Folder Contents

Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 21:30:32 +0100 Subject: Re: Different approach to terrorist threat Hugh Unfortunately it (the crown) is part of the reason why tories have maintained such a sharp grip on the british social imaginary, hence the strange conservatism of england, you have to seperate Scotland, Wales and NI from the UK to understand the strangeness of the UK. I quite like the danish solution to the problem of the crown, the long slow slide into mediocracy and irrelevance, so much more humane than the unjustifiable noose... Funnily enough Prince Charles is an ardent tory green, by which I mean he is deeply conservative and loves trees. Endearing really but still needs defenestrating. In the UK the tories love the phantasy history we were taught as school children, kings, queens battles and pagantary. During my all to short lifetime however we have discovered the history of the working class and an intimate history of humanity... I suspect that 1956 will be remembered in the long duree as not the Hungarian tragedy (terrorists or freedom fighters?) but as the moment when it became possible to write the history of ordinary people... (Yes I know dates are arbitary nonsense but forgive my rmonaticism for once..) regards sdv hbone wrote: > Steve, > > > > I can't pass either of those tests. Last time, I voted Green. When you > called me a "Tory" I was confused because, in our history books, that > was a loyalist who supported the Crown. Today, I support the Crown. > Seems harmless - gives icy or > > or lukewarm Brits someone to love, > > > > regards, > > Hugh > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Hugh > > It means two things - > > When reading the term related to the USA it means right-wing > conservative - possibly bordering on the evangelical christian, to > the extent perhaps of being a neo-fascist. > > In the direct UK sense it means someone who wants to turn the UK > into a republic and eradicate the monarchy... > > regards > sdv > > > > > > hbone wrote: > >> Steve, >> >> >> >> What does Republican mean in the U.K? >> >> >> >> Hugh >> >> >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> Just checking - I thought that was what you were doing. It >> was however entertaining to call you a republican, even one >> bound in the contradiction of globalisation... >> >> steve >> >> hbone wrote: >> >>> I believe in discussing any statements that oppose your >>> beliefs. >>> >>> >>> >>> I doubt than any of us are privy to absolute, >>> incontestable truth(s). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Hugh >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> I had never realised that you were such a supporter of >>> republicanism, bush and the American way of things. I >>> had made the assumption that there would be a reluctance >>> to support the military adventurism that the US and the >>> rest of the G8 countries are engaging in, at least on >>> this and the other predominantly American lists but this >>> appears not to be the case. Scanning through the mails >>> and lists it's plain that for the moment there is a >>> clustering around the imaginary notion of america, a >>> little uncertainty is appearing but not as much as I'd >>> have expected by this time. >>> >>> Are you being deliberately provocative or do you really >>> believe the below? >>> >>> regards >>> sdv >>> >>> hbone wrote: >>> >>>>Eric wrote: >>>> >>>>>Shawn and Steve have talked about how government is merely a historical >>>>>and technological aberration, one that has usually not been on the side >>>>>of human life. I agree. Government as a weapon has often been used in >>>>>the past to dominate and oppress its own citizenry. Government as a >>>>>weapon is a loaded gun and, therefore, always dangerous. >>>>> >>>> >>>>>As Noam Chomsky and others have pointed out, however, government as a >>>>>weapon is also a two-edged sword. In the past, it has often been the >>>>>vehicle through which grievances has been addressed, rights defended and >>>>>positive as well as negative freedoms granted. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Yes, weapons are dangerous by definition. A gun that won't fire is only a >>>>club. >>>> >>>>The scale of government is very important. The rules in the home or >>>>congregatiion, club or workplace can be harsh of mild, but essentially >>>>affect only those groups. International rules are only as strong as the >>>>nations who support them. >>>> >>>>Most nations have had "Civil" wars and slaughtered thousands of their own. >>>>England's civil war was quite long ago, but England slaughtered its own >>>>American colonists including some born in England. That happened not long >>>>before the French civil war, we call their "Revolution".. >>>> >>>>The local governments that keep most of us relatively safe from fires and >>>>criminal attack, operate within a framework of nation-law. The U.S. >>>>Constitution permits a process which allows a change of leadership and >>>>rules, subject to review by severall levels of courts, and ultimately, the >>>>Supreme >>>>cour >>>>t. >>>>The law of the land is what the Supreme Court says it is. Such is the only >>>>government we have, the only means of protecting ourselves from each other, >>>>from other nations, and from future McVeighs or Bin Ladens. >>>> >>>>We've had WWI and WWII. Some of us may be ready for American Revolution II. >>>>Like all Revolutions, it could only be accomplished by the bonding of >>>>traitors, spying on and killing our fellow-citizens, carnage on a massive >>>>scale, think of the War between the States. >>>> >>>>On the other hand, there is freedom to make peaceful change. By a >>>>combination of loyal and disloyal acts, as in the Civil Rights and Vietnam >>>>War resistance movements, you and those who share your views, can change >>>>hearts and minds and conduct, and replace the the policies of the only >>>>government we have, with policies you support. >>>> >>>>Thus would be fashioned a reformed weapon of government. This nation would >>>>then be in a position to comme >>>>nce the >>>>task of >>>>changing minds, attitudes, >>>>practices, of the near 200 nations who share the Globe with us, and begin a >>>>movement to solve problems of Globalization, create a new form of Global >>>>Government that works. >>>> >>>>What such a plan would have in common with the Bush plan would be patience >>>>and courage when each new terrorist tragedy is launched. >>>> >>>>Best, >>>>Hugh >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >

I had never realised that you were such a supporter of republicanism, bush and the American way of things. I had made the assumption that there would be a reluctance to support the military adventurism that the US and the rest of the G8 countries are engaging in, at least on this and the other predominantly American lists but this appears not to be the case. Scanning through the mails and lists it's plain that for the moment there is a clustering around the imaginary notion of america, a little uncertainty is appearing but not as much as I'd have expected by this time.

Are you being deliberately provocative or do you really believe the below?

regards
sdv

hbone wrote:

Shawn and Steve have talked about how government is merely a historical
and technological aberration, one that has usually not been on the side
of human life. I agree. Government as a weapon has often been used in
the past to dominate and oppress its own citizenry. Government as a
weapon is a loaded gun and, therefore, always dangerous.

As Noam Chomsky and others have pointed out, however, government as a
weapon is also a two-edged sword. In the past, it has often been the
vehicle through which grievances has been addressed, rights defended and
positive as well as negative freedoms granted.

Yes, weapons are dangerous by definition. A gun that won't fire is only a
club.

The scale of government is very important. The rules in the home or
congregatiion, club or workplace can be harsh of mild, but essentially
affect only those groups. International rules are only as strong as the
nations who support them.

Most nations have had "Civil" wars and slaughtered thousands of their own.
England's civil war was quite long ago, but England slaughtered its own
American colonists including some born in England. That happened not long
before the French civil war, we call their "Revolution"..

The local governments that keep most of us relatively safe from fires and
criminal attack, operate within a framework of nation-law. The U.S.
Constitution permits a process which allows a change of leadership and
rules, subject to review by severall levels of courts, and ultimately, the
Supr eme
cour
t.
The law of the land is what the Supreme Court says it is. Such is the only
government we have, the only means of protecting ourselves from each other,
from other nations, and from future McVeighs or Bin Ladens.

We've had WWI and WWII. Some of us may be ready for American Revolution II.
Like all Revolutions, it could only be accomplished by the bonding of
traitors, spying on and killing our fellow-citizens, carnage on a massive
scale, think of the War between the States.

On the other hand, there is freedom to make peaceful change. By a
combination of loyal and disloyal acts, as in the Civil Rights and Vietnam
War resistance movements, you and those who share your views, can change
hearts and minds and conduct, and replace the the policies of the only
government we have, with policies you support.

Thus would be fashioned a reformed weapon of government. This nation would
then be in a position to comme
nce the
task of
changing minds, attitudes,
practices, of the near 200 nations who share the Globe with us, and begin a
movement to solve problems of Globalization, create a new form of Global
Government that works.

What such a plan would have in common with the Bush plan would be patience
and courage when each new terrorist tragedy is launched.

Best,
Hugh

File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2001/lyotard.0110, message 66

HTML VERSION:

Driftline Main Page