--- Lawrence Upton <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>
> & I recall Bush saying he will not distinguish
> between those who murder and
> those who provide their infrastructure - which would
> cover the Pentagon from
> the point of view of an enemy. That's rules of
engagement and targeting rather than
> morality
>
>
> L

How about Churchill’s speech in Parliament when he
communicated to the Nation that he would fight that
war knowing that it required blood shedding and
knowing that its only possible aim and end had to be
victory?

Moreover, I have another point to make: in our
democracies we are given the chance to have a word and
choose who will rule over our INTERESTS (which
basically are economical ones: this is what regulates
people’s choices about who will lower our taxes to the
minimum and who will increase and support our profit
making). In fact, during electoral campaign, I hear
citizens talk mainly about these aspects. None ever
make points in TV talk shows of this kind: “Let vote
Bush because he has promised to tax us a little bit
more and invest the money in food for the Third World
. Let’s vote him because he is closing de-privatize
industries and promote State administration of the
public wealth.
These are not the criteria that make people select
their exponents in Parliament or Prime Ministers. Take
as a telling example the Italians, (millions and
millions) who voted for Berlusconi, managed to win
their battle and had Berlusconi as the Italian Prime
Minister (oh, my Goooddd, where were you in those dark
days!) : in the first place they wanted to have
Berlusconi because he promised the Nation to help
people making money…(imagine, now, their stupidity: it
is ever possible that a man who has make himself the
richest person in the Nation at the expense of other
people would let became rich the evry people whose
money he exploited? ) Nevertheless, these Italian were
convinced that they won their election campaign for
the strength of their convictions: the reality is that
Berlusconi was elected because in fact Berlusconi he
invested all the money that he had earned with his
shares in “multi-nazionali” in the Electoral campaign
and in the treacherous exploitation of his Medias (TV
radio newspapers magazines). That was a majestic
brain-washing who left the brainless voters so
content!

Therefore , in Capitalist societies, people are only
falsely given the liberty to choose (let's call it
"liberty": of course it is not a true liberty at all ,
since - just like in Mafia clans - one becomes
participants of a system that in order to survive
tightens people lives and destinies to these nets of
economical interests and consumerisms.) There is a
theory in cultural anthropology stating that it is
not possible to be reliable spectators/critics when
one is part of a system. To be honestly able of pure
critique one must step out in every sense: have a will
to stop belonging to that system and became part of
another order of thoughts, completely.

Capitalist societies, which we are the slaves of, as
well as the familiars make us dependant and accessory
to that very order of things that nowadays we are
criticizing. Matter of fact, is nearly impossible to
detach oneself from our Capitalist societies, for the
simple reasons that every single breath we do, every
single action we make, every expense, as well as every
saving goes into the enormous pocket of the capitalist
giant( see my poem, “High above” with the figure of
the giant).

We do not have a possibility to criticize until we
change the government and establish a type of new
State which will provide equal re-distribution of the
money that circulates and will guarantee equal
opportunity to every single person and will invest a
third of the national income towards the undeveloped
countries.
But the communist-Marxist utopia both in China and in
Russia have been so deeply perverted as to be made
tragic failures. What do we do now? Who do we vote?
What will we vote next?

Of course the kind of State that would provide equal
re-distribution of the public money would require
great vigilance exercised over people's liberty to
consume – is this possible today?

This kind of State - if it was ever possible to
re-propose it - would risk to turn again into a
tyranny. It can no longer exist as an utopia. We have
lost our last utopian chances . Will our destiny from
now on be only perspective wars, now, wars on wars on
wars on wars (like in 1984?) wars that are so absurd
as to sound unreal? (star-wars)

 What then can we invent to replace that failed
socialist perspective? What system, what order, what
equilibrium?

Democracies, the ones that give us pencils and ask us
to retire behind a folding cabin to express our free
choice on a piece of (corruptible) paper, are Mafia
clans, make no mistakes, and we are their villains.

I am making a point about stopping making the wrong
choices when time will come to vote our exponents in
our Parliaments. Terrorism is always there to make
these wrong choices subvert the corrupted order of
things that a nation, more nations have entered. To
avoid terrorism we shall change our international
politics, not prove ourselves stronger and more
criminal than them.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com