsychoticanarchomaterialist
Posted by:: "Reverend Johnny Lemuria"
Date: 9 Mar 2005 15:13:38 -0800
--------
First draft of a rant (can rants have drafts? Fuck it, its my rant,
I'll draft if I want to) I going to give at my debut, one man devival
at the science fiction convention I'm organizing.
Brag of the Patriopsychoticanarchomaterialist
I am the economic yeti
I shoot gold out of my DICK
I crap profit
And have productivity oozing from my hairy nipples
All you pink parasites,
FEAR THE FREE MARKET SUBGENIUS!
I am a In-/die, die, die you gray bastards!/-vid-u-al
I am the sovereign subgenius, master of my domain
Keep your huddled masses, your "society" that you claim is greater than
I
OFF MY DAMNED LAWN!
I am the red-hot coal GOIN' DOWN through your butter chains of law
You talk of your freedoms,
freedom from want
freedom from poverty
Fuck that noise
I'll take the freedom from pinks messin' with my slack
Oh, give me peace, equality, and non-coerciveness
AS LONG AS I CAN MAKE A "BoB"DAMNED BUCK!
I eat that false-facer Haliburton for breakfast
WTO, Nafta, telling me they're making the world safe for the market
False slack and technoboredom from pink politicos
The REAL market don't need no gummit'
The FREE market don't need no steenkin' regulations
All hail the smuggling subgenius
Try and mess with my victimless activity
And I'll stick
A SIZE-11 BOOTLEG UP YOUR ASS
Posted by:: "Rev. Ivan Stang"
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 21:45:19 -0500
--------
In article <1110410018.465263.87460@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Reverend Johnny Lemuria wrote:
> First draft of a rant (can rants have drafts? Fuck it, its my rant,
> I'll draft if I want to) I going to give at my debut, one man devival
> at the science fiction convention I'm organizing.
>
>
> Brag of the Patriopsychoticanarchomaterialist
>
> I am the economic yeti
> I shoot gold out of my DICK
> I crap profit
> And have productivity oozing from my hairy nipples
> All you pink parasites,
> FEAR THE FREE MARKET SUBGENIUS!
>
> I am a In-/die, die, die you gray bastards!/-vid-u-al
> I am the sovereign subgenius, master of my domain
> Keep your huddled masses, your "society" that you claim is greater than
> I
> OFF MY DAMNED LAWN!
>
> I am the red-hot coal GOIN' DOWN through your butter chains of law
> You talk of your freedoms,
> freedom from want
> freedom from poverty
> Fuck that noise
> I'll take the freedom from pinks messin' with my slack
> Oh, give me peace, equality, and non-coerciveness
> AS LONG AS I CAN MAKE A "BoB"DAMNED BUCK!
>
> I eat that false-facer Haliburton for breakfast
> WTO, Nafta, telling me they're making the world safe for the market
> False slack and technoboredom from pink politicos
> The REAL market don't need no gummit'
> The FREE market don't need no steenkin' regulations
> All hail the smuggling subgenius
> Try and mess with my victimless activity
> And I'll stick
> A SIZE-11 BOOTLEG UP YOUR ASS
>
Right ON! Right ON! Power to the PEOPLE'S POCKETBOOKS! RICH CONSUMERS
MAKE HAPPY CUSTOMERS! And can come back for MORE MORE MORE
--
The SubGenius Foundation, Inc.
(4th Stangian Orthodox MegaFisTemple Lodge of the Wrath of Dobbs Yeti,
Resurrected, Rev. Ivan Stang, prop.)
P.O. Box 181417, Cleveland, OH 44118 (fax 216-320-9528)
Dobbs-Approved Authorized Commercial Outreach of The Church of the SubGenius
SubSITE: http://www.subgenius.com PRABOB
Posted by:: "Reverend Johnny Lemuria"
Date: 9 Mar 2005 20:35:55 -0800
--------
Well, its better than NOT being able to. So, I like to acquire some
things. I could launch into some boring, cut-and-paste, and ultimately
pointless cheerleader routine on the benefits of the free market and
the absense of the State, but I won't. I'll just say that when I read
Rothbard, when I read Mises, when I read sites like Strike the Root and
Anti-State.Com, I feel good. I get a bit of slack. I feel a bit like
the same way I felt when I read the BOTSG. When I read something
extolling the values of socialism and government that's here to help
you, I feel.....nothing. Well, maybe a bit disgusted, like watching a
boy band on MTV. You've got to go where the gut takes you, where the
slack leads to. And for me, that's the agora.
Posted by:: "Quirk"
Date: 10 Mar 2005 06:02:13 -0800
--------
Reverend Johnny Lemuria wrote:
> Rothbard, when I read Mises, when I read sites like Strike the Root
and
> Anti-State.Com, I feel good. I get a bit of slack.
Unfortunatly, Rothbard and Mises are limited, and have very little to
do with the Anarchist tradition, they, along with others like Hayek and
the younger Friedman, are simply Capitalists (aka PINKS) who like the
word Anarchism. They have some good ideas, certainly preferable to the
Repugs and Neo-cons, but in the end, they represent the Freedom of the
rich to exploit the poor (aka Freedom of the Pinks to steal your Slack)
because they believe in the private ownership of land, which is the
antithesis of Anarchism, which starts with the understanding of the
famous saying "property is theft."
I suggest you take a joyride in the spell-binding world of actual
Anarchism, the real state-destroying, slack-loving deal, and take a
look at Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mihail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin and
Benjamin Tucker.
Lots of good stuff at mutualist.org
The Glorious Red Bobby Brigades Salute you.
New Driveway!
SubComandante Quirk.
Posted by:: "Reverend Johnny Lemuria"
Date: 10 Mar 2005 13:21:57 -0800
--------
You know, for someone who seems to pride himself on his rhetoric and
debating skills, you certainly make quite a few baseless assertions.
Just people people with money have been mean to you by not giving you
their stuff simply because you don't have stuff like that is no reason
to call them pinks. Also, while anarchism may have originally meant
what Bakunin and Kropotkin defined it as, does not mean that it must
still mean it. Just about every social anarchist I read, no matter how
individualist they are, eventually introduce some sort of committee,
council, or other organization to determine who can use what land.
That's a State, no matter how you cut it.
I have read some mutualists, and I do like what they say on
non-land-related issues. But, they still have not solved the problem of
how to have a propertyless society without a State to my satisfaction.
Posted by:: HellPope Huey
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 03:41:11 GMT
--------
In article <1110489717.249173.282300@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Reverend Johnny Lemuria" wrote:
> You know, for someone who seems to pride himself on his rhetoric and
> debating skills, you certainly make quite a few baseless assertions.
> Just people people with money have been mean to you by not giving you
> their stuff simply because you don't have stuff like that is no reason
> to call them pinks. Also, while anarchism may have originally meant
> what Bakunin and Kropotkin defined it as, does not mean that it must
> still mean it. Just about every social anarchist I read, no matter how
> individualist they are, eventually introduce some sort of committee,
> council, or other organization to determine who can use what land.
> That's a State, no matter how you cut it.
> I have read some mutualists, and I do like what they say on
> non-land-related issues. But, they still have not solved the problem of
> how to have a propertyless society without a State to my satisfaction.
Spoilsport. Never mess your mind with Religion; never soil a Rant with
logic.
--
HellPope Huey
Does this newsgroup make my head look fat?
We believe in the perseverance of the saints,
but many are not saints
and therefore do not persevere.
- C.H. Spurgeon
[Worf] You are attempting to manufacture triumph
where none exists.
[Quark] I'd say he succeeded.
[Bashir] To manufactured triumph.
[O'Brien] Manufactured triumph: hear, hear!
- "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine"
Posted by:: "Quirk"
Date: 11 Mar 2005 04:41:59 -0800
--------
Reverend Johnny Lemuria wrote:
> You know, for someone who seems to pride himself on his rhetoric and
> debating skills, you certainly make quite a few baseless assertions.
Sorry, I was just making casual banter and some friendly suggestions, I
didn't realize we were debating.
> Just people people with money have been mean to you by not giving you
> their stuff simply because you don't have stuff like that is no
reason
> to call them pinks.
This is good example of a baseless assertion, please indicate how you
took my assertion that Anarchism believes that land must not be
privately owned with the idea that "people should give me their stuff."
Anarchism believes that private ownership of land, and other
"Monopolies" are the root of exploitation, exploitation is a code word
theorists use to mean FUCKING UP YOUR SLACK. People who eagerly want to
reduce your slack, are PINKS. I know this is not consistent with the
esoteric nenslatic definition, but that is the official definition of
the Red Bobbie Brigades, and I am their self appointed spokesperson.
Liberalism and Anarchism share a common concept of ownership, you own
yourself, you therefore own everything you produde. However, you did
not produce the land, therefore you can not own it.
> Also, while anarchism may have originally meant
> what Bakunin and Kropotkin defined it as, does not mean that it must
> still mean it.
Absolutely, Anarchism contines to evolve, but private ownership of
land, being the basis of exploitation, is the opposite of Anarchism,
therefore introducing a theory that supports the private ownership of
land and calling it "Anarchist Capitalism" like Von Mises and company
is not much different that introducing as system in which the means of
production are privately owned and calling it "National Socialism".
It does not //extend// but rather //negates// the theory, and is
therefore not a part of it.
> Just about every social anarchist I read, no matter how
> individualist they are, eventually introduce some sort of committee,
> council, or other organization to determine who can use what land.
Exactly. Except for Rothbard, Hayek, Von Mises and co, who insist that
the only role of government is the so called "Nightwatchman State," A
state that does nothing other than protect private property, especially
land.
This is simply called Capitalism, not Anarchism.
> That's a State, no matter how you cut it.
Well, without getting into semantics, as the usage is not consistent,
Anarchists generally consider the State to be inherently top-down,
involuntary, and monolithic, as opposed to Anarchist
syndicates/communes/councils, which are bottom-up, voluntary, and
plural, and therefore not considered "States."
> I have read some mutualists, and I do like what they say on
> non-land-related issues. But, they still have not solved the problem
of
> how to have a propertyless society without a State to my
satisfaction.
Perhaps, it is an on-going intellectual pursuit, one that I myself
dabble in with my Venture Communist model.
However, that nature is a common stock for all of us to live and labour
upon is a basic tenant of liberalism as well as Anarchism, so theorists
who would allow private sovereign property rights over nature are
neither liberal nor Anarchist, but rather Capitalist, and therefore
anti-slack.
Regards.
Posted by:: "Reverend Johnny Lemuria"
Date: 12 Mar 2005 14:19:18 -0800
--------
Quirk wrote:
> Reverend Johnny Lemuria wrote:
>
> > You know, for someone who seems to pride himself on his rhetoric
and
> > debating skills, you certainly make quite a few baseless
assertions.
>
> Sorry, I was just making casual banter and some friendly suggestions,
I
> didn't realize we were debating.
Its so hard to tell with you. The debates I have seen you enage in here
on alt.slack, while hardly friendly, are certainly banterful.
> > Just people people with money have been mean to you by not giving
you
> > their stuff simply because you don't have stuff like that is no
> reason
> > to call them pinks.
>
> This is good example of a baseless assertion, please indicate how you
> took my assertion that Anarchism believes that land must not be
> privately owned with the idea that "people should give me their
stuff."
I took it that way because the kind of social anarchist that is against
the private ownership of land typically advocates a whole host of other
"wealth redistribution" schemes as well, all of which stink of envy. If
you do not wish to be tarred with this brush, you should not use their
jargon and concepts.
> Anarchism believes that private ownership of land, and other
> "Monopolies" are the root of exploitation, exploitation is a code
word
> theorists use to mean FUCKING UP YOUR SLACK. People who eagerly want
to
> reduce your slack, are PINKS. I know this is not consistent with the
> esoteric nenslatic definition, but that is the official definition of
> the Red Bobbie Brigades, and I am their self appointed spokesperson.
And this is supposed to make me want to do anything other than ass rape
you with the Dagger of Eris why?
> Liberalism and Anarchism share a common concept of ownership, you own
> yourself, you therefore own everything you produde. However, you did
> not produce the land, therefore you can not own it.
By produce, I can only imagine you mean change and shape, as no one
*creates" anything- matter can never be created or destroyed (Except
for "Bob" who employs an artificial white hole shoved up his ass after
a large meal for appearnances sake. Everytime he takes a crap, the
heat-death of the universe ir delayed another second.) So, if I got an
earth-mover and dug some trenches and piled some dirt so that it would
look like Stang fellating Nenslo when seen from space, would I "own"
that?
> > Also, while anarchism may have originally meant
> > what Bakunin and Kropotkin defined it as, does not mean that it
must
> > still mean it.
>
> Absolutely, Anarchism contines to evolve, but private ownership of
> land, being the basis of exploitation, is the opposite of Anarchism,
> therefore introducing a theory that supports the private ownership of
> land and calling it "Anarchist Capitalism" like Von Mises and company
> is not much different that introducing as system in which the means
of
> production are privately owned and calling it "National Socialism".
Damn, godwinized already.
> It does not //extend// but rather //negates// the theory, and is
> therefore not a part of it.
The "theory" of anarchism incoroporates economic theories, political
theories, and interpersonal relationship theories. When you change a
part, you change the appearance of the whole. Von Mises introduced a
new economic theory, one that simply WORKS BETTER than the primitive
ecomonic theories of Marx (and for that matter, Adam Smith.)
> > Just about every social anarchist I read, no matter how
> > individualist they are, eventually introduce some sort of
committee,
> > council, or other organization to determine who can use what land.
>
> Exactly. Except for Rothbard, Hayek, Von Mises and co, who insist
that
> the only role of government is the so called "Nightwatchman State," A
> state that does nothing other than protect private property,
especially
> land.
>
> This is simply called Capitalism, not Anarchism.
No, they don't advocate a Nightwatchman State. They advocate the
abolition of the State. Period.
> > That's a State, no matter how you cut it.
>
> Well, without getting into semantics, as the usage is not consistent,
> Anarchists generally consider the State to be inherently top-down,
> involuntary, and monolithic, as opposed to Anarchist
> syndicates/communes/councils, which are bottom-up, voluntary, and
> plural, and therefore not considered "States."
If the group has a monopoly decision on who gets to use what land,
that's a State.
> > I have read some mutualists, and I do like what they say on
> > non-land-related issues. But, they still have not solved the
problem
> of
> > how to have a propertyless society without a State to my
> satisfaction.
>
> Perhaps, it is an on-going intellectual pursuit, one that I myself
> dabble in with my Venture Communist model.
>
> However, that nature is a common stock for all of us to live and
labour
> upon is a basic tenant of liberalism as well as Anarchism, so
theorists
> who would allow private sovereign property rights over nature are
> neither liberal nor Anarchist, but rather Capitalist, and therefore
> anti-slack.
>
> Regards.
Anti-Slack doesn't mean "anything I don't like".
Posted by:: HellPope Huey
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 01:10:33 GMT
--------
In article <1110665958.457916.101840@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Reverend Johnny Lemuria" wrote:
> So, if I got an
> earth-mover and dug some trenches and piled some dirt so that it would
> look like Stang fellating Nenslo when seen from space, would I "own"
> that?
I think I got AIDS from just READING that.
--
HellPope Huey
Former keyboardist for Bleeding Gums Murphy
Inside your head,
there's a record playing,
saying hold on
- Tom Waits, "Hold On"
"A monkey with a gun
would make a great TV show."
- "That 70s Show"
Posted by:: "Quirk"
Date: 13 Mar 2005 08:42:08 -0800
--------
Reverend Johnny Lemuria wrote:
> Its so hard to tell with you. The debates I have seen you enage in
here
> on alt.slack, while hardly friendly, are certainly banterful.
I make every effort to be friendly. Doesn't always work I admit, but
excepting those explicitly promoting censorship, torture, murder and
such, I generally respond respectfully.
> > This is good example of a baseless assertion, please indicate how
you
> > took my assertion that Anarchism believes that land must not be
> > privately owned with the idea that "people should give me their
> stuff."
>
> I took it that way because the kind of social anarchist that is
against
> the private ownership of land typically advocates a whole host of
other
> "wealth redistribution" schemes as well, all of which stink of envy.
If
> you do not wish to be tarred with this brush, you should not use
their
> jargon and concepts.
You are not describing any social anarchists that I have come across, I
think you are thinking of liberals and socialist.
Anarchist believe that the fair wage of the worker is //the entirety of
his product.// "Redistribution" is a liberal concept.
Perhaps you may want to substantiate this argument, and specify wich of
my jargon and concepts you refer to.
> > reduce your slack, are PINKS. I know this is not consistent with
the
> > esoteric nenslatic definition, but that is the official definition
of
> > the Red Bobbie Brigades, and I am their self appointed
spokesperson.
> And this is supposed to make me want to do anything other than ass
rape
> you with the Dagger of Eris why?
Because you know that would only result in you tripping over one of
your left feet and gorging your own eye out.
Instead, you shold wonder why what I said pushes your buttons so.
> > Liberalism and Anarchism share a common concept of ownership, you
own
> > yourself, you therefore own everything you produde. However, you
did
> > not produce the land, therefore you can not own it.
> By produce, I can only imagine you mean change and shape,
I am not coining a new term here, I mean production in the normal
ecomic sence. Neither Von Mises nor Marx not Proudhon would have any
trouble understanding.
I am not talking about physics.
I need a farmer to grow a vegtable before I can eat it, that the matter
already existed doen't help.
But that land is a fixed supply, and therefore it's ownership is
monopoly ownership, and because nobody created the land, thus any
income derived from its unimproved value is unearned, is actually a big
part of what I am trying to explain here.
> So, if I got an
> earth-mover and dug some trenches and piled some dirt so that it
would
> look like Stang fellating Nenslo when seen from space, would I "own"
> that?
Only as long as you paid your rent. If your formation was not a
sufficiently productive use for that land, you would have to give it
up.
> > production are privately owned and calling it "National Socialism".
> Damn, godwinized already.
I only wish that law worked. It should be called Godwin's widely
quoted, yet ignored, suggestion, rather than law.
> > It does not //extend// but rather //negates// the theory, and is
> > therefore not a part of it.
> The "theory" of anarchism incoroporates economic theories, political
> theories, and interpersonal relationship theories. When you change a
> part, you change the appearance of the whole.
However when you change its //basis// you have a whole new theory, or
rather in this case, an old theory dressed up with a new name to make
it look sexier.
> Von Mises introduced a
> new economic theory, one that simply WORKS BETTER than the primitive
> ecomonic theories of Marx (and for that matter, Adam Smith.)
Where have Von Mises's theories been tried?
Capitalism died in 1929 in the developed world, and has only been tried
since in the developing world, at gun point, and with invariably
disasterous results.
What do you mean by "works better?"
Marx strikes me as being mostly a moral philospher, his economic ideas
seem to be largely derived from Ricardo, but I am NOT very knowledable
about Marx.
And comparing Von Mises to Smith is like comparing a modern, yet
unremarkable, particle physisist to Aristotle.
Sure Von Mises, had a more advanced understanding of the market,
however Smith got the ball rolling.
Von Mises doesn't really add that much of value, as far as I can tell,
but I have an open mind. Which of Von Mises ideas do you think are
noteworthy?
Except the idea of trying to pretend that Capitalism is Anarchism.
> > This is simply called Capitalism, not Anarchism.
> No, they don't advocate a Nightwatchman State. They advocate the
> abolition of the State. Period.
Well, far be it for me to represent the ideas of the Ausrians, since I
am not a follower, but that is the way I have alwasy understood the
work, if I am wrong, please explain how Mises/Rothbard and company
propose we deal with the issues of theft and national security.
As far as I know, they support the tax-funded Nightwatchman state, if
you have a different answer, please present it.
> > syndicates/communes/councils, which are bottom-up, voluntary, and
> > plural, and therefore not considered "States."
> If the group has a monopoly decision on who gets to use what land,
> that's a State.
As I said, I am not interested in getting into a semantic argument
regading what is and what is not a "State." I defined the term as I use
it, but am willing to use any terms that we agree on, it is the logical
arguments I am more concerned with.
Ownership of land is always monopoly ownership, because land has a
fixed supply, there can never be any new suppliers except those that
have first dealt with existing suppliers.
So monopoly control is the only control possible.
The question is how should this control be administered, through
private soveriegn property rights or through some sort of collective
ownership.
My understanding is that Anarchists propose networks of member-owned
Communes to hold land (and capital) on behalf of their members,
Socialists propose central, authoritarian control on a National or even
International Level, and Capitalists propose that individuals sould
have sovereign property rights enforced by a tax-funded nighwatcman
state, Liberals also believe in using property rights, but also the use
of more Taxes to resdistribute some of the wealth as well as protect
it.
> Anti-Slack doesn't mean "anything I don't like".
No, it means anything that means that I have to do things I don't want
to more, and do what I like, or nothing at all, less.
At least in the lexicon of the glorious Red Bobbie Brigades.
Private Rent steals the product of your labour in exactly the same way
that Taxes do, except without any public goods in return. When your
productivity is stolen, you must produce more for your own sustanance,
thereby you lose SLACK.
Wokers of the World Relax!
Regards.