Guest guest Posted June 12, 2001 Report Share Posted June 12, 2001 paul diener wrote: > What's has been 'more revealed' by Ragge and his acolytes is more or less > what I expected : > , Where do you come up with the crazy stuff below? Is it out of your belief that " ends justify the means, " or some internal conflict that allows you to make up malicious things about people who disagree with you, or are you simply nuts? > > - a hatred for 'romantic visions of the poor', aka, anger at any > realistic exposition of economic exploitation. I certainly get angry when you present your Devil, economic exploitation, as the only cause for people having problems in their life. Do you really believe that before capitalism that everyone lived happily ever after? Do you believe that things were better for people in the Dark Ages? I'm not sure what you mean by " romantic visions of the poor. " What do you mean by that? Do you, as a Marxist, believe that being poor is such a wonderful state that that is why people in Marxist societies all become poor(er) because that is a good thing to do to them, so Marxist dictators can have their " romantic visions " fulfilled? > > > - an instinctive embrace of German nazi-collaborators > Like who? > > - support for Vietnam war criminals (including the openly stated > injunction that Vietnamese women and children, even those unarmed and held > in custody, deserved to be murdered, in retribution for the general > populations resistance to the American attempt at conquest). I'd like you to find _any_ statement I've made on the subject supportive of war criminals _anywhere_. As a matter of fact, I've taken quite a bit of hit in comparing U.S. war criminals with Nazi war criminals, in Vietnam and elsewhere. Why do you tell such a lie? Why do you keep repeating such lies? Do you think if you repeat it enough it will become true? > > - A defense of America's historical treatment of Native Americans and > African-Americans, ie, of racism. > Another lie pulled out of the air. Where is your evidence for this malicious statement? > > - a total lack of concern with the contemporary American foreign > aggression, eg, Colombia Are you sure there is a lack of concern? I, too, am opposed to the drug war. However, I'm curious what _you_ would see as an advantage to the end of it. There would, for one thing, be no one left to finance the leftist guerillas in Columbia. > > > - a whining and narcissistic self-pity, reflected in imaginary, > occultic 'diseases' (eg, 'codependency', universal 'child abuse'). In > fact, the true base of these dis-eases simply is the economic distress of > the lower-middle class. As a class, these are doing much less well than > their 'Mommies' and 'Daddies' did. Hence, they feel 'soul raped', hostile > to their own parents and elders who have bequeathed them so little, and > hatred for the corporate elite who have ill-served them. Most, they hate > the masses below, into which they fear they might sink, and who they view as > a riva claimants to shrinking resources. Again, insanity on your part from the intellectual ozone. Is _all_ you care about money? Did you read the " Monster Study " ? Do you think those childrens' lives were harmed, not by not having parents but by economics? Do you think having more material goods would have overridden their " therapy " ? > > > The American petite bougeoisie has real conflicts with the corporate > elite, and with that elite's 'higher power' mythology. Szasz, Friedman, > Buckley, and other recognized ideologues of 'small business' reaction, have > criticized the corporate War On Drugs with its 12-Step rationale. But > petite bourgeois opponents of corporate 12-Stepping are no friends of common > people. Perhaps it is time to repost my Lowen quote on " common people. " > > > Progressives should avoid the likes of Ragge and his acolytes. They make > dangerous allies, with their racist, proto-fascist opinions. I think the > postings in this forum document this assertion. Progressives need to be > aware that not just the 'recovery movement' is dangerous, but so also is the > 'recovery from recovery' movement. They are just two different varieties of > American, middle-class, occultic, political thought. Progressives need to > plant their feet on firmer ground. If you were typical of " progressives, " I think everyone should be wary of progressives. Are " progressives " proponents of failed Marxism under another name? > > I readily accept the acrimony of the " libertarians " who post here, > including Ragge himself. I was never a friend of your movement, nor of > America's angry petite bourgeoisie. You 'soul rape' only garners my > distain. > As if your malicious lying and accusations make you worthy of respect. Ken Ragge > > Re: ken re stuff > > > > > > > MonaHolland@... wrote: > > > > > In a message dated 6/4/01 10:28:42 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > > > pauldiener@... writes: > > > > > > > > > This is a sheer crock of shit. > > > > Mona, > > > > I _loved_ it. <VBG> > > > > Regards, > > > > Ken > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2001 Report Share Posted June 12, 2001 Ken You are obviously not reading most of the posts. Every one of those positions was taken by one or another of reactionary posting here. Eg, the phrase 'romantic illusions about the poor' was a quote from a post which told me how stupid I am for worrying about low income people. If you scroll back, you will see that each of the points I made WAS taken from one or another reactionary poster. My point is that YOUR general position encourages viewing things in this reactionary way. It don't claim you posted these things. But your asocial viewpoint attracts such views. You are hostile to social analysis, and your overall social view is reactionary. But " addiction " IS a social problem, and the War On Drugs IS a social phenomenon. These things can ONLY be solved by social analysis and by social action. Will social justice eliminate all unhappiness? No. People will still die, and death causes sadness. And people will still face illness, and that causes sadness. And people will still get hangnails, and even that causes unhappiness. So? This is how you justify your lack of concern with social decay in the U.S.? " Well, you are going to die anyway, so why worry about. . . . " The topic is " addiction, " and not death, illness or hangnails. And " addiction " IS a social problem. Has a perfect society existed in the past? No. So what? Does that mean we are just suppose to accept the status quo? Your comment on Colombia does not make sense. The U.S. should get the hell out of Colombia and stop killing people. -- Original Message ----- To: <12-step-free > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 6:24 PM Subject: Re: ken re stuff > > > paul diener wrote: > > > What's has been 'more revealed' by Ragge and his acolytes is more or less > > what I expected : > > > > , > > Where do you come up with the crazy stuff below? Is it out of your belief > that " ends justify the means, " or some internal conflict that allows you to make > up malicious things about people who disagree with you, or are you simply nuts? > > > > > - a hatred for 'romantic visions of the poor', aka, anger at any > > realistic exposition of economic exploitation. > > I certainly get angry when you present your Devil, economic exploitation, as > the only cause for people having problems in their life. Do you really believe > that before capitalism that everyone lived happily ever after? Do you believe > that things were better for people in the Dark Ages? > > I'm not sure what you mean by " romantic visions of the poor. " What do you > mean by that? Do you, as a Marxist, believe that being poor is such a wonderful > state that that is why people in Marxist societies all become poor(er) because > that is a good thing to do to them, so Marxist dictators can have their > " romantic visions " fulfilled? > > > > > > > - an instinctive embrace of German nazi-collaborators > > > > Like who? > > > > > - support for Vietnam war criminals (including the openly stated > > injunction that Vietnamese women and children, even those unarmed and held > > in custody, deserved to be murdered, in retribution for the general > > populations resistance to the American attempt at conquest). > > I'd like you to find _any_ statement I've made on the subject supportive of war > criminals _anywhere_. As a matter of fact, I've taken quite a bit of hit in > comparing U.S. war criminals with Nazi war criminals, in Vietnam and elsewhere. > Why do you tell such a lie? Why do you keep repeating such lies? Do you think > if you repeat it enough it will become true? > > > > > - A defense of America's historical treatment of Native Americans and > > African-Americans, ie, of racism. > > > > Another lie pulled out of the air. Where is your evidence for this malicious > statement? > > > > > - a total lack of concern with the contemporary American foreign > > aggression, eg, Colombia > > Are you sure there is a lack of concern? I, too, am opposed to the drug war. > However, I'm curious what _you_ would see as an advantage to the end of it. > There would, for one thing, be no one left to finance the leftist guerillas in > Columbia. > > > > > > > - a whining and narcissistic self-pity, reflected in imaginary, > > occultic 'diseases' (eg, 'codependency', universal 'child abuse'). In > > fact, the true base of these dis-eases simply is the economic distress of > > the lower-middle class. As a class, these are doing much less well than > > their 'Mommies' and 'Daddies' did. Hence, they feel 'soul raped', hostile > > to their own parents and elders who have bequeathed them so little, and > > hatred for the corporate elite who have ill-served them. Most, they hate > > the masses below, into which they fear they might sink, and who they view as > > a riva claimants to shrinking resources. > > Again, insanity on your part from the intellectual ozone. Is _all_ you care > about money? Did you read the " Monster Study " ? Do you think those childrens' > lives were harmed, not by not having parents but by economics? Do you think > having more material goods would have overridden their " therapy " ? > > > > > > > The American petite bougeoisie has real conflicts with the corporate > > elite, and with that elite's 'higher power' mythology. Szasz, Friedman, > > Buckley, and other recognized ideologues of 'small business' reaction, have > > criticized the corporate War On Drugs with its 12-Step rationale. But > > petite bourgeois opponents of corporate 12-Stepping are no friends of common > > people. > > Perhaps it is time to repost my Lowen quote on " common people. " > > > > > > > Progressives should avoid the likes of Ragge and his acolytes. They make > > dangerous allies, with their racist, proto-fascist opinions. I think the > > postings in this forum document this assertion. Progressives need to be > > aware that not just the 'recovery movement' is dangerous, but so also is the > > 'recovery from recovery' movement. They are just two different varieties of > > American, middle-class, occultic, political thought. Progressives need to > > plant their feet on firmer ground. > > If you were typical of " progressives, " I think everyone should be wary of > progressives. Are " progressives " proponents of failed Marxism under another > name? > > > > > I readily accept the acrimony of the " libertarians " who post here, > > including Ragge himself. I was never a friend of your movement, nor of > > America's angry petite bourgeoisie. You 'soul rape' only garners my > > distain. > > > > As if your malicious lying and accusations make you worthy of respect. > > Ken Ragge > > > > > Re: ken re stuff > > > > > > > > > > > MonaHolland@... wrote: > > > > > > > In a message dated 6/4/01 10:28:42 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > > > > pauldiener@... writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a sheer crock of shit. > > > > > > Mona, > > > > > > I _loved_ it. <VBG> > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Ken > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2001 Report Share Posted June 12, 2001 ----- Original Message ----- To: <12-step-free > > > paul diener wrote: > > > What's has been 'more revealed' by Ragge and his acolytes is more or less > > what I expected : > > > > , > > Where do you come up with the crazy stuff below? Is it out of your belief > that " ends justify the means, " or some internal conflict that allows you to make > up malicious things about people who disagree with you, or are you simply nuts? [snip] Here's my explanation, Ken. Since we are your acolytes, it follows that whatever we say is your opinion ;-) --wally Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2001 Report Share Posted June 12, 2001 wally wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > To: <12-step-free > > > > > paul diener wrote: > > > > > What's has been 'more revealed' by Ragge and his acolytes is more or > less > > > what I expected : > > > > > > > , > > > > Where do you come up with the crazy stuff below? Is it out of your > belief > > that " ends justify the means, " or some internal conflict that allows you > to make > > up malicious things about people who disagree with you, or are you simply > nuts? > > [snip] > > Here's my explanation, Ken. Since we are your acolytes, it follows that > whatever we say is your opinion ;-) > > --wally > Wally, <LOL> Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 paul diener wrote: > Ken > > You are obviously not reading most of the posts. , Maybe half. > > > Every one of those positions was taken by one or another of reactionary > posting here. Eg, the phrase 'romantic illusions about the poor' was a > quote from a post which told me how stupid I am for worrying about low > income people. If you scroll back, you will see that each of the points I > made WAS taken from one or another reactionary poster. > > My point is that YOUR general position encourages viewing things in this > reactionary way. It don't claim you posted these things. But your asocial > viewpoint attracts such views. You are hostile to social analysis, and your > overall social view is reactionary. > My " general position " also seems to encourage you to post here. Does that mean that I'm a Marxist as well as a reactionary? Am I personally responsible and share your opinions because you post here? > > But " addiction " IS a social problem, and the War On Drugs IS a social > phenomenon. These things can ONLY be solved by social analysis and by > social action. > > Will social justice eliminate all unhappiness? No. People will still > die, and death causes sadness. And people will still face illness, and that > causes sadness. And people will still get hangnails, and even that causes > unhappiness. So? > It seems like you found your image of a utopia. In another post you said (I believe particularly in reference to Cuba) that it would be necessary for marxists to rule the world because they would sabotague the development of the envisioned best government. Your words have a _very_ familiar ring to them and reminds me of Buchman's speeches. > > This is how you justify your lack of concern with social decay in the > U.S.? " Well, you are going to die anyway, so why worry about. . . . " > Again, nonsense you are pulling out of nowhere, or are you attributing to me something someone else said? Are you suggesting that if I wasn't a " reactionary " (sounds like it means what " alcoholic " means in AA) that I would " clean up " this list of " capitalist roaders " or something. Sorry, but you are the authoritarian, not me. > > The topic is " addiction, " and not death, illness or hangnails. And > " addiction " IS a social problem. > Then why do you keep bringing up hangnails? > > Has a perfect society existed in the past? No. So what? Does that mean > we are just suppose to accept the status quo? Certainly not. But I see no reason to switch to a system that has _never_ been able to provide for or hesitated to slaughter their own people. > > > Your comment on Colombia does not make sense. > > The U.S. should get the hell out of Colombia and stop killing people. You know I agree with you on that. Ken Ragge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 I don't agree with you. Look at those who do. Re: ken re stuff > > > paul diener wrote: > > > Ken > > > > You are obviously not reading most of the posts. > > , > > Maybe half. > > > > > > > Every one of those positions was taken by one or another of reactionary > > posting here. Eg, the phrase 'romantic illusions about the poor' was a > > quote from a post which told me how stupid I am for worrying about low > > income people. If you scroll back, you will see that each of the points I > > made WAS taken from one or another reactionary poster. > > > > My point is that YOUR general position encourages viewing things in this > > reactionary way. It don't claim you posted these things. But your asocial > > viewpoint attracts such views. You are hostile to social analysis, and your > > overall social view is reactionary. > > > > My " general position " also seems to encourage you to post here. Does that mean > that I'm a Marxist as well as a reactionary? Am I personally responsible and > share your opinions because you post here? > > > > > But " addiction " IS a social problem, and the War On Drugs IS a social > > phenomenon. These things can ONLY be solved by social analysis and by > > social action. > > > > Will social justice eliminate all unhappiness? No. People will still > > die, and death causes sadness. And people will still face illness, and that > > causes sadness. And people will still get hangnails, and even that causes > > unhappiness. So? > > > > It seems like you found your image of a utopia. In another post you said (I > believe particularly in reference to Cuba) that it would be necessary for > marxists to rule the world because they would sabotague the development of the > envisioned best government. > > Your words have a _very_ familiar ring to them and reminds me of Buchman's > speeches. > > > > > This is how you justify your lack of concern with social decay in the > > U.S.? " Well, you are going to die anyway, so why worry about. . . . " > > > > Again, nonsense you are pulling out of nowhere, or are you attributing to me > something someone else said? > > Are you suggesting that if I wasn't a " reactionary " (sounds like it means what > " alcoholic " means in AA) that I would " clean up " this list of " capitalist > roaders " or something. Sorry, but you are the authoritarian, not me. > > > > > The topic is " addiction, " and not death, illness or hangnails. And > > " addiction " IS a social problem. > > > > Then why do you keep bringing up hangnails? > > > > > Has a perfect society existed in the past? No. So what? Does that mean > > we are just suppose to accept the status quo? > > Certainly not. But I see no reason to switch to a system that has _never_ been > able to provide for or hesitated to slaughter their own people. > > > > > > > Your comment on Colombia does not make sense. > > > > > The U.S. should get the hell out of Colombia and stop killing people. > > You know I agree with you on that. > > Ken Ragge > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 paul diener wrote: > I don't agree with you. Look at those who do. , The only reason such a large percentage of people are agreeing with me is because you are posting here. Normally, I post for a short time and most everyone gets mad at me, so I don't post for a while. Ken > > Re: ken re stuff > > > > > > > paul diener wrote: > > > > > Ken > > > > > > You are obviously not reading most of the posts. > > > > , > > > > Maybe half. > > > > > > > > > > > Every one of those positions was taken by one or another of > reactionary > > > posting here. Eg, the phrase 'romantic illusions about the poor' was a > > > quote from a post which told me how stupid I am for worrying about low > > > income people. If you scroll back, you will see that each of the points > I > > > made WAS taken from one or another reactionary poster. > > > > > > My point is that YOUR general position encourages viewing things in > this > > > reactionary way. It don't claim you posted these things. But your > asocial > > > viewpoint attracts such views. You are hostile to social analysis, and > your > > > overall social view is reactionary. > > > > > > > My " general position " also seems to encourage you to post here. Does that > mean > > that I'm a Marxist as well as a reactionary? Am I personally responsible > and > > share your opinions because you post here? > > > > > > > > But " addiction " IS a social problem, and the War On Drugs IS a social > > > phenomenon. These things can ONLY be solved by social analysis and by > > > social action. > > > > > > Will social justice eliminate all unhappiness? No. People will > still > > > die, and death causes sadness. And people will still face illness, and > that > > > causes sadness. And people will still get hangnails, and even that > causes > > > unhappiness. So? > > > > > > > It seems like you found your image of a utopia. In another post you said > (I > > believe particularly in reference to Cuba) that it would be necessary for > > marxists to rule the world because they would sabotague the development of > the > > envisioned best government. > > > > Your words have a _very_ familiar ring to them and reminds me of > Buchman's > > speeches. > > > > > > > > This is how you justify your lack of concern with social decay in the > > > U.S.? " Well, you are going to die anyway, so why worry about. . . . " > > > > > > > Again, nonsense you are pulling out of nowhere, or are you attributing to > me > > something someone else said? > > > > Are you suggesting that if I wasn't a " reactionary " (sounds like it means > what > > " alcoholic " means in AA) that I would " clean up " this list of " capitalist > > roaders " or something. Sorry, but you are the authoritarian, not me. > > > > > > > > The topic is " addiction, " and not death, illness or hangnails. And > > > " addiction " IS a social problem. > > > > > > > Then why do you keep bringing up hangnails? > > > > > > > > Has a perfect society existed in the past? No. So what? Does that > mean > > > we are just suppose to accept the status quo? > > > > Certainly not. But I see no reason to switch to a system that has _never_ > been > > able to provide for or hesitated to slaughter their own people. > > > > > > > > > > > Your comment on Colombia does not make sense. > > > > > > > > The U.S. should get the hell out of Colombia and stop killing people. > > > > You know I agree with you on that. > > > > Ken Ragge > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2001 Report Share Posted June 18, 2001 Well, then I think I have served a purpose. My posting has revealed the underlying conservative assumptions you, and those posting with you, share. Re: ken re stuff > > > > > > > > > > > paul diener wrote: > > > > > > > Ken > > > > > > > > You are obviously not reading most of the posts. > > > > > > , > > > > > > Maybe half. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Every one of those positions was taken by one or another of > > reactionary > > > > posting here. Eg, the phrase 'romantic illusions about the poor' was a > > > > quote from a post which told me how stupid I am for worrying about low > > > > income people. If you scroll back, you will see that each of the points > > I > > > > made WAS taken from one or another reactionary poster. > > > > > > > > My point is that YOUR general position encourages viewing things in > > this > > > > reactionary way. It don't claim you posted these things. But your > > asocial > > > > viewpoint attracts such views. You are hostile to social analysis, and > > your > > > > overall social view is reactionary. > > > > > > > > > > My " general position " also seems to encourage you to post here. Does that > > mean > > > that I'm a Marxist as well as a reactionary? Am I personally responsible > > and > > > share your opinions because you post here? > > > > > > > > > > > But " addiction " IS a social problem, and the War On Drugs IS a social > > > > phenomenon. These things can ONLY be solved by social analysis and by > > > > social action. > > > > > > > > Will social justice eliminate all unhappiness? No. People will > > still > > > > die, and death causes sadness. And people will still face illness, and > > that > > > > causes sadness. And people will still get hangnails, and even that > > causes > > > > unhappiness. So? > > > > > > > > > > It seems like you found your image of a utopia. In another post you said > > (I > > > believe particularly in reference to Cuba) that it would be necessary for > > > marxists to rule the world because they would sabotague the development of > > the > > > envisioned best government. > > > > > > Your words have a _very_ familiar ring to them and reminds me of > > Buchman's > > > speeches. > > > > > > > > > > > This is how you justify your lack of concern with social decay in the > > > > U.S.? " Well, you are going to die anyway, so why worry about. . . .. " > > > > > > > > > > Again, nonsense you are pulling out of nowhere, or are you attributing to > > me > > > something someone else said? > > > > > > Are you suggesting that if I wasn't a " reactionary " (sounds like it means > > what > > > " alcoholic " means in AA) that I would " clean up " this list of " capitalist > > > roaders " or something. Sorry, but you are the authoritarian, not me. > > > > > > > > > > > The topic is " addiction, " and not death, illness or hangnails. And > > > > " addiction " IS a social problem. > > > > > > > > > > Then why do you keep bringing up hangnails? > > > > > > > > > > > Has a perfect society existed in the past? No. So what? Does that > > mean > > > > we are just suppose to accept the status quo? > > > > > > Certainly not. But I see no reason to switch to a system that has _never_ > > been > > > able to provide for or hesitated to slaughter their own people. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your comment on Colombia does not make sense. > > > > > > > > > > > The U.S. should get the hell out of Colombia and stop killing people. > > > > > > You know I agree with you on that. > > > > > > Ken Ragge > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2001 Report Share Posted June 18, 2001 Well, then I think I have served a purpose. My posting has revealed the underlying conservative assumptions you, and those posting with you, share Or not. As independent thinkers capable of rejecting doctrinaire bullshit and proselytizing from Steppers, we have in common a reflexive antipathy to missionaries who have All the Answers, if we would but keep an "open mind." --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2001 Report Share Posted June 20, 2001 Mona-the-moaner, my dear - if I did not have you, I would have to invent you. When you are not wallowing in self-pity, you are bashing those whose lives are much more difficult than yours, and defending corporate interests and the rich. I love it, dear. Keep up the good work. > In a message dated 6/18/01 11:54:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > pauldiener@p... writes: > > > > > Well, then I think I have served a purpose. My posting has revealed the > > > > > > Or not. > > As independent thinkers capable of rejecting doctrinaire bullshit and > proselytizing from Steppers, we have in common a reflexive antipathy to > missionaries who have All the Answers, if we would but keep an " open mind. " > > --Mona-- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.