I've grown tired of the complaints against Trilox

You know, I have posted higly critical comments myself from time to time, especially when some truly, hideously uneducated Marxist drivel rears it's ugly academic head from the Ivory Tower. Many, many times, my comments are erased a day or so later. This is not a computer error. It is censorship, pure and simple. Something the leftists in America cry about from sunup to sundown, except when THEY practice it, of course. Censorship.

It is why people in Cuba are not allowed access to information their loving government finds dangerous.

It is why people in America aren't, either, to a lesser degree.

It is why China's government has tried, and failed, to prevent the spread of the Internet in that wonderful Worker's Paradise, too.

Censorship, Censorship, Censorship.

Censorship. You can paint the turd all day long, but you aren't fooling me, and I will hazzard a guess that you aren't fooling you, either.

Think about it, denziens of Indymedia, long and hard.

He's one of us. If he were a real Republican, he'd keep spouting that bile in response to his attacks. I guess he's just better than we are. ;)

My first reaction usually is to respond to this Trilox dribble and to others of the same mindbent. My first response usually is wrong. Upon reflection I find that Trilox's ignorance speaks for itself. I mean, anybody who didn't know that the Coors (piss beer) family is anti-union is outta touch, SERIOUSLY outta touch...

Oops, I almost did it. Nope, I will fight it off and just silently chuckle. (ha, ha, ha, ha)

Entertained and knowledgable of foot in mouth disease when I see it.....

I will freely admit that I had zero knowledge of the Coors beer thing. And there is a helleva lot of other things that I claim ignorance to.

I am not up on all the politics (which would be all consuming) but I am in touch, and that is what matters. I appreciate learning such things on indy. So I guess some thanks goes to Trilox.

Reason being, I haven't found anyone who wants to stick with one screen name and debate me with any clarity on virtually any subject. Actually, I've found more intelligence in the off-topic sections of several gaming and web design forums than I've found in this whole cesspool. Needless to say, we did have some good times together though but all I ever get for responses are doppelganger posts and more half-baked leftist party lines which don't impress me one bit.

You know, I don't usually use profanity in my posts because it doesn't usually serve a purpose but I gotta say to all of you ignorant fools who attacked my truthful stories about my childhood growing up in a commune well... fuck you... I lived in a little socialist microcosm and I can tell you first hand what a lie it really was. I know what its like to survive a whole summer on squirrels, crawfish, blackberries and nettles which is a lot more than I can say for you clowns. Your idea of survival is where your next grilled cheese sandwich is going to come from now that all the Dead concerts are gone.

Most of you young white bread liberal anarchists grew up in middle class suburbia and now you think that since you went vegan and got an Anhk tattooed on your back that now your career activism is actually going to make some big difference in the world. Then there is the subject of all you old gray ponytail with the bald spot on top burnouts. Give it up already... NEWSFLASH... all of you are irrelevant

In closing, here is my joke but you will have to make up your own punchline because I will keep mine to myself:

What number does an anarchist call when there is an emergency?

Bye Bye, Trilox

P.S. don't forget to be a good American and get your smallpox shots and Potassium Iodide tablets...

Trilox can run his mouth all he wants. The reason he gets so much shit however is that he doesn't have any reasoned argument to offer, but rather spews various forms of insults, snide remarks, and other forms of commentary designed to elicit a rise out of people rather than offer any kind of logical debate. To wit:

"You know, I don't usually use profanity in my posts because it doesn't usually serve a purpose but I gotta say to all of you ignorant fools who attacked my truthful stories about my childhood growing up in a commune well... fuck you... I lived in a little socialist microcosm and I can tell you first hand what a lie it really was. I know what its like to survive a whole summer on squirrels, crawfish, blackberries and nettles which is a lot more than I can say for you clowns. Your idea of survival is where your next grilled cheese sandwich is going to come from now that all the Dead concerts are gone."

Here Trilox devolves into a kind of self-pitying yet hateful rant about his own apparently unhappy childhood growing up in a commune eating squirrels, crawfish, blackberries, and nettles--all of which he confuses with socialism no less.

Perhaps what Mr. Trilox really needs is a psychologist.

All I can say is that I will continue to annoy the spoilt little Maoists who plague this city as long as I dwell here, on the street and on this site. These creeps don't know the difference between being an ideologue and a free thinker, and, try as they do to remove all of my posts, some WILL get through from time to time. Most of my other free COMPUTER-ORIENTED time is spent on the Libertarian sites, but, you know, preaching to the converted gets old pretty quick. A point entirely lost on the Censorship loving "useful idiots" that Stalin loved so much here.

Why ?

Look, I'm like a lot of other people. I like to work in the garden out back, practice at the firing range, play music, read, hang out with the locals at my favorite little watering hole, etc. But I have read a great deal of both mainstream and submerged history, from both "leftwing" and "rightwing" slants, and if there is one thing that history has taught us, it is that people who do not understand it are condemned to repeat it, over and over, just like that plaque in the wonderful Socialist microcosm of Jonestown read back in the late 70's. And the same social architects responsible for that tragedy are also responsible for the overwhelming diversion of the alienated youth of today into the half of the false dichotomy called "Leftism", and I will do everything in my power to fight it, as long as I live and breathe.

Nyah, nyah, nyah, lefties. You will never cage me or still my mind. You can try to censor my comments all you want, but the germ of individualism is growing, beyond good and evil, beyond "left" and "right", and you cannot stop it, because it is better than you are. Stronger, smarter, and more evolved. And there are more like me every day.

As one of Lucius Tate's phone prank victims so eloquently put it, put THAT shit in your corn-cob pipe and smoke it, muthafucka !

Trilox grows if people feed him.
Trilox grows where he finds an audience.

I prefer the 100% pre-shrunk version of Trilox.

The kind of version that can exist if
people simply bypass his comments and do
not respond to them.

Comment 'wars' are boring.

well, he has tried before, he probably fancied fleeing without managing to from very early on, not managing quite enough decisively unhesitant KleanKonscienceKonservativeness at first.

I am a mirror inversion of him having been born into a family that made it from slavery and hardship through a world war and hard work into welloff (without ever managing to stop work and enjoy it by then). I re- and prehearsed escape endlessly without mustering the courage for a long time and am now stuck with commitment issues too.

I like the fact he provokes comment although the reactionariness of most of them makes 'us' o so sanctimonious leftoids look pretty bad.

that I do believe in the commune model, consensual and revocable/probation contracts, the nitty gritty specificity of a pervasive, prolifically profligate and myriadized, currencies carried systemicism IF/WHEN mindful of the pitfalls, the greatest fancy possible, the one, the standard, the guide, god and goodness stemming from the sleigh of mind managing to make such 'concept' both individually and collectively useful (gradually spawning monotheism and presently leading to a process of more and more monopolized monies with few scheduled to go under left). Initially the powers behind became the power beyond appearances to distract from the fear inspiring near- and closeness of/in life which included the proximity of a good portion of menacing unknowns (a soon bad and worsening one really, due to 'success', overshooting carrying capacities and subsequent crowding) and was thus a metaphor for a large part of reality to wit risk; extraction bleading into abstraction which get out of hand as they become digitalented puffs of speedy spooks with viral qualities.

The scale determines viability, it restrict, problematizes or facilitates secure membraning and nurturability of a region and so Truelix, are you willing to try again, immerse yourself into what you cannot escape anymore.
www.edenvillage.org (or com)

i took a survey of pdx-imc @ 6:55am, sat, jan 4-03.

here's what i gathered.

*****
KEY
*****

TYPE CODE--- refers to the type of article that either "Trilox" or "BA" responded to or "contributed" to the wire;
P (olitical) --dealing w/ politics
O (rganizational) -- " protests, meetings, public speeches
E (nvironmental)--- " the physical environment
r (esponses to) -- " articles where others responded to the response of either "Trilox" or "BA"

---there are 2 categories for articles--

NEGATIVE
nA = number of "negative" Articles that ran on the wire= "war reports", "future shock", "religious/armageddon/told ya Jesus was king", "world crisis"--really, any *news* article that doesn't fit my latter mentioned categories. this number does not include articles relevant to the posting of "Trilox" and "BA"


POSITIVE
X = organizational/info/fun = activist activities, calls for action, announcements, petitioning, meetings, "personal" type info, non-political rants, joke or gag photo commentary, blah blah

F = presumed (known) "fake" "Trilox" or "BA" postings

* = thread starting article by either "Trilox" or "BA"

note: it took me a total of 1 hour to compile this; there were +/- a couple of duplicate postings (like the John Reese announcements for instance).

#################
DATA
###################

nA = 38

X = 23 (Xr = 1 of 23)

F = 1

Trilox

E = 2 (Er = 2 of 2)
O = 5 (Or = 4 of 5)
P = 6 (Pr = 1 of 6)

* = 1 (Er)

---------
BA
P = 5 (r = 2 of 5)

======================================================

maybe if more "positive" articles were posted, the blue meanies "Trilox" and "BA" (and where is that 2-hype "Lamet Vov posse" yo?) would be able to mount a text attack.

and i consider "negative articles" to be of a lesser value (really of no value, IMO) than positive ones, but then again, i live in an ideal world inside my head.

you have to pay $ for correlation

You can't expect to debate with Moonies, Maoists, Hare Krishnas, Hale Bopp passengers, or Anarchists.

I'm not here to debate, but to educate and hopefully rescue a few of these wayward children who have lost their way.

Think of me as a charity worker trying to make a difference.

B.A.

Well BA - being a charitable sort I am willing to grant that you generally, but not always, post valid comments on Economic issues. That still does not mean I do not think you blind to the evil being perpetrated by the Criminal in the Whorehouse. He is no different than Clinton except Clinton did not say Nookoolur.
As for Trilox, don't let the door hit you .... If you engaged in actual debate it would be different but you seem to be hung up on sound-bite politics. Look behind the curtain. And most communes are doomed to failure because like all socialist systems the people who do the work get no more reward than the goof-offs and eventually get tired of supporting people who won't get off their lazy ass and do something. Socialist governments only work to the degree that they are willing to point guns at people. And even then not very well. And I include the Corporate Socialism as practiced in the United States - sort of a hybrid of Socialism and Feudalism - Crapratism?

And don't forget Anarchism, Diogenes. It is so accurately portrayed in the excellent movie, "Gangs of New York." Somalia is also a pretty good example of Anarchism in action.

I must disagree with you about GW Bush. I've not seen any evidence of dishonesty on his part save a bit of posturing to get attention of Saddam, the North Koreans, and the Iranian Mullahs.

He seems to be a down to earth guy and your basic straight shooter to me. I also like the quality people he's surrounded himself with such as Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and John Ashcroft.

Clinton, on the other hand, had to take an overnight poll to find out which version of 'the truth' he'd be going with this time. His administration was the most scandal plaqued in history. His cabinet level appointees were selected for diversity or political payback reasons rather than competence. Those who weren't corrupt (most of them were) suffered from being over their heads and insufficiently skilled for the job. Recall names like Janet Reno, Henry Cisneros, Donna Fallalalalal, Warren Christopher, etc. Any leader who would select James Carville as a spokesman assuredly has his head up his _ss.

Well, I have yet to see any intelligent debating or education from Bush Admirer, Trilox, or any of the rest of the trolls. Anyone to takes the time to engage them always wears their arguments down. Most of the time they just spew drivel and don't respond to criticisms. Hence, most people get tired of engaging them.

Most of what I saw from Trilox was just insults at the end of many articles. Who cares to engage in debate with someone who starts with name calling? It doesn't lay a foundation for intelligent discussion. If he can find better elsewhere good for him, although perhaps he's found better discussion because he doesn't immediately start his comments with insults like he does here. We all know what a self-fulfilling prophesy is right? It's when you expect people to act a certain way so it changes how you act toward them. For example, "these people are so stupid and I'm going to tell them so... wow, look they don't even respond to my intelligent critisms."

I find it interesting that a lot of the right wing trolls disappeared during this past winter coinciding with finals at most colleges and universities... and the rest of the time they seem to have limitless time to post comments. Reminds me of my college days...

Bush Admirer: you're not really confusing a hollywood movie with reality are you? Somehow I'm not surprised. If you give too much time to corporate media (radio, tv, movies) you'll start thinking that they are portraying life when, in reality, they are fiction.

>>> Well, I have yet to see any intelligent debating or education from Bush Admirer, Trilox, or any of the rest of the trolls. Anyone to takes the time to engage them always wears their arguments down. Most of the time they just spew drivel and don't respond to criticisms. Hence, most people get tired of engaging them.

You must not have been paying attention. I've never been engaged here, much less worn down. If you have no ammo, you can't fight. Liberals are an unarmed rag tag band.

>>> Bush Admirer: you're not really confusing a hollywood movie with reality are you? Somehow I'm not surprised. If you give too much time to corporate media (radio, tv, movies) you'll start thinking that they are portraying life when, in reality, they are fiction.

No, a Hollywood movie is not reality, but neither is Anarchism. I'd encourage you to go see The Gangs of New York. It's a likely Best Picture Academy Award winner and it captures the essence of Anarchism.

What you refer to as the "Corporate Media" is not my idea of reality. Quite the contrary. What you have there would be the liberal biased media as well documented in the best selling books, "Bias" and "Slander." The so-called mainstream media is, for the most part controlled by NYC liberal Jews who run the networks. That would include the left leaning NY Times, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc.

One of our biggest problems is that the so-called mainstream media is leftist and liberal biased. Fox News Network is the one fair and balanced objective news outlet we have in this country. That's why they've become the most popular cable news outlet by far. People are so hungry for truth. You're not going to get that on NBC, CBS, ABC or CNN.

What's truly laughable are the ultra-left wing propoganda outlets like Pacifica Radio. It's as if Chairman Mao has been reborn and owns a radio station.

Bush Admirer says:

Fox News Network is the one fair and balanced objective news outlet we have in this country.

That is just plain, ha, ha, ha, laughable. The funniest (really the sadist) part is: He actually believes this. In his gut he does!

If you own it you can control it. and if you say it enough you can manufacture the truth.. and consent, too.

london bridges are for sale, got cash?

Bush Admirer - I seem to remember you not responing to my arguments a while back. Granted, you did for a while, but then you seemed to run out of steam. And you never answered my question about whether or not you're in school.

I hope you're not making the assumption that this is a "liberal" site. Many people on that read and post heremight take offense to that. You can label if it helps your understanding but don't expect people to fit your expectations.

You're right Hollywood is not reality. As for anarchism, that's a complicated subject since there are so many different kinds of anarchism. But if we define anarchism as a society lacking a formal heirarchical government than more than 99% of human societies have been anarchistic. Thousands of human societies have functioned quite successfully without a system of government (as our society would define it). And they did quite well for 3 million years while our society will see it's end within the next 200 years at most (and most people aware of the imminent dangers posed to humanity don't give our culture even close to that long). You seem to still be trapped in the notion that city-states are a long running human tradition when they are an extremely recent invention (only 10,000 years old) and they don't seem to work very well for most people while tribal societies seemed to work very well for most people. Note, I'm not arguing primitivism, mainly because it's not possible or necessary to return to the past.

I would love to hear your story about how the "NYC Liberal Jews" control the media that are almost exclusively owned and operated by republicans. Are they using mind control rays? Do they have a remarkable talent for persuasion? There was a great story a while back detailing the huge financial contributions to republican campaigns from all of the media outlets you mentioned, but alas I can't find it at the moment (if I can I'll repost it later). Do you think a corporation would give hundreds of thousands of dollars to a political party and them bash them in their publishing? What would be the point?

As for "Bias" and "Slander", they occasionally raise important points but more often neglect important truths. They talk about the fact that more journalists are democrats for example. This has tended to be true and somewhat stable over time, but it neglects the fact that the owners and operators (managers, presidents, CEO's etc.) are overwhelmingly convservative republicans and they decide what to report, not the journalists. Furthermore, it's been shown in several studies that journalists are incredibly self-censoring. Why would someone want to write a story they could be fired over? Most people simply don't have that much integrity (I could place a well deserved jab connecting the lack of integtrity to the fact that most are democrats but I'll be nice and leave that to the reader).

Anyway, other thoughts...

I just wanted to point out that I disagree with Trilox about people being irrelevant. No one is irrelevant and everyone has the power to affect change, including Trilox, Bush Admirer, the skeptic, and the rest who come here to start arguments and sling insults. I suppose only time will tell what will happen to us. For many people it will be more important to be right than to be alive. So, in the end, a lot of people may die to be right. I would offer to anyone that you consider the very real possibility that your views may change in the future, perhaps the distant future, perhaps the not-so-distant. Until then, I find it best to treat people with respect regardless of their views; if they return it great, and if not, they can be ignored.

Not once in my adult life have I ever given anywhere near even 90% credence to the half-baked lies that are pumped out daily over the radio or television or in the newspapers. But, well, one DOES run the risk of being called an anti-Semite if they bring up the fact that a humongous amount of the NYC press is indeed owned by Jewish people. Does this make Jews bad or evil ? No, quite the contrary. They consistently score in the top percentile with Asians in IQ tests. This has been correlated to a degree that I don't even need to provide you with a source. Just do a lil' search on your own.

An often vilified mid-twentieth century prankster came up with the concept of "Bright Supremacy." I'm almost all for it at this point. And yet I still have yet to see anyone on this discussion board refute, point by point, the arguments that young woman who found that her quest for "truth", whatever that might be, led her from Earth First into National Socialism. As much as her reply concerning the stewardship of this planet's resources horrified me, I still haven't been able to disagree with most of it.

I assume you are referring to Zerzan with regards to Primitivism ? Yeah- he's a laughingstock all right. I would like to see his source data. And you are indeed correct about the impossiblility of ever willfully turning back the clock. I guess we can assume this was what was on the Blac Bloc General's mind when a friend of mine spied him drinking out of a styrofoam chicken chain's cup at a recent Texas lecture.

Call me a decadent spoiled materialistic brat if you need to, but I like certian things that the evolution of our species has wrought. Like Dentistry. Cooking. Written Languages, Music, and Quabalistic codes woven into human thought and it's evolution itself.

Or computers.

Your main point seems to be about the role of Journalism and it's inherent Bias. OK, yeah ? It's a given. And I'm not slinging insults for no reason when the hypocrisy of people who sing the praises of a glorious cooperative censorless utopian future all day long censor views not in line with the Party Line. Nothing is more obnoxious then a hierarchy emerging amongst people who wholeheartedly oppose hierarchies, who would slit their parents THROATS before they would willingly embrace censorship and control of the media, whatever media might be at hand. It is just silly. Like Anarchism is.

Or, and I LOVE this, "Crapitalism" is, to quote an earlier post with regards to our current economic hybrid.

But, you caught me in a grumpy mood again. I just worked 12 hours, and I am quite tired. Forgive the typos and the attitude. Maybe if I was dying at the ripe old age of 28, covered in sores and filth, the last of my cannibalized relatives remains gone in the midst of a freezer burned ten thousand year famine, this life we domesticated primates lead might indeed appear silly in a feverish dream.

>>> You never answered my question about whether or not you're in school.

That was long ago - Got my BS in Engineering in 1961 and my MBA in 1966. Have been an etrepreneur running my own company(s) since 1970.

>>> I hope you're not making the assumption that this is a "liberal" site. Many people on that read and post heremight take offense to that. You can label if it helps your understanding but don't expect people to fit your expectations.

Liberal = Leftist
Do you have a different perception?

>>> As for anarchism, that's a complicated subject since there are so many different kinds of anarchism. But if we define anarchism as a society lacking a formal heirarchical government than more than 99% of human societies have been anarchistic. Thousands of human societies have functioned quite successfully without a system of government (as our society would define it). And they did quite well for 3 million years.

Doing quite well is a matter for debate. If you go to Europe you'll find defensive castles built atop many of the hills. That's because of anarchy leading to the establishment of fiefdoms and lawlessness. Neighbors tried to kill each other and take their women and their wealth.

>>While our society will see it's end within the next 200 years at most (and most people aware of the imminent dangers posed to humanity don't give our culture even close to that long).

It's pretty speculative to imagine society 200 years in the future. When you consider that the Civil War was fought in 1860-65, not quite 150 years ago, you can see my point. Even the best informed (Abe Lincoln) would have had a difficult time imagining our society today. Much of the reason for that goes to technology which they couldn't have imagined. The automobile, television, computers, the internet, airplanes, etc. were strictly science fiction back then.

If you go back 200 years, you're into the time of the French Revolution and Napoleon.

>>> You seem to still be trapped in the notion that city-states are a long running human tradition when they are an extremely recent invention (only 10,000 years old) and they don't seem to work very well for most people while tribal societies seemed to work very well for most people. Note, I'm not arguing primitivism, mainly because it's not possible or necessary to return to the past.

I don't think tribal societies worked well at all. They were plagued by conflict with neighboring tribes and weighted down by counter-productive religious beliefs. Look at the Mayas or the Incas. Those tribal societies didn't stand a chance against an organized force such as the Roman Army. They were challenged to simply survive.

>>> I would love to hear your story about how the "NYC Liberal Jews" control the media that are almost exclusively owned and operated by republicans.

Pull up the annual reports of any of them and check out the names of the top executives. You'll see an overwhelming preponderence of Cohens and Silversteins. What's interested is that the NYC Jewish community historically supports the Democrats, and votes for the Democratic candidates. They're politically to the left. Listen to the folks they put into prime time news slots (Larry King, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings) -- all left leaning liberals who spin the news to the left.

>>> Do you think a corporation would give hundreds of thousands of dollars to a political party and them bash them in their publishing? What would be the point?

Yes, to hedge. What they're doing with those funds is 'buying access.' They want both of the major political parties to 'owe them something.' It's a blatant effort to buy influence on both sides of the aisle.

>>> As for "Bias" and "Slander", they occasionally raise important points but more often neglect important truths. They talk about the fact that more journalists are democrats for example. This has tended to be true and somewhat stable over time, but it neglects the fact that the owners and operators (managers, presidents, CEO's etc.) are overwhelmingly convservative republicans and they decide what to report, not the journalists.

I don't believe you can support that perspective. See my comment above re names in the annual reports.

>>> Furthermore, it's been shown in several studies that journalists are incredibly self-censoring. Why would someone want to write a story they could be fired over?

People like Larry King, Dan Rather, and Peter Jennings are not going to be fired for being liberals. That's why they were hired.

>>> I find it best to treat people with respect regardless of their views; if they return it great, and if not, they can be ignored.

That's a valid point and I'd call that 'taking the high road.' However, it takes a strong will to avoid responding to the proverbial 'cheap shot' in kind.

I also think the editors would enhance their reputation by going easy on the 'delete button' when reading posts. If they're going to delete the posts that they disagree with, then they'll be seen as trying to control and influence (time for another BIAS or Slander type book, this time on Indymedia).

Thanks for your post. You're one of the more thoughtful folks on this board.

BA

Building on one of BA's points i.e., that anarchism as system of social organization tends to be brutal I must agree. If you take a look at primitive Tribal Societies on up through The Enlightenment an honest appraisal would be that each had a system of government.
Tribal Societies tend to be ruled by the strongest and/or the elders of the Tribe (Patriarchy most commonly but some were Matriarchal) and are generally Autocratic. They have no established system of laws or protections other than tradition. Viable only with an extremely low level of population density. (Modern Street Gangs are a type of Tribal Order.)
City States are, I would argue, viable only when no other Political Organization i.e., Nation State, Kingdom, Empire etc., is big enough to take them over. History shows that the most successful City-States became Nation States and /or Empires. Rome, Greece, Germany, France, etc., ....
Systems of government exist to provide an orderly framework for a society. This can be beneficial or not depending upon the manner of organization. The essentials (and my personal preference would be this and no more) are:

1. A Judicial System allowing for orderly nonviolent resolution of conflicts. (This includes Police enforcement Power.)
2. Control of Coinage - thus providing a stable universal medium of exchange.
3. Common Defense - providing for the protection of Citizens to go about their lawful endeavors free of oppression.

And no others.
This is about as close to an Anarchic system as is practicable with our current population levels. It was historically called "Liberalism" until the term was hijacked by the Socialists who could not sell Socialism to anyone who spent any time really analyzing the implications of Socialism [(a highly regimented unfree society) (and it's "kissing Cousin" - Communism - in spades) (and the horse they rode in on)].

All other "Social" "needs" are best fulfilled by voluntary private cooperation. (To those who would argue that we need government to provide those needs you are ignorant of this country's history - there were many voluntary Social Service Charities at the turn of the last century (the infrastructure of which was destroyed in the 20's, 30's and 40's by government intervention in this arena). Which is what this country had for it's first hundred years with it's unparalleled freedom and growth. Some that still exist: Boys Town, The Red Cross, Salvation Army, and a few others. (As a sidenote - the Black Community which was growing in prosperity, influence and freedom in the 50's was ravaged by dependence on the government Dole which deprived them of the need to continue marching forward and basically derailed and emasculated the Civil Rights Movement and turned it into entitlements and vegetation.)
The story since the Civil war has been one of increasing corruption, regimentation, and government coercion. Our Coinage is controlled by a PRIVATELY owned central bank (Constitutional prohibitions to the contrary), Justice is for sale to the highest bidder, and defense has become the means of imposing American will (mostly Corporate interests) on "recalcitrant" "furiners" - who don't know what's best for them. Our National Government is now the "best money can buy" and is largely the enforcement arm of the Fortune 500.

Another Point: Too many people, and I believe BA that you may fall into this category, are under the mistaken impression that the "Mainstream" Presswhores are in the NEWS business. They are not. They are in the business of SELLING ADVERTISING SPACE aimed at particular groups of people - those Corporate America wishes to reach. They do this by reporting news in such a manner as to "HOLD" an audience for their advertisers. This largely amounts to "MAN BITES DOG" Journalism. The most shocking, disgusting, and salacious material that they can get out across the medium. Important stories are ignored as either boring or contrary to the interests of ADVERTISERS. It is not so much a "Liberal" bias as it is a means of controlling and directing the audience in the desired direction - buy more "stuff" and don't ask uncomfortable questions - "Bread and Circuses" - don't miss the Gladiatorial Games on Sunday. The "Mainstream Press" has become, and is, a means of social manipulation and control.
Oh, and BA - don't take up Poker - that guy with the nice smile - he's running a bluff on a "Four Flush".
Sorry, could not resist the pun. If you are willing to have your eyes opened try these links:
1. Definitely to the Left but are very good with their facts:
 http://www.hermes-press.com/

2. A good roundup of news and commentary buried by the "Mainstream" (Updated several times a day):
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

And don't miss the historical data he has compiled on government misdeeds:
A. Operation Mockingbird:  http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MOCK/mockingbird.html

B. COINTELPRO:
 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/cointelpro.html

3. GEORGE BUSH THE UNAUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY (the whole book):  http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm

4. An eclectic selection of stories from the Paranormal to Politics (Updated several times a day):
 http://www.rense.com/

I could add more but I don't want to overload you. In any event if you give these an honest review you will know basically why I trust GEE Duhbya about as far as I can throw INDYMEDIA.

Can you dig it?

It's obvious that none of you have even the slightest anthropological education... and their's nothing wrong with that, we each have our own interests, but how do I sum up 3 million years of human history in a succint way. It's simply not possible. But then, you would also have to be taking my word for it.

Even the barest reading of anthropological accounts shows us that tribal societies were neither ruled by the strongest nor by the elders. There were almost never "ruled" at all. Some did, of course, have heirarchical societies. Most did not. Most Native American tribes did not have "chiefs" until after their contact with Europeans. Often when asked for "chiefs" the tribes would bring forth their elders, not because they were rulers but because they were advisors, which was the closest they could come up with.

Tribal communities also have an established system of laws, although sometimes unwritten. This is another misconception that anarchy means lawlessness. As far as I know there has never been a human society without laws. As for working well, we know that they survived for 3 million years. If our society can keep doing what it's doing and survive that long I'll stand corrected but my guess is that we'll know within our lifetimes that that will not be the case.

As for quality of life, the people of most tribal societies that we know about lead long lives, worked very little (in terms of hours worked to ensure survival for the community), usually only a couple of hours a day, were extremely healthy and extremely happy. Moreover, these qualities were shared among everyone as compared with our society where some achieve this level and many do not. As for war, warfare as we know was unheard of in tribal societies, even largely after their contact with europeans (that I've heard of anyway). While some were expansionist they did not destroy other peoples the way our culture has. Usually their expansion was based on the desire for resources and they didn't bother the peoples too much. And that was just the minority. For most cultures, when their was conflict it was often to be more like a football game where there would be a few injuries; but sustained prolonged warfare for the purpose of conquest or annihilation was unheard of in any account that I've read. Again, there are literally hundreds of anthropology books documenting this.

Ok, on to other subjects.

I do not see leftist = liberal. A liberal would be a proponent of liberalism, "A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority." Classic liberalism also was largely a movement toward secular government, even when the liberals themselves were religious.

The whole left/right dichotomoy I find rather meaningless since libertarians (anarcho-capitalists) are considered on the far right and anarchists are regarded as being on the far left. That makes no sense to me. But I would say a leftist in conventional speech refers to someone advocating socialism, communism, or more recently it's been used to include anarchism (although, again, I don't understand why) or any of the tenets of those ideologies (most people in this country aren't socialist or communist but they do want the state to provide certain services and so are considered "leftist"). I think we are in dire need of better political language and I way write something up about that at some point.

As for "liberal media", Bush Admirer does bring up a good point of course, that all corporations (not just the media) donate to both the democrat and republican parties to hedge their bets. And it's true, some media outlets donate more heavilty to democrats and some more heavily to republicans. And I'm of course, not dismissing your opinion, that you feel that your views are not being expressed. I had this dicussion with another bush admirer in dc who felt the same way. I'm merely pointing out that people that you would label as liberals or leftists also do not feel their views are represented at all by the media, hence the formation of indymedia (and many other alternative news sources, primarily on the internet although also in print).

From Joe Conason (Salon, 12/18/2002):
"At an even more basic level of dishonesty, it's ridiculous to assume that newspapers or newscasts reflect the supposed Democratic bias of reporters, the lowest-ranking figures in the media. Why wouldn't they instead reflect the bias of editors, publishers, directors and management, all of which tend to be Republican and conservative? Editor & Publisher polled the nation's newspaper executives just before the 2000 election, and found an overwhelming preference for George W. Bush.

We also know that Jack Welch, former chief of NBC (and GE) is an ardent Republican. So was Larry Tisch when he owned CBS. So are Richard Parsons and Steve Case of CNN (and Time Warner AOL). Michael Eisner (Disney ABC) gave to Bill Bradley and Al Gore, but he gave more to Bush and McCain -- and he supported Rick Lazio for the Senate against Hillary Clinton. Rupert Murdoch and John Malone are big Republican supporters of the Cato Institute. So why isn't anybody complaining about the "conservative bias" of media executives?"

From William Kristol (New Yorker, 5/22/95):
"I admit it -- the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."

I'm out of time but a good run down on the surveys conducted regarded the media bias in this country can be found here for anyone that is interested:  http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-liberalmedia.htm.

Well, you are certianly right that I could never afford much college. And at that time I was the wrong color to qualify for much aid. The last time I was denied aid was in 1999, when I was interested in mechanical engineering blueprint interpretation for metallurgy. I think I had made like 11,000 dollars the year before, managing a sandwich shop. I guess I can thank do-gooders on both sides of the aisle for THAT. But I took the class anyway, and made a 98. Many failed. So, no, I'm not from a strictly anthropological grad school background.

But I do read well, and often. And I've met a lot of highly educated people who were total fools, and very vulnerable on the street, where I spent a lot of time in my youth.

Garbage in, garbage out. One draws a circle starting
anywhere, as Charles Fort used to say.

So, in the interest of us proles out here in the sticks, what are some great Anthropological reads that you might recommend, especially ones that contradict each other ?

Like I said earlier, I would love to see Zerzan's source data. And all 3,000,000 years worth of yours, especially the part about how cooperative and unwarlike early hominids were during the periods of glacation, or the different theories currently in vogue about how exactly we came about concurrently with Neandrethal man, etc. I'm real durn interested in that there "missing link" stuff I've heard so little about, if you get my drift.

In the meantime, I've been kind of going back to the real off the map pulp, like "The 12th Planet", and John Keel, and the evidence of cannibalism in diverse, far flung religious traditions, such as the Tibetan, or Christian/Gnostic.

93, my friend.

This seems like an actual discussion vs. opposing rants. Not bad.

No time to respond just now but will get back to it later.

To Skeptic: Be careful in what you wish for you might get it. Sorry, I couldn't resist the attempt at humor. Just some thoughts and a couple of references.
First in reading any current text be aware of the biases hidden in so-called "objective" academic writing. In Anthropology you'll find many. The most pervasive are:
1. That Evolution ala Darwinian "Origin of Species" is stone cold fact. It is not - and there is a robust ongoing debate about how valid it is. I would suggest as an intro to read: "Darwin's Black Box". This does not mean I advocate the Christian Theology of Creationism but simply that the mainstream THEORY of evolution is crumbling under the weight of contradictory evidence and factually unsupportable positions. However, the enforcers of "Academic Correctness" very unscientifically treat it as proven fact and it is NOT PROVEN.
2. Social Darwinism pervades Anthropological interpretations and you walk through a mine field in filtering it out. (In case you are not familiar another name for Social Darwinism is Nazism. It is the unproved assumption that human societies all operate so as to propel the "fittest" into positions of control. (The "Cream" rises to the the top" as opposed to the "big chunks float" view of society.") From this you get the doctrines of the Eugenics movement and the "racial purity" crowd - although you would have to put a mainstream academic "to the question" to get them to admit it. I would submit that Social Darwinism is not true and what you often wind up with is simply the most disingenuous and brutal - witness Shrub, Stalin, and of course the inevitable Fuhrer himself - Uncle Adolph. As well there has been considerable academic fraud exposed in the field of Anthropology - Margaret Meade for one - much of which is still treated as fact because Academia is in the business of promoting whatever the current academic fad is - not necessarily in actually practicing Science.
I would also note as an aside that Leakey's "Lucy" was just an Ape. Recently confirmed. That upset the Dawinian camp to no small end.
A list of unconventional but very sound primers might be:
"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn
He pretty well sticks a pin in the baloon of "Scientific" Puffery and pretension. It is written in fairly readable "Academese" (he originally wrote it as either his Masters Thesis or Doctoral Dissertation - memory eludes me).
"The Day The Universe Changed" by James Burke (Also if still available he did a multipart series for PBS with the same name - it is great viewing and I cannot recommend it enough. You might be able to borrow it from the library.) This might be an easier starting point than jumping straight into Thomas Kuhn.
Now for something more to the original point:
"America B.C." by the late Barry Fell - a well researched and controversial classic as it challenges the Academic Edifice of "Don't confuse me with the facts..." Also would be "Bronze Age America" (Out of print but the PDX Library has it). If you liked Fort you'll probably like Fell.
Going Deeper:
"Forbidden Archaeology" By Thompson and Cremo (More readable as an intro would be the abridged version: "The Hidden History of the Human Race". The book challenges, with well documented rigor, the mainstream Archaeonazi's of Academia. In fact in fair debate Cremo has routed them on virtually every outing - which just pisses them off even more.
The Sourcebook Project (you can find them on the net) has put out a series of books with just the raw data on a variety of topics - that raise interesting questions as the validity of the "mainstream" positions.

As for "Sigh":
"...As for war, warfare as we know was unheard of in tribal societies, even largely after their contact with europeans (that I've heard of anyway). While some were expansionist they did not destroy other peoples the way our culture has. Usually their expansion was based on the desire for resources and they didn't bother the peoples too much. And that was just the minority. For most cultures, when their was conflict it was often to be more like a football game where there would be a few injuries; but sustained prolonged warfare for the purpose of conquest or annihilation was unheard of in any account that I've read. Again, there are literally hundreds of anthropology books documenting this."

Sorry I don't have time just now for a longer response - but I'll take time to just point out one major exception to your thesis - the "Algonquin Confederation". Which was very organized", was very expansionistic, and warlike. They engaged in perpetual warfare with the surrounding tribes and their "rites of manhood" can only be described as brutally horrific. They practiced a limited form of slavery with members of neighboring tribes (those they didn't torture to death for sport), exacted tribute and were just generally well - Barbarians. The plains tribes were marginally more peaceful but were not ardent pacifists. And European culture is not the source of all conflict in the world. The lack of large scale warfare in ancient North America can be attributed more to very sparse population density and that a "Hunter - Gatherer" society has no permanent holdings to defend - if things get too uncomfortable - well there's always two valleys over. The Aztecs practiced bloody ritual sacrifice and cannibalism of captured warriors of opposing groups. The Incas were as expansionist as any European (or North African) empire. Your thesis fails in merit. Only because I want to help keep this dialogue on a higher plane do I restrain myself from more pungent commentary.

And if it is not formally codified i.e., written down it is not a formal legal system as we understand the term. There is still plenty of room for arbitrary and capricious authoritarian rulings. Tradition i.e., "that is the way it's always been done" is not a legal system and results more frequently in violent conflict.

I just want to point out that this is the most bizarre topic to be having this discussion in.

Diogenes:
I originally brought up tribal societies as a means to demonstrate that anarchist societies are a reality. So much of this debate then became differing generalizations about these societies. I was attempting to disprove that communal societies without formal governments could not have or have not existed. As for whether tribal societies were warlike or peaceful depends entirely on which society one is talking about. None practiced warfare the way we practice it. Even the Algonquins, Aztecs, and Incas, while not peaceful as many would define the term did not practice wars of annihilation. And again, the more warlike cultures appear to be the minority of cultures that we are aware of. For every one warlike culture I can name at least 10 that are not (and I'm not a huge reader on the subject). Futhermore, it's my belief that the warlike cultures have been written about much more because they confirm our long held cultural beliefs about "savage primitives." Afterall, the Europeans were welcomed by all the cultures they met, and in much of their writings they talk about how these savages lacked an understanding of war. And yet, they had to be perceived as "savages" in order to facilitate their genocide. Hence the focus on the warlike, canabilistic, and sacrificing cultures rather than on the much more numerous peaceful societies.

I never asserted that European culture was the source of all conflict. Afterall, the European tribes were treated the same way by our civilization (at that point coming from the Middle East) as the indigenous peoples of the Americas were later treated by the Europeans. Besides, all cultures have conflict both within and without. I was never trying to portray the "saintly primitive" which would be just as much a lie as the "savage primitive". You can always expect conflicts between individuals and communities, the question is how does an individual or community resolve these conflicts? Different cultures have many different methods, many of which recognized the folly of violent conflict since when one member of the tribe is hurt the entire tribe is disadvantaged.

I also said nothing about a "legal system" which requires a state authority which is completely contrary to what I was talking about. Webster's defines a law as "A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority." If that helps your understanding, no society has been without these rules of conduct or procedures although they rarely were enforced by authority.

Also, one must be careful making generalizations from "Darwin's Black Box." While I agree it's an important book to deconstruct the hegemony of Darwin's theory of evolution but its claims are that there exists molecular components within biologic systems that do not appear to be the result of natural selection. I do not want to diminish the significance of this. It highlights that our understanding of natural selection has been woefully simple for far too long. And yet, this understanding can still fit within a context of a new understanding of evolution (and also within theories of creationism).

skeptic:
When I said education by no means was I implying formal education like schooling. I merely meant reading books that point out the prevailing myths of our culture. Most importantly: Our way of living is the one right way of living. Everything else, all of human historay and "pre-history" (a completely ridiculous term) was just to get us here, whether it was ordained by god or by evolution this is where we're supposed to be. It blinds us to the reality that there are and have been many ways to live. Some which worked and some which did not. Of course, we know very little about what didn't work because societies living in ways that did not work either died, or changed their way of life.

The connection I was drawing is that many people do not believe that civilization in its current form will work, that is, enable us to survive. Just look at the billions of tons of poisons we dump into the enivornment every year, while we are simultaneously systematically destroying what few systems exist to break down some of these poisons. We are also continuing an nuclear arms race which has the very real possibility of wiping out all life on earth, as almost happened in 1995 when we were 4 minutes from a nuclear exchange because of a misidentified research rocket. Or, look at the speed at which we're introducing untested transgenic crops and animals into the environment, despite our poor success at introducing any foreign plant or animal to an existing ecosystem.

Anyway, this is a long way from my original point, which was simply that tribal societies organized with formal governments (anarchists) have existed and have worked.

As for books, it's hard to recommend without knowing someone, I usually tailor based on what I think a person would be most receptive to. For example, a lot about tribal societies has been popularized by Daniel Quinn ("Ishmael", "The Story of B") but his work does not give sources in the text (for that you have to visit his website) but I recommend it to people looking for lighter, less scholarly work. A step up would be Thom Hartman's "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight" which is also written in plain language but is sourced, although only Part II is relevant to this discussion. To move from tertiary to secondary sources I would say: "Limited Wants, Unlimited Means" by John M. Gowdy (Editor) which has excerpts from Marshall David Sahlins "Stone Age Economics" (which is also a good read) which might be interesting to you or to Bush Admirer for its focus on economics (it may be too dry for others). To examine the diversity of lifestyles led by indigenous peoples of the Americas read Peter Farb's "Man's Rise to Civilization: The Cultural Ascent of the Indians of North America" whic does a good job at portraying aspects of tribal life that we may label positive as well as those we may label negative.

Okay, time to wrap this up...
Bush Admirer:
With an economics degree you must have had to take statistics so you should understand the logical fallacy of our interchange.

You said: The media was owned by jews
I said: The media was owned by republicans
You said: No, the media is owned by jews

As if jews and republicans were mutually exclusive groups. This is a case of applying a generalization to a selective group. Just because jews may tend to vote for democrats (which is questionable these days, but studies in the past have supported) says nothing about what jewish media owners would do. Of course, I could do the same thing and argue that because the rich tend to vote for republicans, the owners of the media, regardless of whether or not they are jewish, would tend to vote republican. But then I would be doing the same thing.

So we solve the dilemma easily enough by looking where the money goes, not that campaign contributions are the only factor in media bias but it is telling that NBC, CNBC and MSNBC (two of which you mentioned) are owned by GE which gave 70% of their contributions to republicans in 2000. Likewise, ABC (which you also mentioned) also gave more to republicans. But, this is a much larger issue than I can tackle here but it seems to be a popular one at the moment:

 http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/123102a.html
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8518-2003Jan3?language=printer
 http://www.msnbc.com/news/856008.asp?cp1=1
 http://www.haloscan.com/comments.php?user=atrios&comment=90150172