Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:49:02 -0700
From: "Mark S. Weiss" <weissms-AT-concentric.net>
Subject: Re: An Explosive End For Woodstock '99 (Burning and Looting)


Jamal Hannah x342446 wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Mark S. Weiss wrote:
> 
> > > This sort of dress isnt neccesarily about gangsters, but about respect for
> > > the underclass. The status quo can put them down all they like, but we
> > > show our disrespect for the powers that be by elevating the aspects of
> > > culture they dispise. (hippies, punks, and gangstas)
> > >
> > >  - Jamal
> >
> >
> > I just can't wait until it is OPEN SEASON ON GANGSTAS, you idiot!!!
> > It is the "powers that be" that keep little fucking thugs away
> > from the lynch-mob, you twit!!!
> 
> Haha.. you're pathetic.. someone disagrees with you and you get all riled
> up and call them names.  I hope the "gangstas" kick your ass.



You would so hope. But don't count on it. Hell, in the public schools,
they (the gangsters) certainly had their chance, but wisely chose not to
exercise it. As a teacher, I stood up to about ten or so of these
characters by telling them point-blank that they are looking at the guy
who will deal with them on any basis. Treat me with some respect, and
you'll get a little yourself. After facing off with their leader, I
managed in one bold stroke to get him working for me. He took the lead
role by telling his little ganstas that they had to go through him to
"mess with me." Ok. I knew we were going to have fun that day. And we
did! But the kids knew I
was the teacher, even if sometimes in their own way!. I could have kept
this lifestyle up but it clearly required too much energy, and for what
purpose? So I quit teaching to do other work.

Their efforts to recruit me into their gang were cute, but only served
to stimulate my suggestion that they join mine, which I then called a
"civilized" gang. However, I now sympathize with the kids in the sense
that I think "semi-civilized" would have been a much more appropriate
term since much good work remains to be done to promote a
"hyper-civilized" state wherein the individual's rights are king (and
not some tyrannical majority; that's where your "nettiquite" come in)
where nobody (including the State) is allowed can act desicively against
the true interests of the individual, which are chiefly to remain
unfettered from the coercive control of the group in matters which only
interest him- or her-self directly. 

An exceedingly small government whose nearly sole function (others have
to do with external self-defense) is to deal with those cases where
individuals over-step the bounds of acceptable behavior in the treatment
of the property or person of another--this small government, is easily
far superior to no government at all. And if one were to "claim to
believe" that he or she really believes in no "state" of any kind,
consider the local standards of behavior which develop under all
circumstances. Do not norms of behavior which affect a local group of
people in some sense act as the force of law? Yes, I would say. The real
enemy is the ever-present impulse of the individual towards the
pressures of groupthink. Go read the literature in social psychology on
social conformity. So, on this very special list, which uniquely
represents the creed that no state is better than any state, I beg to
differ. 
 
Mark


> 
> If the powers that bee put every "gangsta" in jail or to death,
> the government would have a black people's rebellion on it's hands.
> ...thats the only reason they practice restraint.  You cant accuse a
> person of being something based on what they wear anyway.
> (Which is what your attitude seems to imply... zero tolerance.)
> 


Exactly correct. "Zero Tolerance" is what I am talking about. 



> Go ahead and join the KKK. Thats where all the lynchers are.