Children join kill classes
DPA
19oct04CHILDREN as young as eight are being recruited and exploited by drug gangs in Colombia as contract murderers, media reports said yesterday.
“When I do a job, I always plunge the knife directly in the chest,” a 16-year-old suspect said, according to legal documents.
“As the victim dies, I look him in the eyes and feel as powerful as God.”
Fat Allah be praised.
Gunning for gangsta rap dadsKRT
19oct04GANGSTA rap’s bad boys are fighting a new foe ? a diminutive blonde lawyer who calls herself the “anti-celebrity.”
Their songs include Cop Killer and Bad Boy For Life, but Manhattan lawyer Suzanne Kimberly Bracker is building her own reputation: making rapper fathers pay child support.
“There are plenty of celebrity lawyers,” she says. “I’m an anti-celebrity lawyer and I’m the only one.
He’s flipped his lid and thrown it away. Silent Running has caught Anan throwing a tantrum and collapsing in a heap, well he already is a heap, so a heap that’s collapsing in on itself. An outright moron is Anan, the man Latham and Rudd would have Oz bend over for, bloody heck; Where has this fellow been?
With the Oz elections out the way, what a relief -another week of it and I would have hit the bottles -yah, not one bottle.
It is time, however, to come to the rescue of our friends across a coulple of paddocks, the Americans.
When Conrad sat down to write Heart of Darkness, he set out out to kill two birds witha single stone, the mongrel Belgains and what a complete savage mess they’d made of the Congo and, John Kerry and the Democrats. I am staggered, absolutely, by what the researches have thrown up.Nostradamus is the mustard and the barbecue sausage resting on the buttered roll - yes, Trinity, Cambridge, please make your offer of a Cahir at the doings a dual professorship, I’ll accept with alacrity - ready to expound next week, can hop aboard a jumbo tonight and be there soon after plane has landed - the studied crash, if you like.
Kurtz, gone native, rather savage, trying to cover up his descent into animal ways by pretending to have been sent beyond the boundaries of the New have Yacht Club into deepest jungle imgaind only in fairystories. There, he met something even the C.I.A doesn’t have a frigging clue about.There is, curiously, yet a bit of the Kerry inflected into young Marlowe who, otherwise, made the biggest career mistake he made in his entire life.
For someone who had aimed at commanding a fleet of the finest men’o'war from a 200 gun Falgship, sticking the hand up to take over the captaining of a flat bottomed leaky paddled wheeled steamer, and poop poop up some muddy boghole in Delaware is the wrong way to go about things. Thus did young Marlowe throw away his chance forever of hunting down the running Frog Fleet and blowing it sky high and take a few holds worth of loot. Besides which, slumming it on said wooden flat bottomed crate is a nasty way of going about getting a bit of rum and bum - but that’s one bit of Kerry inside the character of young Marlowe.
So, what does young Marlowe find at the end of his sojourn on a leaky seive? Bugger all really, except for one scrofulous, farting, inchoate, bone-idle, bloated, dry-docked old codger, Kurtz/Kerry. No wonder the script throws in, `The Horror, the Horror,’ the fag has to dissemble he has met something deep, something profound at the end of a horrible ordeal of leaving the gentle confines of the New Haven Yacht Club is grim stuff.
So, of course young Marlowe has to do in the old sack of bones: bringing Kurtz back out alive would expose the fiction boil on the foot ias some kind of genuis, hero and alround average moose shooting joe blow.Thus, young Marlowe mutters, yes of course, Kerry was clubbable to the young woman in white and, yes of course, bang goes the nuptials on the altar of human sacrifice but soliliquises, `That was close, if the old fart could move, it would be all over for America’. Marlowe then rushed off to make sure Kurtz is well buried and yes he is.
Thus Nostrodamus’ report on U.S. politics and elections was carefully worked into, to use the draft title of the book,
Karzan, Jungleman.
The O.E.D. has also defined socialism as:
an economic theory or system in which the means of production , distribution , and exchange are owned by the community collectivley, usually through the state. It is characterised by production for use rather than profit, by equality….. usu.govt dtermination of of investment, prices, and production levels.
While the `for use/profit’ distinction is rubbish - surprsing of the O.E.D. unlike MacQuarrie Dictionary which is useless as a lexicon,, except in so far as govt. eliminates profit motivated action or constricts it, the main description certainly fits what the Bracks Govt. is doing. The definition, however, is useless. Indeed, that economic definition is not integral to socialism. Contrast, for example, Hayek’s defintion of socialism:
“… the ubiquitous dependence on other people’s power, which the enforcement of any image of `social justice’ creates, inevitably destroys that freedom of personal decisions on which all morals must rest. In fact, the systematic pursuit of the ignis fatuus of `social justice’ which we call socialism is based throughout on the atrocious idea that political power ought to determine the material position of the different individuals and groups - an idea defended by the false assertion that this must be so and socialism merely wishes to transfer this power from the privileged to the most numerous classes .”
Law, Legislation and Liberty, Vol.II ,The Mirage of Social Justice,Chapter 9, `Socia’l or Distributive Justice’.
As Hayek continues on, power and the pursuit of political power is inimical to civilisation, whereas the open market economy elimnates power and it is the grounds of civilisation. Hayek’s defintion is readily recognisable, has been since certainly the 1980’s with the pursuit of `empowerment for all’ , with govts. giving full weight to that in policies and diktat paraded as law. The Bracks Govt. is acting on that, what is nothing less than a cult of power which only leads to totalitarianism. The definition does not rest on the strict and narrow definition at all. Precisely the point, some socialists would argue against that economic definition of socialism, something which was fundamental to the Hawke and Keating led Federal ALP governments of Australia during the 1980’s and early 1990’s.
There-in is the rub, Hayek’s definition of socialism is far more consistent with the concatenation of pseudo-philosophical notions on which socialism rests than is the economic definition. Indeed, that is, in any case, a major argument also of Hayek’s work, to demonstrate the seminal influences behind the road to totalitarianism .
The German National Socialist Party was presented as the true German socialist party. Hitler declared:
I had only to develop logically what Social-Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempt to realise its evolution within the framework of democracy.
Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers… All that.. is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper …it establishes the relation of the individual to the State , the national community… Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.
That is Hitler’s definition of socialism, and, curiously enough, that is what is heard form the lips of many a `Chrisitian ‘ clergyman in Australia and a number of political parties. It can also be said, it is a matter of govt policy, each tier of govt., the subjugation of the individaul to groups ( `communities’ and `community organisations’ through `community leaders’ , through to govt. by way of `regulation’ -diktat and policy). It certainly characterises the regimes of France, Germany, Russia, and the E.U. The position of the U.S. Democratic Party is summed up by Hitler’s declarations. In other words, the Nazi Party was adavanced as a broadly based party of , what can be said, `national unity’. It is pertinent to point out, that is a major claim of the ALP and yet, both the Coalition and the ALP assert there are `national ends’ which central govt must define and realise. After the intial shock of the rise of the National Socialist Party, 1933-34, with no suspicion the Nazi regime would take them down the road to butchery the majority of Germans came to not only accept the Govt. on those claims but became enthusiastic about it. It was as a party of national `community’ the leaders defined it and was accepted as such. Dr.Hjalmar fammous comment is worth repeating:
Hitler “has raised the moral standard of the people”.
Quite so, a party socialist asserting a high `moral view’ of the German Nation . It is also worth citing Freidrich Naumann, who founded the post World War I socialist party, the Social Democratic Party:
Referring to the 18th century-early19th German liberal movmement, which foundered for reasons which will be raised later,
he believed German liberalism had to be corrected , with a stress on power and the quest for power, be stripped of adherence to economic freedom, be redefined by a fusion of Christian and Secular socialist notions, and he drew on sociology in this respect. Naumann treated economic protectionism as the basis of securing unity and national `progressive’ advance.
The definition of socialism as, `an economic theory or system in which the means of production , distribution…’, is, just on the above brief survey, trite, and at odds with the emergence of socialist beliefs, their development and inculcation. The seminal influences for the rise of socialism only draw that conclusion with great clarity. Those influences have bearing on another question. While the rise of socialism cannot be separated form the history of abosulitism in Europe, from the end of the early feudal period to the presnt, and etatism, neither that nor the narrow economic definition of socialism are satisfying explanations as to why socialist beliefs should have such pervaisve appeal to many even today, particularly after the 20th century of horrific `experiments’ to realise socialism. The economic definition of socialism as supplied by MacQuarrie D., O.E.D. and the Victorian Govt. Schools V.C.E. syallabus, explains neither socialism nor that it is still a major religion, in effect. We have the theme to be explored.