Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 20:31:09 -0500
From: danceswithcarp <dcombs-AT-bloomington.in.us>
Subject: Re: The anarcho-trenchist response


At 02:08 AM 9/26/2001 +0200, catkawin wrote:


>Joshua H wrote, ducking:


Hi, cat.  We just bought 6 ducks at a farm animal auction.  Muscovies they 
are.  Young ones who flee at the sight of humyns.  They were only a buck 
apiece.  A duck for a buck is something hard to pass up.

But I wander, the issue at hand, again seems to be the evil of the two 
lessers.   Neither the Northern Allaince nor the taliban offer much except 
for the fact that one isn't the other.  I rarely claim 'anarchist" status 
but I do claim to be an anti-authoriatarian.  This allows me the option of 
being against whatever party is in power.  I aid and abet the opposition, 
and then when they win I find their opponents and do the same for 
them.  Sort of the Maoist permanent revolution idea, an ongoing flux with a 
twist (and a lime).  This is essentially the same way I feel about the 
Zapastistas; they certainly aren't anarchists, but they oppose the dominant 
order.

>Let's look at the alternatives, because those one must have before anyone
>is kicked out of anywhere. There's the much praised, as of late, Northern
>Alliance. Unfortunately, these are fundamentalist as well, just belong to
>different ethnic groups than the Taliban who are predominately Pashtu. So
>what difference will they make?

It's fairly simple: one is not the other.  Neither is desirable.   But it's 
like that Wirld Cup thingie that everyone but the US goes bonkers over; 
when your team goes down, you pick another to cheer for.

This is all right by me, but really I don't consider it a "Wirld Cup" as 
the US never cares who wins.    I mean aren't we still the "wirld" in the 
eyes of everyone?

Oops.   We're not?   Damned media misrepresented us again.


carpo