[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)
J Henshaw
jeff at jhenshaw.com
Tue Jun 18 17:41:29 UTC 2002
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeme A Brelin" <jeme at brelin.net>
To: "PLUG off-topic discussion" <plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 12:14 AM
Subject: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)
>
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, J Henshaw wrote:
> > > And not to stir up any more trouble but... ya know they WERE here
first.
> > :)
> >
> > I think that they made it plain that they claimed not the land.
> > I believe they said no one can own land.
> > I also believe they were Pagan, and these so-called murdering white
> > men came to share a cultural value called "love your brother" and were
> > scalped instead.
>
> Wow.
>
> It is true that they generally believed that no man can own land.
Land is for food which is for life; take away the Natural right to survival
and you have war
History shows us that civilizations are more powerfult than tribes, so we
created one and would have let them join the party.
We still left them some neutral land while we created a justice-based
reality-based food distribution system called reap what you sow; as opposed
to hunter-gatherers or Marxists.
Now the muddle heads think hunting is "Wrong" too so they must cringe every
time the dinner table is set.
"Hey thats Our meat, and besides, I am more hungry than you, and moreover,
killing is wrong, even for food, except for animals, who have no morality,
like the lion"
Where does this insanity end?
The fact that they were given enough land to be left alone and eat if they
sow it, proves something.
They never claimed this land you agreed, so how can we steal it?
They did not claim a title to it.
In other words, bullshit.
This
> belief stemmed from the essential doctrine
Every time I hear "essential doctrine" I see a Marxist
>that all living things are put
> upon the Earth to use it to their benefit while not disturbing the use of
> the same land by other living things unduly. Also, it was understood that
> generations would come later that should not be deprived of land merely
> because the current generation found it convenient to divide it for some
> selfish, short-sighted use.
Yeah, selfish things like farming and eating the food produced while
obeying the ten commandments?
> So, you're right there. Many held such a
> belief.
Did they form a govt? What if they were cannibals? Would there belief
require me to become one?
Or to "approve" of it to make them feel "OK"? Or to give them special
rights over and above non-cannibals? What about the virgin in the volcanoe
question I posed previously, that no muddle-head has answered yet?
> And I don't see why this belief is in any way invalid or harmful.
irrelevant
> All I see is that the invading
Invading ? They did not claim title to any of it as per your stipulation
Europeans failed to respect the local
> customs and traditions and culture and imposed their invading culture upon
> the natives to the point of cultural and near biological genocide.
Imposed? No, propaganda.
There was plenty of room for *IMMIGRATION* that you now promote, as long as
it is non-white criminals with views like your own so that you will become a
tyranny of the majority.
And you know they can't run linux so you want a job as a govt food
distributer IT type, keeping the biochips running.
>
> But what's the point? So they practiced a different kind of religion than
> the Europeans. Does that mean they should not be treated with respect?
Of course not. Why would you ask such a stupid question?
> And fellow, I don't know what kind of history texts you've been reading,
> but "love thy neighbor" was hardly the overriding policy in
> European/Native American relations at any point in history. Mostly, it
> was a policy of slavery and slaughter.
>
> J.
Like scalp thy neighbor? Eat his flesh? Throw him down a volcanoe?
I am sorry that you do not like the fact that nations rise and fall by the
hand of God, but that is something you must deal with.
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list