MARTES 13 ,  2000

You have just entered room "panta98 Chat51."
frogmobile: Wow! I made it despite all the
rains.
ScnWrt: Please invite Bill and Iris.
iiiiriiiis: Hi all!
ScnWrt: Hi, Khalid and Iris
iiiiriiiis: Glad you could make it!
iiiiriiiis: Hello Carl!
iiiiriiiis: Hi Khalid!
panta98: Hi! Folks! You're on time, pretty
fast!!!!
iiiiriiiis: Hollllasss! Franz!
ScnWrt: Please invite Bill
panta98: Well, Hi! To All!
iiiiriiiis: Do me the favour and keep online,
good guy!
iiiiriiiis: Please, invite Bill, Franz
frogmobile: Oops! Hello Iris, Hello Franz, Carl and Bill
panta98: Can we begin, we have a tremendous task today. A long introduction.
frogmobile: Proceed
iiiiriiiis: go ahead, Franz
panta98: Yes, I prayed to the Goddess Diana, My Lady Di, she'll somehow keep me online!
SaucerCuss has entered the room.
iiiiriiiis: I prayed to all good available, my dear!
panta98: Well, folks, this evening we'll summarize the quintessence of our last three
chats, and we'll also launch the discussion: Emancipation versus Salvation. We'll use
the terms Labour and Work simply as identical synonyms.
SaucerCuss: There it goes again, Carl, here I am in OZ again.
panta98: Hi! Bill, welcome on board!
iiiiriiiis: Hello Bill, glad you could make it, too. Ok, proceed, Franz
frogmobile: Greetings, folks.
ScnWrt: Bill, are you here?
SaucerCuss: Hello Iris, Franz. Carl and I have been talking. Hello Khalid.
iiiiriiiis: panta98: Well, folks, this evening we'll summarize the quintessence of our last
three chats, and we'll also launch the discussion: Emancipation versus Salvation. We'll
use the terms Labour and Work simply as identical synonyms.
panta98: Let's continue. ....
iiiiriiiis: Ok!
frogmobile: That's a strange system.
panta98: However, before, a few words concerning the exposition of our topic.
WARNING: We're entering frontierlike terrain, where things are uni-que and poli-que,
vague and opaque, clouded and shrouded.
panta98: In fact, we should now change over to the grammatical Subjunctive or
Possibility Mood.
ScnWrt: Bill, sorry about the OZ treatment, but I tried to invite everyone as they went
on-line
panta98: Why I'm saying this, is because I have to ask you to be very patient and
open-minded; in this field, there exists scarcely any literature; also, it is very difficult
for us, to free ourselves from ossified conceptions and world outlooks.
iiiiriiiis: that is: different to all we might have had heard and accepted somehow
before...
panta98: No problem, having a certain view, but we've to go beyond ourselves, to
transcend, to excel ourselves and our thinking.
ScnWrt: Please proceed, Franz
iiiiriiiis: as Steve would say: only fools are bored to learn something new...
iiiiriiiis: quoted from his documents... please proceed
panta98: Yes, Iris. We'll try to be as clear as possible, and to expound logically what we
are trying to illustrate, to portray. Later in the debate period, we can go into further
details.
iiiiriiiis: agreed, Franz.
panta98: Certainly, that what everybody generally denominates as Labour or Work, we
admit, is, in fact, something very difficult to grasp, to apprehend, to comprehend. "To
go to work", "to work", are complex, intricate processes.
panta98: Some of the "greatest" thinkers of the "fatherland" have already wrecked
their brains in their intellectual efforts to explain and to identify Labour. However,
practically all of them saw it as a means of dominating "aggressive" Nature, of
satisfying human "needs" in the "struggle" for survival of the "fittest" species.
panta98: Anybody agree?
iiiiriiiis: me, agreed
frogmobile: Alright man!
iiiiriiiis: plese, proceed, Franz
panta98: Well, I'm thinking of the following: ....
panta98: We'll just mention a few here: Hegel, Adam Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, Marx,
Kautsky, Bernstein, Lange, Dobb, Preobrazhensky, Rosa Luxemburg,
iiiiriiiis: Bible, not to forget ;)
panta98: .... Lenin, Hilferding, Mandel, Sweezy, Baran, Bettelheim, and, why not, the
Samuelsons, etc.
frogmobile: What of the Tora, Quoran and the Bagwa Gita
ScnWrt: Fanon was different, but please proceed
SaucerCuss: These are all the guys who wrecked their brains trying to define labour?
panta98 has left the room.
iiiiriiiis: yes, Bill
panta98 has entered the room.
iiiiriiiis: proceed, Franz
panta98: Yes, Khalid & Carl, all of them too. ... Either the identity of "Labour" is the most guarded secret of the global system, or it's the most complicated thing on Earth to understand, or the "Lords of the Universe", across the millennia, made sure that workers would never ever comprehend what it means to earn one's "daily bread".
ScnWrt: These guys wrecked their brains to suppress the workers.
panta98: D'accord, Carl.
panta98: Now, as we have elaborated the issue in previous chats, imagine if the
workers of the world would understand and know that Labour is the source of all
economic exploitation, political domination, ...  social discrimination and dehumanization, then, who would still want to work, and what would happen to the whole global system, to capital, to profits?
panta98: Imagine the mayhem, when everybody would know that Labour is
Depredation (Economic Exploitation), Domination, Discrimination and Dehumanization,
in short, DDDD.
panta98: It would spell doomsday, the end of the world for six billion creatures!!
SaucerCuss: The squabble seemed to be about who decided what to do with the
expropriated 'surplus value'.
panta98: Not so, Khalid?
frogmobile: Interesting Bill
panta98: Yes, Bill. Later we'll elaborate that also.
panta98: If we assume that Work or Labour is "natural" and "necessary" to satisfy
"human needs", and for the survival of the species -- this is the world outlook of more
than the absolute majority of mankind -- ....
panta98: .... well, then, why do billions hate Labour or Work? Especially the physical,
manual and menial workers detest that they are mere vulgar, banausic toilers. And why
do the creme de la creme of humanity enjoy such a wonderful life, barely moving a small
finger?
ScnWrt: Other issues are involved such as robbing others of dignity by inhuman
egomaniacs.
panta98: Can anybody explain this? Iris, Khalid, ....
panta98: Yes, Carl. Egoism, megalomania, kleptocracy. ...
frogmobile: Obviously, because it is exploitative and alienated.
SaucerCuss: so the opposite of "labour" must be what?
ScnWrt: Franz, the exploited and alienated fall for the Bull-Scheisse of their
self-proclaimed masters.
SaucerCuss: If labour is inherently exploitative, then "laziness" must be liberating,
except where's the basic necessities coming from?
SaucerCuss: ...unless one works only for oneself
SaucerCuss: ...and trades voluntaristically only with other free individuals
ScnWrt: Bill, laziness is not a factor. The opposite of labor is work for oneself and
others.
frogmobile: It is exploitative when the compulsion of labour becomes a "necessity" to
serve the economic interests of others other than your own.
ScnWrt: Agreed, Bill: The positive exchange
ScnWrt: between self and others
SaucerCuss: If the given definition of labour is only when it is for someone who exploits
the laborer, then it is only because the laborer doesn't do it voluntarily.
frogmobile: I think it should be leisure.
iiiiriiiis: SaucerCuss: If labour is inherently exploitative, then "laziness" must be
liberating, except where's the basic necessities coming from?
panta98 has left the room.
iiiiriiiis: SaucerCuss: ...unless one works only for oneself
SaucerCuss: So, we distinguish between "labour" for others, involuntarily, and "work"
for ourselves out of necessity, which is not considered involuntary, because it is
necessary.
panta98 has entered the room.
iiiiriiiis: SaucerCuss: ...unless one works only for oneself
panta98: AOL runs crazy. ...
frogmobile: Question is: Is labor inevitable for whatever reasons it serves?
SaucerCuss: I think of it like this. No one has a requirement to do work, but no one has
the right to demand values from others.
panta98: Anyhow, let's continue. ....
panta98: Are there different levels and degrees of Labour or Work?
iiiiriiiis: Bill, Carl and Khalid, please return your comments/questions to Franz, cant
paste them that fast... Ok, Franz, proceed please ....
frogmobile: "no one has the right to demand values from others." very interesting, Bill,
can you eloborate?
panta98: We came to the conclusion that Labour is a historic process, which has
identifiable Levels, different Degrees AND triversified Mensions.
panta98: A historic process, that's the key. A process moves, it has contradictions, it
has relations.
ScnWrt: Iris: I will save the entire chat transcript.
frogmobile: SaucerCuss: So, we distinguish between "labour" for others, involuntarily,
and "work" for ourselves out of necessity, which is not considered involuntary,
because it is necessary.
iiiiriiiis: (I'm listening, please proceed - thanks, will save it too, Carl)
panta98: Now, not only is Labour a historic process, it is THE historic process per se,
as far as the fatherland, the Patria is concerned. Please do it, Carl.
SaucerCuss: By "demanding values from others", someone says, "I am entitled to
food and shelter at others' expense, because the world has a duty to give them to me".
panta98: Everybody speaks about an objective world, about the outside world; and
about a subjective realm, the inner world.
ScnWrt: There is also responsibility to work for ourselves and with others to preserve
the community
ScnWrt: Competition and cooperation are keys.
ScnWrt: Both are needed.
SaucerCuss: But, this is exactly what the English bankers have said for the last 200
years, and have been extracting their "rightful" monies from us in America, so they
can "live in a manner to which they've become accustomed."
panta98 has left the room.
frogmobile: No, Bill, not the world, if you labor, you deserve the goodies but since labor is
explotiative in that someone else control what you should labor for them, there is a
problem with the concept
panta98 has entered the room.
panta98: Often, we did this in our chats. I remember that Carl & Jutta had an
interesting debate the issue, but, let's continue with objectivity and subjectivity, ,,,,
iiiiriiiis: Well, Carl, this could be discussed - I don't need to "compete" with Franz,
Khalid, Bill or you, for example.
panta98: As far as I'm concerned, these fictitious worlds, existing "parallel", side by
side, can only be Nature and Society.
panta98: And they are related, that's the reason why Man, Society, must satisfy his
"needs" to survive to exploit Nature. To do this, to get food, he has to touch Nature,
enter in a one-sided relation with Nature.
iiiiriiiis: Agreed, Franz
SaucerCuss: Carl, I prefer the word "coordination", to "cooperation", since the former
presupposes a voluntaristic "trader principle", while the latter presupposes a "chorus
line" mentality.
panta98:  Sorry, the extensiveness, the matter is complicated. Any comments?
iiiiriiiis: I suggest, that you first proceed, Franz, with your introduction.
panta98: In brief, Man has to initiate a physical, one-sided relation with Nature, to rape
his Mother.
panta98: Thus, Man perverted the objective and subjective, the natural and ontic
relations, which had existed on this planet for millions of years. ...
panta98: And he introduced what he calls "History", a perverted Nature - Society
relation, introduced Labour.
ScnWrt: By cooperation, I mean teamwork with respect for differences, not conformity
panta98: Yes, by cooperation, Carl. This is our explanation, very much simplified, of the
essence of "History", of "Labour".
panta98: Now, we also spoke about various levels of perverted natural-social relations,
about Physical Labour.
frogmobile: Hegel's concept of Labor. Hegel's point of departure is Nature;
Consciousness' first moment is the realisation of its apartness and separateness from
Nature. This realisation gives rise to the impulse to overcome this separation, to
integrate nature into oneself.
ScnWrt: Currently, we are transiting to a post-human, global society
SaucerCuss: I figured so, Carl, as the word is really capable of hazy understandings.
panta98: Excellent, Khalid. Here, simply, Man has to overwhelm, dominate and exploit Nature directly, physically, to rape and destroy her natural fruits and processes; of course, to satisfy
man's "natural" needs. This is one level.
panta98: Another is to change Nature, to use Nature to exploit Nature, because Man is
such a weak, miserable"miscarriage", born too early, helpless for at least his first
five years of life.
panta98: This being who barely can survive, now claims rights to survive, paramount
needs that must be satisfied by all means.
panta98: Hence technology, the stone-axe, is another level of physical work.
ScnWrt: Technology is the new Nature. Please wait, I will post some relevant messages.
panta98: We're getting to your famous theme, Bill, Technology!
frogmobile: Sure, Carl.
panta98: The whole development we can follow across "history", reaching
"intellectual" work, which also has different degrees; to the extent that nearly no
material, natural products are necessary; or at least, their value becomes negligible.
panta98: Yes, the new virtual reality, a fake Nature.
ScnWrt: Consider these reflections that articulate the
current transition to a post-human, technologic, global society from film producer
Godfrey Reggio's Qatsi site: one from Elias Canetti, a Nobel Laureate for
literature; the other from French philosopher and writer Jacques Ellul:
panta98: Yes, Carl, later. ... Of course, because man is basically Labour, even the relations of the creme de la creme have to do with Work. Labour is not only something which is being  exploited, it also exploits itself socially, and therewith it exploits Nature.
SaucerCuss: I know Godfrey Reggio, a former Christian Brother who married a Du
Pont heir, and made several of his movies.
panta98: Proceeding with our exposition. ... Now what is the relation: Technology - Rational Labour?
panta98: This is what Rational Labour essentially is, and how it exists on a global scale.
Here, fundamentally, you can note, that we have a very specific, different conception of
Labour, which makes a lot of sense, and which explains many a problem, many a
strange query.
frogmobile: The emergence of property is another attempt by man to appropriate
nature to himself, but this time on a higher level,
SaucerCuss: Reggio's movies are a protest of what he calls "techno-fascism".
panta98: To the point, Khalid, now, your question and headache:
panta98: Now, we are somehow clear what is Physical Labour, we have a slight notion
how Intellectual Labour exists. But what should we understand by Rational Labour?
What are the implications and complications for Emancipation?
panta98: Let me recollect: On this Planet, Labour is the Maximum-Relation in the
Fatherland. Every other relation, whether natural or/and social, is related to Labour.
Labour as Perverted Alienation, as DDDD, affects, generates and controls all other
existent "human" relations on Earth.
iiiiriiiis: (I'm following, please proceed)
ScnWrt: Cannetti: "A tormenting thought: as of a certain point, history was no
longer real. Without noticing it, all mankind suddenly left reality."
panta98: We'll come to the real and rational of history just now, Bill.
panta98: Rational Labour negates Physical and Intellectual Labour; in clear text, it
depredates, dominates, discriminates and dehumanizes them. Here depredation implies
"economic plundering and pillaging".
panta98: This is exactly what European Colonialism, Imperialism and Neo-Colonialism
have done for over two millennia already; this is what Rational Labour had been doing
in Ancient Greece, in the Middle Ages, in the so-called "Third World".
SaucerCuss: When we read "history" per se, it is always through the eyes of a
state-kissing fascist or other power-worshipper.
panta98: Agreed  a n d  Not Agreed, Bill.
ScnWrt: Ellul: "...The crisis that we are approaching today is of yet
another order. For it entails the transition, not from
one form of society and power to another, but to a new environment...The
present crisis...is a total crisis… triggered by transition to a new and previously unknown
environment, the technological environment....The present change of
environment is much more fundamental than anything that the race has
experienced for the last five thousand years." (End of quotes)

SaucerCuss: Historians traditionally have written as if everything is a system of
massive coordinated movements controlled from competing centers.
frogmobile: Interesting Carl.
panta98: Now Khalid, enjoy this one. ...
panta98: The concrete expression of Rational Labour is the World Market, better
identified as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the
Giant-Giga-Global Corporations; it's political and military superstructural reflection
is the United Nations, alias the USA, Pentagon, White House, FBI, CIA, etc.
iiiiriiiis: Excellent, Franz!!
panta98: Bill, here comes your previous query. ...
panta98: In Marxist terms, Rational Labour acquires the connotation of Capital; in
idealist philosophical terminology, it is denuded as Reason, as social product of the
infamous Age of Reason. What else than Capital could be more rational in this best of
all worlds? What else could be more real?
panta98: In a nut-shell, Labour is Rational, is Real. Who would doubt this? Without
Labour we would not even have a real world to rationalize about; we would not even
have any reason, in the double sense of the word, to realize anything.
panta98: In this world only Labour, only Capital, is being realized, is being rationalized.
SaucerCuss: But, Franz, though this is true, it is without the consent of the American
public!
panta98: Any comments, so far?
ScnWrt: With intellectual labor, everyone owns an idea, not just the originator.
iiiiriiiis: This is getting mostly interesting, please proceed...
panta98: The American Public never was programmed to give consent to any economic
issue, Bill.
panta98: They do not know what are the real, true economic issues at stake.
panta98: Yes, Carl. I enjoyed that posting.
panta98: Or, Bill, do you think they know what is really going on, e.g., on the Moon or
Mars?
SaucerCuss: It is the right of the American public to consent or to refuse to consent to
anything our government is involved in, but that right of consent or refusal has been
appropriated by a secret elite, even before our constitution was drafted.
ScnWrt: Franz, the media diverts from true economic interests.
frogmobile: Well, Bill and Franz, I enjoy the exchange of opinion, I agree. Franz. Not only
the American public but no one else!
panta98: Agreed, Bill.
panta98: Continue, Khalid. More explicitly.
frogmobile: Who are these secret elites? Aren't they visible too?
SaucerCuss: The American public is a captive people, controlled by the media, who
controls the public by what it allows the public to know.
panta98 has left the room.
SaucerCuss: This subject came up in the Greenbaum statement, that the mind-control
victims even knew it!
panta98 has entered the room.
panta98: Yes, proceed Khalid.
frogmobile: Very true, Bill, however, isn't it the responsibility of the people, for at least once, to
conscientize themselves, to liberate themselves of the environment in which they live?
panta98: Anyhow, let's continue. ....
iiiiriiiis: Bill, but this means, that in consequence there doesn't even exist the "public"
you have in mind?
iiiiriiiis: Ok Franz, please proceed...
panta98: Yes, Iris, that's my problem.
SaucerCuss: It has always been the duty of the individual in America to practice good
ecology.
frogmobile: But they are "taught" not to!
panta98: But, the workers and scientists of NASA are also individuals, what about their
'good ecology", Bill?
SaucerCuss: Iris, there is a "public" which is very coherent, probably one of the
greatest percentage of ignored people on the planet.
ScnWrt: Agreed, Bill, ecologic responsibility.
panta98: Responsible to whom, to what?
SaucerCuss: Some of the scientists of NASA are more meticulous ecologists as you
could imagine, but they work for NASA and don't want to create ripples.
iiiiriiiis: or the "individual"... because de facto they don*t "own" any "original" idea,
they just plainly stand and speak that what they have been told, been indoctrinated. during the whole de-socialization and de-naturalization process ...
panta98: For me, the issue can only be: responsible to emancipation.
panta98: About this I'll continue, when this section of the debate is clarified.
ScnWrt: Ecologic responsibility to the community.
frogmobile: So why are they portrayed especially by the media and the "elite" as a
happy sucessful people living the American Dream?
ScnWrt: responsibility=community=emancipation
panta98: "community", what a wishy-washy concept: even rapists, murderers also
belong to the honorable community.
iiiiriiiis: But to which communitiy, Carl? How do I "find" or identify it?
SaucerCuss: The first purpose of ecology was originally been to one's self, since it is
the individual who must live in the environment. You can find the use of the term
"ecology" in the Farmer's Almanac, started by Thos. Jefferson.
frogmobile: Good point, Iris.
frogmobile: Interesting stuff, guys.
ScnWrt: I'm referring to community in a different sense- I mean other human
beings=humanity.
panta98 has left the room.
panta98 has entered the room.
iiiiriiiis: And on "ecology": the upcoming worrying about "Nature", I think has the
same  "REASON"  like all we have seen before, just to save the structure of the
Labour Process.
panta98: Agreed, Iris. Even the Commonwealth of Nations is a Community.
SaucerCuss: I don't refer to community or communisticity, I refer only to "rational
selfishness".
frogmobile: Can we relate ecology to labor, emancipation and liberation?
panta98: Even we have a European Community.
ScnWrt: The community is humanity.
panta98: "community" is the worst ideological concept that exists in Wolf Land, in the
Leviathan.
iiiiriiiis: I don't see any, Carl, I'm sorry.
panta98: Hu-man-ity, what about womanity? For A Change?
panta98: Anyhow, before we get deeper, let me just comment on emancipation.
ScnWrt: Iris, you don't see other human beings?
panta98: I'm nearly finish. ...
panta98: Tell me, when to proceed. ....
SaucerCuss: Or, "Womb-Manity"
iiiiriiiis: Yes, please proceed... nearly none, Carl, and I'm not kidding, I mean it.
iiiiriiiis: Proceed, please, Franz
panta98: Worse even, Bill. What has a woman been over the last three millennia? Did
she belong to humanity?
iiiiriiiis: Or if you like: all I see is human beings, and I'm scared!!!
panta98: To the community?
panta98: To the "public"? "Witches" and "prostitutes", reproducers of "cannon fodder" don't belong to such "sonorous" categories in a man's world.
ScnWrt: Iris, that will change.
panta98: Now, talking about something more pleasant: about Emancipation.
frogmobile: Whatever understanding we have or had of "community" is now being
redfined by Globalization
iiiiriiiis: ojalá, Carl
panta98: Yes, Khalid : "The Global Village Community". Also with the concept, emancipation,  we have to be extremely careful. Like Revolution, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, "Emancipation" is a term, politically coined by the upsurging bourgeoisie in its struggle against slave and feudalist relations.
ScnWrt: It is beingg redefined by resisters.
ScnWrt: visit www.geekforce.org
iiiiriiiis: I totally agree, Franz.
frogmobile: I am speaking of community in the sense of "local governance"
panta98 has left the room.
SaucerCuss: One definition could be "Those with which we have COMMON
interests".
ScnWrt: Visit go.to./netropolis (No www, No .com)
ScnWrt: Geekforce and netropolis are emancifiers.
SaucerCuss: Robinson Crusoe was emancipated when he was stranded on an island,
until he found someone to dominate.
iiiiriiiis: Yes, Bill, but also this seems highly complicated to me, how do I make sure, can I
find out, if a "common interest" indeed is given?
ScnWrt: Bill, those which we inter-depend on for mutual survival.
ScnWrt: Iris, you will now by the results.
SaucerCuss: A better definition of "common interest" would be ideally those with which
we choose to voluntarily trade and transact".
iiiiriiiis: yes, but hopefully not too late, Carl - this is the problem...
panta98 has entered the room.
panta98: "by their fruits we'll know them." Jesus was wise!
ScnWrt: Interdepend for survival.
panta98: In reality, Emancipation is just a more decent synonym for Salvation. In any
case, who or what will emancipate or save Mankind? Is it not one or more of the
following: a Great God, a Great Idea, a Great Man, a Great Race, a Great
Multinational Corporation, a Great Innovative Technology?
panta98: Furthermore, "masses", a whole "class", Mankind, should be emancipated or
saved. Not individuals; in any case, they can't do anything individually to save their
personal, individual souls.
panta98: Even God Himself had to condescend, to stoop, to deign, had to become an
unworthy man, a hero, to save individual souls!!! All this to avoid that anybody should
ever get on the brilliant idea, to act and to think and to excel all of, by and for
it/her/himself; to "save", to "emancipate" oneself.
frogmobile: I am going to say something that could be very controversial my feeling is
them Emancipation doesn't really exist.
SaucerCuss: I think a great technology can destroy the capacity of exploiters to
exploit, therefore the individual could be emancipated whether he likes it or not.
panta98: Individuals, individual "public" have nothing to say on Earth, under Labour
regulations.
panta98: Khalid, that's a deja vu; I am intending to tell you that. We are not "mature"; we'll never grow up; forever and always, we'll be only "Children of God". Our Father will save, will emancipate us.
ScnWrt: Individuals have a lot to say on the Internet.
SaucerCuss: Never underestimate the power of the individual.
iiiiriiiis: yes, surely Bill, depending on which level...
panta98: yes, Bill. But not the "individual" that you talk about. This one: DO AND THINK AND EXCEL IT, ALL BY, OF AND FOR YOURSELF, HERE AND NOW AND ALWAYS! This principle is directed, in the first place, at our INDIVIDUAL, and then against the "Community", contra the "Public".
panta98 has left the room.
ScnWrt: The Internet exemplifies the power of the individual.
SaucerCuss: We tend to view "the individual" as the little fella, but the little fella is not
really little.
ScnWrt: Agreed, Bill
ScnWrt: You're as tall as you want to be.
frogmobile: Sorry for the typing errors, however, I repeat: my feeling is the concept
Emancipation doesn't really exist. Emancipation from Whom and How?
iiiiriiiis: (trying to reinvite Franz, please proceed)
SaucerCuss: Khalid, nothing is permanent. A person can be emancipated one day and
enslaved the very next day.
SaucerCuss: Or he can lead a slave's revolt and emancipate many other people.
SaucerCuss: The main thing about emancipation is a state of mind.
ScnWrt: The individual must continuously defend his/her emacipation.
panta98 has entered the room.
panta98: Reading back. .... Carl, I thought that Power comes from Labour, from who possesses and exploits Labour. Of course, if the "individual" is called Bill Gates or Clinton, or Stalin, well, then the "individual" is omnipotent.
iiiiriiiis: That's it.
frogmobile: Yes! to some extent but you can also be "empancipated" through your level
of consciousness and interpretation of the world
panta98: OK, let me just finish. ...
iiiiriiiis: ok, please do so, Franz
panta98: Obviously, our conceptions of emancipation and history have nothing in
common with such ruthless, reckless ideology.
ScnWrt: Khalid, agreed. That's what Fanon tried to do for Blacks.
frogmobile: I refer to emancipation in the economic sense.
frogmobile: and also socially.
ScnWrt: I refer to emancipation in the social sense.
[ The rest of the introductory exposition could not be posted, due to an AOL problem;
a refusal to re-connect panta98 to the chat again. However, here is the essence of the rest of the exposition:

panta98:

Before we continue, I wish to stress that our definition of History, of the Process of Emancipation, of the Relation: Nature  a n d  Society is an intellectual-rational "discovery", which have costed us decades of sleepless nights of discussion, critique, debate and scientific-philosophic stringency.

We came to the conclusion that the Relation "Nature  a n d  Society", in other words, Life, existed
on this planet already for over 5 billion formal-logical years. Many scientists verified this "fact"; we do not question their findings, our problem concerns the methods, logic and world outlook, which
they applied, and the weird conclusions to which the majority of them come.

We stated that History has various levels, degrees and mensions, one of these degrees we have identified as the Patria, as the fatherland, and it's main actor is homo sapiens sapiens, as he himself had identified himself. We discovered his historic relation as being Labour, Alienation.

However, within History, on this planet, various scientists have shown that there existed other relations, before, and even parallel to homo sapiens sapiens. And who knows, around us, what all still exist today, parallel, oblique or transversal.

According to the latest archaeological and palaeontological discoveries, the first "hominids" appeared some 5 million years ago; about 2.5 million years ago, the first homo genus evolved. Parallel,  since about 1.8 million years ago, homo erectus developed.

Another homo species accompanied them, homo australopithecus robustus . All three homo species
lived at the same time, in other words, we had three different forms, degrees, of the Relation Nature  a n d  Society, of History,  in that epoch. Then, the labour relation, the perversion, homo sapiens sapiens, had not been born as yet.

The latter, this monstrosity, homo sapiens sapiens, a contemporary of homo neandertal, either jumped from the trees or stepped out of an extraterrestrial flying saucer only about 125 000 years ago. Surely, he is not the only, real, true representative of History, of Life.

The forerunner of Man, was the archaic homo sapiens, who definitely did not labour; he saw life  about 800 000 years ago. This species is supposed to be extinct; and it is being claimed, that today only modern men are labouring on this godforlorn planet.

Within this context, we discuss Nature, Society, History, Labour and Alienation --- and, of course, Emancipation.

We are not part of a "fight", of a "struggle", of a "battle", of a "war"; this would be tantamount to the eternalization of  Labour, of giving it, dialectically, with the "struggle of the opposites" a new lease of "affirmative", of "positive" life.
 

This is exactly how Hegel's Logic and Marx's Capital  had contributed to the face-lifting and rejuvenation of Labour and Capital. It was their historic task, and they laboured rationally par excellence.

When we state this, in no way, do we elevate ourselves or do we belittle their titanic, majestic "greatness". Both of them are excellent products of their epoch.

In reality, Marx's influence on the 20th century can only be compared to Aristotle's influence on the European Middle ages. Hegel's heyday has not even arrived as yet; he described the absolute  superstructural "history" of Labour, of Alienation. Very few individual thinkers know what he is really talking about.
 

Also, this is not treachery, treason, cowardice or defeatism; au contraire, it's the cosmic-ontic antidote to Labour, it's the natural-social strychnine in its ahistoric hemlock.

It's the ABC of simple, simplified Logics. If you can't even act independently, if you have no idea whatsoever about thinking itself, if you can't excel in anything, in any way, how on earth could you ever save or emancipate a class, society, mankind, billions; or anybody or anything, for that matter?

You can't emancipate yourself in the venomous serpent's lair. You have to surpass it, transcend it.
Until now, the only transcendence which was drilled into our brains was divine transcendence. It's inevitable point of departure, it's heavenly gate or hellish port is Death.

Death is Labour itself. For us, real, true Emancipation is just as unimaginable, as it would have been for Socrates, to take a walk in present-day Athens and to try to comprehend what Globalization is all about.

And yet, there is a direct cosmic-ontic relation between Socrates and global ideology; furthermore, the polis Athens had been just as real as the current capital of Greece is true today. The only problem, the only "missing link", is the absence of a transhistoric, transcendental imagination and consciousness.

Our imagination, our fantasies, our daydreams are so perverted, so pauperized, so controlled and modified that we can't even conceive a world void of depredation, domination, discrimination and dehumanization.

Left, right and center, above, below, in front and behind, we affirm the goodies and goods of Labour, of Capital, all in the name of democracy, liberty, emancipation, equality, fraternity, humanity and human rights.

This is not emancipation; real, true emancipation nurtures and cultivates itself in creativity, artistry, intelligence, wisdom, beauty, truth, music, poetry, imagination, fantasy, anticipation, expectation, etc. : values and virtues which since millennia are fading progressively into oblivion.

panta98 has left the room.

SaucerCuss: economic emancipation is too often tied up with the society one lives in, in
an uncontrollable way.
ScnWrt: Agreed, Bill:
SaucerCuss: to be truly emancipated, one must have 100% social and economic liberty.
ScnWrt: Michael Harrington tried to get the USA Government to finance dignity for
the poor.
SaucerCuss: There are varying degrees to which one's economic and social liberties
are eaten away at by the society in which one lives.
frogmobile: Simply because we do not own or control the modes of production nor "even
the ideas in our brains."
ScnWrt: Agreed, Bill. That's why Harrington's ideas didn't work.
iiiiriiiis: Good point, Khalid!
frogmobile: Since someone else has a "patent" on our ideas too
SaucerCuss: the only way for the poor to achieve dignity is to become not poor. Dignity
is not something which can be legislated, any more than "self esteem".
ScnWrt: Khalid, we own part of the relations we have with the people we come in
contact with daily
frogmobile: that's an impossible "dream"
iiiiriiiis: then for 99% ther is no "hope", Bill..
SaucerCuss: the only kind of dream which is impossible is an impossible dream
ScnWrt: Bill, they need help, and they can get it from the religious institutions in their
neighborhoods
ScnWrt: Charity, not Government, works
SaucerCuss: Iris, hope is a human trait, which does not mean that anything will be
realized. It is possessed by most Russians, because they have become so accustomed
to living on hope alone.
iiiiriiiis: Yes, it's highly religious, and we have seen WHY this has been imposed to our
brains
frogmobile: True Carl, but instead of saying "own" I prefer to say we probably feel
more secure to a large extent especially with close relations as the only thing we have.
ScnWrt has left the room.
iiiiriiiis: Hope dies at last... people like to say...
SaucerCuss: But Iris, I take your comment about "no hope" to mean that there is no
reasonably construed possibility that their hopes might be realized under the
circumstances in which they live.
ScnWrt has entered the room.
iiiiriiiis: moment please... inviting Carl
ScnWrt: Hi, guys
iiiiriiiis: Back again, Carl!
ScnWrt: Thanks, Iris
iiiiriiiis: you are mostly welcome, Carl!
ScnWrt: Now I can't save the chat transcript
SaucerCuss: the real issue, Iris, is how much control do people have over their own
destinies, and even if they did have control, would they do something worthwhile with
themselves?
iiiiriiiis: Yes, Bill, just dreams left.
SaucerCuss: Some dreams are realizable ones, and some are silly. Some people believe
they would be happy if they laid in bed all day with plenty of candy to eat and servants
to wait on them.
iiiiriiiis: Yes, we have seen that they never had and are not supposed to have "control"
about nothing...
SaucerCuss: Others simply dream of the ability to control their immediate destinies, to
farm a tract of land, raise some goats and cattle, have a family, and trade the wealth
they have created for other things that they can't produce for themselves.
ScnWrt: They can get control with the help of their local charities
SaucerCuss: The only way I can see self-control over one's circumstances, is to have
no state.
SaucerCuss: without a state, no corporation can force you to do business with them
alone.
frogmobile: To hope is a state of being.
ScnWrt: or convert the State to a service, not a controller
SaucerCuss: I like to say that if all the forces which threaten individual human rights
are held in check, a creative and prosperous society will result./
iiiiriiiis: please proceed...
ScnWrt: Bill, driven by free tesla energy
frogmobile: oh! oh!
iiiiriiiis: that is: Labour would be to "hold in check" - but how, Bill?
SaucerCuss: The sole reason for any government is to protect individual rights, and
nothing more. There is no rationale for a state which feeds people, provides all kinds of
services for them, etc. There is not now and never has been a state which does such
things at any reasonable cost.
frogmobile: sorry guys I went to the kitchen for a drink
iiiiriiiis: ok, Khalid.
SaucerCuss: Whenever people expect a state to do this or that, they should not be
surprised that they are the ones who have to pay for it, but the facts are that nine
tenths of what the state takes in taxes is used up by the agents of the state in
performing its "services".
ScnWrt: Bill, I'm referring the some services that government can do more efficiently,
not public handouts
iiiiriiiis: But the state does protect the so called Rights: right od Labour, of Property, -
aren't that individual rights, Bill?
ScnWrt: Taxes would be voluntary
iiiiriiiis: Khalid, Carl?
iiiiriiiis: what do you think?
SaucerCuss: The only service that can be performed (not more efficiently, but more
conveniently) is the protection of rights. This is convenient because individuals can be
more productive if they do not have to enforce their rights all the time.
frogmobile: Bill I do not agree with you however let me say here I am in mood to defend
the "state"
ScnWrt: People can protect their own rights
frogmobile: You are right, Iris, the State was formed primarily for that purpose that is to
protect Private Property.
frogmobile: The role of the State is to protect private property vis-a-vis labor.
ScnWrt: To protect the wealthy landowners against slaves and women servants.
SaucerCuss: Individuals are the only entities who possess rights. All individuals
possess the right to self-defense. All powers of any government come from the
people the government represents. An individual cannot give the governement a power
he does not have. Just because he grants the government the co-exitent power to
protect his rights, that power is not exclusive.
iiiiriiiis: So then, the state is doing a fine job for "protecting" these individual rights....
and we know, of which "Individual""Human" Rights they are talking about for ex. in
the Bill of Rights, in the German Constitution, etc...in all Constitutions you might
quote....
frogmobile: Most of the services provided by the state is to the owners of the
production and since there is exploitation of labor the very owners has approved and
defined the social role to what extent they state can participate in
ScnWrt: However, he USA has the Bill of Rights, an emancipatory document to protect
individual rights
SaucerCuss: Iris, I'm not saying that the governments are doing an excellent job in
protecting rights. The police are never there when you need them, believe me, and they
are more than likely to violate your rights if you call them.
frogmobile: The major beneficaries of these rights are property owners
iiiiriiiis: I'm saying that the governments are doing an excellent job in protecting the
only rights this system knows, Bill.
SaucerCuss: It is all to easy to think that the "law" is only there to protect the wealthy,
but that is not the way the law was intended. Unfortunately, it is all to often the truth
that the wealthy are "more equal" before the law. In fact, the laws we have have
departed significantly from our bill of rights, which were not incidentally created by the
government.
frogmobile: in their quest to expand capital and to control a "reserve army of cheap
labor" to earn profits that is the "individual" rights the state protects
iiiiriiiis: To make sure, that the production process, accumulation of giga-profit won't
fail ever
frogmobile: The" intent" and the "practise" of the law are two different things
iiiiriiiis: Carl, are you still around?
ScnWrt: The laws protect the criminals for economics, e.g., when a car is stolen, the
owner buys another car, more money for the auto manufacturer
SaucerCuss: The biggest problem we have is in helping individuals to realize the
enormous power they have. When individuals are overwhelmed by the atrocities
committed in the name of "the law"---and believe me, I have plenty of reason to be
overwhelmed---they often throw up their hands and declare that there is no justice! And
the truth is---
frogmobile: How is it possible that one out of evey 10 blacks in the streets of the US
are in jail
SaucerCuss: ---the only justice available is usually that which one can obtain for him or
her self.
frogmobile: That 30, 000 people are killed by guns alone every year in the U.S.
iiiiriiiis: Invited Franz.

[panta98 had to give up "hope" with AOL, which commanded him permanently: "You have signed on again too early. Please try later!" He returns from Jutta's PC as "juttaschmi"; AOL or its 'friends" did not note this strategic "metamorphosis".]

juttaschmi has entered the room. Now panta98 surprizingly appears on the scene as as juttaschmi.

iiiiriiiis: seems his comp. is down
iiiiriiiis: Hello again, Franz!
ScnWrt: IHi, Franz
iiiiriiiis: what happened?
frogmobile: Also that 5,000 children are killed by bullets.
SaucerCuss: Khalid, it wouldn't bother me if a million people were killed by guns in the
U.S. The only problem I would have is which people.
juttaschmi: Something very strange happened on my computer.
frogmobile: Hello, Jutta.
iiiiriiiis: What, Franz?
ScnWrt: Khalid, they're killed by criminals
juttaschmi: AOL did not allow me to sign on any more.
iiiiriiiis: what happened, Franz with your PC?
iiiiriiiis: clapclapclap....
iiiiriiiis: incredible!
juttaschmi: It gave a permanent message: You are signing on too soon again. Please try later.
iiiiriiiis: I miles de veces trataba de reinvitarte, Franz!
frogmobile: Why in a land of plenty there are so many "criminals."
iiiiriiiis: no puede ser, caramba!
juttaschmi: it just did not allow me to return, although I was online all the time.
ScnWrt: Khalid, drugs
juttaschmi: Now I'm using Jutta's computer; here it works.
ScnWrt: Caramba, Franz
iiiiriiiis: Franz, please, I suggest that you proceed with your introduccion, later I'll send
the file to you.
SaucerCuss: We are getting all kinds of statistics about how many people are killed by
guns, but you must remember how many people were recently killed in Ruanda or
Bangladesh. It tells you very little to quote statistics. Over 400,000 died of alcohol and
cigarettes in the U.S. Good riddance.
frogmobile: That's funny. Franz
juttaschmi: The trouble was that you did not have ICQ active; Carl, yes, but he did not
note my messages. I even sent you all an e-mail.
iiiiriiiis: No, Franz, when we are having our chat, all other things are closed
juttaschmi: That's more than funny, Khalid.
juttaschmi: I just checked, it's still the same.
iiiiriiiis: And also I don't check my mail during that time... sorry
SaucerCuss: In a socialist state---such as the U.S.---a criminal is defined as someone
who is "anti-social" (i.e., anti-Socialist).
ScnWrt: Franz, I just got your AOL message.
juttaschmi: A total boycott! Well, in future, we'll know how to keep open our other chat programmes, and to check our mails, if someone disappears for too long.
juttaschmi: My ICQ message, Carl.
juttaschmi: Anyhow, let's proceed. I'll mail you the rest of my exposition.
ScnWrt: ICQ message, Franz
iiiiriiiis: do so, please Franz
juttaschmi: I don't want to break the current discussion.
juttaschmi: Can anybody give me an idea where we are?
iiiiriiiis: Khalid, Carl, Bill, would you please sum up the discussion we had for Franz?
juttaschmi: I "hope" that you saved the manuscript.
SaucerCuss: We were discussing the status of criminals and criminology in the U.S.,
where there is more to steal and more liars to tell the thieves that they are justified.
iiiiriiiis: I'll save it, Franz, don't worry
juttaschmi: Just very briefly, please.
ScnWrt: I got disconnected once, so i can only save part
iiiiriiiis: got the whole, Carl
frogmobile: the role of the state came into the debate in terms of "rights"
juttaschmi: Carl, the trick is: when you get disconnected, you save it nevertheless.
juttaschmi: When you start anew again, you open another file, and save it as No. 2.
ScnWrt: Thanks, Franz, I'll save it
juttaschmi: While AOL is still open, even offline, you can save what you have.
SaucerCuss: There is not supposed to exist the concept of "the state" in the U.S. Since
the people are supposed to be the state. As a separate entity, this concept was
imported into the U.S. by socialists and other statists.
juttaschmi: Afterwards, you save the new text. Only by a "black-out", which does not
happen in New Jersey, you lose everything.
frogmobile: wow! no comment Bill ,I plead the "fifth"
juttaschmi: Here it happens every three hours.
iiiiriiiis: The state, Bill, the concept and meaning, has his roots in  Greek Philosophy
- Platon et all...
juttaschmi: OK, ... which "fifth column"? Khalid?
iiiiriiiis: this is where it comes from, I remember the excellent debate we had with Jutta
on similar topics.
frogmobile: the fifth amendement of the U.S constitution
SaucerCuss: In the 1930s, our criminal law system became dominated by communists.
They determined the weird definitions which have never since been challenged. A
criminal is not an "anti-social" person. In fact, criminals are very social people. A
criminal is an anti-personal person.
iiiiriiiis: which is it? Khalid?
SaucerCuss: A criminal is a very social, anti-personal person.
ScnWrt: The media portrays the criminal as a hero
frogmobile: it means not to say anything that will "harm" yourself
iiiiriiiis: ah, ok : )
frogmobile: Why criminals guys?
SaucerCuss: Sometimes, Carl, what are portrayed by the media as criminals are heros.
ScnWrt: Agreed, Bill
juttaschmi: Bill, who determines what is a "crime" and who is a criminal? Certainly not
the "communists"!
ScnWrt: The communists have served the wealthy
juttaschmi: Who writes the constitution, and who formulates the laws? And why? To
protect what and whom?
SaucerCuss: The Communists determined the definitions still used by the American
criminal justice system! It is a fact I learned by research when I was a law student for a
year. I resigned from law school after that.
frogmobile: the biggest criminals are those that sit in Congress and make laws on
behalf of the other blue collar criminals that exploit people
iiiiriiiis: !
juttaschmi: Well, Carl, that's what I call a communist, one who does not want to run
around in rags, but wants to make revolution, so that everybody becomes "wealthy".
Any comment, Carl?
ScnWrt: In the 1930's, our criminal justice system was created by Victor Perlo, USA
Treasury Dept., a Soviet GPU (KGB) agent.
SaucerCuss: The constitution was compromised, when it was written by delegates of the
13 colonies, several years after the Declaration of Independence. During the time of
the Declaration and the Constitutional Convention, the same powers who were the
cause of the revolt got back into power. They made certain that every single signator
of the Declaration of Independence--
frogmobile: Very interesting
SaucerCuss: ---die a pauper. Every single one of them, including Thomas Jefferson.
juttaschmi: The general idea is that a "communist" should be a pauper, should not
make money, in a business world.
ScnWrt: Franz, a Communist wants to make the wealthy wealthier.
juttaschmi: And the paupers "poorer", that is what it implies, according to the dynamics
of competition and the free market.
ScnWrt: Many Communists became wealthy.
SaucerCuss: All our best Communists were bankers.
juttaschmi: Excellent! Carl.
juttaschmi: Why shouldn't they? Should they make the revolution with a hungry
stomach?
ScnWrt: Fredrich Engels was a banker.
juttaschmi: Brecht said: First devouring, then morals and fighting.
iiiiriiiis: : )
iiiiriiiis: please proceed, gentlemen!
frogmobile: absolutely interestings guys I am having a jolly time reading your
comments
juttaschmi: Yes, of course, that's what I call a real communist, part and parcel of
the capitalist system.
SaucerCuss: The issue is not who is "made rich" or "made poor", the issue is, an
individual is entitled absolutely as a matter of right to the disposition of the wealth he
creates.
ScnWrt: Brecht made a lot of USA dollars in Hollywood, USA.
juttaschmi: Communists don't live on the Moon as yet, they must also survive in this
expensive world.
juttaschmi: Well, Brecht is my boy; that's a communist to the hilt!!!
iiiiriiiis: i.e. - what we have been analyzing: the affirmation and negation of the system,
nothing more.
frogmobile: Wow! mindboggling?
juttaschmi: Even the Russian communists learnt how to be wealthy, to live "good".
juttaschmi: This shows what communists are; not those dangerous folk; they are just
like capitalists, chips of the same block.
SaucerCuss: Ohh... Brecht must have been practicing his dialectical materialism, only
he died before he could take his last step back.
iiiiriiiis:  ... being the Negation, part and parcel of the same labour process we are trying to
identify -
frogmobile: Very true Franz
juttaschmi: So, we are against capitalists and communists who are wealthy: a very "good
start".
ScnWrt: Agreed, Franz and Iris.
frogmobile: Same here for me, Franz
juttaschmi: Are we also against poverty, against the poor?
SaucerCuss: I'm not against any one because of their wealth. Only against those who
obtained their wealth by coercion, fraud, force, deceit.
juttaschmi: Or should the poor always stay poor; also the communists, must they also
always remain poor? Agreed, Bill.
juttaschmi: I think, we want to get rid of poverty and wealth.
ScnWrt: Brecht became disillusioned with Communism toward the end of his life.
juttaschmi:  ... that's an emancipaton task: Neither Poverty Nor Wealth!
SaucerCuss: Nothing is forever. One can be poor today and rich tomorrow, the only
problem is, HOW.
juttaschmi: Who agrees with me?
iiiiriiiis: Thank you, Franz! Agreed. But, we must be careful, not always A = A; Communist = Communist.
frogmobile: Me too, man!
juttaschmi: And here you see, how excellent our Neither/Nor Principle functions to get
wise!
ScnWrt: Agreed, Franz, that's what Franz Fanon and Michael Harrington also wanted.
frogmobile: Sorry Bill I don't agree with your argument but I am paying keen interest
to your views.
juttaschmi: To be able to reason at last.
SaucerCuss: I am not for levelling everyone. That is what the English government did
by its "levelling laws", which were intended to drive the middle class back down so the
elite would rule society.
juttaschmi: This Either-Or gets us nowhere.
juttaschmi: Surely, Bill, I'm not talking about "levellers" or Chartists, I'm talking
about getting rid of barriers, ...
frogmobile: sound of silence....!
juttaschmi: of levels of exploitation, domination and discrimination.
ScnWrt: Franz, this either or is just a start. Eventually, we'll get to the what is to be
done.
SaucerCuss: The only issue I see is whether or not individuals get what they deserve,
and what they deserve is the fruits of the wealth they create, or the poverty they suffer
because of their failure. I get tired of hearing those who have never been really poor
talk about "the poor". I know people who are poor, but they spend more on booze than
I have every month.
juttaschmi: Yes, Carl. I'll give you the gist: ....
juttaschmi: What is to be done? How to exist? .....
juttaschmi: How to do and to exist. ....
SaucerCuss: There can be no artificial "barriers" without the involvement of the state.
The state is the prime instrumentality of any oppressor.
ScnWrt: First, we defend dignity of ourselves and others
iiiiriiiis: what implicates: we will have to check on our own approach to every- and
any'thing' first... and here surely we will have to spend all the time and space available
for the coming mileniums...
juttaschmi: How to surpass misery, how to neither do or labour, nor to "think" or
ideologize, ....
juttaschmi: but, at last, to surpass, to excel, to emancipate oneself from this dual,
dualistic, dialectical asylum.
juttaschmi: We learnt so well, either or, why not learn more, something else too?
frogmobile: guys! should we abondon ship and focus our energies in something more
"productive" since the divergencies are in a state of miscomprehension
SaucerCuss: If everyone was an Atlas, and everyone shrugged, and chose only to deal
with one another voluntarily, that would be great.
ScnWrt: That's what we're doing in this chat
juttaschmi: We are in a huge ocean on Earth, Bill, we are sitting in the Titanic,
how about getting on the Tesla Flying Saucer, which is also stationed on Earth?
SaucerCuss: I like the phrase "Paralyzed by miscomprehension".
ScnWrt: That's what we're doing for the mnind control victims in our forums
juttaschmi: There are more things in Heaven and on Earth than are dreamt of in our
Philosophy.
SaucerCuss: What we need to do is paralyze the powers that be with
miscomprehension.
juttaschmi: Even Shakespeare and Horatio knew this already. When shall they ever
learn?
frogmobile: Bill here is a question if the state of the world is as it is then I guess there
isn't much to debate or discuss since the solutions are very simple
iiiiriiiis: Surely so, Franz.
juttaschmi: How simple, Khalid?
SaucerCuss: The flying saucer in the hands of a teen ager, flying to Mexico City to buy
a taco and being back home before mom and dad get back from the city.
frogmobile: Fire alarm is sounding in my building
ScnWrt: Free Tesla energy for an entire world
iiiiriiiis: You must be kidding, Khalid!
frogmobile: no I am not
juttaschmi: Yes, Bill. Remember the bugs made an atomic bomb, they set a chain reaction
into motion. Well, if bugs can produce an atomic bomb, why can't we?
SaucerCuss: Either someone has a sick sense of humor, or there is a fire, Khalid.
iiiiriiiis: Maybe anybody is smoking ...detected now...?
juttaschmi: Tesla was only the beginning. What you and I could discover, with the least
efforts, would make the Tesla Technology look like a mole-hill, in front of Mount
Everest.
frogmobile: There is a fire "activation" on the 7th floor according to the superintendent
of the building.
SaucerCuss: A single individual can shake the world by continuously tapping at a
regular interval, with his message, until the whole world begins to shake. Each tap adds
to the previous one its energy, building a huge wave.
juttaschmi: This is what I mean bydoing, thinking and excelling.
ScnWrt: Franz, agreed. Guys, visit www.geekforce.org
iiiiriiiis: We'll do so, Carl.
juttaschmi: Tesla was not something or somebody special? And, if so, what are you and
I?
frogmobile: No Iris, I think somebody's roast beef got burnt
iiiiriiiis: Agreed, Franz!
iiiiriiiis: menos mal, Khalid!
juttaschmi: Yes, if I remember correctly, the same Tesla could have split the Earth into
halves.
frogmobile: hopefully1
SaucerCuss: Fires are making everyone nervous around here.
frogmobile: So far no fire engines around
juttaschmi: Continuing with Tesla. ... A pity that I don't know how to do it, I'd explode it into zillions of emancipatory fertile seeds.
frogmobile: me too, Franz, can someone tell me how to?
ScnWrt: Last night, Fran & I flew in from Memphis. Lightning struck an engine. scary!
juttaschmi: Yes, Bill, that's your field.
SaucerCuss: Tesla set his earthquake machine into motion just to see what would
happen. When it began to tear the buildings in his neighborhood down, he tried to stop
it. It wouldn't stop when he cut the power off, so he had to beat it to pieces with a
sledge hammer.
juttaschmi: Also, Carl, that's your speciality.
frogmobile: wow! Bill
juttaschmi: So, Bill, what are we waiting for? Carl, asked, What Is To Be Done? That's
it!
juttaschmi: Carl, still around?
SaucerCuss: The energy came into the reaction from the earth to continue the motion
of the machine---it is speculated because it was mounted over a sand bed which picked
up the cosmic radiation.
juttaschmi: And just tell Khalid, how many decades ago, that was already invented and
discovered, Bill.
frogmobile: Bill can what is holding back the entire world from learing this new
technology?
SaucerCuss: Over 100 years ago
juttaschmi: You see what I mean, Khalid.
juttaschmi: Wake Up, Man!!!
ScnWrt: The NWO wants to control earthquake-making.
SaucerCuss: During the past few years, a lot has been said about Tesla, but the
majority of it is lies told by the government's agents.
frogmobile: Wow! In all seriousness, if my greatgrandfathers knew of it, then there would
have been no Khalid!
juttaschmi: Khalid, who and what is holding the entire world back of becoming wealthy,
intelligent and lovingly?
SaucerCuss: There is something like a boxcar load of secret Tesla papers possessed
by the government, which go far beyond our wildest expectations.
juttaschmi: The same one or ones hold back emancipation and excellence.
frogmobile: Franz!
ScnWrt: It would replace fossil fuels.
frogmobile: Well I agree there with you, guy.
iiiiriiiis: I.e., 100 years ago the supposedly objective method and laws of formal-logics
were proven to be only "correct" within a certain range. Could one formulate this that
way, Bill?
SaucerCuss: Those who hold back society are those who cannot survive without power.
juttaschmi: Carl, you said that Tesla Energy is "free"; what is to be understood by this
term?
ScnWrt: Or those who are afraid of losing power
frogmobile: Bill, do you think if I learn some "astral" travelling I can get hold of those
papers?
juttaschmi: Can anybody freely use it?
juttaschmi: Will everybody ever get the chance of using "free energy"?
frogmobile: I mean "Astral travelling", Bill.
juttaschmi: If so, what must happen first, before that could be accomplished?
frogmobile: Guys, I think I have had enough for today
ScnWrt: Franz, spread the word on the Internet.
SaucerCuss: Franz, the secrets are secret. The government has them but we don't.
Khalid, astral travelling is a frame of mind. It is a way of projecting your imagination
into the reality of a situation to try to construct the hidden truth.
frogmobile: I will be back later in the astral world.
ScnWrt: In the egovernment sites.
juttaschmi: Khalid, you don't need to go to a boring solar star, just visit me here, please.
iiiiriiiis: hahahaa, Franz : )
ScnWrt: OK, Khalid. Buenos Noches. It was a pleasure. Please join us here next week.
frogmobile: Sure Franz but Bill has to tell us all about this technique.
SaucerCuss: Whenever anyone tries to use free energy, and the government finds out
about it, they are the first to try to stop it, on behalf of the corporations.
juttaschmi: Why reach for the stars? When we ourselves are stardust, stars?
frogmobile: Bye, Guys.
iiiiriiiis: Khalid, ok, it was a pleasure, good night then, and see you next Tuesday!
frogmobile: Bye, fatboy, Franz.
SaucerCuss: Bye, Khalid, Watch the burning roast beef!
juttaschmi: I think we should do some own, some proper intelligence and consciousness
travelling.
ScnWrt: Hasta luego, Khalid. Wa alaikum salaam!
juttaschmi: Perhaps, thereafter, we'll get a free ticket toAndromeda.
frogmobile has left the room.
SaucerCuss: Hasty Luigi!
iiiiriiiis: You are right, Franz!
juttaschmi: Well, guys, please save the chat and send it to me, to make the HTML for
our Homepages and Forums.
iiiiriiiis: I'll do so, Franz.
juttaschmi: I'll paste the extra part on Emancipation, in the final version.
SaucerCuss: Is everyone going? I'd just like a free ticket to somewhere nice, right here
on earth.
juttaschmi: I'm also a bit sleepy and tired.
juttaschmi: Nevertheless, it was great fun.
juttaschmi: Carl & Bill, special thanks for having accompanied us, yourselves!
SaucerCuss: Isn't it "winter" down there, Franz? What does it do, rain a lot? That is
good snoozing weather.
iiiiriiiis: Bill, you are right there: look at yourself, the beautifulest place one can
imagine!
ScnWrt: I enjoyed this chat tremendously.
juttaschmi: Me too, Carl.
iiiiriiiis: It was a great, tremendous pleasure, gentlemen!
SaucerCuss: Iris, the fence is always greener on the other side.
juttaschmi: Bill, have an excellent week, and we'll see you soon: Hasta la vista!!!!
SaucerCuss: I may be stopping over briefly in Frankfurt in August, on my way to
Russia.
juttaschmi: Yes, here in Merida. ...
ScnWrt: Bill, Keep your ideas and insights coming.
juttaschmi: It's snowing in the mountains. ....
SaucerCuss: Night all, I have to go to town and take care of my exploitation business.
juttaschmi: Pico Bolivar is covered with snow, right here in the tropics.
iiiiriiiis: Greetings to the airport, Bill! I'll regress to Merida from there in September.
juttaschmi: Yes, Bill. it's not always a matter of agreeing, but of learning new things, ....
juttaschmi: That's what I appreciate about you very highly. ....
SaucerCuss has left the room.
ScnWrt: I'm doing my free-lance exploitative science writing business tonight.
juttaschmi: Carl, still around?
iiiiriiiis: Carl : ))
juttaschmi: OK, carl. Enjoy your work, and have a "good" night's rest.
iiiiriiiis: Wow! Franz, still around?
ScnWrt: Yep. Schlafen sie wohl!
iiiiriiiis: Have a nice week, Carl! Schlafen Sie wohl!
juttaschmi: Yes, AOL ws the problem, I'll reinstall the da... thing.
iiiiriiiis: please do so, Franz.
juttaschmi: Also, Carl. Gute Nacht!!!!
ScnWrt: Gute nacht, Iris and Franz. Give my regards to Jutta.
iiiiriiiis: And greetings and a biggest hug to Jutta please!
juttaschmi: Yes, I will.
juttaschmi: Also to fran.
iiiiriiiis: Gute Nacht, Carl, give my regards to Fran.
juttaschmi: Bye! Carl.
ScnWrt has left the room.
iiiiriiiis has left the room
juttaschmi has left the room.

BACK TO GEOCITIES

BACK TO PANDEMONIUM