Friday, August 22, 2008

The borg speaks

Terry Catzman666 Hayfield challenged me to a public debate on newswithviews. He wasn't happy with my reference to him and his Fusionist borg in my Liberty Loses article. He wrote a few months ago and told me he was writing a new paper that would prove his theory was the only correct theory, and that it would entirely disprove mine. That would mean he is going to prove Amitai Etzioni, Robert Bellah, MaryAnn Glendon, Beau Breslin, community development, community councils, community service, community law and community policing don't exist.

Ms. Raapana,
This is in response to your essay "Individual Liberty Losing Without a Fight," published at News With Views on August 17, 2008.


It is highly unfortunate you still insist I am a member of the "Communitarian Borg." Your assessment and analysis of my position is totally incorrect. Your assumption I am part of a "Borg" is based simply and solely on the concept I effectively oppose your Conspiracy Theory.

Both our political positions are officially and in actual reality Conspiracy Theories...not any different than the wide variety of competing and conflicting Conspiracy Theories presented publishing space at News With Views and other "Patriotic" alternative news venues. There is a unified problem with Conspiracy Theories...unless one of the "Conspirators" comes clean or makes a death bed confession, the Patriotic Conspiracy Theory Community must accept the simple reality We are all just Conspiracy Theorists.

There is another problem with Conspiracy Theories. The vast majority of the popular Conspiracy Theories emanating from what I refer to as the Saving the Republic Community (SRC) are all, in one shape or manner, describing the "same thing." Simple logic dictates all these competing Conspiracy Theories cannot be correct at the same time.

The above conditions creates another problem with the wide variety of existing SRC Conspiracy Theories. These many and varied SRC Conspiracy Theories breeds confusion in the minds of the readers seriously in search of Patriotic Truth and answers. This continuing confusion only aids the still yet to be defined, common "Enemy of the Republic."

The confusion generated by the competitive and continual clash of Conspiracy Theories breeds still yet another serious problem for the future of the Republic. This "self-induced" confusion in the minds of the Patriotic readers and consumers prevents any chance of Political Fusion of the American Patriotic population. The still to be defined common "Enemy of the Republic" remains unexposed and completely intact while the loyal Patriot opposition exists in a perpetual state of confusion, bickering, disunity, and name-calling.

Our respective differences are quite simple.

Your Communitarian Conspiracy Theory is based on the concept some form of a New World Order based on Compt's Positivism will eventually be established by destroying "Individual Liberty Without a Shot." A Communitarian New World Order is a future event...it hasn't happened yet. Of course the enemy you describe is Communitarianism. In the final analysis, You must defend Capitalism.

In contrast, my Conspiracy Theory strongly indicates a New World Order already exists and has for a long time. This New World Order was established on February 29, 1797 by Royal Proclamation by His Britannick Majesty, King George III. This New World Order has been in the control of the British Royal Family since that day. The enemy in my Conspiracy Theory is a unique and unified American/British Capitalism that is continually expanding globally through the use of the Permanent Revolution of Creative Destruction controlled by the Crown and managed by the Fabian Society. Patriotically, I oppose Capitalism.

There is one final problem with Conspiracy Theories. The vast majority are based on a False Premise of some sort. And as result 99.99% of all Conspiracy Theories "will break down...not work," or to put it another way, the Conspiracy Theory will not correctly or accurately define the "Present Reality." Logic dictates a False Premise will always be false regardless of the amount of true facts presented in support of the Conspiracy Theory.

I want to make a Patriotic proposal to "settle our differences." I am quite willing to enter into a public debate format at News With Views to compare and contrast our Conspiracy Theories. I have had a similar and most successful public debate titled "Is a Permanent Revolution Occurring?" initiated by Dr. Steven Yates (a News With Views contributor) that was published in April of 2008 in the Times Examiner from Greenville North Carolina and re-printed at Michael Shaw's (another News With Views contributor) Freedom Advocates. I would much prefer an open public debate than the present one-sided "name calling contest" you have been publicly conducting against me since November of 2007. I am going to contact Jim Kouri, News Director for News With Views, to see if such a debate is possible.

I still contend you are a very energetic researcher and your expertise could be greatly beneficial to saving the Republic. No one can doubt your Patriotic zeal. We share a commonality...We both claim to be American Patriots. Let's collectively demonstrate We are Patriots.

Patriotically,

Terry Hayfield
642 Foster Street
Fostoria, OH 44830

1(419) 436-1492
I don't share any commonality with the Fusionist borg and I don't use Marxist terms or do anything "collectively." Hayfield used his contributions to Michael Shaw once before to prove he has gained recognition by people I respect. I wonder if his work has also been included in a Vassar class or a communitarian bibliography published by the National Association of Scholars?

Would there be any benefit to my agreeing to a debate with this fool?

5 comments:

Bobby Garner said...

"I want to make a Patriotic proposal to "settle our differences." I am quite willing to enter into a public debate format at News With Views to compare and contrast our Conspiracy Theories."

Mr. Hayfield has stacked the deck, and if you accept, it will be an admission that your argument is a conspiracy theory, and you agree to debate it on those terms. You will not be allowed to prove it is anything else.

Congratulate him for admitting that he supports a conspiracy theory and send him on his way.

Anonymous said...

I suggest you do not debate this guy. His supposition that Communitarianism is a theory demonstrates his lack of observation of the contemporary world. Even the term "fusion" is horribly close to the communitarian favorite term of "balance", as in "balancing liberty with responsibility".

What do you have to gain in debating with an insane person?

Pete

Lark said...

Hi Niki,

I would say no. It would prove unprofitable and uneconomical; so therefore, unless terms could be defined and agreed-upon as to their precise meanings in advance, and merits and demerits of any particular argument could be debated point-by-point to a pre-arranged end, I see no useful purpose.

We all have some pretty foolish notions sometimes - talking incessantly past people who don't honestly have a predisposition to listen... to opposing viewpoints... is but one of them.

Capitalism is just one such word which will beggar a definition. How it should be constrained within constitutional limits under the framework of a nation-state and a republic are others.

Does capitalism assume a system of sound money and free markets? How much government restraint or intervention is permitted?

How should knowledge be defined? What value democracy to this debate? And how would conflict resolution and "hate crimes" be dealt?

Personally, I'd like to weigh in on arguments for and against voluntary contracts and the "myth of the rule of law"... but for what end?

Of course, wordiness itself can be time-consuming and bothersome, as you know. For instance, simply defining freedom, individualism, collectivism, the proper role of religion in a "just society" ... ad infinitum... can take the both of you... down many a rabbit hole.

But if you're still tempted to take this socialist, anti-capitalist utopian jack-ass on, at least set yourselves up with some creditable ground rules.

I'd be delighted to help referee! ;)

Lark

the tent lady said...

Thanks guys, your observations are right in line with the way I think today and I sure appreciate hearing your views. This reminds me of the Seattle Noise Revision meetings where the city was rewriting the Noise Ordinance. The top of the agenda said there would be NO discussion of law (especially constitutional). They called it "participatory democracy."

He's ccing me emails he's sending out to what he calls the "Patriot Community" (him calling independent researchers a community is a hoot), and he's lableling his subject as Capitalism versus Communitarianism.

It appears he thinks he can somehow force me to debate him if he sends enough annoying emails to folks who publish my articles. As Nordica would say, "whatever."

Bobby Garner said...

The power players understand that their strength is in numbers. They believe they can overwhelm any reasoned argument given enough power. Thats why its pointless to debate them, they have no respect for a good sound argument.