The Back Alley Archives

http://www.examiner.com/x-3747-Louisville-City-Hall-Examiner~y2009m8d29-ACLU-investigated-for-exposing-CIA-agents-to-terrorists

Now, of course, the shoe is on the other foot, a different ox is being gored, the horse is of a different color, and the metaphors are mixed beyond all recognition. Don’t expect the liberal press to criticize the sainted ACLU lawyers. “Treason doth never prosper, and here’s the reason: For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”


ACLU founder Roger BaldwinOver at out sister publication, Robert Moon, Macon County Conservative Examiner, found an interesting quotation from ACLU founder, Roger Baldwin, that pretty much sums it all up:

I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.

For a second I thought AA was the founder of the ACLU...but then I read "abolition of the propertied class" and I knew it wasn't him.

Similar article...realize it's National Review Online, but Andrew McCarthy is pretty reliable.

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YmM2NjRjYzU2MWVmMWJlYThiYjc0NmZlOGRmNzhlMzQ=

For a second I thought AA was the founder of the ACLU...but then I read "abolition of the propertied class" and I knew it wasn't him.

LMAO. Yep, there's a left/right divide even within the anarchist community. O0

HOW IN THE FUCK CAN YOU HAVE COMMUNISM/SOCIALISM WITHOUT THE STATE? What kind of contradictory horse shit is that?

The essence of communism/socialism is the absence of private property rights, which could also exist without the state depending upon the society (I'm pretty sure there were indian tribes who had no government and also didn't believe in private property). Stateless socialism isn't exactly the same as state-sponsored socialism, obviously, since the force of the state is not used to destroy the right to private property. But stateless socialism employs the same fundamental concepts as state-sponsored socialism.

Indian tribes had some sort of government. they had a chief or council that was the ultimate ruling body.

Indian tribes had some sort of government. they had a chief or council that was the ultimate ruling body.

All of them?

Edit: I don't think the Inuit, for example, had any real hierarchy wherein any person or people held political power or governed. They made their decisions based on consensus and if unanimity couldn't be reached the folks who disagreed simply parted ways.

Inuit traditional laws are anthropologically different from Western law concepts. 'Customary law' was thought non-existent in Inuit society before the introduction of the Canadian legal system. Hoebel, in 1954, concluded that only 'rudimentary law' existed amongst the Inuit. Indeed, prior to about 1970, it is impossible to find even one reference to a Western observer who was aware that any form of governance existed among any Inuit,[42] however, there was a set way of doing things that had to be followed:

* maligait refers to what has to be followed
* piqujait refers to what has to be done
* tirigusuusiit refers to what has to be avoided

If an individual's actions went against the tirigusuusiit, maligait or piqujait, the angakkuq (shaman) might have to intervene, lest the consequences be dire to the individual or the community.[69]

We are told today that Inuit never had laws or "maligait". Why? They say because they are not written on paper. When I think of paper, I think you can tear it up, and the laws are gone. The laws of the Inuit are not on paper.

^^ Also, they had 947,562 different words for "snow."

Inuit traditional laws are anthropologically different from Western law concepts. 'Customary law' was thought non-existent in Inuit society before the introduction of the Canadian legal system. Hoebel, in 1954, concluded that only 'rudimentary law' existed amongst the Inuit. Indeed, prior to about 1970, it is impossible to find even one reference to a Western observer who was aware that any form of governance existed among any Inuit,[42] however, there was a set way of doing things that had to be followed:

* maligait refers to what has to be followed
* piqujait refers to what has to be done
* tirigusuusiit refers to what has to be avoided

If an individual's actions went against the tirigusuusiit, maligait or piqujait, the angakkuq (shaman) might have to intervene, lest the consequences be dire to the individual or the community.[69]

We are told today that Inuit never had laws or "maligait". Why? They say because they are not written on paper. When I think of paper, I think you can tear it up, and the laws are gone. The laws of the Inuit are not on paper.

That is SO cool. It's are really good way to think of it...it reminds me of looking at the Declaration of Independence and how warn out and tattered it is...it's all faded out. This blogger I know talked about seeing it recently and how he decided to write it down on paper by hand so that he could always have it in his own writing because he felt like it was the best way to keep it from being destroyed...assuming everyone else does the same thing. Something to that effect. I wonder how these "laws" of the Inuit are passed on...I bet not in 2000 page bills! LOL