Walsingham

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...to-new-law.html I gave a great belly laugh when I read this, then I felt sorry for the poor bloody Italians.

I think I like this point but I'm not sure. Would you mind rephrasing it? I'd be obliged.

That's more than a 'slight' change of thesis! :)

http://www.kriss-tdi.com/products.html I like this fore the innovative bolt recoil, and positioning of the grip. I think there was a scandinavian SMG which had similar features back in the 80s but this is different. I may actually have found a gun I'd prefer to own over a sawn-off shotgun.

Tiny amendment, which we've been discussing at my end: Control is a value which is taken across a continuum of time in all systems. In this instance you can build control in before you start by preselecting and grooming only certain individuals. An example of a high energy 'communist' groups is SAS squads. But we're talking about suitability of less than 1% of the population. AND very simple clearly defined tasks. So I'm saying you could have a communist society as long as that society was the SAS and all you wanted society to be about was killing things.

Never been a communist country? And that makes it ok, does it? I'm a scientist, fellah, and if someone has a theory and cannot demonstrate it working then we say that theory is balls. Of course, this is not merely bad luck. The reason no country ever becomes 'communist' is - in a very crude nutshell - because the 'proletariat' seize power and then inevitably have to delegate power to a technical and bureaucratic elite. That elite has the problem of maintaining an unnatural state of affairs and has to resort to force to do so. The institutions which emerge to run both bureaucracy and force are inherently corrupt because they cannot accept criticism because criticism of the worker's paradise is heresy. Oppression, depression, and really **** plans for agriculture are the result. None of this would bother us particularly if these were experiments done with lab rats, but this obsession with the communist fairy land results in experiments with human lives. The doctrine is not heroic, it isn't altruistic. It's the harming of others while in defiance of logic and observed fact and that, mate, is pathological insanity.

You owe it to me. Finally. Can we toss a coin: Double or quits? OK, good point about those countries. But surely Spain and Italy were evidence of - as has been said by Wrath - competing movements. Certainly I'd say Spain was. Which is hardly surprising, since Spain didn't participate in WW1 beside making pots of cash. Poland, Turkey, and - to an extent - Germany were brand new nations. It would be a pretty weird nation which couldn't muster patriotism at the outset. Even Iraq is managing it. So if I can change my thesis slightly what I am going to say is that the war arose from two opposed blocs. One intended peace at any price, and the other was willing to go to war for the sheer joy of it. That was never going to end well.

You'll have to deal with me and my fiersome haka in the airport first. Stranegly enough I was reading about Maori Pas yesterday. It seems the Maoris weren't only remendously brave, but they had operational art in their way of warfare, and made the best goddamn forts ever out of fething LEAVES and sticks. Oh, and the British Empire were t**** in New Zealand, in a similar fashion to South Africa. Makes my blood boil. If only we'd done with the zulu and maoris what we did with the scots we'd probably still have the empire!

what's your field of study? Ownage.

I cannot possibly agree with that assertion. If anything the 1920s were about forging the foundations of intellectualism, anti-patriotic fervour and pacifism. Anti-patriotic fervour? No. Politically, the first half of the 20th century in Europe, including the 1920s, was all about ultra-nationalistic fervour. That tendency was only reversed by the massive carnage that Europe saw in WWII, which eventually led to relatively peaceful, non aggressive political stances all over Europe. I hardly think so. The First world war saw the death of all that, even before the end. Indeed part of the reason why the start of WW2 saw France, Belgium _and Britain_ running from combat with soldiers all over the place was because many had grown up with no real sense of patriotism. IMO.

Thank you, that was exactly what i was trying to say... blame my english as a 3rd language to not explain myself good enough... No problem, mate. There are several people on here who claim English is their first language who make no damn sense at all.

Yeah, I probably should have mentioned that to you. Oops. You bastard.

I don't think he was saying it was OK for govt to do it if corps do it. But it is pure hypocrisy for us as citizens to object to a government doing something when we freely allow a private company to do it for no better reason than to fleece us more efficiently. I simply cannot understand what planet you chaps are from where companies are these inoffensive subservient entities. Simple creatures, like grazing cattle. For christ's sake half the bloody threads on this forum are about how fething weird manipulative and obnoxious they are. Incidentally i mentioned the beach house example to a friend of mine today and his reaction was more succinct than mine. he observed that - were it not for the government - the corporation would not have had to go via the government to seize the land. They would simply have seized the land.

I cannot possibly agree with that assertion. If anything the 1920s were about forging the foundations of intellectualism, anti-patriotic fervour and pacifism.

Going back to being serious for a second - Saying that the government seized those homes is saying the cart pushes the horse! The government was certainly one of the bad guys but the instigation was corporate. I said quite clearly that this was one way they could take stuff off you. - Defending against a rogue government is not simple, but teh defence is achievable as your own framers pointed out by subdivision of the entity. - I also think that having the spirit of the law in legislation is an excellent defence because it allows normal people to say 'hang on, this law was to stop buffalo on buffalo crime. How come I'm about to lose my first born?'

lol. Oh wow you need a few history lessons. Hang on. Are you saying that economic trouble wasn't the main reason why fascism went from being a joke to being a shatterer of peace?

I'm off to discuss a PhD today. Wish me luck.

That reminds me. My stick is broken.

I'm now playing the Aryn campaign. Naturally I chose 2H blades and of course now I can't move for 2H blunt! Goddamnit!

I'm confused. What kind of government is Chuck Norris?

But would it? Would it really? Or to look at it slightly differently would it collapse worse than what is going on now in slow motion?

That's what I figured you'd say. But if we declared a code Red and just hit restart wouldn't that be better than slaving like dogs for the next forty years? I'm sure the impact of the reset would be only two generations of skepticism. I mean the danger alone fuels higher borrowing rates as it is. Just take the plunge, man. Go through the Looking Glass! I'll buy some bourbon. It'll be a wild ride!

Ditto. And this, ladies and gentleman is why a 'culture of fear' leads to totally unnecessary aggravation and fallout eventually. I ****ing hate suited wankers who think that bullying and jackboot tactics are both efficient and somehow proof of their rare genius. I've never met Activision's CEO, but I remember saying the same thing when we discussed his moving in. Graarrrgh. I look after my staff and nurture them. They do great work. It's not rocket science, people!

You must have a hard time using toilets.

Numbers got there first. I do not idolize government. Or at least I don't think I do. But I do believe you are being rather odd about corporations. Not only are corporations capable of killing you by with-holding services they claim a monopoly on like drugs or seedcorn, but they can kill through negligence as at Bhopal, and of course they can kill directly as with Blackwater or Ford Motors (in the union busting era). They can also take anything they want off you through legal process, including your home liberty etc etc. That they do all these things in extremis is something I don't feel obliged to reference, but can if pushed. They can do all these things because they accumulate staggering wealth, and combine it with a diffused sense of responsibility and very poor legal accountability ...and that's before you get into the social psychology of their inadvertant mistakes. This is important because in defence against corporations we the people are obliged to turn to government. Government can strangle the legal shenanigans they get up to, and can also apply direct force to get what it wants. It doesn't make the slightest damn difference if I tell Barclays I think they are wankers and i stop using them. Only collective action can.