Guest guest Posted March 17, 2002 Report Share Posted March 17, 2002 Do you mean it is " our law " in that you speak as a member of the establishment or " our law " in that it has been wholly imposed on us without any scope for question it? [ is it the hunting vote at the UK Houses of Parliament tomorrow Monday? must be a demo down there ... details anyone? ] Barry Horne was found guilt of arson to suit the interest of the Establishment who wanted to make an example of him. yet clearly he was not an arsonist. Mens Rea versus Mens Acteus in legal terms. His intent was never just arson, he was on a moral crusade. but the Establishment would never accept anything like that. Privileged and educated people, those with the power of forming and confirming ideas put about a vision of the legal and moral framework of our society as a level playfield; two parties sitting at a table on equal terms. it is as far from that as possible. a far better image would be on one huge personal throttling a child on the floor while beating the hell of out him. if the child lifts one finger to try and stop that abuse, the bully cries for the justification of his attack and intensifies it. in this case, the child being the moral activist and the bully being the Establishment. this has been the policy of the Establishment as it has evolved to its position of total authority through violence of one form or other from at least Ancient Greece. note the way the Athenians kept the Theban slave caste down by sending their young men in amongst them in disguise, finding anyone with leadership potential and killing them. cut off the head and the beast dies. of course a few less folk die these days but instead a corrupted and self interested law is used as violence against moral dissenting individuals, especially if they are right about the changes they tried reasonably for a long time to make. the law has been so hugely corrupted in favour of the property owners [ which we can prove to be the property thieves ] and against the moral activists. in fact, the law has practically nothing to do with morals and righteous so your pejorative use of the term " firebomber " regarding Hornes activism was confirming the establishments prejudices and you were using your position of privilege as an educated opinion former to do what? I did not know if it was just second nature, or if you were confirm your privileges within the Establishment by voicing the opinion of the Establishment or using it to establish a moral high ground for yourself. So would our cause benefit more from a Royal Commission or the personal sacrifice of a few folk making a direct action. Given that our Monarchy is rather keen on hunting and the Establishment rather keen on its roast beef, I think that is a closed argument. And we will see what they make of even fox hunting in the next few days. My bet goes on a complete unsatisfactory fudge but I look forward to being pleasantly - or peasantly - surprised. Tony Bank, our wonderful veggie MP said some great things against the current " Third Way " stand. He said there were no compromises and in a case like this there was only a winner and loser. we'll see. so it was not a personal attack so much as a wish to make you confront perhaps unconscious motivations that corrupt your thinking. this is a similar set of conditions to that of the September 11th debate. one can buy in, recycle and promulgate what the Establishment wants you to recycle and confirm in the minds of those less privileged and able or you that it is right. or you can stop and ask who is more in the wrong and defend the well meant actions, however misdirected they might be, of those that question and oppose the current regime we live under. at the end of the day, I know where hope and positive change lies and I know what we are up against. History has sadly proven it never comes about without the personal sacrifice of those that throw themselves onto the guns and against the ramparts. it used to be that the Establishments used to use the peasants to thrown them onto the guns and against the ramparts other Establishments. Now that the Establishment is practically one and global what we have seen in the evolution of peasants taking action for themselves first through the social justice and women's movements, now through the environmental and animal rights movements - with an aside to development issues in the exploited nations. the struggle continuing in all those spheres. I am just so amazed by, so revere people that will sacrifice their lives for not even another human but just dumb animals or plants. so where does the moral right lie?* whose side are you on? if you take the " we've got to play by Daddy's rules now children " approach, you are screwed. because Daddy's rules don¹t included us winning. and Daddy does not get beaten. look as Israel so see how rough Daddy plays. changes requires action and I would accept at one end of the scale direct action without blame and at the other the practice of spiritual path as such as Gandhi largely followed. we are still up against guns and ramparts of the same people he faced up but the guns have become a hell of a lot bigger and the ramparts much higher. John * pretty good play on words, huh? 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.