# Shoot First, Live Free PT2 THE SCUM[May contain some potentialy offensve language]



## doktorcrash (Jan 12, 2006)

The Scum

Somewhere there are squads of dope-crazed savages combing through mounds of rubble, selecting razor edged cudgels to crush your skull the next time you’re desperate or foolish enough to venture into their darkness. Down the street—in that shiny new federal office complex—there are covens of sniveling bureaucrats poring over volumes of forgotten laws, looking for some metalegal reason for vaporizing your weapons in a government blast furnace.
--U.S.A: The Urban Survival Arsenal

…But it’s going to be a tough fight, considering the titanic, suffusive brain-washing machine known as the LIBERAL MEDIA. A bunch of tree-hugging, dope-shooting, meat-shunning, whale-protecting, anus-invading, ivory-tower fruit flies those reporters are, I’ll tell ya. They pump their poisonous vomit out through radio speakers, TV screens, and newspapers, favoring slimy penises over clean rifles, crack-puffing rapists over gunfolk.

            It’s the news media, say the gunfolk, who’ve engendered sympathy for the looters, dopers, gangsters, scumbags, perverts, hoodlums, arsonists, marauders, pillagers, madmen, killers, animals, muggers, burglars, wackos, malefactors, villains, hooligans, thugs, ruffians, goons, hellcats, cannibals, vandals, barbarians, fiends, vampires, roustabouts, and desperadoes who now roam our streets with impunity. Look!! Somebody got shot in a stickup! Here come the paramedics! Hurry!! Help that guy! No, not the victim, stupid—the gunman! His pistol recoiled so hard, he has a boo-boo on his hand!

            According to the gunfolk, the media lackeys aid the government to ensure that THE CONSPIRACY succeeds with out a hitch. And, dag nabbit, is it ever succeeding! Irresponsibility is now considered a virtue. Decadence is looked upon as cute. Welfare is seen as a birthright. The murkiest excrescences of primordial slime are touted as high culture. The maggots have arrived. 

            And they’re dining on whitey’s corpse. Now, not all gunfolk are white racists, but not all pro basketball players are tall black guys, either. Indeed, gunfolk are an overwhelmingly Caucasian lot: If a 2005 poll is to be trusted, melanin-deficient households are fifty-four percent more likely to contain a gun than those of the so-called “Mud People.” Gunfolk see European civilization as the primary target of the Conspiracy’s “racial-socialist.” Western thought, Western customs, even Western skin color are thought to be jeopardized in a global scheme to puree humanity into a grey bowl of raceless oatmeal.

            Pro-gun bigotry’s apex is found in Andrew Mac Donald’s _The Turner Diaries_, a withering, paranoid, horribly written novel which the FBI has called “the bible of the racist right.” It dares to ask firearms owners’ favorite question: “What will you do when they come to take you guns?” The book opens with governmental gun raids which trigger a guerrilla war against “Zionist” overlords, resulting in a holocaust of nonwhites and a new era spearheaded by rifle-totin’ palefaces. First-person protagonist Earl Turner starts out having his apartment searched and ends up dropping a bomb on the Pentagon. The plot is laughably contrived in the manner of a schoolboy playing with plastic soldiers: Turner escapes death with the ridiculous improbability of an action-movie hero until he’s blown to Aryan smithereens in his kamikaze mission. What begins as a loose-knit paramilitary posse grows into an earth-governing, snow white, quasi-Druidic inner sanctum known as The Order. Hitler is referred to as “The Great One,” and genocide of the nonwhites is called “sterilization.” The entire planet eventually becomes white, although certain sectors of Asia remain too radioactive for habitation. Characters are flatter than paper targets. Nevertheless, _The Turner Diaries _would seem to invigorate any reader who pines for a White Jerusalem. 

            Here at the gun show, there’s no dearth of pro-white white folk. The only black person in sight, a muscle-laden male in a US Marines shirt, trudges about uncomfortably, and it’s hard to blame him: Uncle Adolf is everywhere. There’s an affinity for Hitler bordering on kink, with more German militaria being sold than American stuff. Pair of wrestler-sized bikers conspicuously clomps around one garbed in a DAVID DUKE FOR PRESIDENT T-shirt, the other wearing a turquoise ring with a swastika inset. Glowering at merchandise, a skinhead wears a shirt with a slogan HAIL VICTORY! above a Nazi flag. Sporting a disciplined little moustache, one vendor deals strictly Teutonic wares, including the infamous JUDE patch which Jews were forced to don under the Third Reich.

            And then there’s Dieter, a Prussian-product-pusher par excellence. Besides the standard swastika flags and armbands, he sells swastika patio lamps, Triumph of the Will and Afrika Corps videos, and SS jackets in “full Gestapo leather” for twenty-five hundred smackers. Dieter came to the US from Germany as a teenager in 1958. He has an amiable glint in his eye and a belly undoubtedly cultivated from one too many Oktoberfests. I ask him if he catches any static for selling Nazi souvenirs, and it takes him about three seconds to start making racial slurs:  “No. I just tell them to get away. They’re mostly Jews. I thought people were so open-minded. Only when it comes to _their_ stuff, like communism.”

            His blonde wife demonstrates a black-velvet choker with a rhinestone swastika sewn into the front. Three hundred and fifty bucks. “Dat was for the super-rich,” she boasts, “and dey had the clothes to go vit it!” 

            Dieter claims he’d be jailed back in Germany for hawking Hitleria. He says he has no urge to return to the Vaterland. “They’re having a lot of problems. About forty percent unemployment. No wonder the young people get mad—they don’t have a chance to get a job. They’re bringing in all the Schwarzes and all the Gypsies and all the Asiatics—same as over here, you know? It’s something that is internationally desired by certain people, you know, to mix everybody up….[The immigrants into Germany] get paid fifteen hundred a month, and they don’t have to work for two years. All the young German kids are mad—they don’t have a chance, because the welfare system is so over-bloated. It’s turning into America over there. They come in from Africa with eighteen kids.” 

            Trebly German marching songs tootles from a peewee boom box. “This country is going down the tubes,” Dieter dictates, “especially in California. There are no borders there. They’re letting in the Mexicans, The Central Americans—a white couple like you won’t have a chance…Between the blacks and the Mexicans, they’re gong to burn everything from San Francisco down to San Diego. If you can’t see the handwriting on the wall, you must be on drugs.” 

            Certain that it will rile him enough to spit out another venom-filled quote, I ask Dieter if he’s ever visited the Big Apple. “You want to break my nerves,” comes his retort, “put me in New York city for ten minutes. I mean Jew York City. You can look at somebody there, and they’ll have four races in them—black, white, Jewish, Oriental—you don’t know what they are. Hell is better than New York City. And they want us to mix. They want the Germans, the Scandinavians, to mix with those people. In another generation, the whole country will be like New York City. There will be bloody, bloody riots and counter-riots. You won’t need an earthquake to set it off. It could be a change in the weather; whatever…The best thing you can do right now is buy beans and bullets.”.......

More to come........


----------



## Raging_Hopeful (Jan 12, 2006)

As I mentioned before, a stronger ending would benefit this piece greatly. However, I think it's an interesting look at racism that may or may not exist in the gun culture today. 

"...and it’s hard to blame him: Uncle Adolf is everywhere. There’s an affinity for Hitler bordering on kink..."  
This was a great line. Very clever (not that I think Adolf is sexy or kinky in ANY way!) portrayal of these character's particular affinity for german paraphinallia. 

Keep writing! :-D


----------



## RedEurope (Jan 12, 2006)

How many times do I have to tear your inferior ideology to pieces?  Would you like me to do it again, Ronald?


----------



## doktorcrash (Jan 12, 2006)

RedEurope said:
			
		

> How many times do I have to tear your inferior ideology to pieces? Would you like me to do it again, Ronald?


 
Sure red but I am not sure your reading it correctly. Notice the Quotation Marks. I am simply observing and telling you what it is like. I personally don't share the racist views of those I am quoting. You know those two little marks don't you ("   "). Although you will note in the beginning I have a clear problem with the liberal media. But please feel free to join in the discussion on racism in the world today which I am almost positive will ensue. Or any other point made in this piece ( Liberal Media, Guns, Racism, Etc.) everyone is welcome to share a view. That is what it is all about. So put your left hand in, put your left hand out, put your left hand in and shake it all about. Then we will do the hookey pookey and we'll turn are ourselves around. Cause thats what its all about. :thumbl: 
*Grabs a Cigarette and another cup of coffee and waits*


----------



## RedEurope (Jan 12, 2006)

doktorcrash said:
			
		

> Sure red but I am not sure your reading it correctly. Notice the Quotation Marks.


_ According to the gunfolk, the media lackeys aid the government to ensure that THE CONSPIRACY succeeds with out a hitch. And, dag nabbit, is it ever succeeding! Irresponsibility is now considered a virtue. Decadence is looked upon as cute. Welfare is seen as a birthright. The murkiest excrescences of primordial slime are touted as high culture. The maggots have arrived.

 ...

 Western thought, Western customs, even Western skin color are thought to be jeopardized in a global scheme to puree humanity into a grey bowl of raceless oatmeal._
  
 No quotation marks there.  I can pick a dozen other similar sentences.



			
				doktorcrash said:
			
		

> I am simply observing and telling you what it is like.


 Then why have you been warned and why does no one believe you? Your agenda is apparent I'm afraid.



			
				doktorcrash said:
			
		

> I personally don't share the racist views of those I am quoting.


 Well what about the fascist ones - i.e.: all the rhetoric against poor whites, welfare, and you holding and pro- such conservative ideals as gun carrying? At least the first two can be addressed.


----------



## doktorcrash (Jan 12, 2006)

Red Europe I've often wondered how one becomes credentialed to be a social critic. Most writers have extremely poor social skills. That's why they write. It's true that most social critics have appalling social lives. I am no exception. In my case, it's social criticism from a sociopath. I'm pushing for Enlighteded Sociopathy. Maybe that's my political agenda. 

Part of my posting is to ensure that this gets misinterpreted the RIGHT way. So I'll predict some of the blatant ways the people in this forum (Like yourself Red Europe) will decontextualize my words to fit their framewirk. To save unimaginative bytes of memory on this site the task of haveing to slam me cleverly, I've already provided some ready made ad copy that makes it easy to misrepresent what I'm saying:

This post is a psychotic, self-pitying, one-sded, historically revisionist screed. What an accomplishment--making people FEEL GOOD about racism again.

More whining form the slobs who brought you the lynch mob nd the beer gut. The last frail fart of the Angry White Male, the pathetic last grasps of a conqueror now conquered.

Amazing. Now the BIGOTS feel persecuted. This post tries to argue that racism is caused by reverse racism. Yet more excuses for privileged white males to feel sorry for themselves. (Not sure if it fits with this piece but coud fit in one of my posts)

When not accusing me of being a talentless hog-slopper, the criticism will either hinge on my "privilege" or my "bigotry" or my "fear." I'll be called a extremist, but that's not so bad, considering the middle, They'll continually try to ally me with the "right wing," although I steadfastly claim to be wingless. I'm a lone gunnman here, not an army. I'll be acused of slumming. They'll try to act unimpressed. And next week, they'll act unimpressed again. And the week after that. They'll say that I merely trying to offend. Why would I have to try? Most people wake up in the morning offended. They go to sleep offended. Trying to offend them would be like trying to make them breath. I have better things to do with my time. I realize they'll get pissed off, and yet I blame their sensitivity rather than my obnoxiousness. 

*lites another cigarette pulls in and exhails thinking I sould really quit this nasty habit*


----------



## RedEurope (Jan 12, 2006)

*Radical response to "The Scum"*




			
				doktorcrash said:
			
		

> Red Europe I've often wondered how one becomes credentialed to be a social critic. Most writers have extremely poor social skills. That's why they write. It's true that most social critics have appalling social lives. I am no exception. In my case, it's social criticism from a sociopath. I'm pushing for Enlighteded Sociopathy. Maybe that's my political agenda.


 On the contrary, you seem to even have pretty poor social skills on an Internet forum - you are just as incomprehensible and deluding in motive as you cite most writers as being in real life.

Speaking of writers, I have seen little of actual "writing" from you on this particular forum, and hence I do not regard you as one.



			
				doktorcrash said:
			
		

> So I'll predict some of the blatant ways the people in this forum (Like yourself Red Europe) will decontextualize my words to fit their framewirk.


 First of all, I do not fit into any kind of consensual or collective "framework"-type agreement on this forum,
Secondly, as I said before, and I will in a minute based on the social definitions you are using, you do indeed possess ulterior motives and, not only can we all see through them all like a racoon through darkness, you are quite frankly deluding yourself that people like Raging and the Seattle guy can't. Socio-political experts can figure out what is going on here within minutes - and you can take some discomfort that your somewhat stereotypical political postings were no exceptions.



			
				doktorcrash said:
			
		

> To save unimaginative bytes of memory on this site the task of haveing to slam me cleverly, I've already provided some ready made ad copy that makes it easy to misrepresent what I'm saying:


 Then why try to deny it in what was in itself an unimpressive, nonsensical first post?

Your "ideology" and ideas are unlike any form of rightist thinking I have ever seen before, if there are the obvious chauvinistic parallels - i.e.: the homeless thing and the neo-con-like gun rhetoric.



			
				doktorcrash said:
			
		

> This post is a psychotic, self-pitying, one-sded, historically revisionist screed. What an accomplishment--making people FEEL GOOD about racism again.


 Hence it was naturally unpopular.  As were your other non-race-related socially élitist ramblings.



			
				doktorcrash said:
			
		

> More whining form the slobs who brought you the lynch mob nd the beer gut. The last frail fart of the Angry White Male, the pathetic last grasps of a conqueror now conquered.


 Not pathetic groups - *pathetic ideologies*. Does that make sense to you? Instead of drunkenness and collective action (by the way - have you ever read any Gustave Le Bon?), social progress and space exploration, as it was under socialism in the Twentieth Century.



			
				doktorcrash said:
			
		

> Amazing. Now the BIGOTS feel persecuted. This post tries to argue that racism is caused by reverse racism.


 No shit Sherlock. ‘Tis the aim of the capitalists - divide its subjects further through the crap you indirectly refer to (but which I can name knowing your political direction - stuff like "political correctness" and "affirmative action") to deter them from revolution.



			
				doktorcrash said:
			
		

> Yet more excuses for privileged white males to feel sorry for themselves.


 What is? The liberal half-installation of positive memetics in society? At least even the Western pathetic liberals are halfway there - because I do agree (if very grudgingly; having given it a lot of thought) that there are _some_ loose true socialistic ideas among them all. (However often this is often ultimately misdirected elsewhere - and we get such causes like feminism and affirmative action coming through instead of solar system aspirations and stuff like that. But likewise I am not sure if that fits in with my piece because it is something I feel very strongly about.)



			
				doktorcrash said:
			
		

> When not accusing me of being a talentless hog-slopper


 When did I say that?



			
				doktorcrash said:
			
		

> , the criticism will either hinge on my "privilege" or my "bigotry" or my "fear."


 Not surprised. People who have fallen into this trap and sensitively hold these type of ultra-conservative, unchanging ideologies will often feel this way. But personally I regard it as metathesiophobia.:wink:



			
				doktorcrash said:
			
		

> I'll be called a extremist, but that's not so bad, considering the middle, Thye'll continually try to ally me with the "right wing," although I steadfastly claim to be wingless.


 Paradoxically, I am glad to see that, as that is at least a positive outlook of life as far as I am concerned. I too hold such beliefs, but, as you have probably worked out by now, I am classed as a socialist (and hence class myself as one) because I triumph the rights of the common man over big business and the élites - making me 100% socialist philosophically whether I like it or not. (I'm fine about this though - I came to terms with what I was a long time ago, hence I don't wake up offended as we shall move onto right now.)



			
				doktorcrash said:
			
		

> I'm a lone gunnman here, not an army. I'll be acused of slumming. They'll try to act unimpressed. And next week, they'll act unimpressed again. And the week after that. They'll say that I merely trying to offend. Why would I have to try? Most people wake up in the morning offended. They go to sleep offended.


 I don't have that. I go to bed and wake up knowing there are great social problems with society (I am not going to even start to name them), but content that people like me who profess the correct *peaceful* and of course modern and dynamic ideologies exist and are in a mindset to, if not managing to solve the world's problems, promote the healthy memetics that is needed to solve them - a good example being National Bolshevism.



			
				doktorcrash said:
			
		

> Trying to offend them would be like trying to make them breath. I have better things to do with my time. I realize they'll get pissed off, and yet I blame their sensitivity rather than my obnoxiousness.


 That's outright rubbish. You are the only person who wakes up and goes to bed offended because your life and social outlook are dominated by *negative memetics*, and so you naturally look outward for expressionism and find nothing better to do than patronise other people by posting rightist ramblings like the above on such places as Internet forums. (By the way, have you ever been published?) But keep on doing it - for the more people read such drivel proposing the killing of homeless people and the sterilisation of the lower classes of society "the masses will turn to communism" (to paraphrase Stalin on his writings on the social state of the American peoples and their inevitable results) and other healthy ideologies instead of dated tripe like social conservatism.



			
				doktorcrash said:
			
		

> *lites another cigarette pulls in and exhails thinking I sould really quit this nasty habit*


 You should - damaging your lungs is not particularly positive memetics.  (This is actually a question of "working class nationalism" which believe me I could write an essay about.)


----------



## RedEurope (Jan 12, 2006)

I wonder what he's writing.


----------



## doktorcrash (Jan 12, 2006)

RedEurope said:
			
		

> I wonder what he's writing.


 
The most enjoyable thing about analyzing socialism is watching it run into conflicts of interest--what do they do about socialist governments who murder their own children and people?  What do they do about black sexism? Latin homophobia? Lesbians who beat their partners? Is pedophilia included as a lifestyle choice in socialist regimes? Do they ally with the "racism" or the "domestic violence" side of the O.J. Question?

Good intentions often lead to bad moods. For all their rhetorical sweetness, socialist are some of the bitterest people I've ever met. Judgmental. Intolerant. So stuck up, it'd take the Jaws of life to pull them back down. As individuals--tete-a-tete, Mano a Mano--many strident (note i did not say all) socialists I've known are the meanest, pettiest jerk offs you'd ever want to avoid. The reason they're so irritable is because they constantly face a world that does not fit their beliefs. It's the same way Christians get all hot an peppery when you start blowing shotgun holes through their arguments. When you begin slicing through a socialists flimsy cellophane ideology, his true inner meanness--hardly social--is revealed.

It would seem strange for a person like me to chide ANYONE for being mean. It isn't socialist meanness per se, it's that they seem entirely unaware of it. Or if aware, they try to bury it under some ennobling excuse. My objection is to their pretense of intellectual superiority and sweetness. If they came to terms with there meanness, they might actually be fun.  But like a stagnant pond is clogged with slime, the socialist is FILLED with hate, because his ideology doesn't allow him to express and release it. There are plenty of things the socialists hate, they can't bring themselves to use that awful word. The socialist main problem isn't that he's an asshole, it's that he can't come to terms with it.

Don't get me wrong socialists aren't evil, they're merely misguided human beings adhering to a code that denies them their humanity. Amid all this stifling equality, the fundamental human need to feel superior was left unsatisfied. For all the tougue-flapping they do about equality, almost all socialist act as if they feel superior to everyone else.

*Damn last Cigarette have to get to the store as I lite it an take a drag*


----------



## RedEurope (Jan 12, 2006)

This should be fun.



			
				doktorcrash said:
			
		

> The most enjoyable thing about analyzing socialism is watching it run into conflicts of interest--what do they do about socialist governments who murder their own children


 There has never been such an instance. Maybe indirect deaths (such as Ukraine 1930s when children died) but that was caused by Western blockade of that country and not by Stalin as Western Ukrainian anti-communists said.



			
				doktorcrash said:
			
		

> and people?


Western socialists - denounce them,
"Eastern" socialists - learn from their mistakes,
Both - expose capitalist mistruths about socialism such as the so called "Ukrainian famine" ("Holodomor") and alleged North Korean "famines".



			
				doktorcrash said:
			
		

> What do they do about black sexism?


 Western liberal-_slightly_ "leftists" have invented "black feminism". There is a lot of Critical Theory and postmodernist theory that looks at this particular area of thought.

The rest are minor issues. Hispanic gays whatever next.




			
				doktorcrash said:
			
		

> Good intentions often lead to bad moods. For all their rhetorical sweetness, socialist are some of the bitterest people I've ever met. Judgmental. Intolerant. So stuck up, it'd take the Jaws of life to pull them back down. As individuals--tete-a-tete, Mano a Mano--many strident (note i did not say all) socialists I've known are the meanest, pettiest jerk offs you'd ever want to avoid. The reason they're so irritable is because they constantly face a world that does not fit their beliefs.



What you say certainly sounds true of trade unionists in the UK, I am sorry to say. But many non-aligned socialists who I have met (including pretenders) I find are very decent and approachable people, such as the ones on the Net. That said, I know some trade unionists and I find them to be decent, honest people, even though I may disagree with their generally Gramscian-type outlook on life (or "hegemonic Marxism"). But I triumph their cause strongly over neo-functionalism's, for instance.




			
				doktorcrash said:
			
		

> It's the same way Christians get all hot an peppery when you start blowing shotgun holes through their arguments. When you begin slicing through a socialists flimsy cellophane ideology, his true inner meanness--hardly social--is revealed.



:?:




			
				doktorcrash said:
			
		

> It would seem strange for a person like me to chide ANYONE for being mean. It isn't socialist meanness per se, it's that they seem entirely unaware of it. Or if aware, they try to bury it under some ennobling excuse.



Yes, this can sadly happen. Perhaps this can be because of a variety of reasons - from relentless neo-liberalism to the Collapse of the Soviet Union. Look at George Galloway (a man who asks the right questions but gets 75% of the wrong answers) - "The Collapse of the Soviet Union was the single most catastrophic event in my life".




			
				doktorcrash said:
			
		

> My objection is to their pretense of intellectual superiority and sweetness. If they came to terms with there meanness, they might actually be fun. But like a stagnant pond is clogged with slime, the socialist is FILLED with hate, because his ideology doesn't allow him to express and release it. There are plenty of things the socialists hate, they can't bring themselves to use that awful word. The socialist main problem isn't that he's an asshole, it's that he can't come to terms with it.



Is this Western socialists you are talking about? Hell, lots of people are arseholes, even some who hold left-wing beliefs and convictions, but many right-wingers are too.

Nonetheless even if a socialist I don't particularly like (like Arthur Scargill) led a march of some kind against industrialist élitism calling for more rights for the workers or something then I would generally support it. Generally.




			
				doktorcrash said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong socialists aren't evil, they're merely misguided human beings adhering to a code that denies them their humanity.



This sounds a lot like Western socialists. It pisses me off when Western talk show hosts (*cough* *cough* *Ian Collins* *cough* *cough*) go on about "As far as I understand it, socialism is about hating your own and loving anyone elses" and other such confusions with capitalism. But actually such suicidal attitudes are seldom accept among false socialists (such as RESPECT, which is actually paradoxically very Machiavellian), and remember that most socialists are proud of such things as Soviet space achievements (Gagarin, Laika, etc.).




			
				doktorcrash said:
			
		

> Amid all this stifling equality, the fundamental human need to feel superior was left unsatisfied.



That was true - hence socialists encouraged such things as *art*, *literature*, *music*, *science*, *sports*, and so forth.

On the flipside of the coin this also led to social reforms like Gorbachev and Deng.


----------



## doktorcrash (Jan 12, 2006)

Masterfully done Red. Where are all the other people with opinions. They seem awefuly silent on this thread. I found that book you were talking about The Crowd by Gustave Le Bon I am sure that it will be an interesting read.


----------



## RedEurope (Jan 12, 2006)

*Gustave Le Bon's psychology*




			
				doktorcrash said:
			
		

> I found that book you were talking about The Crowd by Gustave Le Bon I am sure that it will be an interesting read.


 Well, actually, _The Crowd_ is an odd one out for me, because in it the author talks about the ills of the collective consciousness and how socialism in the social manifestation of that, and is hence unworkable.  Read _On Socialism_ (by the same author) for more on this - but it really goes against what I was saying. However I can relate to it personally because I always loathed group work at school and preferred an individual effort to get one's work done. That said I am still of the Left because I triumph the rights of the common, working man over the capitalist machine and its sister ideologies. All in all a very underrated man - but remember that other more eminent psychologists such as Freud were communists.


----------



## amusinglackoftalent (Jan 22, 2006)

*Well...*



			
				doktorcrash said:
			
		

> Masterfully done Red. Where are all the other people with opinions. They seem awefuly silent on this thread. I found that book you were talking about The Crowd by Gustave Le Bon I am sure that it will be an interesting read.


 
It's just SO... Uh... POLITICAL, Dok. I think you were doing a fine job on your own. 

Red, you got some 'issues', my man. "_However I can relate to it personally because I always loathed group work at school and preferred an individual effort to get one's work done."_

I don't have the vocabulary, intelligence or inclination for all that 'intellectual' commentary in which you engage. I have this, however; a fundamental belief in freedom that no communist/socialist doctrine can satisfy. 

Your problem isn't with political structures. This 'individuality' would make you a rather poor 'socialist or communist' subject in my view. Welcome to America. This forum is not an exception for us. We can stand on the street corner, walk into a cafe, stand out in front of the White House and rant and rave about what we believe in if we choose. I can say anything about the government I please in an editorial in the weekly paper, or a national publication for that matter if I WRITE WELL ENOUGH. 

I think your problem is rich man/poor man, or 'common man' as you have alluded to in your own writing. I sat at the age of seven or eight in a cold outhouse behind my great-grandmother's three room house smelling the stench of human waste and trying to hold my breath long enough to get my business done. Her people plowed fields with a mule to put food on the table. They were just about as 'common' as they come. One year a 'capitalist venture' created a mill for common folk to work in. The years passed and my great-grandmother could read her Bible by an electric light, sit on an actual toilet in her eighties and cook her meals without firing a wood stove. With this said, she would have hooked that old mule up and plowed it herself before she'd consent to doing things the 'socialist way'. 

You need to wake up and smell the coffee, Red. The common man is just that without the capitalist dollar. He rakes and scrapes to do the best he can and what he might very well do is starve. In America, 'real men' don't ask for anything but opportunity. 
If there were no investors, no 'capitalist drive', there would be no 'opportunity'. This is supposed to be a writing forum. Not a forum for your political views. Dok posted his 'writing'. So what if he doesn't share your views on politics or if you don't share his. He's telling a STORY. 

All the other issues, race, homosexuality, class frustrations are all out there for everyone to view and form opinions about as they please in this country. They are real problems because our people are real people. Surely the peole in your own country suffer some sort of social and/or personal deficiencies that might be deemed controversial? 

Mark Twain once said that gentlemen shouldn't discuss religion or politics. I'm once again dancing around that rule and I apologize. I just read some things you posted in the 'book deal' thread and I got curious about your other posts. (That's how I wound up here.) 

I've not written these words to offend you. Your little habit of posting back in quotes and dissecting them is an irritating one because you don't seem to be able to read the words within the context that the author has written them. You 'frame' your responses in the only way you can, with your distorted, and 'personalized' view of each 'system'. Government SUCKS no matter which philosphy it is built upon and it SUCKS not because of said philosophy but because ARSEHOLES are a part of making it work. The systems are only as good as the people who populate the positions of power. 

Hooray for the common man. However, hooray for the man with the dollars as well. No matter where you live or what system with which you contend, the man with the dollars is going to be running the show. It has been so and will continue to be so for the duration of mankind's existence. 

And I hate to tell you this but your writing doesn't smack of the genius I had hoped to see once I got here. It might not hurt you to practice a little more of the 'common' approach. Have you ever read any of that Dostoevsky guy's stuff?


----------

