This Forum is Closed
October 23, 2020, 01:06:29 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: GGF now has a permanent home: http://forum.globalgulag.com
 
  Home Help Search Links Staff List Login Register  

Temporary

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Temporary  (Read 534 times)
Bad Penny
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 327



View Profile
« on: January 11, 2011, 12:41:03 am »


 See it at:



at 5m 47 s into the video:

"...[W]hen you look at unbalanced people, how they are, um, how they respond  to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths, about tearing down the government, the anger, the hatred, the, uh, uh, uh, bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous, and, unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become sort of the capital.  We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry.
Report Spam   Logged

Are you taking over?
Or are you taking orders?
I ain't going backwards!
We're going only forwards!

The Clash, White Riot

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Jonnie Goodboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 833


The Gulag Archipelago, - had 'Paradise Islands'.


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2011, 03:43:36 am »

Jones describes the person as pure satanic evil ... (from his current pictures) whereas the shots in this clip and elsewhere of the man as a kid show him as a frodo like character, innocent and sweet, and to quote the words of the sheriff, "We need to do some soul-searching, [...] because this America has not become the nice america we grew up in" or words to that effect.

You need to do some soul-searching for sure, and as individuals, what say Bad-Penny!?

I'm sure there are meanwhile numerous agencies all ready to take up the offer of 'soul-searching' in order to find what's wrong at the heart of your young alientated america.

And I wonder that if under the 'current climate', they should get on with it, as soon as possible.

« Last Edit: January 12, 2011, 04:26:37 pm by Two Tenners » Report Spam   Logged


"When the righteous become many, the people rejoice; but when anyone wicked bears rule, the people sigh".
— Prov 29:2
Jonnie Goodboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 833


The Gulag Archipelago, - had 'Paradise Islands'.


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2011, 07:07:21 pm »

 Don't you think this whole story can be traced back to the common american zeitgeist as presented in 'Taxi-Driver' with De Niro? (Apart from the american obsession with the 2nd.)

In that movie it seems to me that all the rabble in the world (NYC where-else?) that De Niro's character wants to kill remains only a latent threat until he picks up Scorsese himself as the 'Silhouette shooter' character who wants to kill his wife who is seeing the 'N****R' in the upstairs appartment, allegedly.

So, the script writer himself is the real 'Pusher' a term the knowledgeable Campaign office First date Betsy uses to describe 'Travis' - that's De Niro's character himself, and she shows her insight on mind control from the Kris Kristoffersson song about a pusher character in one of his songs.

Now a Pusher in the street context is just a drug-runner or pimp perhaps, nothing more but a common or garden ne'er thee do well, but a 'Pusher' in actual para-psychology as Betsy kind of touches on, in the café scene, is someone who forces their will upon someone else, totally and convincingly, and who is in this moment Travis himself, or so she tells him, as he 'wisps her off her feet' to the café and the aborted porno cinema trip.

It's about mind-control folks. The Pusher is not only the shady 'silhouette shooter' who seeds the idea of taking out his revenge on his alleged (not necessarily true) personal hate characters of the black guy who is allegedly screwing his wife, but is also clearly the Script Writer, and Director himself that is Scorsese.

The possible fantasy world of the Director becomes the catalysing event that tips 'Travis' or De Niro over the edge from where he takes his comrade Yellow Cab drivers' associate and gun runner & drug dealer's advice and stocks up on a whole armoury of self-defensive hand-guns, with as his first intent to try and kill Palatino the Presidential candidate as he campaigns downtown NYC.

So, it seems to me it's a clear message about the power of Hollywood suggestion, an admittance if you will of its power to 'Push' psychopathic ideas into vulnerable minds.

It also seems at a quick browse to be about the circular self-fulfilment of extreme low self esteem in response to failed expectations in Travis' misguided attempts to change the world around him, which he claims to hate and claims to want to see fixed, but before he meets the cameo Scorsese who 'Pushes' his will on him.

You can see that the 'Pusher' angle has been considered in the reviews, as with this good one that makes no literal  reference to the Real Pusher who does not 'Hide in plain view' as we're being taught to expect everywhere but still remains occult, or hidden, whilst being the trigger that completely changes the tone of the movie.

("The passenger directs Travis's gaze, as a director might, to the lighted window where his wife is, tells Travis his wife is sleeping with a black man, then describes his plans for murder in gruesome detail. The passenger uses hateful language to describe the black man as well as what he'll do to his wife, giving voice to much of the hate Travis already feels. After this scene, nothing in the movie is the same. The passenger plants the idea of extreme violence in Travis's head. In just a few scenes, Travis will seek out a gun of his own, like the one the passenger has.)

http://www.sparknotes.com/film/taxidriver/characters.html
»
http://www.sparknotes.com/film/taxidriver/canalysis.html#The-Unnamed-Passenger

And the 'Silouhette shooter' - Scorsese appears momentarily right at the end, in Travis' rear view mirror, supposedly in the back seat, just after upper-class heartbreaker Betsy from the Campaign office steps out, after a chance late night 'fare'. But he isn't really there, he's just appeared in Travis' immagination, and like he's suddenly woken up to his vulnerability, to the possibility that his mind is more of fragile eggshells than robust Ex-Marine, ex Nam Vet, who cuts his Mohican before going into shooting mode.

Without the easy access to the guns, the shootout with the media projected 'bad-guys' who are no more than pimps, could never happen, but the gun-runner of course gets clear away after reaping in a couple thou' from Travis for four different hand-guns.

Scorsese is not just stating the obvious, when you think about it, viz-a-vis the guns issue but suggests that either Travis is plain delusional - and just makes up his own reasons to go killing people he can't understand for behaviour he can't understand, or that he is a victim of someone else's 'Pushing' of will upon him.

The subtlety of script-writing dazzles me, generally in american story zeitgeist as they tend to deal with the subconscious worlds of people more than just catering for straight story-lines. Perhaps that's what makes Hollywood so great. And the sudden ending is just what knocked me silly for years about this movie, that it's really unsure what will happen next in this 'world of all possibilities' as painted by the Script-Writer.

But of course, cutting movies short because of perceived audience 'attention-span' issues is another main reason for films being edited shorter than ideal.

Others review at:
http://www.sparknotes.com/film/taxidriver/canalysis.html#The-Unnamed-Passenger
« Last Edit: January 11, 2011, 07:28:45 pm by Two Tenners » Report Spam   Logged


"When the righteous become many, the people rejoice; but when anyone wicked bears rule, the people sigh".
— Prov 29:2
Jonnie Goodboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 833


The Gulag Archipelago, - had 'Paradise Islands'.


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2011, 04:00:19 pm »

He even looks like De Niro's psycho mugshot after the arrest:


But what happened to our Frodo?


Ah, as per Taxi-Driver he may have posed as a Political Campaigner to get close to his post-Adolescence Infatuation with dating your Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords according to Paul Joseph Watson's research at Propergandermatrix.com.



The Congresswoman subscribes to only two people from her YouTube Channel page, and Lougher is one of the two .....!!!!!!
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/january2011/120111_loughner_giffords.htm

"It's Taxi-Driver ..... I tells yer, yer gotta believe me, Don't says I didna' warn youse." Anyway, with that, I'll leave you to go polish your shiney and precious things and make careless postings about how to aim better using various sights and support tripods, as one newcomer to this forum has already started doing I notice ....

I once saw off three 17yr youths who were busy trying to kill me with a sawn-off 3ft length of scaffold poll by aimed blows to the upper body, shoulders and at the head. I saw them off just by the strength of my voice ... True Story from London, ~1980. But they weren't the Government. And for Americans, it is The Government which patriots seem agreed is likely coming to get them. In this particular example of mine, the Government were present, about 50' away in the form of a Police van with it's tailgate down, with twelve or so coppers inside all supping cans of 'Special-Brew' and taking it real easy. They didn't seem to bothered with my dilemma, initially. True story as I say.

And if I'd had a legally held firearm? How would I have faired? What if they'd had illegal guns and a shoot-out had been the result. Would it have made a good movie? I don't think so, and so to what end arguing in my case that guns would have protected me from hoods. And if the Government comes. Gosh, these questions really go over my head Sherlock!

So, much as I appreciate the arguments, culturally and historically for the 2nd in the States, I have learned to take care of myself by other means than having to resort to any major kind of physical intervention, least of all the appreciation of the noble art of blowing people's brains out.

But good luck with all that anyway.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2011, 05:39:19 pm by Two Tenners » Report Spam   Logged


"When the righteous become many, the people rejoice; but when anyone wicked bears rule, the people sigh".
— Prov 29:2
Jonnie Goodboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 833


The Gulag Archipelago, - had 'Paradise Islands'.


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2011, 04:52:24 pm »

You can see his YouTube Channel Content at this link, hosted by the Huff Post.:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/08/jared-lee-loughner-gabrielle-giffords-shooter_n_806243.html

Scroll down the page and you can see a strong report from Loughner's high school friend Zak entitled "Shooting at The World".

"I can't look at that picture, (crying) it scares me". "We just stopped talking, I wish there was something I could have done to help, [...] he looks like a monster".

But as my last word on this analogy, Loughner had a fully licensed and Registered Firearm, since his FBI checks had gone through without hindrance; whereas the 'Travis' character in the movie 'Taxi-Driver' has an armoury of illegally held guns, a fact he attests to after the Shooting in the Off-Licence/Grocery Store when he fatally wounds an armed robber who walks in. Interestingly, the shop keeper, again seems quick to take up the killing cause, as he hurries 'Travis' out of the store saying "Go, go, I'll take care of this mess", and subsequently takes to viciously and mercilessly smashing in the head of the downed villain with some metallic weapon he has behind the counter. Seems he too has now caught the bug of contagious killing.

Of course 'taxi-driver' was only a complete fiction and this story is reality .... but there are the marked comparisons, but perhaps most americans think like this ... I don't know.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2011, 05:20:34 pm by Two Tenners » Report Spam   Logged


"When the righteous become many, the people rejoice; but when anyone wicked bears rule, the people sigh".
— Prov 29:2
Bad Penny
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 327



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2011, 10:15:19 am »

Two Tenners:

I was actually just using this thread as a "construction site" for a more elaborate piece to be posted subsequently.

Yes, I absolutely believe in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, but you're getting it all wrong: law-abiding US citizens are shamed (or pressured by law enforcement) out of the formerly widespread and accepted practice of openly bearing arms in public, while the bad guys, obviously, are hardly handicapped by any such scruples.

***

I assume you lack any military background, so the best I can do to explain my position quickly (as I'm not feeling well, and neither is my computer) is to let you read a paper I wrote just about two years ago today.  This paper is based upon extensive academic study on my part, obviously supported by my cultural background (my ancestry is Prussian (no, not Russian, Prussian (there really is a difference!): if you're curious as to what a gentle, compassionate people we Prussians are, please see this video concerning the most famous Prussian-American institution (which institution I'll bet you didn't even realize is the product of Prussian-American culture) which video well illustrates our typical Prussian love of a relaxed, easy going, soft-spoken way of life:



***

Well, anyways, here's my paper:

Compulsory Versus Voluntary Military Service in the Constitutional Order


The January 14, 2009 edition of “The Alex Jones Show”, guest hosted by Jason Bermas,  featured an interview with Ray McGovern, who defended universal conscription on the practical grounds of assurance of relatively even distribution of the personal risks of war, which might force upon the political classes of American society a more realistic view of war than that engendered by our current system of voluntarism (read: economic conscription), in which the political classes need not consider the humanity of the farm kids and slum kids whom they send off to die to further the interests of major capital.  Mr. Bermas counterargued  that universal conscription is founded upon the idea that the individual is, in essence, the property of the state (i.e., of the political classes) even to the extent that the state has the right to dispose of the individual’s very life to satiate the greed of the political classes.  I believe that the Constitution of the United States, combined with ancient American tradition, provides the perfect reconciliation of these two seemingly conflicting viewpoints.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides for the sure defense of a “free state” in the fact that the “right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed”, acknowledging a clear divide between the state to be defended and the people (i.e., the individual citizen) whose right it is to bear arms in defense of the state, or in self-defense against any non-free state, even should such threat to liberty be of internal origin.  Further, the Second Amendment only authorizes defense of a free state (i.e., a state ordained and established to defend certain inalienable rights granted unto mankind by the Creator (I’m here conflating the preamble of the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence, a proper construction under the circumstances)).  This being the fact, anything less than universal compulsory military service would fall short of the traditional and legal definition of the Militia of the United States as consisting of every able adult male (save for conscientious objectors), and would, in turn, recreate our present system of false voluntarism compelled by poverty and lack of alternative opportunity.

How, then, do we reconcile universal compulsory military service with defense of the rights of the individual against enslavement by the wealthy?

The answer is, once again, to be found in the traditional American practice of electing officers up to and including the rank of company’battery/troop commander.  (This practice continued into the First World War, during which Captain Harry S. Truman was elected to the position of battery commander by the men of Battery D, 129th Field Artillery Regiment, Missouri National Guard.)   After all, anyone with any knowledge of military affairs recognizes that non-commissioned officers are the true backbone of any army, and that the primary function of commissioned officers is to provide each military unit with a personal representative of the state capable of infusing the organization with state policy (i.e., the policy of the political classes).  (Indeed, history gives many examples of armies whose combat effectiveness actually increased after the enlisted men mutinied and shot their officers (e.g., France 1789, Russia 1917, Cuba 1933)).  Therefor, election of company-grade officers by the very troops whom they command, in the context of universal compulsory military participation, ensures that the policy of the common people and the policy of the free state are one.

Some may argue that the eminent historian Clay Blair, Jr.’s monumental history of the Korean War, The Forgotten War: America in Korea, 1950-1953, which features extensive discussion of the chronically recurring need, under the imperative of combat, to replace Officer Candidate School graduates with West Pointers, effectively counters the claim that elected officers can be effective in combat.  I would counterargue that Mr. Blair’s observations concern officers at the level of battalion staff and above, which level lies just above the level of company-grade officers which I would posit as the level appropriate for elected officers.

Additionally, American tradition makes room for choice between service in the “official” militia, traditionally known as the standing militia, and volunteer militia organizations (i.e., private armies), which were particularly popular during the period from the end of the War of 1812 through the end of the Civil War.  Such organizations found their social bases upon commonality of political opinion, occupation (e.g., Col. Elmer Ephraim Ellsworth’s New York Fire Department Zouaves), social rank (e.g., the Seventh Regiment of New York Volunteer Infantry (the “Society Regiment”)), ethnicity (e.g., the 69th Regiment of New York Volunteer Infantry (whose regimental motto was “Faugh a ballagh”, Irish Gaelic for “Clear the Way!”)), or even the mere desire to parade about during peacetime in garish uniforms.  Heavy weapons and vehicles for all militia units in any locality would be stored within the locality (i.e., within the township or county, depending upon the municipal organization of the state in which the unit is located), and BY that locality (i.e., outside Federal government control).  Thus, the concept of the volunteer militia organization seems to provide a means to convert the ordinary citizen-soldier from the slave of the state to the master of its most important organ.

In opposition to my argument in favor of compulsory participation in  the standing militia, some have dishonestly quoted the great Daniel Webster’s argument, delivered on December 9, 1814, against compulsory service in the Regular Army, to wit:
“The administration asserts the right to fill the ranks of the regular army by compulsion.”
A standing militia is not an army within the meaning of the War Powers clause of Article I, Section 8, as it is entirely maintained by the States, municipal governments, and, in the case of the volunteer regiments, private subscriptions, rather than Congress, and are thus limited in their scope and military potential by the demographic and financial resources of such sponsors.  (I would absolutely require that major corporate sponsorship of, or control over, of military units be absolutely forbidden!!!)  Further, both Mr. Webster and Dr. Paul are clearly referring to armies used as, or useable as, expeditionary forces, whereas the standing militia I describe in my essay consists entirely of fencibles (i.e., troops that cannot be used outside their home states).  Indeed, it was the New York state militia, invoking its status as fencibles, who refused to cross the Niagara River into Canada during the War of 1812, thus cutting short an aggressive campaign (which, in my opinion, would have failed anyways*).  In terms of what it really means to raise a proper army, a standing militia is more a latent force than a force in being, and compulsory gun ownership would be made more effective (and safe) if combined with compulsory instruction in the use of arms, as President Washington himself stated: “[a] free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite.".

All in all, universal compulsory military service, combined with the election of company-grade officers by the troops together with free choice as to the means for meeting one’s obligation as a free citizen in defense of the freedom of all, satisfies the formal requirements of the Second Amendment while most completely honoring its original purpose.

*The Niagara Peninsula could not be held against Royal ’n’ Loyal ground troops supported by Royal Navy fire support assets afloat on Lake Ontario unless such assets were choked off by American control of the St. Lawrence Valley which granted access to Lake Ontario from the Atlantic Ocean, which control, in turn, required a successful US land force conquest of southern Quebec (the US Navy, at that time, possessing insufficient power to control the Gulf of St. Lawrence and its approaches against the Royal Navy).  The US invasion of southern Quebec having been stopped at the border by the Quebec militia (which absolutely constituted a standing militia à la my proposal and ancient practice), US control of the St. Lawrence Valley had clearly been denied, and, thus, the Battle of Queenston Heights (and the later Battle of Lundy’s Lane) are rightfully remembered as utterly futile exercises in bloodletting.

More or less compulsory militia participation has been a hallmark of the Anglo-American tradition of liberty since the earliest days, according to an interesting journal article (of which I was totally unaware at the time i wrote my essay above): Fields, William S.; Hardy, David T. (Spring 1992). "The Militia and the Constitution: A Legal History". Military Law Review. at: http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FieldsAndHardy.html :

"Nowhere in the Constitution is the term "militia" actually defined. Yet, when the Framers of the Constitution referred to the militia in the text of the document and the ratification debates, they had very definite ideas of what they meant. Their concept of the militia as a legal and political institution was a product of English heritage, as it was modified by the uniqueness of the American experience. It differed radically [p.2] from our own concept. Specifically, what we think of today as the militia--that is, the National Guard--would have been viewed as a "standing army" by political leaders of the Revolutionary era."

And:

"The English militia concept was unique because of its plebeian character. By 1181, every English freeman was required annually to prove ownership of weapons according to the worth of his chattels, and to serve the King at his own expense when summoned by the sheriff of his county. [13]  [William Rausch's note: Posse Comitatus is Latin for "the power of the County".]   In 1253, an Assize of Arms expanded the duties still further to encompass villeins or serfs--the lowest socioeconomic group in English society. [14] The universal nature of the obligation again was confirmed [p.7] in 1285, by the Statute of Winchester, under Edward I. [15]"

And:

"The concept of a general militia differed radically from the continental feudal system, which limited the right of armament and the duty of fighting in defense to a relatively small and wealthy class. [20] The end result for the English was the evolution [p.8 ] of an institution that exercised a moderating influence on monarchical rule and aided in the development of the Anglo- American concept of individual liberties. Examples of this occurred throughout the Middle Ages. In 1065, an army of disgruntled people under the leadership of thanes revolted against Tostig, Earl of Northumbria, killing his armed retainers and plundering his treasury and armory at York. In 1381, a group of armed peasants, led by Wat Tyler, held London at its mercy for a short time during popular unrest that resulted from the economic distress which had persisted in England since the Black Death.

The British military historian Sir Charles Oman provided a particularly cogent case in point, noting of Henry VIII: More than once he had to restrain himself, when he discovered that the general feeling of his subjects was against him. As the Pilgrimage of Grace showed, great bodies of malcontents might flare up in arms, and he had no sufficient military force to oppose them. His "gentlemen pensioners" and his yeomen of the guard were but a handful, and bows and bills were in every farm and cottage. [21]"

And:

"Virginia ultimately ratified the Constitution by the close vote of eighty- eight to eighty, but only at the price of simultaneous proposals for a bill of rights. [136] The proposals were drafted by a committee that included Antifederalists Lee and Mason, as well as Federalists James Madison, John Marshall, and George Wythe. [137] On the arms versus militia issue, this committee took an unusual approach.

"Previous proposals either had emphasized the importance of the traditional militia or had recognized an individual right to arms. The Virginia committee chose to do both, and spliced together language that extended protection both to militia needs and individual rights. In its final form this provision read "that the people have the right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state . . . ." [138] The lack of the qualifier "for the common defense" in the arms segment of the provision was indicative of the committee's recognition of the individual right as being separate and distinct from the militia issue."

And:

"The inclusion of the militia provisions in what became the Second and Fifth amendments proved insufficient to prevent the original ideal of the American militia from ultimately going the way of its English counterpart. Pre- 1789 American political thought had emphasized the need to enroll all citizens--or at least freeholders--for militia duty, and had rejected the idea of a "select militia," in which only a portion of the population was enrolled. Provisions that authorized the new Congress [p.41] to provide for the arming and organizing of the national militia were seen as allowing it to require that all citizens possess arms of uniform caliber and conform to a standard of drill. [152] In practice, while various administrations prepared detailed plans along those lines, Congress refused to enact them. [153] Washington's first annual address acknowledged that "[a] free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite." [154] His second address courteously hinted that the "establishment of a militia" was among the "subjects which I presume you will resume of course, and which are abundantly urged by their own importance." [155] One year later, Washington again listed militia legislation as "a matter of primary importance whether viewed in reference to the national security to the satisfaction of the community or to the preservation of order." [156]

"In 1792, Congress enacted the first (and until 1903, the last) national Militia Act. [157] While this Act required all white males of military age to possess a rifle or musket--or, if enrolled in cavalry or artillery units, pistols and a sword--it did nothing to guarantee uniformity of calibers, fixed no standards of national drill, and failed even to provide a penalty for noncompliance. The subsequent presidential calls for detailed organization of a national citizen army went unheeded. [158] By 1805, even Jefferson was reduced to asking for a select militia, which had been anathema even to conservatives a few years before. In a message to Congress Jefferson stated, "I can not, then, but earnestly recommend to your early consideration the expediency of so modifying our militia system as, by a separation [p.42] of the more active part from that which is less so, we may draw from it when necessary an efficient corps fit for real and active service, and to be called to it in regular rotation." [159]"



Report Spam   Logged

Are you taking over?
Or are you taking orders?
I ain't going backwards!
We're going only forwards!

The Clash, White Riot
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
Page created in 0.123 seconds with 13 queries.