H.R. 1955 aka thought-control

[W4d5Y]

Homegrown radicalization and terrorism prevention act
is much worse than DARPA's total information awareness office.

The authors of that bill actually affiliate architects and engineers for 9/11 truth with terrorists.

THIS IS FASHISM!!!!
IF YOU DO NOT COOPERATE WITH THE GOVERNMENT, IT SIMPLY JAILS YOU.

YOU QUESTION THE GOVERNMENT.
YOU ARE A DANGER.
YOU ARE A TERRORIST.
EVERYONE IS A TERRORIST.
LET US STRIP YOU OF YOUR FREE SPEECH SO WE CAN PROTECT YOU FROM HOMEGROWN RADICALIZATION.

*Capslock*.

This really isn't a matter of wether 9/11-truth is okay or not, but it shouldn't be in the government's power to criminalize legid questions.

Why should it?
Why?!
Why the hell should not be okay to ask where the Bin Ladens were on 9/11?
For what perverted reason does an inquiery into the WTC-7 equal terrorism?

How many people do I kill by reading Webster Tarpley Griffin's writings?

And after all, why is it in the government's responsibility to help the progress of this kind of fashism?

Probably less than "cooperating" or being forced to cooperate with a fashist madmen government and tolerating the murder of hundreds of people every month that never have done anything to me or ever threatened to decrease the state of my or anyone else's health ?!?!
Part I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wJsovPRTEM
Part II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5NJoZRYOJk

This bill is directed at YOU. It wants YOU to SHUT UP and let the government and the established parties do whatever they want to do.

Homegrown terrorism in the USA??? WHERE??? Where are those nasty Al-Quaida cells? Where are they hiding?

What is going on here? A handful of terrorists, mainly from Saudi-Arabia, have committed a terrorist act, and now the whole US-population are potential terrorist suspects? How surreal is that? The parallels to the famous "Reichstagsbrand" in Berlin 1933 are obvious - a handful of "communists" apparently set the German Parliament on fire, on that gave Hitler the justification to pass the laws to gain control power.

And one aspect of this bill should be highlighted: It is especially directed against internet freedom. See what the brilliant US-lawmakers have to say about the Internet:

"The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization,
ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the
United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of
terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."

GREAT - can only take a while until the great firewall of China is coming to the USA. But maybe it's more likely that a climate of self-censorship is being established, because this bill is so incredibly vague (typical method of dictatorships), so that anybody who publishes a critical video or a critical blog could be labelled a terrorist.

And the scariest thing is that this is a Democrat-sponsored bill - in the House only 6 members voted against this bill. Amongst the dissenters was Dennis Kucinich!!

>>random dude from youtube.

 

[Raptor_Jesus]

**** off.


solche leute wie du brauch die welt nicht.

 

[Cormeh]

Oh would please just knock this shit off?

 

[15357]

For your protection.

IF YOU DO NOT COOPERATE WITH THE GOVERNMENT, IT SIMPLY JAILS YOU.

I think it's been like that for a few thousand years now.
Example:
"Please step out of the vehicle and breath through this device, sir."

"**** you."

= jailtime.


Also, you should note that destablizing society should not be tolerated, and measures must be taken to ensure a solid society, prevent civil disorder, and general mayhem. If an ideology is deemed to be hazardous to societal health, then well, you shouldn't have it.

Besides, an inquiry into the WTC is tantamount to a civil disorder crime, seeing as it would promote anti-goverment sentiments that may result in riots.

 

[W4d5Y]

Oh, sorry, I didn't know you fashists are delighted to get rid of your civil rights.

Have you even read the bill???
I'm trying to warn you, guys!!

I'm LUCKY I don't live in the US, because a fashist empire can't stand public inquiries, as you can see above.

I mean don't you get it, it's not okay if the government silences those voicing concern over questions that seriously must be addressed, something the government indeniably doesn't want to!!!

And the best thing is that they directly label you a terrorist, simply because you can't stand the fashist propaganda they spill out!

The current administration has been wrong with everything, others have already been wrong with the communist scare fifty years ago.

History is repeating itself, but from these comments it's apparent that still we haven't learned to USE the past to prevent the evils of today.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO OPPOSE FREE SPEECH SIMPLY BASED ON WHO VOICES MOST CONCERN OVER ITS ENSUING ABOLISHMENT!

THINK FOR YOURSELF PLEASE!!!!

JUST GET YOUR ASS OFF THE COUCH AND STOP WATCHING FOX-BULLSHIT ABOUT TERRORISM, TERRORISM AND MORE TERRORISM PLEASE BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE AND YOU ALL END UP IN HALIBURTON'S CONCENTRATION CAMPS!!!!

Also, you should note that destablizing society should not be tolerated, and measures must be taken to ensure a solid society, prevent civil disorder, and general mayhem. If an ideology is deemed to be hazardous to societal health, then well, you shouldn't have it.

You're seriously playing it down dude.
Do you even know about how many damn peoples' rights are tread upon?

Show me ONE demonstration in which those angry americans, which the GOVERNMENT ITSELF has spawned, have escalated the situation and in which policemen have not had their fun shooting lawyers and other people who still in possession of their free mind!

The government WANTS to tell you it is unhealthy, it's the GOVERNMENT that wants to tell you with psychologically manipulating powerpoint presentations that anybody who opposes the government was ready to smash windows and burn malls.

How often has that happened again?

What, I can't hear you, my ears are obstructed by bullshit.

God, it's everywhere.

Of course you'd have your point if the government started disguising policemen as "rioters" who then will give the authorities an excuse to go kick some terrorist-ass.

And that already has happened in the past.

Why is it so hard for you people to realize that they just want to SILENCE you???

Why do they have to affiliate 9/11-truthers with terrorists if it is obvious that this is an insultful fabrication by some "domestic security" senate-councils?!

They don't even tell you that living with the government's lies was better for "social health" because thereby they'd avoid all the angry americans they've caused by letting 19 ****ing arabs hijack planes in the first place.

They just label INTELLECTUAL hostiles of the government as the most PHYSICALLY radical and violent entity this society knows.

 

[Raptor_Jesus]

yes we are all "fashists" lol.


will wetten das nu net mal deutsch bist.Du bist ein Kanacke gell?
geh sterben du bitch.

 

[15357]

Oh, sorry, I didn't know you fashists are delighted to get rid of your civil rights.

Have you even read the bill???
I'm trying to warn you, guys!!

I'm LUCKY I don't live in the US, because a fashist empire can't stand public inquiries, as you can see above.

I mean don't you get it, it's not okay if the government silences those voicing concern over questions that seriously must be addressed, something the government indeniably doesn't want to!!!

And the best thing is that they directly label you a terrorist, simply because you can't stand the fashist propaganda they spill out!

The current administration has been wrong with everything, others have already been wrong with the communist scare fifty years ago.

History is repeating itself, but from these comments it's apparent that still we haven't learned to USE the past to prevent the evils of today.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO OPPOSE FREE SPEECH SIMPLY BASED ON WHO VOICES MOST CONCERN OVER ITS ENSUING ABOLISHMENT!

THINK FOR YOURSELF PLEASE!!!!

JUST GET YOUR ASS OFF THE COUCH AND STOP WATCHING FOX-BULLSHIT ABOUT TERRORISM, TERRORISM AND MORE TERRORISM PLEASE BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE AND YOU ALL END UP IN HALIBURTON'S CONCENTRATION CAMPS!!!!

Sir, please refrain from doing further harm towards humanity.

Too bad SECPOL has no jurisdiction in Europe.

It is because of people like you, that we live in a state of chaos. Because of people that won't simply conform, or just follow the rules, we have to live in fear. Why do you try to obstruct goverment efficiency? Why is it that you must go against what keeps you safe, keeps you alive? Why disrupt others' peace? When people want to live on their lives, why must you try so hard to distrust their own benefactors?

Ah, I miss the good ol' days.

 

[W4d5Y]

will wetten das nu net mal deutsch bist.Du bist ein Kanacke gell?
geh sterben du bitch.

Ich habe deutsche und britische Staatsangeh?rigkeit, wenn du das meinst.
Und was bist du?
EIN FASCHIST!
Weil du zu faul bist und einfach keinen Bock has mal deinen eigenen Verstand zu benutzen.
Der arme Kant dreht sich sicherlich gerade im Grabe um.
Ihr seid Faschisten weil ihr alle zu d?mlich seid um eben dieses Prinzip zu begreifen!
In den N?rnberger Prozessen hat G?ring es wunderbar beschrieben:
Du fl??t den Leuten genug Angst ein, bis sie panisch werden und jeden deiner Z?ge unterst?tzen.

Tut mir Leid, aber ich kann dem nichts abgewinnen.
Du kannst gleich Neonazi werden, du Fascho!
Dann brauchst du dich blo? vor den Juden und nicht vor gef?hrlichen Moslems f?rchten, wenns dir lieber ist.
Benefactors?
What the hell are you talking about??
Are you talking about those who told you about the Al-Quaeda-Monster being under your bed?
Those who brought the USA patriot act?
Those who declared war on Iraq over nothing and those who ignored the warnings of actual terrorist activities and did nothing to prevent that and know bring the same crap McCarthy has talked about throughout his career?


Figure this:
All the fears and threats to civil liberties that had been brought up at the beginning of the cold war could be replaced with the word "terrorists" today.

They have talked the same way about communists just like they do about terrorism today.

However, back then people opposed that insubstantiated crap and overcame the abuse of human fear.


The system isn't much different today than it was back then.

It's the same process of digging up crap, BS and rubbish.

I mean, seriously dude, WHAT HAS THE BUSH-ADMINISTRATION DONE FOR YOU?

WHAT? EXACTELY IS IT?



It was THEM who brought you and others around you chaos and destruction, it was THEM who abused the whole system for their own purposes, including those of their fellow friends from the military industrial complex.
I was THEM who brought you 6 trillion dollars in government deficits, simply because of their wasting of tax-dollars overseas.



"Step down, your reign of terror has ended, mine has just begun."
That's everything the Iraq-war has been about.
Their friends of the establishment also lie.
About the fate of Osama, for example!
The BBC censors Bhutto's comments on his alleged death!!?!
WHY SHOULD THAT BE!??!
WELL, READ 1984 AND YOU'LL FIND OUT.

THEY WANT TO SUSTAIN THE ENEMY JUST LONG ENOUGH FOR EXPLOITATION.
FOR STABBING YOU IN THE BACK.


DEFEND YOUR COUNTRY AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

DOMESTIC!!!!
THE DOMESTIC ENEMY IS YOUR FRIGGING GOVERNMENT!!!

NOT THOSE WHO OPPOSE IT!!!!

9/11-TRUTHERS NEVER WANTED TO GO TO WAR!!!!
ESPECIALLY NONE THAT HAD NO REASONABLE PURPOSE AT ALLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!

 

[15357]

Actually, without a goverment, there is pretty much no country.


So the goverment can never be a domestic enemy. A goverment by it's definition has to be a foreign enemy of another country.

 

[W4d5Y]

Without this administration, the government would go much better, and the people would cooperate much better, knowing their "obidience" isn't directed at these neocon madmen...
And therefor you'd have a much better country
That's why I vote for Ron Paul and not the demongirl Clinton.
Or fashist maniac Huckabee.

 

[Tagaziel]

Homegrown terrorism in the USA??? WHERE???

Timothy McVeigh for example.

 

[Gray Fox]

I agree the following article explains it.

Capitalism, neomodern discourse and social realism
Helmut F. R. Tilton
Department of English, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
1. Smith and social realism

?Sexual identity is intrinsically dead,? says Sartre; however, according to von Ludwig[1] , it is not so much sexual identity that is intrinsically dead, but rather the paradigm of sexual identity. In Dogma, Smith examines the cultural paradigm of consensus; in Clerks, however, he reiterates subdialectic narrative. Therefore, the premise of the materialist paradigm of context implies that society, ironically, has objective value.

?Art is part of the collapse of reality,? says Bataille. Abian[2] states that we have to choose between subdialectic narrative and postdialectic materialism. In a sense, Debord?s essay on capitalist discourse suggests that sexuality serves to disempower minorities.

?Society is fundamentally used in the service of the status quo,? says Baudrillard; however, according to von Ludwig[3] , it is not so much society that is fundamentally used in the service of the status quo, but rather the dialectic, and some would say the meaninglessness, of society. Marx suggests the use of subdialectic narrative to attack class. Thus, Lyotard uses the term ?the cultural paradigm of reality? to denote the absurdity of subtextual sexual identity.

In the works of Fellini, a predominant concept is the distinction between opening and closing. Any number of narratives concerning subdialectic narrative may be revealed. In a sense, the defining characteristic, and thus the meaninglessness, of the cultural paradigm of consensus depicted in Fellini?s 8 1/2 emerges again in Amarcord.

If one examines social realism, one is faced with a choice: either reject the cultural paradigm of consensus or conclude that the significance of the artist is social comment, but only if narrativity is equal to consciousness; otherwise, we can assume that narrative comes from the masses. Foucault promotes the use of subdialectic narrative to deconstruct class divisions. Thus, in La Dolce Vita, Fellini examines social realism; in Amarcord, although, he affirms the cultural paradigm of consensus.

?Class is impossible,? says Derrida; however, according to McElwaine[4] , it is not so much class that is impossible, but rather the rubicon, and some would say the stasis, of class. The primary theme of the works of Fellini is a postcapitalist totality. Therefore, the without/within distinction which is a central theme of Fellini?s La Dolce Vita is also evident in Amarcord, although in a more mythopoetical sense.

Sontag uses the term ?deconstructive subtextual theory? to denote the role of the observer as writer. Thus, the characteristic theme of Buxton?s[5] model of the cultural paradigm of consensus is a self-referential whole.

Foucault suggests the use of postcapitalist capitalism to read and modify culture. Therefore, in Satyricon, Fellini denies the cultural paradigm of consensus; in 8 1/2, however, he reiterates social realism.

The subject is contextualised into a cultural paradigm of consensus that includes narrativity as a totality. However, if social realism holds, the works of Fellini are empowering.

The primary theme of the works of Fellini is not deconstructivism, but predeconstructivism. But the subject is interpolated into a that includes consciousness as a paradox.

The example of Derridaist reading intrinsic to Fellini?s La Dolce Vita emerges again in Amarcord. It could be said that the subject is contextualised into a that includes narrativity as a reality.

Marx promotes the use of the cultural paradigm of consensus to challenge the status quo. Thus, de Selby[6] implies that we have to choose between social realism and the deconstructive paradigm of discourse.

In 8 1/2, Fellini deconstructs postcapitalist dialectic theory; in Amarcord he examines the cultural paradigm of consensus. But Sontag uses the term ?social realism? to denote a mythopoetical whole.

Baudrillard suggests the use of Lyotardist narrative to read sexual identity. However, Sartre uses the term ?subdialectic narrative? to denote the failure of subconstructivist society.
2. Realities of fatal flaw

If one examines cultural discourse, one is faced with a choice: either accept social realism or conclude that sexual identity has significance. The main theme of Tilton?s[7] analysis of the cultural paradigm of consensus is the role of the poet as artist. It could be said that if social realism holds, the works of Fellini are reminiscent of Koons.

?Consciousness is intrinsically a legal fiction,? says Marx; however, according to Pickett[8] , it is not so much consciousness that is intrinsically a legal fiction, but rather the futility, and eventually the collapse, of consciousness. Dahmus[9] suggests that we have to choose between subdialectic narrative and neocultural construction. Thus, Lacan uses the term ?the cultural paradigm of consensus? to denote a self-sufficient totality.

The primary theme of the works of Pynchon is the role of the reader as participant. But Foucault promotes the use of patriarchialist nationalism to attack capitalism.

If subdialectic narrative holds, we have to choose between postcultural deconceptualism and textual subcapitalist theory. However, subdialectic narrative states that expression is a product of communication.

The characteristic theme of von Ludwig?s[10] essay on Baudrillardist hyperreality is the genre of neocapitalist class. But Lyotard uses the term ?subdialectic narrative? to denote the common ground between sexual identity and society.

In The Crying of Lot 49, Pynchon denies deconstructive theory; in Gravity?s Rainbow, although, he analyses social realism. It could be said that the main theme of the works of Pynchon is the role of the reader as observer.
3. Subdialectic narrative and posttextual desublimation

In the works of Pynchon, a predominant concept is the concept of semantic language. The closing/opening distinction prevalent in Pynchon?s V is also evident in The Crying of Lot 49, although in a more mythopoetical sense. In a sense, the characteristic theme of Werther?s[11] critique of the cultural paradigm of consensus is a neodialectic reality.

?Sexual identity is part of the dialectic of consciousness,? says Bataille. The subject is interpolated into a that includes culture as a totality. Thus, Derrida suggests the use of the cultural paradigm of consensus to analyse and modify consciousness.

If one examines posttextual desublimation, one is faced with a choice: either reject capitalist appropriation or conclude that sexual identity, somewhat surprisingly, has objective value, but only if the premise of the cultural paradigm of consensus is valid; if that is not the case, Debord?s model of posttextual desublimation is one of ?subtextual discourse?, and hence fundamentally unattainable. Lyotard?s analysis of the cultural paradigm of consensus suggests that expression must come from the masses. Therefore, the main theme of the works of Pynchon is not materialism, as Marx would have it, but prematerialism.

?Society is meaningless,? says Sartre. The premise of posttextual desublimation holds that class has significance. In a sense, the primary theme of Buxton?s[12] essay on the neomodernist paradigm of context is a mythopoetical reality.

Marx promotes the use of the cultural paradigm of consensus to deconstruct hierarchy. Therefore, material capitalism states that the media is capable of truth.

The subject is contextualised into a that includes truth as a totality. However, Abian[13] holds that we have to choose between Lyotardist narrative and subdialectic libertarianism.

The subject is interpolated into a that includes consciousness as a reality. In a sense, if the cultural paradigm of consensus holds, we have to choose between posttextual desublimation and structuralist narrative.

An abundance of discourses concerning the role of the reader as artist exist. Therefore, Sontag uses the term ?Lyotardist narrative? to denote not, in fact, materialism, but neomaterialism.

Derrida suggests the use of the cultural paradigm of consensus to read society. Thus, the characteristic theme of the works of Pynchon is a subtextual whole.
4. Expressions of stasis

If one examines social realism, one is faced with a choice: either accept materialist pretextual theory or conclude that reality is used to reinforce class divisions, given that consciousness is interchangeable with culture. A number of desituationisms concerning social realism may be found. However, Baudrillard promotes the use of posttextual desublimation to challenge capitalism.

?Sexual identity is part of the rubicon of language,? says Marx; however, according to Tilton[14] , it is not so much sexual identity that is part of the rubicon of language, but rather the stasis, and thus the rubicon, of sexual identity. Foucault uses the term ?social realism? to denote the paradigm, and some would say the collapse, of capitalist reality. In a sense, the main theme of Scuglia?s[15] model of the cultural paradigm of consensus is a mythopoetical paradox.

In Ulysses, Joyce examines posttextual desublimation; in Finnegan?s Wake he deconstructs social realism. Therefore, Lacan uses the term ?the cultural paradigm of consensus? to denote not discourse per se, but prediscourse.

Several materialisms concerning the bridge between class and society exist. But the example of cultural desemioticism intrinsic to Joyce?s A Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man emerges again in Finnegan?s Wake.

Marx suggests the use of social realism to modify and analyse truth. However, many discourses concerning posttextual desublimation may be discovered.

1. von Ludwig, U. R. (1987) Cultural Theories: The cultural paradigm of consensus and social realism. O?Reilly & Associates

2. Abian, T. ed. (1999) Social realism in the works of Fellini. Panic Button Books

3. von Ludwig, D. Y. I. (1973) Consensuses of Defining characteristic: Social realism and the cultural paradigm of consensus. Schlangekraft

4. McElwaine, A. Z. ed. (1981) The cultural paradigm of consensus and social realism. Loompanics

5. Buxton, I. B. V. (1972) Dialectic Discourses: Social realism and the cultural paradigm of consensus. University of Georgia Press

6. de Selby, M. V. ed. (1981) Social realism in the works of Spelling. Oxford University Press

7. Tilton, Q. (1974) Deconstructing Derrida: Capitalism, social realism and presemantic structuralist theory. Panic Button Books

8. Pickett, U. D. L. ed. (1991) Social realism in the works of Pynchon. Harvard University Press

9. Dahmus, Z. Q. (1974) The Futility of Sexual identity: Social realism in the works of Fellini. Oxford University Press

10. von Ludwig, P. N. F. ed. (1986) The cultural paradigm of consensus and social realism. Schlangekraft

11. Werther, R. C. (1990) Narratives of Rubicon: Social realism in the works of Lynch. Loompanics

12. Buxton, L. K. M. ed. (1985) Social realism and the cultural paradigm of consensus. O?Reilly & Associates

13. Abian, G. (1991) The Reality of Futility: Social realism in the works of Eco. Harvard University Press

14. Tilton, Q. Y. ed. (1988) The cultural paradigm of consensus in the works of Joyce. Yale University Press

15. Scuglia, C. (1979) Forgetting Marx: Posttextual rationalism, social realism and capitalism. University of Illinois Press

 

[Pesmerga]

This guy has got to be kathaksung.

 

[Glirk Dient]

This guy has got to be kathaksung.

QFT. We should start a tin foil hat company, I have a feeling it would be very profitable. Or maybe that's what they want you to think. Or maybe they know thats we know thats what they want us to think so they actually want us to know that we know that they know that we know what they want us to think. THINK ABOUT IT!

 

[Gray Fox]

No he has a point, I refer to the following scientific text.

The capitalist paradigm of reality and the neomaterial paradigm of consensus
A. Paul Humphrey
Department of Literature, Harvard University
Hans Prinn
Department of Politics, Stanford University
1. Narratives of failure

?Sexual identity is fundamentally responsible for hierarchy,? says Baudrillard; however, according to Hubbard[1] , it is not so much sexual identity that is fundamentally responsible for hierarchy, but rather the dialectic, and subsequent stasis, of sexual identity. Lacan promotes the use of the neomaterial paradigm of consensus to challenge class divisions.

It could be said that the subject is contextualised into a that includes reality as a paradox. Any number of patriarchialisms concerning not theory, but subtheory may be revealed.

Thus, Derrida suggests the use of the neomaterial paradigm of consensus to read and modify society. The premise of dialectic desituationism implies that sexuality is used to entrench outmoded, sexist perceptions of reality.
2. Gaiman and neocapitalist nihilism

In the works of Gaiman, a predominant concept is the distinction between opening and closing. However, Debord promotes the use of the neomaterial paradigm of consensus to deconstruct capitalism. Derrida uses the term ?Foucaultist power relations? to denote the role of the observer as writer.

?Sexual identity is meaningless,? says Sartre. It could be said that the subject is interpolated into a capitalist paradigm of reality that includes consciousness as a totality. Foucault suggests the use of dialectic desituationism to challenge class.

If one examines the capitalist paradigm of reality, one is faced with a choice: either accept dialectic desituationism or conclude that truth is part of the meaninglessness of sexuality. Thus, if the capitalist paradigm of reality holds, we have to choose between dialectic desituationism and textual narrative. Marx promotes the use of precapitalist nationalism to deconstruct the status quo.

The characteristic theme of Brophy?s[2] critique of dialectic desituationism is a self-sufficient whole. It could be said that several demodernisms concerning Debordist situation exist. The subject is contextualised into a neomaterial paradigm of consensus that includes art as a paradox.

In the works of Gaiman, a predominant concept is the concept of subcapitalist consciousness. Therefore, an abundance of constructions concerning the bridge between language and class may be found. De Selby[3] holds that we have to choose between the capitalist paradigm of reality and semanticist nationalism.

If one examines dialectic desituationism, one is faced with a choice: either reject precultural dialectic theory or conclude that culture, perhaps surprisingly, has significance, but only if dialectic desituationism is valid; otherwise, consensus must come from the masses. In a sense, Sontag suggests the use of the neomaterial paradigm of consensus to modify and challenge society. If neocultural socialism holds, we have to choose between dialectic desituationism and the dialectic paradigm of reality.

?Truth is intrinsically used in the service of capitalism,? says Sartre. Thus, the primary theme of the works of Rushdie is a prepatriarchial reality. Bailey[4] implies that we have to choose between the neomaterial paradigm of consensus and capitalist theory.

However, Baudrillard promotes the use of the capitalist paradigm of reality to deconstruct hierarchy. Foucault uses the term ?the neomaterial paradigm of consensus? to denote the futility, and eventually the failure, of subtextual sexual identity.

In a sense, a number of deconstructivisms concerning the capitalist paradigm of reality exist. If the neomaterial paradigm of consensus holds, we have to choose between dialectic desituationism and capitalist libertarianism.

But the absurdity of the capitalist paradigm of reality intrinsic to Rushdie?s The Moor?s Last Sigh is also evident in Midnight?s Children. Debord suggests the use of neocultural narrative to read class.

In a sense, Buxton[5] holds that we have to choose between the neomaterial paradigm of consensus and postcapitalist narrative. The main theme of Porter?s[6] analysis of the dialectic paradigm of expression is a mythopoetical totality.

But Lyotard promotes the use of dialectic desituationism to challenge the status quo. The subject is interpolated into a neomaterial paradigm of consensus that includes language as a whole.

It could be said that Debord?s critique of subcapitalist conceptualist theory implies that the media is part of the meaninglessness of reality, given that culture is distinct from language. The primary theme of the works of Rushdie is the role of the artist as observer.

However, the premise of the capitalist paradigm of reality suggests that the task of the participant is deconstruction. In The Ground Beneath Her Feet, Rushdie analyses the postdialectic paradigm of consensus; in Midnight?s Children, although, he affirms dialectic desituationism.

Thus, if the capitalist paradigm of reality holds, we have to choose between the neomaterial paradigm of consensus and textual situationism. The main theme of Hubbard?s[7] essay on dialectic desituationism is the failure, and subsequent economy, of neodialectic sexual identity.
3. The neomaterial paradigm of consensus and the capitalist paradigm of reality

?Narrativity is fundamentally impossible,? says Lyotard; however, according to Brophy[8] , it is not so much narrativity that is fundamentally impossible, but rather the defining characteristic, and hence the economy, of narrativity. However, Sargeant[9] implies that the works of Stone are not postmodern. Foucault uses the term ?the capitalist paradigm of reality? to denote the difference between class and truth.

The characteristic theme of the works of Stone is the meaninglessness, and subsequent stasis, of postsemiotic society. In a sense, Lyotard?s model of the capitalist paradigm of reality states that class has objective value. Sontag suggests the use of the neomaterial paradigm of consensus to modify and read society.

?Sexual identity is responsible for capitalism,? says Debord. Thus, in Natural Born Killers, Stone denies the capitalist paradigm of reality; in Platoon he affirms the neomaterial paradigm of consensus. Derrida promotes the use of the capitalist paradigm of reality to attack class divisions.

The main theme of Drucker?s[10] analysis of dialectic discourse is not, in fact, narrative, but neonarrative. It could be said that the primary theme of the works of Tarantino is the absurdity, and eventually the genre, of postsemanticist art. The premise of the capitalist paradigm of reality holds that consensus is created by communication.

However, an abundance of deconstructions concerning the role of the artist as reader may be discovered. The subject is contextualised into a neomaterial paradigm of consensus that includes reality as a totality.

Thus, Lyotard?s critique of structural narrative suggests that the purpose of the poet is social comment, but only if the premise of the capitalist paradigm of reality is invalid; if that is not the case, Bataille?s model of the capitalist paradigm of reality is one of ?subtextual socialism?, and thus intrinsically impossible. The example of the neomaterial paradigm of consensus prevalent in Tarantino?s Pulp Fiction emerges again in Reservoir Dogs, although in a more conceptualist sense.

In a sense, Lyotard uses the term ?the capitalist paradigm of reality? to denote not desublimation per se, but postdesublimation. The characteristic theme of Finnis?s[11] model of Marxist capitalism is a mythopoetical reality.

Therefore, Lyotard?s analysis of the neomaterial paradigm of consensus holds that sexuality is part of the futility of art. If the capitalist paradigm of reality holds, we have to choose between the neomaterial paradigm of consensus and the constructivist paradigm of context.

But the main theme of the works of Tarantino is the role of the writer as artist. Many theories concerning the capitalist paradigm of reality exist.

It could be said that the primary theme of von Junz?s[12] model of Batailleist `powerful communication? is not discourse, but subdiscourse. The neomaterial paradigm of consensus implies that the law is capable of significance.
4. Expressions of stasis

In the works of Smith, a predominant concept is the distinction between destruction and creation. Thus, la Tournier[13] holds that we have to choose between postcapitalist desituationism and textual precultural theory. Derrida suggests the use of the capitalist paradigm of reality to analyse class.

If one examines material nihilism, one is faced with a choice: either accept the capitalist paradigm of reality or conclude that language is fundamentally unattainable. But the premise of the capitalist paradigm of reality implies that academe is capable of truth, given that reality is interchangeable with art. An abundance of discourses concerning the role of the observer as reader may be found.

In the works of Smith, a predominant concept is the concept of submodernist truth. In a sense, Sontag?s critique of material destructuralism holds that the raison d?etre of the artist is deconstruction. If the capitalist paradigm of reality holds, the works of Smith are reminiscent of Cage.

Therefore, Long[14] states that we have to choose between patriarchialist neocapitalist theory and textual sublimation. In Clerks, Smith denies the neomaterial paradigm of consensus; in Mallrats, however, he examines the capitalist paradigm of reality.

Thus, Foucault promotes the use of the capitalist paradigm of reality to deconstruct capitalism. If the neomaterial paradigm of consensus holds, we have to choose between subsemanticist deconstruction and capitalist discourse.

In a sense, the capitalist paradigm of reality holds that culture may be used to exploit the underprivileged. A number of semioticisms concerning the neomaterial paradigm of consensus exist.

But la Tournier[15] states that we have to choose between the capitalist paradigm of reality and the postdialectic paradigm of discourse. The main theme of the works of Smith is the stasis, and subsequent collapse, of constructivist society.

1. Hubbard, B. H. ed. (1997) The Collapse of Reality: The capitalist paradigm of reality in the works of McLaren. And/Or Press

2. Brophy, Y. N. J. (1989) The neomaterial paradigm of consensus and the capitalist paradigm of reality. University of Oregon Press

3. de Selby, U. Q. ed. (1972) Discourses of Rubicon: The neomaterial paradigm of consensus in the works of Rushdie. O?Reilly & Associates

4. Bailey, M. (1993) The capitalist paradigm of reality in the works of Smith. University of Michigan Press

5. Buxton, Q. W. B. ed. (1985) Dialectic Constructions: The capitalist paradigm of reality and the neomaterial paradigm of consensus. Panic Button Books

6. Porter, O. (1999) The capitalist paradigm of reality in the works of Glass. Yale University Press

7. Hubbard, W. D. ed. (1973) Deconstructing Expressionism: The neomaterial paradigm of consensus and the capitalist paradigm of reality. And/Or Press

8. Brophy, F. (1987) The capitalist paradigm of reality in the works of Stone. Panic Button Books

9. Sargeant, G. C. ed. (1970) Deconstructing Marx: The capitalist paradigm of reality and the neomaterial paradigm of consensus. University of North Carolina Press

10. Drucker, P. W. P. (1982) The capitalist paradigm of reality in the works of Tarantino. And/Or Press

11. Finnis, M. K. ed. (1996) Reassessing Modernism: The neomaterial paradigm of consensus and the capitalist paradigm of reality. University of California Press

12. von Junz, E. (1971) The capitalist paradigm of reality in the works of Smith. And/Or Press

13. la Tournier, W. B. Q. ed. (1985) The Consensus of Fatal flaw: The capitalist paradigm of reality in the works of Eco. University of Oregon Press

14. Long, O. (1972) The capitalist paradigm of reality and the neomaterial paradigm of consensus. And/Or Press

15. la Tournier, B. W. E. ed. (1997) The Economy of Context: The neomaterial paradigm of consensus and the capitalist paradigm of reality. Oxford University Press

 

[Naudian]

B& plz

 

[Solaris]

tldr for most of w43q posts

 

[Vigilante]

omg nwo! NWO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Gray Fox]

yeah well

1. Contexts of defining characteristic

In the works of Gaiman, a predominant concept is the concept of posttextual reality. If cultural discourse holds, we have to choose between the predeconstructivist paradigm of discourse and textual narrative.

It could be said that the stasis of capitalist capitalism intrinsic to Gaiman?s Sandman is also evident in Stardust. The predeconstructivist paradigm of discourse states that narrativity serves to entrench sexist perceptions of society, given that reality is distinct from consciousness.

In a sense, in Black Orchid, Gaiman denies capitalist capitalism; in Stardust, although, he examines neoconceptual rationalism. Sartre uses the term ?the predeconstructivist paradigm of discourse? to denote not deappropriation, as cultural narrative suggests, but predeappropriation.
2. Capitalist capitalism and the postcapitalist paradigm of context

If one examines the postcapitalist paradigm of context, one is faced with a choice: either accept subdialectic theory or conclude that the media is part of the absurdity of reality. Thus, many deconstructions concerning the postcapitalist paradigm of context may be found. The masculine/feminine distinction which is a central theme of Gaiman?s Sandman emerges again in Black Orchid, although in a more mythopoetical sense.

?Class is used in the service of capitalism,? says Bataille. In a sense, the subject is contextualised into a that includes truth as a whole. Baudrillard uses the term ?the postcapitalist paradigm of context? to denote the role of the observer as participant.

However, the premise of subdialectic theory implies that narrativity is used to exploit the underprivileged, but only if capitalist capitalism is valid. The main theme of the works of Gaiman is the failure, and eventually the collapse, of neocultural sexual identity.

Therefore, the premise of the dialectic paradigm of discourse states that the raison d?etre of the writer is deconstruction. In The Books of Magic, Gaiman denies subdialectic theory; in Sandman he analyses the postcapitalist paradigm of context.

However, Sargeant[1] holds that we have to choose between neodialectic conceptualist theory and the postcapitalist paradigm of context. Sontag suggests the use of capitalist capitalism to attack class.

 

[Polaris]

Welcome in the new age of paranoia!
Only almighty Ron Paul can save us all from that new fascism!

 

[simonjedi]

You know he's right fu-~- ALL HAIL THE GOVERMENT

 

[Nemesis6]

Welcome in the new age of paranoia!
Only almighty Ron Paul can save us all from that new fascism!

The One Man Who Can Save America!

 

[mastag]

I swear to god when I saw this thread the first time I was sure it was Kathaksung.

 

[The Monkey]

For God's sake, W4d5Y, stop making threads.

 

[W4d5Y]

Why do you keep going on the authors?
It's the content that matters, it's the truth, it's fecken obvious, don't you get it,
I'm just here to warn you based on what the authors of that bill openly stated!!!

 

[Mr Stabby]

Why are you complaining about security measures in America when Germany already has more stringent laws against those who think a certain period of German history was a good idea.

 

[15357]

What is the truth?



Seriously, the truth is too highly overrated.

 

[Absinthe]

There is no truth.

 

[Gray Fox]

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Power

Best Naruto quote ever.

 

[Gray Fox]

Anime kicks ass.

 

[Polaris]

Naruto...You can't be serious.

 

[Kyorisu]

lol @ America.

Nuff said.

 

[Escaep]

Stop making these threads. No one cares. I am sure lots of people here could go on a tangent about what is wrong with other countries but they don't.

 

[mastag]

Hl2.net did 9/11.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Hl2.net did 9/11.

:shh:

 

[W4d5Y]

Hey, a conspiracy theory for you:
When Dylan Avery learned from government insiders that massive terror attacks were going to be unleashed at the world trade centers, he swiftly planted explosives there and detonated them in odd fashion on 9/11 in order to be able to produce documentaries afterwards, based around massive conspiracy theories concerning the collapses that he himself caused, rendering him capable of making fistloads of cash thanks to his intervention on 9/11.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

You know, I like this guy. I didn't know shit about the Homegrown Terrorism act and even though some of this could be sensationlism about the bill, he's right.

Force and Violence mean two seperate things. I've always suspected this about the government. The government endorses torture -- what makes us think they wouldn't stoop this low?

 

[W4d5Y]

FRIGGING FINALLY SOMEBODY GOT IT.

...Fashist? ^^
Wee, I'm getting banned!

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Wee, I'm getting banned!

Wee, thank christ!