let it all collapse, the icon for the www.punkerslut.com website
Home Articles Critiques Books Video
About Graphics CopyLeft Links Music

  • Return to Debate Index
  • Anarcho-Syndicalism versus
    Catholic-Conservatism Debate

    Between Punkerslut and
    the Endeavour Forum

    Part #10

    Letters #46-#50

    By Punkerslut
    Image: By Punkerslut

    Letter #046

       Reagan isn't a Murderer   
    The Endeavour Forum
    The Endeavour Forum to Punkerslut...
    Date: Sunday, September 19, 2010

    Dear Andy,

         You write such nonsense - Reagan did not kill people with AIDS - they got AIDS because they indulged in sodomy and/or injected drugs and then killed innocent partners by not disclosing their HIV status.


    "I saw the women of wealth, the masters' wives, obtain birth control information with little difficulty.

    "I saw that, if the working man's wife refused to have more children, she was compelled to resort to abortion. Over 50,000 abortions are performed in the United States each year, and 25,000 deaths occur as the result of them.

    "I saw that it is the working women who fill this death list, for though the master's wife may resort to abortions, too, she is given the best care and attention which money can buy.

    "I saw that the Comstock laws produce the abortionist, make him a growing and thriving necessity, while the lawmakers close their Puritan eyes."
              --Margaret Sanger, 1915
              "Margaret Sanger Defends Her Battle for the Right of Birth Control"

    Letter #047

       Christians Fight Poverty   
    The Endeavour Forum
    The Endeavour Forum to Punkerslut...
    Date: Sunday, September 19, 2010

    [Links to Christian websites.]

    Here's a group doing something about hunger - why don't you help them instead of railing against everyone and everything?


    "I believe that birth control, when disseminated among the working people who are less able to carry the burdens of the race than any other class, would help to reduce immediately the present burden upon the man and woman with their insufficient existing wage. It would wipe out charity, an institution so destructive to self respect and independence in the working class. It would enable the working man and woman to be better educated and consequently more efficient to develop for their emancipation.

    "It would enable the children of the workers to be better nourished and better educated preparing them in turn to become something better than wage slaves. It would positively do away with child labor.

    "It would reduce competition among the workers, and if carried on internationally, it would raise labor power to its rightful plane whereby the intelligent workers would be the controlling factors in the world."
              --Margaret Sanger, 1916
              "Birth Control and Society"

    Letter #048

       Reagan, AIDS, Starving Children,   
       and the USA   
    Punkerslut to the Endeavour Forum...
    Date: Monday, September 20, 2010

    Hello Again, Babette,

    >>Sorry, what I meant to write instead of poverty was that hunger does not exist in the USA - at least not to any great extent. What I saw was obesity.

         "We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet." -- Ronald Reagan, from "A Time for Choosing," AmericanRhetoric.com. This is your Republican President who admitted that 17 million people are starving in his country. Today, that number is 36 million, or more than one out of every ten Americans. UPI.com.

         Again, if you went to New York City and saw no children starving on the streets, then you obviously DID NOT GO to New York City. The same is said of Michigan. I have been to these places and have seen teeming crowds of homeless children (besides living that way). Perhaps you don't recognize them, because you're incredibly naive and don't investigate the situation. The statistics don't support your arguments. In fact, they show that you're the most irresponsible "social reformer" imaginable. You're denying the hunger that organizations you're linking to are trying to stop? Please, don't say you're involved because you want to end poverty, because then you might actually look it up. You're involved to satisfy your ego. Harlem's problem is obesity and not starvation? Sounds like you don't care at all about the human beings who don't have enough to eat.

         Oh, and apparently, you also don't see them because being homeless and starving is a crime, in the United States and in Australia. I showed you those articles, right? Or are you going to tell me that all of the newspapers, all of the articles and journalists, every piece of investigative journalism, is a conspiracy?

    >>And abolishing the Catholic Church, the State and Capitalism would not abolish sexism.

         No, it wouldn't. But abolishing Sexism doesn't seem possible without abolishing those earlier forms of authoritarian domination.

    >>Nature is sexist, it is biological, and vive la difference.

         Then Nature is Racist because it made African men black and European men white? No, what you're mistaking is that there is a difference. The fact that we use phrases like men and women, or "white people" and "black people," is because of a recognizable difference, sometimes physically recognizable, sometimes not. But does that mean that nature is racist, just because it made recognizable differences? Hardly. Racism, like Sexism, is the separation of the races on imagined differences. It doesn't mean that there aren't differences, many of them vague, hardly-defined, or otherwise meaningless.

    >>You write such nonsense - Reagan did not kill people with AIDS - they got AIDS because they indulged in sodomy and/or injected drugs and then killed innocent partners by not disclosing their HIV status.

         Ronald Reagan denied the existence of AIDS and HIV. You see, even you said that all of the hospitals offer "free medical treatment." Well, if those hospitals deny the existence of a disease, then they are killing the people that have the disease. Why? Because those people that Reagan killed paid the taxes for those hospitals. Not Ronald Reagan. And if they wanted to get medical elsewhere, good luck! You were just taxed by 80% for a healthcare system that doesn't even recognize the diseases you have! But whatever. The Catholic Church denied the existence of germs 300 years ago. Why wouldn't it deny the existence of deadly diseases today when they're effecting the gay population? Again, the Catholic Church knows how to turn "love thy enemy" into child-rape and murder.

         What a great humanitarian, Ronald Reagan. Today, for every one death by Swine flu, an antibacterial epidemic caused by factory farming, there are between 100 and 1,000 deaths caused by AIDS.

    >>Here's a group doing something about hunger - why don't you help them instead of railing against everyone and everything?

         Because nobody wants your scraps. Can one family grow enough food on fifty acres to feed one hundred families? Yes. Would people rather work than starve to death? Yes. Then why is there not enough work to feed all of the people? Because wealthy Capitalists own all of the land, and it is more profitable to have everyone starving than to have them satisfied. (A starving worker works faster.) And I guess, on the weekend, those same Capitalists cure some of their guilt by giving away rotting food to children. It is rotting, you know that, right? Or have you never lived like that? At least, you're lucky to get rotting food from the Christians. That group is the most discriminating in allowing anyone to receive food. Or have you never lived off of a food bank because you were in poverty?

         We don't want your scraps. We want to throw you off our backs and run the world for ourselves, without property, state, or religion. Maybe if you looked up statistics for industrial production you'd realize that the world famine today is as artificial as the prices set by monopolies and trusts.

    Andy Carloff

    "Is it moral for two adult people to bring children into the world knowing that there is no possible provision made for their survival? Is it moral to leave the welfare and health of your offspring to the charity of a few kindly and well-intentioned philanthropists or is it not the duty of two people to be responsible for the consequences of their acts, securing to the best of their ability all advantages for their children's development?"
              --Margaret Sanger, 1916
              "Notes on Address before the Woman Rebel Trial"

    Letter #049

       Good Food Charities   
    The Endeavour Forum
    The Endeavour Forum to Punkerslut...
    Date: Monday, September 20, 2010

    Dear Andy,

         No one I know is offering the poor scraps. I give my scraps to the birds in my garden and they love it. When we donate to the poor, we give money or non-perishable goods like blankets.

    "Women of the working class consider it wrong to bring children into the world to die of hunger and privation. They prefer to risk their lives through abortion, if need be, rather than give birth to children they cannot properly feed and clothe. A few simple words of advice would avoid the horrible slaughter of abortion going on in this country today."
              --Margaret Sanger, 1916
              "The Fight for Birth Control"

    Letter #050

       Peter Kropotkin   
       Would Know What to Say   
    Punkerslut to the Endeavour Forum...
    Date: Tuesday, September 21, 2010

    "In virtue of this monstrous system, the son of the worker, on entering life, finds no field which he may till, no machine which he may tend, no mine in which he may dig, without accepting to leave a great part of what he will produce to a master. He must sell his labour for a scant and uncertain wage. His father and his grandfather have toiled to drain this field, to build this mill, to perfect this machine. They gave to the work the full measure of their strength, and what more could they give? But their heir comes into the world poorer than the lowest savage. If he obtains leave to till the fields, it is on condition of surrendering a quarter of the produce to his master, and another quarter to the government and the middlemen. And this tax, levied upon him by the State, the capitalist, the lord of the manor, and the middleman, is always increasing; it rarely leaves him the power to improve his system of culture. If he turns to industry, he is allowed to work--though not always even that --only on condition that he yield a half or two-thirds of the product to him whom the land recognizes as the owner of the machine.

    "We cry shame on the feudal baron who forbade the peasant to turn a clod of earth unless he surrendered to his lord a fourth of his crop. We call those the barbarous times. But if the forms have changed, the relations have remained the same, and the worker is forced, under the name of free contract, to accept feudal obligations. For, turn where he will, he can find no better conditions. Everything has become private property, and he must accept, or die of hunger."

    --Peter Kropotkin, "The Conquest of Bread," Chapter 1

    You should read it.

    "The workers themselves must carry on the battle--by acting, by living it, by keeping alive with renewed effort those very ideas that the Powers of Darkness are trying to stamp out."
              --Margaret Sanger, 1914
              "No Defense Fund"

    join the punkerslut.com
    mailing list!

    copyleft notice and
    responsibility disclaimer