Azure <tain@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote :
> Right, you have a Masonic Update of the Thracian Government.
Masons have nothing to do with the Thracian government. Get a grip.
> Your Ego assumes I said such tripe.
> I said it was ORIGINALLY BASED ON.
> It is the Idea of We the People, taken to its highest form.
> (Allegedly)
Interesting bracketed word, there. Sure, America's government was
originally founded on high ideals - but then it met humans, and idealism
tends to fall apart where that happens.
Even if it had worked out entirely as planned, by what measure could we
say it was more advanced?
The point here is that saying a form of government is 'advanced' is like
something is 'modern' - 'modernisation' being something the current
British government were at one point obsessed with. In order for
something to be 'modern', all it technically has to do is exist in
modern times, today. So 'modernisation' doesn't really mean anything.
Similarly, nothing is specifically implied by saying that a system of
government is 'advanced'. It could be massively complicated, but
oppress the hell out of the people living under it - in which case, does
its complexity alone make it 'advanced'? There again, it could be very
simple, but efficient, like a dictator****p. Does its efficiency make it
'advanced'? What about a system of government where everyone's equal
(even though some are more equal than others)? Is that 'advanced'?
> Drawn upon but purer in form than the French Concept and deriving from
> the concepts under the Magna Carta.
> We formed a basis of equalization in the LAW, the Courts, which we
> predicated upon the Mytho's of the Cave Bears and the ways of Karma.
See, right up until the cave bears you were doing okay. Then you lost
it and started frothing again.
And it's 'mythos'.
> Yet we now make Justice a whore, who's services are only available to
> those who can buy her services, but if you have the money you can even
> rape the hell out of her.
Indeed. 'Advanced', would you say?
> Your the deranged person.
> Deny history go ahead.
I'll deny *your* ideas about history where they're quite obviously
barking mad.
> Every coin has 2 sides, every story is carried by the victor, but what
> was the other guys side.
> You don't give a ****.
> YOU SHOULD!
Calm down.
Thing is, you're not telling anyone anything about the point of view of
the losing side. All you're doing is making up pseudo-mythical bunk and
trying to pass it off as secret wisdom. I'd suggest groups like this
one are a little too used to that sort of thing.
|
