In the beehive, there is the Queen. She exists for one single
purpose, to populate the bee colony. The rest of the bees break into
two groups. The smaller group are the Drones, whose job is to spend
their lives having sex with the queen. This is a tempting place to
find oneself, except when sex is over, the Drone is murdered and
tossed out of the hive.
The final class of bees is by far the largest. The Workers. Their
sole purpose in life is to tend to feeding the little baby bees; and
to protect the queen; and to fan the air to cool the bee hive; to run
off intruders who are bent on eating the sweet syrup that nourishes
the baby bees; and finally, to clean all debris from the hive.
So the vast majority of bees are in the Working Class. They all have
different tasks, but all are directed toward serving the Queen.
In a much more complex world, we humans mimic the bees. We workers
are divided into many sub groups, with many tasks, all directed toward
serving the needs of our Ruling Class. Instead of one Queen Bee, our
focal point is divided into sub Ruling Class groups. We serve,
expecting to be taken care of. But with so many "Queen Bees", we
often find ourselves working at odds with one another. And just to
add another layer of confusion, our "Queen" also includes a bunch of
Drones. In our human model, the Drones are not murdered and tossed
out of the Hive, as they should be. Instead they slink about, always
on the take, contributing nothing except to make trouble for the rest
of us(see, Donald Trump).
Whether I build weapons to defend my Hive, or empty bed pans, I am
serving my human version of the Queen Bee. I can either like it, or I
can join a small group who are nurturing a new Queen, whom we plan to
sneak off to start our own Colony.
Finally, in our own complex, confused world, we have no more freedom
of choice than do our friendly little honey bees. We are all rushing
about trying to serve our Queen.
Carl Jarvis
the social group consisting of people who are employed for wages,
especially in manual or industrial work.
On 7/26/19, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Roger, I too take issue with "middle class". It implies a certain class that
is supposed to be somewhere in the middle of the absolute poor and the
ruling class. The implication usually implies to the working class. If there
was truth to that moniker folks like us would have wealth about half of that
of the ruling class. Obviously that is far from the truth and our actual
wealth is much closer to the absolute poor than it is to the working class.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 10:14 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: This sounds like Mostafa.
I am a Marxist, but that remark in there about the phrase middle class is an
example of exactly what I am talking about. Just what does my distaste for
the phrase middle class have to do with Marxism? Once before, after I had
explained over and over why I have a distaste for that phrase, you said that
you thought it was because it was not one of the classes that Marx had
delineated. I never have figured out why you thought that after I had
explained the real reasons I don't like it so many times. And that is why I
get so frustrated. I explain and explain a concept over and over and you
just don't get it and you just did it in this very message. As for Mostafa,
this is something else I have explained over and over. If Mostafa would just
express himself then he could just express himself. But he doesn't do that.
He is a relentless bully who insists on forcing his nonsense on people. I am
giving him back what he gives and I do notice that he is one of those people
who can dish it out, but can't take it.
---
Voltaire
“ Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities. ”
― Voltaire,
On 7/23/2019 3:39 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Roger,
Am I mistaken in thinking that you are a socialist and that most of the
nonfiction material that you read is influenced by Marxist theory? Haven't
you criticized people who call themselves socialist when they do not
adhere to classical socialism? Do you not write disparagingly of anyone
whose opinions seem to you to be Liberal or bourgeois? Do you not
disparage the use of the term, middle class, and accuse those who define
themselves as such of being snobs? Do you not sneer at Democratic
Socialists because they aren't in favor of what you consider to be real
socialism? Having seen all of these themes in your posts for a good number
of years, I have come to the conclusion that you are a Marxist Socialist,
whatever that actually is. You have very fixed ideas about socialism and
you continually try to indoctrinate people with those ideas when you
complain that some of us are refusing to understand you and that,
therefore, you are forced to explain a particular concept to us, yet one
more time. So, on the few occasions that your utterances aren't motivated
by your close adherence to socialist theory, I think I can be forgiven if
I mistakenly think that they are. But for those infrequent moments, I
apologize.
As for Mustafa, he may very well behave in all the ways that you describe.
But which response you make to his behavior, is your choice. An
alternative to what you invariably do, is just to allow him to express his
beliefs and his assertions and his anger and his sense of superiority
anddo or say nothing at all. How long do you imagine that he would
continue to insult you if you ignored him?
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 9:22 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: This sounds like Mostafa.
You would do a lot better if you just dumped the assumptions and
accepted the stated motivations that are clearly given. To allude to
just another example, you might stop calling my personal opinions
Marxist theory when they have little to do with Marxist theory and
when I point you to a book that I have never read the synopsis of
which makes me think it might explain what fascism is you wouldn't
assume that it gave some kind of Marxist definition of Marxism. But
again with Mostafa. He does not just explain his religion. He does not
just discuss it. He seeks people out and puts them on his personal
mailing list and won't let them go and when they ask to be removed he
just keeps bombarding them with his proselytizing anyway. That is not
exercising his freedom of speech. That is out and out harassment and I
see no excuse for it. As for telling him that his preaching is not
welcome on this list, I set up this list with the full intention of
moderating it by not moderating it. As far as I am concerned he or
anyone else can say anything they want here and I have never banned or
altered any post that he has ever made here. He can exercise his
freedom of speech here, but he has to face up to the fact that some
people will disagree with him and say so. I not only say so, but I
show him where he is wrong. Of course, with faith on his side he will
not admit it no matter how well I show him to be wrong, but I still
show him to be wrong
---
Voltaire
“ Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities. ”
― Voltaire,
On 7/22/2019 5:16 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I didn't mean that you literally represent the American empire. What I
meant was that all of us on this list, represent the American empire to
Mustafa. We're all in America. He's writing to us about what our
government does. Why do you suppose that he does that?
I suppose that you're correct when you say that I'm making assumptions
about people's motivations. That's what most people do and I do that a
lot because of my professional training and because of my personal
inclinations. And I don't always accept the reasons that people give for
their behavior as their true motivations. I can see how that might make
you angry.
As for proselytizing, there were two times in my life when someone tried
to convince me to believe in God. Each time, I responded that I had my
own beliefs and value system, that I respected their right to believe as
they did, and I would appreciate it if they would respect my right to do
the same. It was friendly and there were no arguments. So I suspect that
when Mustafa began to write about religion, you could have chosen not to
answer those particular posts, just as I did, and there would have been
no more discussion. Or you might have written that you respected his
right to his religious beliefs, but you would appreciate it if he did not
share them on this list. I don't know what his response would have been
to that. But you chose to debate him instead. You made a decision that if
anyone began attempting to convince you to believe as he or she did about
religion, it was your right and your duty to fight back. When Mustafa has
written about religion on other lists, other people have made similar
choices. Given the results of these discussions, I wonder why people
keep having them. The only conclusion which I can draw is that you derive
some kind of emotional satisfaction from endless argument. From your
explanation to me, it sounds like what you're saying is that you are
seeking revenge because you say, " I don't know why you want to try to
pretend to read minds when I so clearly lay out to you why I am actually
doing something. Mostafa is a bully and a harasser and I am giving it
right back to him."
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 3:43 PM
To: blind-democracy<blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: This sounds like Mostafa.
On two levels you seem to have never paid attention to anything I have
ever said. It is a real stretch to say that I represent U.S.
imperialism. I have denounced imperialism over and over. But on the
second level you are trying to read minds, both mine and Mostafa's. Does
it not even occur to you to accept stated motives rather than pretend to
know what people are thinking and base your guesses at motives on your
assumed telepathy. Okay, let me explain it again. While I may get some
gratification out of winning a contest of logic against Mostafa that is
not why I do it. I also do not do it to convince him of anything. I have
said over and over that no matter how religious a person might be, if
they don't bother me about their religion I don't bother them about their
religion. But when it comes to those religious harassers it is another
matter. I am talking about the ones who follow you around trying to beat
you over the head with their religion. I am talking about the ones will
not leave you alone no matter how much you tell them that you are not
interested. I am talking about the kind of people who will follow a blind
man down the street screaming at him that god has struck him blind
because he turned his back on Jesus. I got fed up with those ass holes
years ago, but no matter how much I tell them that I am fed up with them
insulting my intelligence with their harassment they won't stop. So here
we have a religious harasser. He is the first Muslim harasser I have come
across unless you count the one who would not let me off his email list
back before Mostafa came along, but he is still a religious harasser. He
first came to my attention when other people started to complain about
him on various email lists. He harvested email addresses and bombarded
people with his proselytizing and when they asked to be removed he
refused. When people blocked him he tried to get around the blocks. This
is outright harassment. It is bullying. So I fight back. I may not fight
back in the same way that others fight back, but I fight back. I engage
him in logical debate because he insults my intelligence and since this
is an argument that I always win I always manage to point up who the real
idiot is. And don't say that I win in my own mind. When I make a logical
argument or point out a logical fallacy in his arguments and he has no
refutation, but only launches into a tantrum of name calling, insults and
threats, I win and my win is right there for you and anyone who is
reading the exchange to see. I take on the challenge because if he wants
to insult my intelligence it is like saying, okay, let's see who the real
fool is. Now, I have told you my motives again. There is no reason for
you to ignore what I have said that my motives for taking on Mostafa are.
I don't know why you want to try to pretend to read minds when I so
clearly lay out to you why I am actually doing something. Mostafa is a
bully and a harasser and I am giving it right back to him.
---
Voltaire
“ Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities. ”
― Voltaire,
On 7/22/2019 9:27 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I forgot one more factor and that is a political one. In these debates,
Roger inadvertently represents the US, the super power of the world, the
country that overthrows democracies in favor of dictators who support it
and then provides military aid to the dictators. It has proclaimed,
since W Bush's administration, a Christian crusade, with many members of
the military saying this explicitly. Mustafa is a citizen of one of the
multitude of countries that the US dominates. When Mustafa proclaims his
version of the truth on our list, he is also proclaiming his rage at the
US for how it behaves in the Middle East. Roger's self satisfaction when
he believes that he has won a logical argument, doesn't undo any of what
is really going on. Winning an argument with logic doesn't obliterate
religious belief or the anger of people in other countries or Mustafa's
need to assert himself. It's kind of like getting into a fist fight in a
bar. You win the fight and you feel good momentarily, but nothing has
changed.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2019 9:54 PM
To:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: This sounds like Mostafa.
Name calling and insult throwing is not an example of poor English
skills. It is just hostility and tantrum throwing. I bested Mostafa in a
debate in logic. He has been throwing a tantrum ever since.
---
Voltaire
“ Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities. ”
― Voltaire,
On 7/21/2019 9:18 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
There may be several factors involved in the faulty communication
between Roger and Mustafa. One of them is Mustafa's limitations in
expressing himself in English. He may be sounding more emphatic than he
means to because he doesn't know the idioms and nuances of the English
language. Roger may not always truly comprehend what Mustafa is
attempting to say. Another problem is that they come from totally
different cultural backgrounds. They don't start from the same
assumptions. That fact certainly impedes positive communication. A
third factor may be that each is emotionally invested in his point of
view. When they become involved in verbal confrontations, each feels
that his manhood or his is involved. And there's one more thing. Roger
apparently believes that it is his duty to educate everyone or, to put
it another way, to convince everyone to think as he does. Mustafa may
have the same compulsion. I don't enjoy battles so I don't read their
email debates. I just delete them. I remember one night when Joe and
Frank were engaged in a terrible email fight. That was an awful
experience and it was the last time I ever read battling emails.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2019 8:41 PM
To:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Carl Jarvis<carjar82@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: This sounds like Mostafa.
By all means, any of us can have a gap in our education. That was a
point I was making in my other message about whether there is such a
thing as a stupid question. If it is an honest question asked in an
attempt to learn it is not a stupid question. Sometimes it can be a bit
frustrating when you realize that in order to answer it in a way that
the questioner will understand you will have to start educating that
person from an elementary school level and I, for one, cannot do that.
However, if it is an honest question asked with the intention of
learning I can try to do my best to answer. However, an honest attempt
to learn is not what Mostafa is doing with his ignorant questions and
pronouncements. He proudly shows his ignorance in order to discredit
entire branches of science. He shows his ignorance in order to
discredit me. At least that is what he is trying to do. But he manages
to actually ask questions that have to be called stupid questions. They
are stupid because when he gets an answer he refuses to accept it. He
just keeps repeating the ignorance that he has been caught up in. That
is a refusal to learn. It is just a hostile act. And what he discredits
more than anything is himself.
---
Voltaire
??? Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities. ???
??? Voltaire,
On 7/21/2019 1:02 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
It's frustrating. But I would point out that any of us can have a
gap in our education, or a lack of ability to grasp information
that is well understood by other people.
The value of an opinion based list, such as this one should be,
that we can expose our lack of education and receive positive
guidance without feeling threatened or put down. But that calls
for an open mind on our part, and understanding people who give
their information and opinions in a helpful and caring manner.
Carl Jarvis...who has learned a great deal through interaction on this
list.
On 7/20/19, Roger Loran Bailey<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I just had to tell you guys about this. This sounds exactly like
something Mostafa would say. There is a Facebook discussion group
on the subject of science that I subscribe to. It is open to all,
but I would expect that people who would subscribe would have
some interest in science and so would have some kind of knowledge
of science even if only rudimentary. Apparently that is not the
case.
Someone just showed up and said that we all know that combustion
requires the presence of oxygen, so is there oxygen in the sun to
make combustion take place there? Some others started to give
answers explaining that chemical combustion takes place in the
presence of oxygen, but that what is happening in the sun is
nuclear fusion. Personally, it seems to me that if a person could
seriously ask that question then it is unlikely that he would
understand such answers. I would not be surprised if he did not
even know what nuclear fusion is. I did not even bother to try to
answer him. With someone like that the only way to give a good
answer would be to go back to elementary science class and teach
him that and to continue to teach him until he finally reached a
point that he could understand. This is exactly how I feel when
Mostafa asks questions like, if we descended from monkeys then why
are there still monkeys?
How can you give a meaningful answer to someone that ignorant? It
is exasperating. It is also similar to another one I saw once. I
don't know if this was supposed to be a joke, but if it wasn't it
is about just as exasperating. Someone from Nigeria once asked, if
the Earth really rotates then why am I still in Nigeria?
--
---
Voltaire
??? Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you
commit atrocities. ???
??? Voltaire,