Λίγα απ΄ όλα ...Λιγό - λογα ...χθές και σήμερα 19/11/2010 *

Λίγα απ΄ όλα ...Λιγό - λογα ...χθές και σήμερα Παρασκευή 19/11/2010 :

~** http://arfara-messinias-stamos.blogspot.com/2010/11/17112010.html , Τετάρτη, 17 Νοεμβρίου 2010 Λίγα απ΄ όλα -Λιγό-λογα χθες και σήμερα 17/11/2010
~**

~** Η ΖΩΗ ΜΑΣ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΕΝΑ ΠΕΤΑΓΜΑ :


~** http://arfara-messinia-stamos-stamos.blogspot.com/2010/10/30102010.html , Ο ΕΓΓΟΝΟΣ ΜΑΣ … ΕΔΩ… ΒΙΝΤΕΟ 1 … 30/10/2010 , Γνωστοί και φίλοι> .-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujPflsOkKhI , TA VIDEO MAS !

** http://palioahrista.blogspot.com/ ΦΛΟΓΑ ΑΓΙΟ ΟΡΟΣ !


** ΕΙΔΗΣΕΙΣ χθες και σήμερα :

~** " Αυτός που προκαλεί την κρίση , δεν μπορεί να δώσει λύση "!!!!!!!!

Hospital Management
Mini MBA για επαγγελματίες του κλάδου και φοιτητές
http://www.cnam.gr/

~** Κύριοι όλων των κομμάτων και πολιτικών θέσεων και απόψεων !!! ΑΚΟΥΣΤΕ ΤΟΥΣ !!!!! Γιατί αύριο θα ουρλιάζουν!!!! ....και ΟΧΙ ΜΟΝΟΝ !!!!!

** ΕΡΕΥΝΑ ΓΙΑ ΚΥΚΛΩΜΑ ΕΜΠΟΡΙΑΣ ΒΡΕΦΩΝ με στοχεία που αφορούν τις γεννήσεις στο ΠΑΝΑΡΚΑΔΙΚΟ ΝΟΣΟΚΟΜΕΙΟ και στα Νοσοκομεία της ΠΑΤΡΑΣ ,ζήτησε ο διοικητής της 6ης ΥΠΕ καθηγητής κ. Παναγιώτης Γκούμας , μετά από σχετική εισαγγελική εντολή , αλλά και από δημοσιεύματα σχετικά με κύκλωμα εμπορίας βρεφών , στον τύπο , και στο διαδύκτιο , στο οποίο φέρονται εμπλεκόμενοι Βούλγαροι τσιγγάνοι και Έλληνες .-

** ΑΜΕΣΩΣ ΕΙΝΑΙ Ο ΚΟΝΔΥΝΟΣ , για να σταματήσουν τα έργα ("'γεφύρι της Άρτας " ) , στο τμήμα του δρόμου Παραδείσια - Τσακώνας , που είχαν προγραμματιστή για ολοκλήρωση το 2011 , λόγω του σοβαρού προβλήματος συνέχισης χρηματοδότησης του όλου έργου , λόγω χρέους προς την ανάδοχο "εταιρεία κοινοπραξίας Νίκου Ντονά" για εκτελεσθέντων εργασιών 17 εκατομυμυρίων ευρώ , και ενώ απαιτούντα ακόμη 65 εκατ. ευρώ για την παιράττωση του όλου έργου στο τμήμα κατολισθήσεων της Τσακώνας από το 2004 ....

** ΞΕΚΙΝΑ Η ΜΟΝΑΔΑ ΕΜΦΡΑΓΜΑΤΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΑΙΜΟΔΙΝΑΜΙΚΟΥ ΕΡΓΑΣΤΗΡΙΟΥ , υπό την διεύθυνση του Καρδιολόγου ΣΠΥΡΟΥ ΖΟΜΠΟΛΑ ., ΤΗΝ ΕΡΧΌΜΕΝΗ Δευτέρα στο Γενικό Νομαρχιακό Νοσοκομείο Καλαμάτας , και από τον Ιανουάριο θα αρχίσει να λειτουργεί το Αιμοδυναμικό εργαστήριο νκαι σε ένα περίπου εξάμηνο , θα λειτουργούν επίσης ο νέος μαγνητικ΄'ος τομογράφος , μεταξύ και άλλων δηλώσεων για το αΝοσοκομείο από τον Διοικητή του κ. Γεώργιο Μπέζο , σε σχετική του συνέντευξη στον τύπο .-

** «Αλλαγή οικονομικής πολιτικής για έξοδο από την κρίση»
«Ζητάμε αλλαγή μείγματος οικονομικής πολιτικής για έξοδο από την κρίση, με ανάκαμψη και ανάπτυξη και όχι με ασφυξία», τόνισε ο πρόεδρος της Νέας Δημοκρατίας, μιλώντας στη συνεδρίαση της Εκτελεστικής Γραμματείας του Κόμματος , κ. Αντώνης Κ. Σαμαράς .-

** Συνάντηση εργαζομένων στη ΔΕΗ με την Τ. Μπιρμπίλη
Αντίθετη δηλώνει η ΓΕΝΟΠ στις προτάσεις της τρόικας για πώληση ή ενοικίαση μονάδων ηλεκτροπαραγωγής της ΔΕΗ ή ακόμη και για εκχώρηση λιγνιτικής παραγωγής της επιχείρησης σε ιδιώτες, επανέλαβε ο πρόεδρος του Συνδικάτου Ν. Φωτόπουλος.-

** Συναγερμός στη Γερμανία για τον κίνδυνο επιθέσεων
Συναγερμός έχει σημάνει στη Γερμανία, λόγω αυξημένου κινδύνου τρομοκρατικών επιθέσεων, με τις παραδοσιακές υπαίθριες χριστουγεννιάτικες αγορές να θεωρούνται ο πιθανότερος στόχος, σύμφωνα με τα όσα ανακοίνωσε ανώτατος αξιωματούχος.-

** Ο ΑΝΤΙΠΕΡΙΦΕΡΕΙΑΡΧΗΣ ΠΕΛΟΠΟΝΝΗΣΟΥ κ. ΧΡΗΣΤΟΣ ΜΑΛΑΠΑΝΗΣ Τόνισε στον Δήμαρχο Καλαμάτας κ. Παναγιώτη Νίκα " Τη σσυστέγαση των υπηρεσιών της Περιφέρειας Πελοποννήσου και του Δήμου Καλαμάτας στο κτήριο του Διοικητηρίου Μεσσηνίας ( του πρώην-νύν κτήριο Νομαρχίας Μεσσηνίας ) , , που θα γίνει με ιδιαίτερη προσοχή και με στόχο την προάσπιση του δημόσιου συμφέροντος " .- Π αρατήρησε , ότι στο κτήριο του ΔΊΟΙΚΗΤΗΡΊΟΥ ΤΗς Νομαρχίας , είναι άδειος ο 1ος όροφος και ο 6ος , ενώ θα εκκενωθούν αρκετά γραφεία σε άλλους ορόφους επισηάίνοντας πως σ΄΄ολα αυτά θα στεγαστούν υπηρεσίες της Περιφέρειας και του Δήμου .-

** Η ΚΑΡΑ ΤΟΥ ΑΓΙΟΥ ΡΑΦΑΗΛ ΤΟΥ ΝΕΟΜΑΡΤΥΡΑ από την Μυτιλήνη θα βρίσκεται στον Ιερό Ναό του Αγίου Νικολάου Καλαμάτας από Παρασκευή 19/11/2010 μέχρι και την Τετάρτη 24 Νοεμβρίου 2010 .- Ο ι εκδηλώσεις ξεκίνησαν με την υποδοχή της τιμίας κάρας στην συμβολή της πλατείας 23ης Μαρτίου και του πεζόδρομου Αριστομένους , με λιτανεία μέχρι του Ι. Ναού Αγίου Νικολάου , αγρυπνίας και αρτοκλασίας , ιερό προσκύνημα κ.λ.π. -

** ΠΗΡΕ ΦΩΤΙΑ ΤΟ ΙΧ ΑΥΤΟΚΙΝΗΤΟ ΤΗΣ ΜΕΣΣΗΝΙΑΣ ΒΟΥΛΕΥΤΟΥ με το ΠΑΣΚ κ Νάντιας Ιωαν.Γιαννοακοπούλου , όταν εκδηλώθηκε φωτιά -πυρκαγιά όταν κόπηκε το σοληνάκι τροφοδοσίας με καύσιμα στη μηχανή , κι ένώ βρισκόταν σταματημένο σε φωτεινό σηματοδότη , στην περιοχή του Βύρωνα , κατευθυνόμενη μαζί με την αδελφή της στην βουλή .- Η πυρκαγιά εξαπλώθηκε αστρςαπιαία οι επιβάτες πρόλαβαν να εξέλθουν του αυτοκινήτου χωρίς να πάθουν τίποτα και ιδιέτερα η 8 μηνών έγκυος κ. Νάντια Γιαννακοπούλου .-


*** ΑΘΛΗΤΙΚΑ : Ευρωμπάσκετ :
~* ΑΡΜΑΝΙ ΜΙΛΑΝΟΥ - ΠΑΝΑΘΗΝΑΙΚΟΣ ( Ευρωμπάσκετ )71-81 .-
Ολύμπια Λουπλιάνα - Βαλένθια 72-68 .-
Εφές Πιλσεν - ΤΣΣΚΑ Μοσχας 86-72 .-
~* Εθνική Αυστρίας -Ελλάδας (Φιλικό) 1-2 .-
~* ΒΙΡΤΟΥΣ ΡΟΜΑ - ΟΛΥΜΠΙΑΚΟΣ Πειραιώς ( ευρωμπάσκετ ) 71-86 .-
Σαρλερουά- Ρεάλ Μανδρίτης 67-49.-
Μπάμπεργκ- Μ΄'αλαγα 65-69 .-

~** Διαβάστε επίσης:
~** Οι σκέψεις Βαλβέρδε για την 11άδα

~** Ήρθε για να μείνει!ΠΑΟ: Ήρθε για να μείνει ο Φερέιρα
Μετά από αρκετή αναμονή και αναζήτηση της ώρας άφιξής του, ο Ζεσουάλδο Φερέιρα πάτησε το πόδι του στην Αθήνα λίγα λεπτά μετά τις 23.00 το βράδυ της Παρασκευής. Ο Πορτογάλος τεχνικός δεν έκανε δηλώσεις στους εκπροσώπους του Τύπου που τον περίμεναν, γιατί ποτέ δεν εμφανίστηκε στην αίθουσα αφίξεων του "Ελ. Βενιζέλος". Οι άνθρωποι του Παναθηναϊκού τον απομάκρυναν από τον χώρο του αεροδρομίου προσπαθώντας να μην τον εμφανίσουν στους δημοσιογράφους, κάτι που θέλουν να συμβεί μετά από την υπογραφή συμβολαίων. Πλέον το ενδιαφέρον όλων μεταφέρεται στη συνάντηση που θα έχει το Σάββατο το πρωί με τον Νικόλα Πατέρα. Σε αυτή οι δύο άνδρες θα συζητήσουν τις λεπτομέρειες της συνεργασίας τους, και δεν πρέπει να αποκλείεται να πέσουν και οι υπογραφές που θα τον «δέσουν» με το τριφύλλι για τον επόμενο ενάμιση χρόνο. Στη συνέχεια οι δύο άνδρες θα βρεθούν στις κερκίδες του ΟΑΚΑ και θα παρακολουθήσουν μαζί τον Παναθηναϊκό, υπό τις οδηγίες του Γιάτσεκ Γκμοχ να αντιμετωπίζει τον Ηρακλή. Αυτό που ακόμη δεν έχει διευκρινιστεί είναι το πότε θα γίνει το ντεμπούτο του στον πάγκο του τριφυλλιού. Οι Πορτογάλοι υποστήριζαν ότι αυτό θα γίνει στο παιχνίδι με την Μπαρτσελόνα για το Τσάμπιονς Λιγκ. Από την πλευρά της ΠΑΕ όμως, δεν επιβεβαιώνεται κάτι τέτοιο.-

**Νέα κρίση «βλέπει» ο επικεφαλής της FED Για την δημιουργία μίας νέας κρίσης αν παραταθεί ο πόλεμος των νομισμάτων προϊδέασε ο επικεφαλής της Κεντρικής Τράπεζας των ΗΠΑ.-

** Συνομιλία Παπανδρέου-Μέρκελ στη Σύνοδο Κορυφής του ΝΑΤΟ Συνάντηση με την Γερμανίδα καγκελάριο είχε ο πρωθυπουργός, Γιώργος Παπανδρέου στη Λισαβόνα και συζήτησαν για τον ευρωπαϊκό μηχανισμό στήριξης, ενώ συνομίλησε και με τον Τούρκο πρόεδρο.

** ΠΓΔΜ: Εσείς φταίτε Ο πρωθυπουργός της ΠΓΔΜ Ν. Γκρούεφσκι δήλωσε ότι η χώρα του δεν έχει ενταχθεί στο ΝΑΤΟ, λόγω της «παρεμπόδισης» από την Ελλάδα.

** Αποζημιώνονται οι διασώστες της 11ης Σεπτεμβρίου Περισσότεροι από δέκα χιλιάδες διασώστες της 11ης Σεπτεμβρίου πρόκειται να λάβουν αποζημίωση ύψους 712 εκατ. δολαρίων για τα προβλήματα υγείας που έχουν παρουσιάσει.

** Ο Γουέσλι Σναιπς καλείται να εκτίσει ποινή φυλάκισης Ο γνωστός ηθοποιός Γουέσλι Σναιπς, διατάχθηκε να αρχίσει να εκτίει τριετή ποινή φυλάκισης, μετά από καταδίκη του για φοροδιαφυγή.
*
** Χειρόγραφο του Μαρκ Τουέιν πουλήθηκε 79.300 δολάρια Ένα χειρόγραφο κεφάλαιο από το βιβλίο του Μαρκ Τουέιν «A Tramp Abroad», που γράφτηκε το 1880, πουλήθηκε σε δημοπρασία για 79.300 δολάρια.

** Άθω Η περιοχή του Άθω αποτελεί πραγματικά εναλλακτικός προορισμός με δεκάδες συγκριτικά πλεονεκτήματα, τουριστικές προτάσεις και με μοναδικά στον κόσμο θρησκευτικά και ιστορικά στοιχεία.

** Η Εφη Σαρρή με...εορταστική διάθεση (VIDEO) Ακολουθώντας τη μόδα που θέλει τους σταρ να κυκλοφορούν εορταστικά singles ενόψει των Χριστουγέννων, η Εφη Σαρρή παρουσίασε το ολόφρεσκο βίντεο κλιπ του τραγουδιού της με τίτλο «Χριστούγεννα Πρωτοχρονιά».

** Παπανδρέου: Το νέο δόγμα αξιολογεί τις σημερινές απειλές Το νέο στρατιωτικό δόγμα του ΝΑΤΟ προσπαθεί να απαντήσει, είκοσι χρόνια μετά το τέλος του ψυχρού πολέμου, τι χρειάζεται η Συμμαχία, και το καταφέρνει, δήλωσε ο Γ. Παπανδρέου.-

** Ο/Η Iakovoy Spiros έστειλε μήνυμα στα μέλη του ΙΝΑ ΩΣΙ ΕΝ.

Iakovoy SpirosNovember 20, 2010 at 11:08am
Θέμα: ΑΓΙΟ ΟΡΟΣ,ΦΥΣΗ Κ ΠΕΡΙΒΑΛΛΟΝ (ΝΤΟΚΥΜΑΝΤΕΡ)
http://www.facebook.com/l/4235d52IS1tBB5E5PzSyTMuAnKQ;www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn5J_Yh06TI&feature=player_embedded#!http://www.facebook.com/l/4235d1hJtT7-LyxLIqy4PpRDS_g;www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oFqAddlwAw
http://www.facebook.com/l/4235d3LGIdo1bWGyVG5j0VLrciA;www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9OieGBAJyc&feature=related .-

Αναπαραγωγή βίντεο .... ΑΓΙΟΝ ΟΡΟΣ(ΑΘΩΝΑΣ)

**
** ΟΙ ΣΤΑΥΡΟΙ προτίμησεις των υποψηφείων στους ΜΕΣΣΗΝΙΑΚΟΥΣ ΔΗΜΟΥΣ του " ΚΑΛΛΗΚΡΑΤΗ " που εξελέγησαν Δήμαρχοι :
** ΔΗΜΟΣ ΜΕΣΣΗΝΗΣ :
Αναστασόπουλος Στάθης¨: εκλεγής Δήμαρχος
ΑΙΠΕΙΑΣ : ΦΥΚΙΡΗΣ ΝΙΚΟΛΑΟΣ 673 Ψήφους , Κουτσαντώνης Αθανάσιος 325 ,Μαλιώτης Κωνσταντινος 226 , Πετρόπουλος Γεώργιος 191 ψήφους.-
ΑΝΔΡΟΥΣΑΣ : ΠΑΠΑΔΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΣ του Ιωάννη 524 ψήφους , Θεοχάρης Παναγιώτης 429 , Κοντού Αικατερίνη 400 , Παπαδόπουλος Αθανάσιος 319 , Νιάρχος Νικόλαος 94 ψήφους .-
ΑΡΙΣΤΟΜΕΝΟΥΣ : ΠΑΠΑΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΥ ΠΑΝΑΓΙΩΤΗΣ 1043 Μπρατσιάκος Ιωάννης 997 , Αντωνόπουλος Φώτιος 537 , Γραμματικόπουλος Αναστάσιος 520 , Κατιμερτζή-Αγγελοπούλου Στέλλα 199 , Σκιαδά Δήμητρα 127 .-
ΒΟΥΦΡΑΔΟΣ : ΚΟΝΤΟΘΑΝΑΣΗΣ ΣΠΥΡΙΔΩΝ 582 ,Γκότση Φωτεινή 446, Πουλόπουλος Γεώργιος 291 .-
ΙΘΩΜΗΣ : ΔΑΒΙΛΛΑΣ ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΣ 473 , Ηλιόπουλος Αναστάσιος 473 , Πανούσης Κωνσταντίνος 334 , Σταυρόπουλος Δημήτριος 329 , Τσιλίκα Αικακερίνη 27 .-
ΜΕΣΣΗΝΗΣ : ΑΘΑΝΑΣΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΗΛΙΑ 990 ΨΉΦΟΥς , ΡΟΥΤΣΗΣ ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΟΣ 691 , ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΕΛΟΣ ΝΙΚΟΛΑΟΣ 613 , ΔΟΥΡΟΥΜΗΣ ΝΙΚΟΛΑΟΣ 551 , ΤΣΟΥΣΗΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΣ 530 , Βλαχοδημητρόπουλος Αναστάσιος 507 , Τσέλιου -Μουραφά Ελένη 475 , Πλάταρος Ιωάννης 423 , Δασκαρόλης Παναγιώτης 400 , Τσίκινης Ηρακλής 362 , Δουράμης Νικόλαος του Ηλία 360 , Τζαμουράνη -Ηλιοπούλου Σμαράγδα 306 , Μυστριώτη Γιαννούλα 272 , Φράγκος Πέτρος 229 , Ντουλής Γεώργιος 225 , Κόλλιας Σωτήριος 220 , Πίσπα-Δουρούμη Μαρίνα 117 , Γρηγορόπουλος Παναγιώτης 47 .-
ΠΕΤΑΛΙΔΙΟΥ : ΣΤΡΑΒΟΛΑΙΜΟΣ ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΣ 1204 , Πουρνάρας Φωτιος 995 , Γιαννόπουλος Παναγιώτης 769 , Αγγελόπουλος Βασίλειος του Κων. 472 , Τριανταφυλλοπουλος Λεωνίδας 299 , Κουράκλη -Κουτίβα Γαλατεια 276 .-
ΤΡΙΚΟΡΦΟΥ : ΠΑΤΣΙΩΤΗΣ ΗΛΙΑΣ 458 , Παναγιωτοπούλου Ιωάννα 83 .-
Δημοτ..Κοινότητα ΜΕΣΣΗΝΗΣ : ΤΣΟΠΑΝΑΚΗΣ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΣ 559 , Χαραλαμπόπουλος Ιωάννης428 , Καμαρινοπούλου Φιλάνθη 419 , Βασιλοπούλου - Δαβέρου Δήμητρα 198 , Χριστοφιλόπουλος Κωνσταντίνος 198 Μαρκόπουλος Στυλιανός 186 .-

** Τζώρτζης Νίκος αντιπολίτευσης




*** ΔΗΜΟΣ ΟΙΧΑΛΙΑΣ :
Φίλιππας Μπάμης εκλεγείς Δήμαρχος
ΑΝΔΑΝΙΑΣ : ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΑΔΗΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΣ 799 ΨΉΦΟΥς , Ντόνας Ηλίας 713 , Ταραντζοπούλου-Βλάχου Χρυσούλα 688 , Φίλος Λεωνίδας 448 , Καίσαρης Βασίλειος 437 , Γραμμένος Γεώργιος 429 , Σακελλαριάδη Χριστίνα 404 , Πίκουλας Θεόδωρος 373 , Χαρίτσης Βασίλειος 371 .-
ΔΩΡΙΟΥ : Τάκης Αντώνιος 817 , Παπαδοπούλου Αθανασία 339 , Κατσαμπάνης Γεώργιος 300, Τσάλτα Παναγιώτα 264 . Αλεξόπουλος Νικόλαος του Ευθ. 242 , Χαντζής Αθανάσιος 239 , Κολλιας Αθανάσιος 229 , Βασιλοπούλου -Σπηλιώτη Μαρία 219 , Θεοδούλου Χρυσούλα 182 , Ανδρουτσόπουλος Κωνσταντίνος 152 .-
ΕΙΡΑΣ : Τασιοπουλοσ ευσταθιοσ 289 , Αντωνοπούλου Ιωάννα 80 , Αδαμ'οπουλος Αθανάσιος 68 .-
ΜΕΛΙΓΑΛΑ : ΣΑΚΕΛΛΑΡΙΑΔΗΣ ΗΛΙΑΣ 1047 , ΓΕΩΡΓΑΚΟΠΟΥΛΟΥ ΠΑΝΑΓΙΩΤΑ (ΤΡΟΜΑΝ) 862 , ΜΙΧΑΛΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΟΣ 583 , ΜΙΤΖΑΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΣ 445 , Αλεξοπούλου Γεωργία 444 , Δαβίλας Γεώργιος 378 , Θεοδωρόπουλος Αθανάσιος 359 , Μητρόπουλος Δημήτριος 350 , Χρονόπουλος Σωτήριος 298 , Σαραντόπουλος Πόλύδωρος 235 , Μουρούσιας Αθανάσιος 234 .-
ΟΙΧΑΛΙΑΣ : ΗΛΙΑΚΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΣ , ΧΑΝΤΖΆΡΑ -Βουρβάχη Αθανασία 667 , Σταυρόπουλος Ηλίας 659 , Κατσιμπάρος Ανδρέας 381 , Τράγος Δημοσθένης 323 , Χρυσοσπάθης Κωνσταντίνος 301 , Νικολάου Αλέκος 279 , Αντωνόπουλος Αντώνιος 261 .-

**Ελένης ς Αλειφέρης αντιπολήτευσης
ΑΝΔΑΝΙΑΣ :


*** ΔΗΜΟΣ ΝΕΣΤΟΡΟΣ-ΠΥΛΟΥ :
Καφαντάρης Δημήτριος , εκλεγής Δήμαρχος
ΚΟΡΩΝΗΣ : ΒΑΣΙΛΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΟΣ 769 , Στασινοπούλου-Βέργη Ελένη 721 , Λευτάκη -Άρβανίτη Πελαγία 697, Μάραντος Γεώργιος 597 , Λαμπρόπουλος Ευγένιος 547 , Αποστολίδης Γεώργιος 350 , Τριαντόπουλος Μιχαήλ 265 , Καμβύση Αφροδίτη 262 , Μπαρμπεράκη- Λαμπροπούλου Ελευθερία 222 .-
ΜΕΘΩΝΗΣ :ΚΑΡΒΕΛΑΣ ΠΑΝΑΓΙΩΤΗΣ 1149 , Ψαλλίδας Διονύσιος 376 , Σταματελόπουλος Ιωάννης του Κων. 287 , Ψυχάρης Κωνστ. 213 , Ζόμπολα-Γκόνη Μαρία 36 .-
ΝΕΣΤΟΡΟΣ : ΠΕΤΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ ΠΑΝΑΓΙΩΤΗΣ 921 , Μπαχούμας Γεώργιος 567 , Φιλόπουλος Παύλος 525 , Βοργιάς Γεώργιος 514 , Δρακάκη -Μαθιού Γιαννούλα 357 , Πετρόπουλος Αθανάσιος 344 , Δημητροκόπουλος Παναγιώτης 277 , Κατσάς Γε΄'ωργιος 269 , Παναγόπουλος Δημήτριος του Διονυσ. 235 .-
ΠΑΠΑΦΛΕΣΣΑ :ΒΑΓΓΑΛΗΣ ΝΙΚΟΛΑΟΣ 477 , ΧΡΟΝΆς Άγγελος 429 , Αντωνοπούλου -Μαθιοπούλου Βασιλική 349 , Μαστρογιαννόπουλος Θεόδωρος 191 , Γιωγγάρά -Ψώνη Ιωάννα 151 .-
ΠΥΛΟΥ : ΚΟΝΤΟΓΟΝΗΣ ΠΕΡΙΚΛΗΣ 934 , Χαραμάρας Θεόδωρος 823 , Σαρδέλης Ιωάννης 808 , Καλογερόπουλος Κωνσταντίνος 637 , Γιαννακοπούλου Βασιλική 553 , Αλεξόπουλος Παναγιώτης 532 , Λόπας Ιωάννης 210 , Νικολόπουλος Σταύρος 167 , Κάκαλης ΘΈΌΔΩΡΟς 147 .-
ΧΙΛΟΧΩΡΙΩΝ : ΔΑΡΣΑΚΛΗΣ ΠΑΝΑΓΙΩΤΗΣ 617 , Σπυρόπουλος Σωτήριος 535 , Νικολακόπουλος Κωνσταντίνος 93 , Ξυδιάς Φώτης 92 , ΝικολακόπουλοςΣτασινός 40 .-
κοινότητα ΠΥΛΟΥ : ΓΙΑΝΝΟΥΤΣΟΣ ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΣ 316 ,Νερατζόγλου Κωνσταντίνος 288 , Κοκκορης Κωνσταντίνος 174 , Κλάδης Δημήτριος 115 , Νταγιοπούλου- Καμπούρη Ελένη 61 , Μαθεουλάκη Φωτούλα 40 .-
κοινοτητα ΧΩΡΑΣ : ΓΙΑΝΝΑΚΟΠΟΥΛΟΣ ΝΙΚΟΛΑΟΣ 395 , Αναστασοπούλου Ιωάννα 345 , Τσάκαλης Παναγιώτης 170 , Νικολοπούλου Βασιλική 119 , Αρβανίτη Νίκη 112 ,Μπαχούμας Νικόλαος 100 .-

** σορώνης Τάσος , από την αντιπολίτευση .


*** ΔΗΜΟΣ ΔΥΤΙΚΗΣ ΜΑΝΗΣ :
Γιαννημαράς Δημήτριος εκλεγής Δήμαρχος
ΑΒΙΑΣ : ΤΣΙΜΙΚΛΗΣ ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΣ 434 , Μητσέας Δημήτριος 241 , Βαβαρούτσος Σταύρος 207 , Γκούζος Γεώργιος 165 , Πετρέας Σταύρος 159 ,Νίκας Παναγιώτης 156 , Μπογέα Σταυρούλα 144 , Παρθενέας Γεώργιος 144 , Κομπότη Ελένη 120 , Κουμουνδούρος Γεώργιος 118 , Καραμανέας Νικόλαος 23 .-
ΛΕΥΚΤΡΟΥ : ΛΥΜΠΕΡΕΑΣ ΧΡΗΣΤΟΣ 3222 , Ρουτζούνης Αλέξανδρος 304 , Κυβέλος Βασίλειος 243 , Κυβέλος Διακουμής 243 , Μπαρμπετσέα -Σπυρέα Καλλιόπη 232 , Γιαννακέα-Τσίκνα Παναγιώτα 226 , Ζαχαρέας Σωτήριος 225 , Κισκήρας Χρήστος 199 , Περδικέας Φώτιος 189 , Τρουπάκη-Δημακουλέα Ανθή 166 , Γιαννακέας Σταύρος 164 , Ξυδέας Ιωάννης 159 , Σαραντέας ΑΝΤΏΝΙΟς 158 , Μαμαλούκος Πέτρος 131 , Θωμέα-Καννελλοπούλου Σταυρούλα 128 , Γρηγοριάδου ΣΌΝΙΑ 123 , Χ/ΟΥΧΟΎΜΗς Χρήστος 117 , Πολυμενέας Μιχάλης 81 , Λάϊος Σταύρος 80 , Ξυδέας Βασίλειος 52 , Κυριακουλάκου Ελισάβετ 32 .-

** Μαραμπέας Ιωάννης , από την αντιπολίτευση .


*** ΔΗΜΟΣ ΚΑΛΑΜΑΤΑΣ :
ΠΑΝΑΓΙΩΤΗΣ ΝΙΚΑΣ εκλεγής Δήμαρχος .

** ΑΥΤΟΙ ΠΟΥ ΜΑΣ ΓΡΑΦΟΥΝ:
** Κώστας Ζουράρις: «Είμαι σαν βοτσαλάκι φρόνιμο»
Posted: 18 Nov 2010 10:33 AM PST
-Είναι αλήθεια πως, όπου σας καλούν, πηγαίνετε; -Πηγαίνω διότι ανήκω στην χωρία της αποστολής. Είμαι αποστολικός. Συνέκδημος, αποστολικός, παρεπίδημος – όλα αυτά της πορείας. Πως το λέει ο ...[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]

**Ο/Η Milan Papas έστειλε μήνυμα στα μέλη του Μαύρο Ιστολόγιο Κομμουνισμού - Black Blog of Communism.

Milan PapasNovember 19, 2010 at 12:48am
Θέμα: Παρουσίαση βιβλίου “Φαντάσματα του Εμφυλίου”
Σήμερα (Παρασκευή 19 Νοεμβρίου) στη Στοά του Βιβλίου (Πεσμαζόγλου 5 & Σταδίου) στις 19.30 το βράδυ.Το βιβλίο θα παρουσιάσουν οι:* Αρίστος Δοξιάδης, συγγραφέας* Στάθης Καλύβας, καθηγητής πανεπιστημίου Yaleκαι ο συγγραφέας του βιβλίου Στέλιος Περράκης, καθηγητής πανεπιστημίου.Τη συζήτηση θα συντονίσει ο Πέτρος Παπασαραντόπουλος.
http://www.facebook.com/l/e867bD9HXdzPsExGabRVgBYxh3g;blackblogofcommunism.com/2010/11/19/%cf%80%ce%b1%cf%81%ce%bf%cf%85%cf%83%ce%af%ce%b1%cf%83%ce%b7-%ce%b2%ce%b9%ce%b2%ce%bb%ce%af%ce%bf%cf%85-%cf%86%ce%b1%ce%bd%cf%84%ce%ac%cf%83%ce%bc%ce%b1%cf%84%ce%b1-%cf%84%ce%bf%cf%85-%ce%b5%ce%bc/ .-

**Γειά σου stamos1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ο xristikogr σου έστειλε το παρακάτω μήνυμα στον πίνακα σου- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Γειά σας Αν ενδιαφέρεσαι μπορείς να γίνεις αναγνώστης του blog ή να το προσθέσεις στα προτεινόμενα του ιστολογίου σου. εγώ από την δική μου πλευρά εχω γινει αναγνώσης σας.το blog μου είναι http://xri-sti-ko.blogspo.../ Ευχαριστώ- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Για να απαντήσεις στο μήνυμα του ακολούθα τον σύνδεσμο: http://www.sync.gr/xristikogr/

** Ο/Η Theodosia Kriketou έστειλε μήνυμα στα μέλη του Ξανά Θυμήσου.. Η Αλήθεια δεν μπορεί να δοθεί. Αν δοθεί δεν είναι αλήθεια.

Theodosia Kriketou19 Νοεμβρίου 2010 στις 10:00 μ.μ.
Θέμα: Η Ευτυχία Είναι Ατομική Υπόθεση !
Μόνο στο Άτομο, όχι στην μάζα, υπάρχει Ευτυχία. Είναι Ατομική υπόθεση και απόλυτα Εσωτερική.Η είσαι ευτυχισμένος ΤΩΡΑ ή δεν είσαι ευτυχισμένος ΤΩΡΑ. Δεν μπορεί μια ομάδα, όλοι μαζί, να είναι Ευτυχισμένοι, στο μέλλον. Μπορεί να φαίνεται ότι είναι, αλλά δεν είναι. Γιατί η Ευτυχία ΔΕΝ υπάρχει στην Μάζα. Δεν υπάρχει σε άλλον χρόνο εκτός από το ΤΩΡΑ. Ευτυχία Δεν υπάρχει στον όχλο.Υπάρχει ΜΟΝΟ στα άτομα. Υπάρχει μόνο στα Πνευματικά Άτομα.Όλοι οι υπόλοιποί όπως και η μάζα μιμούνται την ευτυχία, δεν είναι σε θέση να την νοιώσουν. Γιατί τα κέντρα που βιώνεται η Ευτυχία είναι από το κέντρο της καρδιάς και πάνω, που τα άψυχα όντα δεν διαθέτουν. Η Ευτυχία βιώνεται στο ΤΩΡΑ και σε κανένα άλλο χρόνο.Έτσι αυτό που λένε … “αν είχα 3.000 ευρώ θα … και τότε θα ήμουν ευτυχισμένος” Δεν ισχύει.. Γιατί αν δεν είσαι ευτυχισμένος χωρίς τις 3.000 ευρώ δεν μπορείς να είσαι ευτυχισμένος ούτε με 3.000.000 ευρώ.Γιατί η Ευτυχία υπάρχει ΠΑΝΤΑΜΟΝΟ όπου υπάρχει το ΤΩΡΑ.Χωρίς αυτό να σημαίνει πως ΠΑΝΤΑ το ΤΩΡΑ υπάρχει.Διάβασε την συνέχεια, σχολίασε και απόλαυσε και μερικές εικόνες Ευτυχίας...
http://www.facebook.com/l/7e3f93tX14095bmCqs_8T_wHfGQ;miastala.com/s/archives/11154
**Γειά σου stamos1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ο kantikian σου έστειλε το παρακάτω μήνυμα στον πίνακα σου- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://www.hkconstructions.blogspot.com/- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Για να απαντήσεις στο μήνυμα του ακολούθα τον σύνδεσμο: http://www.sync.gr/kantikian/

**Γειά σου stamos1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ο SOURTAFERTA σου έστειλε το παρακάτω μήνυμα στον πίνακα σου- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GEIA SOY STAMOS http://sourta-ferta.blogspot.com/- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Για να απαντήσεις στο μήνυμα του ακολούθα τον σύνδεσμο: http://www.sync.gr/SOURTAFERTA/

«Λουκέτο» στα ταμεία των νοσηλευτικών ιδρυμάτων από τις 22 – 28 Νοεμβρίου αποφάσισαν να βάλουν οι νοσοκομειακοί γιατροί, αντιδρώντας στα μέτρα που λαμβάνονται, καλώντας παράλληλα όσους ασθενείς επιθυμούν, να έχουν δωρεάν πρόσβαση στις υπηρεσίες υγείας χωρίς να πληρώνουν ούτε τα τρία ευρώ, αλλά ούτε και τις εξετάσεις στις οποίες υποβάλλονται. Οι εκτιμήσεις των νοσοκομειακών γιατρών είναι άκρως ανησυχητικές, καθώς αναφέρουν ότι αυξάνεται συνεχώς ο αριθμός των ανθρώπων που επισκέπτονται τα εξωτερικά ιατρεία των νοσοκομείων...
createSummaryAndThumb("summary469210965388468442");

** Ο/Η Milan Papas έστειλε μήνυμα στα μέλη του Μαύρο Ιστολόγιο Κομμουνισμού - Black Blog of Communism.

Milan PapasNovember 20, 2010 at 12:23am
Θέμα: Πορεία 17 Νοέμβρη: Απλοί πολίτες εναντίον ΚΚΕ
Κόκκινος φασισμός σε όλο του το μεγαλείο στην πορεία της 17 Νοεμβρίου 2010 (Πολυτεχνείο) http://www.facebook.com/l/7e3f92ba9n1BJZVFuGNT3AVNFYw;blackblogofcommunism.com/2010/11/20/%cf%80%ce%bf%cf%81%ce%b5%ce%af%ce%b1-17-%ce%bd%ce%bf%ce%ad%ce%bc%ce%b2%cf%81%ce%b7-%ce%b1%cf%80%ce%bb%ce%bf%ce%af-%cf%80%ce%bf%ce%bb%ce%af%cf%84%ce%b5%cf%82-%ce%b5%ce%bd%ce%b1%ce%bd%cf%84%ce%af%ce%bf/ .-


~** Ο/Η Demetris Terpizis έστειλε μήνυμα στα μέλη του Club FACES.

Demetris TerpizisNovember 19, 2010 at 11:08pm
Θέμα: DJ TAKESHY KUROSAWA @ FACES CLUB
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=141844749200983 .-

** Maria Nieves Ramos Tacoronte has invited you to see his/her photo album: Album: orquidea
paz y felicidad View album »

* * Ο/Η Milan Papas έστειλε μήνυμα στα μέλη του Μαύρο Ιστολόγιο Κομμουνισμού - Black Blog of Communism.

Milan PapasNovember 19, 2010 at 9:45pm
Θέμα: Απίστευτες κομμουνιστικές βλακείες για τον Στάλιν
Διαβάστε κάποιες από τις μπαρούφες που έγραφαν οι κομμουνιστές για τον σφαγέα της ανθρωπότητας, Στάλιν. Είναι πραγματικά να απορείς πού τα σκέφτονταν! http://www.facebook.com/l/7e3f93fW6aGgHJrJsrmSNDRqTww;blackblogofcommunism.com/2010/11/19/%ce%b1%cf%80%ce%af%cf%83%cf%84%ce%b5%cf%85%cf%84%ce%b5%cf%82-%ce%ba%ce%bf%ce%bc%ce%bc%ce%bf%cf%85%ce%bd%ce%b9%cf%83%cf%84%ce%b9%ce%ba%ce%ad%cf%82-%ce%b2%ce%bb%ce%b1%ce%ba%ce%b5%ce%af%ce%b5%cf%82/ .-

** Ο/Η E-tirnavos Gr έστειλε μήνυμα στα μέλη του ΔΙΑΓΩΝΙΣΜΟΙ, ΔΩΡΑ & ΠΡΟΣΦΟΡΕΣ!!!

E-tirnavos GrNovember 19, 2010 at 9:01pm
Θέμα: Vodafone και hellas online για πραγματική οικονομία σε κάθε σπίτ
Vodafone και hellas online για πραγματική οικονομία σε κάθε σπίτι!Τώρα όλοι οι συνδρομητές συμβολαίου Vodafone απολαμβάνουν απεριόριστο σταθερό & adsl internet από την hellas online στις πιο οικονομικές τιμές, για πάντα!Διαβάστε περισσότερα...
http://www.facebook.com/l/7e3f91F7p4N0rjg86lye_8MoWQw;e-tirnavos.gr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1489:vodafone--hellas-online------&catid=3:newsflash&Itemid=125 .-

**Joaquim convida você a adicionar o aplicativo OLX
Vá para a aplicativo
OLX es la próxima generación de anuncios gratis online.OLX provee una simple solución para las complicaciones implicadas en venta, compra, intercambio, discusión, organización, y encuentro con gente cerca de ti, dondequiera que te encuentres.
O Sonico é uma rede social aonde você pode organizar sua vida online controlando sua privacidade.Recebe muitos emails do Sonico? Altere suas configurações

** Bulletin from the cause: ΕΝΩΣΗ "ΜΑΖΙ ΓΙΑ ΤΟ ΠΑΙΔΙ" -TOGETHER FOR CHILDREN Go to Cause
Posted By: Maria Hatzinikolaki
To: Members in ΕΝΩΣΗ "ΜΑΖΙ ΓΙΑ ΤΟ ΠΑΙΔΙ" -TOGETHER FOR CHILDREN
ΠΑΡΑΤΑΣΗ ΕΚΣΤΡΑΤΕΙΑΣ ΓΙΑ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΙΣΤΙΚΗ ΒΟΗΘΕΙΑ
Αγαποιτοί φίλοι, Σας ενημερώνουμε ότι η εκστρατεία για ανθρωπιστική βοήθεια στις Φυλακές Ανηλίκων στον Αυλώνα παρατείνεται. Κάνουμε έκκληση σε όσους μπορούν να βοηθήσουν συγκεντρώνοντας ρούχα, είδη ατομικής υγειινής και τηλεκάρτες για τα έγκλειστα παιδιά. Μπείτε το site της Ένωσης Μαζί για το Παιδί http://ansible.causes.com/external/redirect/eyJzaGFyZF9pZCI6MzcwLCJyZWNpcGllbnRfaWQiOjM4ODM3NzIsInJlZGlyZWN0IjoiaHR0cDovL3d3dy5tYXppZ2lhdG9wYWlkaS5nciJ9 ή επικοινωνείστε μαζί μας στο 210 7482690 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 210 7482690 end_of_the_skype_highlighting για περισσότερες πληροφορίες. Τα είδη θα συγκεντρώνονται έως την Τρίτη 7 Δεκεμβρίου! Όλοι μαζί μπορούμε να κάνουμε τη διαφορά. Η βοήθειά σας είναι πολύτιμη! Ένωση "Μαζί για το Παιδί"

Call to Action
Support the cause. Be counted:










I Read This

**
Ο/Η Konstantinos Manikas έστειλε μήνυμα στα μέλη του ΝΔ Σύγχρονη Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντροδεξιά.

Konstantinos ManikasNovember 19, 2010 at 7:16pm
Θέμα: Επίκαιρα θέματα...
Τα νέα μέτρα που δεν θα έπαιρναν...

http://www.facebook.com/l/7e3f9Op8tmNgwZOV9_XKNiLLDiw;maxitikoi-polites.blogspot.com/2010/11/blog-post_7811.html Σε τι στοχεύει η κ. Μέρκελ;

http://www.facebook.com/l/7e3f9d0YUHoC7hYZQtR00tXILbQ;maxitikoi-polites.blogspot.com/2010/11/blog-post_19.html Τα απατηλά όνειρα της γενιάς του Πολυτεχνείου

http://www.facebook.com/l/7e3f9vluWo7c3t_7mIsdKmQz8jQ;maxitikoi-polites.blogspot.com/2010/11/blog-post_17.html Μήνυμα υπέρβασης της Μεταπολίτευσης

http://www.facebook.com/l/7e3f9hE4lNrosW9u5nZu0W0fY8A;maxitikoi-polites.blogspot.com/2010/11/blog-post_15.html Λιτότητα ή ανάπτυξη;

http://www.facebook.com/l/7e3f9W7FkgNEz0dgjlTl6DU08XQ;maxitikoi-polites.blogspot.com/2010/11/blog-post_13.html

** AYN RAND ON VALUES‏

That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call free will is your mind's freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom, the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and your character.Thinking is man's only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one's consciousness, the refusal to think-not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment-on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict `It is.' Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality. But existence exists; reality is not to be wiped out, it will merely wipe out the wiper. By refusing to say `It is,' you are refusing to say `I am.' By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person. When a man declares: `Who am I to know?'-he is declaring: `Who am I to live?'This, in every hour and every issue, is your basic moral choice: thinking or non-thinking, existence or non-existence, A or non-A, entity or zero.To the extent to which a man is rational, life is the premise directing his actions. To the extent to which he is irrational, the premise directing his actions is death.You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island, it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today, and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it.If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a moral commandment is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists-and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge, Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve, Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man's virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.Smart words are more effective than smart bombs! Mighty words of a charismatic keynote speaker can transform your people to a new dimension of organizational climate, efficiency, self-actualization, enthusiasm, belonging, and motivation. To get such a speaker to your conference, write to keynote.speakers@yahoo.com

** Ο/Η Thalia Vourkidou έστειλε μήνυμα στα μέλη του Κυπριακός Ερυθρός Σταυρός / Cyprus Red Cross Society.

Thalia VourkidouNovember 17, 2010 at 8:53am
Θέμα: 21 NOVEMBER 2010 - WORLD DAY OF REMEMBRANCE FOR ROAD TRAFFIC VICTIMS
21 ΝΟΕΜΒΡΙΟΥ 2010 - ΠΑΓΚΟΣΜΙΑ ΗΜΕΡΑ ΜΝΗΜΗΣ ΓΙΑ ΤΑ ΘΥΜΑΤΑ ΟΔΙΚΩΝ ΔΥΣΤΗΧΗΜΑΤΩΝ ...Ευχή μας η ανάμνηση των αγαπημένων μας προσώπων να σταθεί οδηγός για μια καλύτερη συμπεριφορά στο δρόμο....21 NOVEMBER 2010 - WORLD DAY OF REMEMBRANCE FOR ROAD TRAFFIC VICTIMS...Let the memory of the people we loved, be a guide for better behaviour on the road....

** Hi,Joaquim Junior challenges you to play Bubble Shooter on Sonico.
Accept challenge
Those who play Bubble Shooter also play:
Play
Desert BlitzStrategy and skills
Play
60 Second SlingShooting
Play
Mario GhosthouseAdventure

**Joaquim Junior has invited you to see a photo. View photo

** Joaquim Junior has invited you to see a photo. View photo

** Ο/Η Demetris Terpizis έστειλε μήνυμα στα μέλη του Club FACES.

Demetris TerpizisNovember 19, 2010 at 11:08pm
Θέμα: DJ TAKESHY KUROSAWA @ FACES CLUB
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=141844749200983 .-

** Maria Nieves Ramos Tacoronte has invited you to see his/her photo album: Album: orquidea
paz y felicidad View album » .-

** AYN RAND ON VALUES‏

That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call free will is your mind's freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom, the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and your character.Thinking is man's only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one's consciousness, the refusal to think-not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment-on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict `It is.' Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality. But existence exists; reality is not to be wiped out, it will merely wipe out the wiper. By refusing to say `It is,' you are refusing to say `I am.' By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person. When a man declares: `Who am I to know?'-he is declaring: `Who am I to live?'This, in every hour and every issue, is your basic moral choice: thinking or non-thinking, existence or non-existence, A or non-A, entity or zero.To the extent to which a man is rational, life is the premise directing his actions. To the extent to which he is irrational, the premise directing his actions is death.You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island, it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today, and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it.If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a moral commandment is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists-and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge, Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve, Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man's virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.Smart words are more effective than smart bombs! Mighty words of a charismatic keynote speaker can transform your people to a new dimension of organizational climate, efficiency, self-actualization, enthusiasm, belonging, and motivation. To get such a speaker to your conference, write to keynote.speakers@yahoo.com

** Γεια σας, Stamatios,
Ο Savvas σας επιβεβαίωσε ως φίλο στο Facebook.
Savvas Krousta Mousika Organa
Εδώ είναι κάποιοι από τους φίλους του Savvas που ίσως γνωρίζετε και εσείς:

ΑΡΧΑΙΑ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΙΑ Ε΄Προσθήκη στους Φίλους

Eleanna Zegkinoglou BΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

Neri KazantzidouΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

Olga VonikakiΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

Konstantina VlachopoulouΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

Sofia GeorgantziΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

Ευχαριστούμε,Η Ομάδα του Facebook

** Γεια σας, Stamatios,
Η 'Elenaki σας επιβεβαίωσε ως φίλο στο Facebook.
'Elenaki Elenel
Εδώ είναι κάποιοι από τους φίλους της 'Elenaki που ίσως γνωρίζετε και εσείς:

Vasia Panagopoulou BΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

Taki Nikhforos NikhforosΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

Ollie HatebreedΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

Persa TsonatouΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

Яafaa VlakaaΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

Devy KiryuΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

Ευχαριστούμε,Η Ομάδα του Facebook

** Ο Stathis Vasilatos άλλαξε το όνομα της ομάδας COMMING SOON σε COMING SOON.:http://www.facebook.com/n/?group.php&gid=77056521371&mid=34f82e2G56358b7cG25baad1G40&n_m=stamoskal%40windowslive.com

** Ο/Η Δημήτρης Τ. έστειλε μήνυμα στα μέλη του Συνεχίζουμε να γράφουμε με ελληνικούς χαρακτήρες.

Δημήτρης Τ.November 18, 2010 at 9:02pm
Θέμα: Παπυρόγνωμοι και μακαρονιστάδες/ Λέξεις
Παπυρόγνωμοι και μακαρονιστάδες: μια επιστολή του Ιωάννη Βηλαρά[...]"Η Ελληνική γλώσσα είναι βρύση αστείρευτη σ’ όσα της έμειναν. Μα όσα δε μπορούμε να βρούμε σ’ αυτή, ή αν τα βρούμε δεν είναι πλιο για εμάς, α- ναγκαζόμεστε ή να τα δανειστούμε από ξένες γλώσσες ή να τα φκιάσομε καινούρια. Δυο πράματα, λογιάζω, πρέπει να παρατηρούμε με προσοχή με γάλη σ’ αυτήν την υπόθεση· το ένα για τες ξένες λέξεις οπού ανταμώνομε με τη γλώσσα μας, και είναι να τες προσαρμόζομε όσο δυνατό στες κατάληξες οπού συνηθίζομε- επειδή αλλιώς τα ανώμαλα πηγαίνουν στο άπειρο και η γλώσσα χάνει πολύ από τη φυσική της νοστιμάδα και χάρη, και να τες προ σαρμόζομε ακόμα στην προφορά, οπού μπορούν να μας δώσουν τα γράμματά μας. Γιατί αλλιώς θα γεμίσομε το αλφάβητο μας από γράμματα περίσσια και τη γλώσσα μας από φωνές ασύμφωνες με τη φυσική της γλυκάδα."[...] http://www.facebook.com/l/e867bBr2Gu-Onp0PfPgGeug94og;eranistis2.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/%CF%80%CE%B1%CF%80%CF%85%CF%81%CF%8C%CE%B3%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BC%CE%BF%CE%B9-%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%BA%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%BF%CE%BD%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%84%CE%AC%CE%B4%CE%B5%CF%82-%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%B1/

Μερικές λέξεις και μια φυσική συνταγή για τον πονόλαιμο http://www.facebook.com/l/e867bevqWan9i2-fWHmuhW7HomA;eranistis2.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/%CE%BC%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AD%CF%82-%CE%BB%CE%AD%CE%BE%CE%B5%CE%B9%CF%82-%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%B1-%CF%86%CF%85%CF%83%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE-%CF%83%CF%85%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B1%CE%B3%CE%AE/

** Maria Nieves Ramos Tacoronte has invited you to see his/her photo album: Album: orquidea
lo siento pero quiero compartilo con todos y todas con mi corazon View album »

**Γεια σας, Stamatios,
Η Elena σας επιβεβαίωσε ως φίλο στο Facebook.
Elena Paliogianni
Εδώ είναι κάποιοι από τους φίλους της Elena που ίσως γνωρίζετε και εσείς:

Dimitra Matsouka AΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

Nakki ZeroTeamΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

ΠΛΑΤΩ Live Μουσική σκηνήΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

Savvas Krousta Mousika OrganaΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

Politistikos Sillogos NeasIraklias PerinthosΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

'Elenaki ElenelΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

Ευχαριστούμε,Η Ομάδα του Facebook

** Ο/Η Skopelitis Kostas έστειλε μήνυμα στα μέλη του SOCIAL cafe & SOCIAL de luxe.

Skopelitis KostasNovember 18, 2010 at 2:27pm
Θέμα: saxo live....!
opws kai tis kalokairines pemptes etsi kai simera saxophone live sto social (mitropolews)..!be there...Hr 20.45

** Ο/Η Antigoni Katsouri B έστειλε μήνυμα στα μέλη του Antigoni Katsouri (Αντιγόνη Κατσούρη).

Antigoni Katsouri BNovember 18, 2010 at 2:06pm
Θέμα: ΣΥΝΑΥΛΙΑ / CONCERT
[English Translation follows in the end of the greek text]---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- ---- ---- --- ---- ----Η Αντιγόνη Κατσούρη, στα πλαίσια του εορτασμού των 50 χρόνων της Κυπριακής Ανεξαρτησίας και σε συνεργασία με τον Σύλλογο Κυπρίων Ηπείρου, την Νομαρχιακή Αυτοδιοίκηση Ιωαννίνων και τον Δήμο Ιωαννιτών, διοργανώνει ΣΥΝΑΥΛΙΑ - Αφιέρωμα, που θα πραγματοποιηθεί στις 29 Νοεμβρίου 2010, ημέρα Δευτέρα και ώρα 8.30, στα Ιωάννινα [Ακαδημία, λεωφόρος Δωδώνης 6, αίθουσα Αρχιεπισκόπου Σπυρίδωνος].Η Αντιγόνη (φωνή/πιάνο) θα συνοδεύεται από την αξιόλογη ορχήστρα της, αποτελούμενη από τους μουσικούς : Τάσο Ζαφειρίου : φωνή/κιθάρα/μπουζούκιΣτέλιο Τσουκάτο : ακκορντεόνΝίκο Χριστόπουλο : κρουστάΚώστα Καραπάνο : βιολί* ΕΙΣΟΔΟΣ ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΗ * ________________________________________________________Αntigoni Katsouri participates in the celebration of the 50 years ofCyprus Independence, with a CONCERT - Tribute that will take place on November 29 (2010), Μonday, 8.30 p.m., in IOANNINA (GREECE).Αntigoni (voice/piano) will be accompanied by her band : Tasos Zafiriou : voice/guitar/bouzoukiStelios Tsoukatos : accordionNikos Hristopulos : percussionKostas Karapanos : violin* FREE ENTRANCE *

** Γεια σας, Stamatios,
Η Mona σας επιβεβαίωσε ως φίλο στο Facebook.
Mona Liza
Εδώ είναι κάποιοι από τους φίλους της Mona που ίσως γνωρίζετε και εσείς:

Alexandra KypraiouΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

Zeta MakripouliaΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

ΧΡΥΣΟΥΛΑ ΣΩΤΗΡΑΚΗΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

Elina TzikaΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

Taki Nikhforos NikhforosΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

Despina Gavala AΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

Ευχαριστούμε,Η Ομάδα του Facebook

** Γεια σας, Stamatios,
Η Victoria σας επιβεβαίωσε ως φίλο στο Facebook.
Victoria Melnychuk
Εδώ είναι κάποιοι από τους φίλους της Victoria που ίσως γνωρίζετε και εσείς:

Ghostbarclub Athens AΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

ΠΟΛΥΦΩΝΙΚΗ ΣΤΟΥΝΤΙΟΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

Liza MavroudiΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

Stella DoulgerakiΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

Grace Niarou BΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

Dimitra-Demi DanceΠροσθήκη στους Φίλους

Ευχαριστούμε,Η Ομάδα του Facebook

** Ο/Η Milan Papas έστειλε μήνυμα στα μέλη του Μαύρο Ιστολόγιο Κομμουνισμού - Black Blog of Communism.

Milan PapasNovember 17, 2010 at 11:18pm
Θέμα: Ο πρώτος νεκρός του Πολυτεχνείου
(...) Αυτός λοιπόν ήταν ο πρώτος νεκρός του Πολυτεχνείου. Αλήθεια, θα θυμηθεί κανένας αυτές τις ημέρες να τον τιμήσει;

http://www.facebook.com/l/3eeacXKq7l7hJMRMIGw31ZhXJuA;blackblogofcommunism.com/2010/11/17/%ce%bf-%cf%80%cf%81%cf%8e%cf%84%ce%bf%cf%82-%ce%bd%ce%b5%ce%ba%cf%81%cf%8c%cf%82-%cf%84%ce%bf%cf%85-%cf%80%ce%bf%ce%bb%cf%85%cf%84%ce%b5%cf%87%ce%bd%ce%b5%ce%af%ce%bf%cf%85/

**Γεια σας, Stamatios,
Η Pauline σας επιβεβαίωσε ως φίλο στο Facebook.
Pauline Kentistou
Ευχαριστούμε,Η Ομάδα του Facebook

**DOUBLE-STANDARD MORALITY‏

Your code - which boasts that it upholds eternal, absolute, objective moral values and scorns the conditional, the relative and the subjective - your code hands out, as its version of the absolute, the following rule of moral conduct: If you wish it, it's evil; if others wish it, it's good; if the motive of your action is your welfare, don't do it; if the motive is the welfare of others, then anything goes.As this double-jointed, double-standard morality splits you in half, so it splits mankind into two enemy camps: one is you, the other is all the rest of humanity. You are the only outcast who has no right to wish to live. You are the only servant, the rest are the masters, you are the only giver, the rest are the takers, you are the eternal debtor, the rest are the creditors never to be paid off. You must not question their right to your sacrifice, or the nature of their wishes and their needs: their right is conferred upon them by a negative, by the fact that they are non-you.For those of you who might ask questions, your code provides a consolation prize and booby-trap: it is for your own happiness, it says, that you must serve the happiness of others, the only way to achieve your joy is to give it up to others, the only way to achieve your prosperity is to surrender your wealth to others, the only way to protect your life is to protect all men except yourself-and if you find no joy in this procedure, it is your own fault and the proof of your evil; if you were good, you would find your happiness in providing a banquet for others, and your dignity in existing on such crumbs as they might care to toss you.You who have no standard of self-esteem, accept the guilt and dare not ask the questions. But you know the unadmitted answer, refusing to acknowledge what you see, what hidden premise moves your world. You know it, not in honest statement, but as a dark uneasiness within you, while you flounder between guilty cheating and grudgingly practicing a principle too vicious to name.I, who do not accept the unearned, neither in values nor in guilt, am here to ask the questions you evaded. Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you? If the sensation of eating a cake is a value, why is it an immoral indulgence in your stomach, but a moral goal for you to achieve in the stomach of others? Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it? If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it? Does virtue consist of serving vice? Is the moral purpose of those who are good, self-immolation for the sake of those who are evil?The answer you evade, the monstrous answer is: No, the takers are not evil, provided they did not earn the value you gave them. It is not immoral for them to accept it, provided they are unable to produce it, unable to deserve it, unable to give you any value in return. It is not immoral for them to enjoy it, provided they do not obtain it by right.Such is the secret core of your creed, the other half of your double standard: it is immoral to live by your own effort, but moral to live by the effort of others-it is immoral to consume your own product, but moral to consume the products of others-it is immoral to earn, but moral to mooch-it is the parasites who are the moral justification for the existence of the producers, but the existence of the parasites is an end in itself-it is evil to profit by achievement, but good to profit by sacrifice-it is evil to create your own happiness, but good to enjoy it at the price of the blood of others.Your code divides mankind into two castes and commands them to live by opposite rules: those who may desire anything and those who may desire nothing, the chosen and the demand, the riders and the carriers, the eaters and the eaten. What standard determines your caste? What passkey admits you to the moral elite? The passkey is lack of value.Whatever the value involved, it is your lack of it that gives you a claim upon those who don't lack it. It is your need that gives you a claim to rewards. If you are able to satisfy your need, your ability annuls your right to satisfy it. But a need you are unable to satisfy gives you first right to the lives of mankind.If you succeed, any man who fails is your master; if you fail, any man who succeeds is your serf. Whether your failure is just or not, whether your wishes are rational or not, whether your misfortune is undeserved or the result of your vices, it is misfortune that gives you a right to rewards. It is pain, regardless of its nature or cause, pain as a primary absolute, that gives you a mortgage on all of existence.If you heal your pain by your own effort, you receive no moral credit: your code regards it scornfully as an act of self-interest. Whatever value you seek to acquire, be it wealth or food or love or rights, if you acquire it by means of your Virtue, your code does not regard it as a moral acquisition: you occasion no loss to anyone, it is a trade, not alms; a payment, not a sacrifice. The deserved belongs in the selfish, commercial realm of mutual profit; it is only the undeserved that calls for that moral transaction which consists of profit to one at the price of disaster to the other. To demand rewards for your virtue is selfish and immoral; it is your lack of virtue that transforms your demand into a moral right.A morality that holds need as a claim, holds emptiness - non-existence - as its standard of value; it rewards an absence, a defeat: weakness, inability, incompetence, suffering, disease, disaster, the lack, the fault, the flaw - the zero.Who provides the account to pay these claims? Those who are cursed for being non-zeros, each to the extent of his distance from that ideal. Since all values are the product of virtues, the degree of your virtue is used as the measure of your penalty; the degree of your faults is used as the measure of your gain. Your code declares that the rational man must sacrifice himself to the irrational, the independent man to parasites, the honest man to the dishonest, the man of justice to the unjust, the productive man to thieving loafers, the man of integrity to compromising knaves, the man of self-esteem to sniveling neurotics. Do you wonder at the meanness of soul in those you see around you? The man who achieves these virtues will not accept your moral code; the man who accepts your moral code will not achieve these virtues.Under a morality of sacrifice, the first value you sacrifice is morality; the next is self-esteem. When need is the standard, every man is both victim and parasite. As a victim, he must labor to fill the needs of others, leaving himself in the position of a parasite whose needs must be filled by others. He cannot approach his fellow men except in one of two disgraceful roles: he is both a beggar and a sucker.You fear the man who has a dollar less than you, that dollar is rightfully his, he makes you feel like a moral defrauder. You hate the man who has a dollar more than you, that dollar is rightfully yours, he makes you feel that you are morally defrauded. The man below is a source of, your guilt, the man above is a source of your frustration. You do not know what to surrender or demand, when to give and when to grab, what pleasure in life is rightfully yours and what debt is still unpaid to others - you struggle to evade, as `theory,' the knowledge that by the moral standard you've accepted you are guilty every moment of your life, there is no mouthful of food you swallow that is not needed by someone somewhere on earth-and you give up the problem in blind resentment, you conclude that moral perfection is not to be achieved or desired, that you will muddle through by snatching as snatch can and by avoiding the eyes of the young, of those who look at you as if self-esteem were possible and they expected you to have it. Guilt is all that you retain within your soul-and so does every other man, as he goes past, avoiding your eyes. Do you wonder why your morality has not achieved brotherhood on earth or the good will of man to man?The justification of sacrifice, that your morality propounds, is more corrupt than the corruption it purports to justify. The motive of your sacrifice, it tells you, should be love - the love you ought to feel for every man. A morality that professes the belief that the values of the spirit are more precious than matter, a morality that teaches you to scorn a whore who gives her body indiscriminately to all men - this same morality demands that you surrender your soul to promiscuous love for all comers.As there can be no causeless wealth, so there can be no causeless love or any sort of causeless emotion. An emotion is a response to a face of reality, an estimate dictated by your standards. To love is to value. The man who tells you that it is possible to value without values, to love those whom you appraise as worthless, is the man who tells you that it is possible to grow rich by consuming without producing and that paper money is as valuable as gold.Observe that he does not expect you to feel a causeless fear. When his kind get into power, they are expert at contriving means of terror, at giving you ample cause to feel the fear by which they desire to rule you. But when it comes to love, the highest of emotions, you permit them to shriek at you accusingly that you are a moral delinquent if you're incapable of feeling causeless love. When a man feels fear without reason, you call him to the attention of a psychiatrist; you are not so careful to protect the meaning, the nature and the dignity of love.Love is the expression of one's values, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another. Your morality demands that you divorce your love from values and hand it down to any vagrant, not as response to his worth, but as response to his need, not as reward, but as alms, not as a payment for virtues, but as a blank check on vices. Your morality tells you that the purpose of love is to set you free of the bonds of morality, that love is superior to moral judgment, that true love transcends, forgives and survives every manner of evil in its object, and the greater the love the greater the depravity it permits to the loved. To love a man for his virtues is paltry and human, it tells you; to love him for his flaws is divine. To love those who are worthy of it is self-interest; to love the unworthy is sacrifice. You owe your love to those who don't deserve it, and the less they deserve it, the more love you owe them-the more loathsome the object, the nobler your love-the more unfastidious your love, the greater the virtue-and if you can bring your soul to the state of a dump heap that welcomes anything on equal terms, if you can cease to value moral values, you have achieved the state of moral perfection.Such is your morality of sacrifice and such are the twin ideals it offers: to refashion the life of your body in the image of a human stockyard, and the life of your spirit in the image of a dump.Such was your goal-and you've reached it. Why do you now moan complaints about man's impotence and the futility of human aspirations? Because you were unable to prosper by seeking destruction? Because you were unable to find joy by worshipping pain? Because you were unable to live by holding death as your standard of value?The degree of your ability to live was the degree to which you broke your moral code, yet you believe that those who preach it are friends of humanity, you damn yourself and dare not question their motives or their goals. Take a look at them now, when you face your last choice - and if you choose to perish, do so with full knowledge of how cheaply so small an enemy has claimed your life.The mystics of both schools, who preach the creed of sacrifice, are germs that attack you through a single sore: your fear of relying on your mind. They tell you that they possess a means of knowledge higher than the mind, a mode of consciousness superior to reason - like a special pull with some bureaucrat of the universe who gives them secret tips withheld from others. The mystics of spirit declare that they possess an extra sense you lack: this special sixth sense consists of contradicting the whole of the knowledge of your five. The mystics of muscle do not bother to assert any claim to extrasensory perception: they merely declare that your senses are not valid, and that their wisdom consists of perceiving your blindness by some manner of unspecified means. Both kinds demand that you invalidate your own consciousness and surrender yourself into their power. They offer you, as proof of their superior knowledge, the fact that they assert the opposite of everything you know, and as proof of their superior ability to deal with existence, the fact that they lead you to misery, self-sacrifice, starvation, destruction.The secret of all their esoteric philosophies, of all their dialectics and super-senses, of their evasive eyes and snarling words, the secret for which they destroy civilization, language, industries and lives, the secret for which they pierce their own eyes and eardrums, grind out their senses, blank out their minds, the purpose for which they dissolve the absolutes of reason, logic, matter, existence, reality-is to erect upon that plastic fog a single holy absolute: their Wish.The restriction they seek to escape is the law of identity. The freedom they seek is freedom from the fact that an A will remain an A, no matter what their tears or tantrums-that a river will not bring them milk, no matter what their hunger-that water will not run uphill, no matter what comforts they could gain if it did, and if they want to lift it to the roof of a skyscraper, they must do it by a process of thought and labor, in which the nature of an inch of pipe line counts, but their feelings do not-that their feelings are impotent to alter the course of a single speck of dust in space or the nature of any action they have committed.Those who tell you that man is unable to perceive a reality undistorted by his senses, mean that they are unwilling to perceive a reality undistorted by their feelings. `Things as they are' are things as perceived by your mind; divorce them from reason and they become `things as perceived by your wishes.'There is no honest revolt against reason - and when you accept any part of their creed, your motive is to get away with something your reason would not permit you to attempt. The freedom you seek is freedom from the fact that if you stole your wealth, you are a scoundrel, no matter how much you give to charity or how many prayers you recite - that if you sleep with sluts, you're not a worthy husband, no matter how anxiously you feel that you love our wife next morning - that you are an entity, not a series of random pieces scattered through a universe where nothing sticks and nothing commits you to anything, the universe of a child's nightmare where identities switch and swim, where the rotter and the hero are interchangeable parts arbitrarily assumed at will - that you are a man - that you are an entity - that you are.No matter how eagerly you claim that the goal of your mystic wishing is a higher mode of life, the rebellion against identity is the wish for non-existence. The desire not to be anything is the desire not to be.Your teachers, the mystics of both schools, have reversed causality in their consciousness, then strive to reverse it in existence. They take their emotions as a cause, and their mind as a passive effect. They make their emotions their tool for perceiving reality. They hold their desires as an irreducible primary, as a fact superseding all facts. An honest man does not desire until he has identified the object of his desire. He says: `It is, therefore I want it.' They say: `I want it, therefore it is.'They want to cheat the axiom of existence and consciousness, they want their consciousness to be an instrument not of perceiving but of creating existence, and existence to be not the object but the subject of their consciousness - they want to be that God they created in their image and likeness, who creates a universe out of a void by means of an arbitrary whim. But reality is not to be cheated. What they achieve is the opposite of their desire. They want an omnipotent power over existence; instead, they lose the power of the consciousness. By refusing to know, they condemn themselves to the horror of a perpetual unknown.Those irrational wishes that draw you to their creed, those emotions you worship as an idol, on whose altar you sacrifice the earth, that dark, incoherent passion within you, which you take as the voice of God or of your glands, is nothing more than the corpse of your mind. An emotion that clashes with your reason, an emotion that you cannot explain or control, is only the carcass of that stale thinking which you forbade your mind to revise.Since childhood, you have been hiding the guilty secret that you feel no desire to be moral, no desire to seek self-immolation, that you dread and hate your code, but dare not say it even to yourself, that you're devoid of those moral `instincts' which others profess to feel. The less you felt, the louder you proclaimed your selfless love and servitude to others, in dread of ever letting them discover your own self, the self that you betrayed, the self that you kept in concealment, like a skeleton in the closet of your body. And they, who were at once your dupes and your deceivers, they listened and voiced their loud approval, in dread of ever letting you discover that they were harboring the same unspoken secret. Existence among you is a giant pretense, an act you all perform for one another, each feeling that he is the only guilty freak, each placing his moral authority in the unknowable known only to others, each faking the reality he feels they expect him to fake, some having the courage to break the vicious circle.No matter what dishonorable compromise you've made with your impracticable creed, no matter what miserable balance, half-cynicism, half-superstition, you now manage to maintain, you still preserve the root, the lethal tenet: the belief that the moral and the practical are opposites. Since childhood, you have been running from the terror of a choice you have never dared fully to identify: If the practical, whatever you must practice to exist, whatever works, succeeds, achieves your purpose, whatever brings you food and joy, whatever profits you, is evil-and if the good, the moral, is the impractical, whatever fails, destroys, frustrates, whatever injures you and brings you loss or pain-then your choice is to be moral or to live.The sole result of that murderous doctrine was to remove morality from life. You grew up to believe that moral laws bear no relation to the job of living, except as an impediment and threat, that man's existence is an amoral jungle where anything goes and anything works. And in that fog of switching definitions which descends upon a frozen mind, you have forgotten that the evils damned by your creed were the virtues required for living, and you have come to believe that actual evils are the practical means of existence. Forgetting that the impractical `good' was self-sacrifice, you believe that self-esteem is impractical; forgetting that the practical `evil' was production, you believe that robbery is practical.Swinging like a helpless branch in the wind of an uncharted moral wilderness, you dare not fully to be evil or fully to live. When you are honest, you feel the resentment of a sucker; when you cheat, you feel terror and shame, your pain is augmented by the feeling that pain is your natural state. You pity the men you admire, you believe they are doomed to fail; you envy the men you hate, you believe they are the masters of existence. You feel disarmed when you come up against a scoundrel: you believe that evil is bound to win, since the moral is the impotent, the impractical.Morality, to you, is a phantom scarecrow made of duty, of boredom, of punishment, of pain, a cross-breed between the first schoolteacher of your past and the tax collector of your present, a scarecrow standing in a barren field, waving a stick to chase away your pleasures-and pleasure, to you, is a liquor-soggy brain, a mindless slut, the stupor of a moron who stakes his cash on some animal's race, since pleasure cannot be moral.If you identify your actual belief, you will find a triple damnation - of yourself, of life, of virtue - in the grotesque conclusion you have reached: you believe that morality is a necessary evil.Do you wonder why you live without dignity, love without fire and die without resistance? Do you wonder why, wherever you look, you see nothing but unanswerable questions, why your life is tom by impossible conflicts, why you spend it straddling irrational fences to evade artificial choices, such as soul or body, mind or heart, security or freedom, private profit or public good?Do you cry that you find no answers? By what means did you hope to find them? You reject your tool of perception - your mind - then complain that the universe is a mystery. You discard your key, then wail that all doors are locked against you. You start out in pursuit of the irrational, then damn existence for making no sense.Act as a rational being and aim at becoming a rallying point for all those who are starved for a voice of integrity - act on your rational values, whether alone in the midst of your enemies, or with a few of your chosen friends, or as the founder of a modest community on the frontier of mankind's rebirth.The last of my words will be addressed to those heroes who might still be hidden in the world, those who are held prisoner, not by their evasions, but by their virtues and their desperate courage. My brothers in spirit, check on your virtues and on the nature of the enemies you're serving. Your destroyers hold you by means of your endurance, your generosity, your innocence, your love, the endurance that carries their burdens, the generosity that responds to their cries of despair, the innocence that is unable to conceive of their evil and gives them the benefit of every doubt, refusing to condemn them without understanding and incapable of understanding such motives as theirs, the love, your love of life, which makes you believe that they are men and that they love it, too. But the world of today is the world they wanted; life is the object of their hatred. Leave them to the death they worship. In the name of your magnificent devotion to this earth, leave them, don't exhaust the greatness of your soul on achieving the triumph of the evil of theirs. In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this word to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours.But to win it requires your total dedication and a total break with the world of your past, with the doctrine that man is a sacrificial animal who exists for the pleasure of others. Fight for the value of your person. Fight for the virtue of your pride. Fight for the essence of that which is man: for his sovereign rational mind. Fight with the radiant certainty and the absolute rectitude of knowing that yours is the Morality of Life and that yours is the battle for any achievement, any value, any grandeur, any goodness, any joy that has ever existed on this earth.You will win when you are ready to pronounce the oath I have taken at the start of my battle - and for those who wish to know the day of my return, I shall now repeat it to the hearing of the world: I swear - by my life and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.-

* **RONALD REAGAN'S TIME FOR CHOOSING‏

I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in war and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: up, man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the Great Society, or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of this century." Senator Fulbright said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government." Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government" -- this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how -- who are farmers to know what's best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights are so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a multi-million-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a more compatible use of the land. The President tells us he's now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we've only built them in the hundreds. But FHA (Federal Housing Authority) and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we've sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.They've just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you're depressed, lie down and be depressed.We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer, and they've had almost 30 years of it, shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. 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. But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who'd come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She's eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who'd already done that very thing.Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we're always "against" things -- we're never "for" anything. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. Now -- we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road.I think we're for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we're against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments' programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died -- because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the -- or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment. Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men -- that we're to choose just between two personalities.Well what of this man that they would destroy -- and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I've been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I've never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such," and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he'd load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There aren't many left who care what happens to her. I'd like her to know I care." This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelessly send other people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I've discussed academic, unless we realize we're in a war that must be won.Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer -- not an easy answer -- but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin -- just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this -- this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.Smart words are more effective than smart bombs! Mighty words of a charismatic keynote speaker can transform your people to a new dimension of organizational climate, efficiency, self-actualization, enthusiasm, belonging, and motivation. To get such a speaker to your conference, write to keynote.speakers@yahoo.com

** ROTHBARDIAN ANARCHY‏

The cradle of democracy has become the cradle of kleptocracy. Since democracy has deteriorated to kleptocracy, especially in Greece, the most corrupt country on Earth, citizens muse anarchy. Murray Rothbard defines the state as that institution which possesses one of the following properties: it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as taxation; and it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service over a given territorial area. Anarchist society is one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.Nor is the Rothbardian definition of the state arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history. The state, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction. But it is certainly conceptually possible for such services to be supplied by private, non-state institutions, and indeed such services have historically been supplied by other organizations than the state. To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property.The crucial role of taxation may be seen in the fact that the state is the only institution or organization in society which regularly and systematically acquires its income through the use of physical coercion. All other individuals or organizations acquire their income voluntarily, either through the voluntary sale of goods and services to consumers on the market, or through voluntary gifts or donations by members or other donors. If I cease or refrain from purchasing Wheaties on the market, the Wheaties producers do not come after me with a gun or the threat of imprisonment to force me to purchase; if I fail to join the American Philosophical Association, the association may not force me to join or prevent me from giving up my membership. Only the state can do so; only the state can confiscate my property or put me in jail if I do not pay its tax tribute. Therefore, only the state regularly exists and has its very being by means of coercive depredations on private property.Neither is it legitimate to challenge this sort of analysis by claiming that in some other sense, the purchase of Wheaties or membership in the APA is in some way coercive. Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term coercion can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it physical violence or the threat thereof, with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument. What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the state, that is, to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion.It need hardly be added that the state habitually builds upon its coercive source of income by adding a host of other aggressions upon society, ranging from economic controls to the prohibition of pornography to the compelling of religious observance to the mass murder of civilians in organized warfare. In short, the state claims and exercises a monopoly of crime over its territorial area. The second criticism Rothbard would like to defuse is the common charge that anarchists assume that all people are good and that without the state no crime would be committed. In short, that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society. Rothbard confesses that he does not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess – and Rothbard does not believe that they are open to the charge – he certainly does not adopt this view. Rothbard assumes with most observers that mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies.In Rothbard's view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime – theft, oppression, mass murder – on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad. A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are good in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the nature of man, given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that needs to be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.We cannot of course deal here with the numerous arguments in favor of anarchism or against the state, moral, political, and economic. Nor can we take up the various goods and services now provided by the state and show how private individuals and groups will be able to supply them far more efficiently on the free market. Here we can only deal with perhaps the most difficult area, the area where it is almost universally assumed that the state must exist and act, even if it is only a necessary evil instead of a positive good: the vital realm of defense or protection of person and property against aggression. Surely, it is universally asserted, the state is at least vitally necessary to provide police protection, the judicial resolution of disputes and enforcement of contracts, and the creation of the law itself that is to be enforced. My contention is that all of these admittedly necessary services of protection can be satisfactorily and efficiently supplied by private persons and institutions on the free market.One important caveat: new proposals such as anarchism are almost always gauged against the implicit assumption that the present, or statist system works to perfection. Any lacunae or difficulties with the picture of the anarchist society are considered net liabilities, and enough to dismiss anarchism out of hand. It is, in short, implicitly assumed that the state is doing its self-assumed job of protecting person and property to perfection. We cannot here go into the reasons why the state is bound to suffer inherently from grave flaws and inefficiencies in such a task. All we need do now is to point to the black and unprecedented record of the state through history: no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state's unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind.This point can be made more philosophically: it is illegitimate to compare the merits of anarchism and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the anarchist alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives. Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: "We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other." Rothbard submits that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of "who will guard the guardians?" becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.The anarchist is always at a disadvantage in attempting to forecast the shape of the future anarchist society. For it is impossible for observers to predict voluntary social arrangements, including the provision of goods and services, on the free market. Suppose, for example, that this were the year 1874 and that someone predicted that eventually there would be a radio-manufacturing industry. To be able to make such a forecast successfully, does he have to be challenged to state immediately how many radio manufacturers there would be a century hence, how big they would be, where they would be located, what technology and marketing techniques they would use, and so on? Obviously, such a challenge would make no sense, and in a profound sense the same is true of those who demand a precise portrayal of the pattern of protection activities on the market. Anarchism advocates the dissolution of the state into social and market arrangements, and these arrangements are far more flexible and less predictable than political institutions. The most that we can do, then, is to offer broad guidelines and perspectives on the shape of a projected anarchist society.One important point to make here is that the advance of modern technology makes anarchistic arrangements increasingly feasible. Take, for example, the case of lighthouses, where it is often charged that it is unfeasible for private lighthouse operators to row out to each ship to charge it for use of the light. Apart from the fact that this argument ignores the successful existence of private lighthouses in earlier days, as in England in the eighteenth century, another vital consideration is that modern electronic technology makes charging each ship for the light far more feasible. Thus, the ship would have to have paid for an electronically controlled beam which could then be automatically turned on for those ships which had paid for the service.Let us turn now to the problem of how disputes – in particular disputes over alleged violations of person and property – would be resolved in an anarchist society. First, it should be noted that all disputes involve two parties: the plaintiff, the alleged victim of the crime or tort and the defendant, the alleged aggressor. In many cases of broken contract, of course, each of the two parties alleging that the other is the culprit is at the same time a plaintiff and a defendant.An important point to remember is that any society, be it statist or anarchist, has to have some way of resolving disputes that will gain a majority consensus in society. There would be no need for courts or arbitrators if everyone were omniscient and knew instantaneously which persons were guilty of any given crime or violation of contract. Since none of us is omniscient, there has to be some method of deciding who is the criminal or lawbreaker which will gain legitimacy; in short, whose decision will be accepted by the great majority of the public.In the first place, a dispute may be resolved voluntarily between the two parties themselves, either unaided or with the help of a third mediator. This poses no problem, and will automatically be accepted by society at large. It is so accepted even now, much less in a society imbued with the anarchistic values of peaceful cooperation and agreement. Secondly and similarly, the two parties, unable to reach agreement, may decide to submit voluntarily to the decision of an arbitrator. This agreement may arise either after a dispute has arisen, or be provided for in advance in the original contract. Again, there is no problem in such an arrangement gaining legitimacy. Even in the present statist era, the notorious inefficiency and coercive and cumbersome procedures of the politically run government courts has led increasing numbers of citizens to turn to voluntary and expert arbitration for a speedy and harmonious settling of disputes.Arbitration has grown to proportions that make the courts a secondary recourse in many areas and completely superfluous in others. The ancient fear of the courts that arbitration would "oust" them of their jurisdiction has been fulfilled with a vengeance the common-law judges probably never anticipated. Insurance companies adjust over fifty thousand claims a year among themselves through arbitration, and the American Arbitration Association (AAA), with headquarters in New York and twenty-five regional offices across the country, last year conducted over twenty-two thousand arbitrations. Its twenty-three thousand associates available to serve as arbitrators may outnumber the total number of judicial personnel … in the United States…. Add to this the unknown number of individuals who arbitrate disputes within particular industries or in particular localities, without formal AAA affiliation, and the quantitatively secondary role of official courts begins to be apparent. In addition to the speed of arbitration procedures vis-a-vis the courts, the arbitrators can proceed as experts in disregard of the official government law; in a profound sense, then, they serve to create a voluntary body of private law. In other words, the system of extralegal, voluntary courts has progressed hand in hand with a body of private law; the rules of the state are circumvented by the same process that circumvents the forums established for the settlement of disputes over those rules…. In short, a private agreement between two people, a bilateral law, has supplanted the official law. The writ of the sovereign has ceased to run, and for it is substituted a rule tacitly or explicitly agreed to by the parties. If an arbitrator can choose to ignore a penal damage rule or the status of limitations applicable to the claim before him (and it is generally conceded that he has that power), arbitration can be viewed as a practically revolutionary instrument for self-liberation from the law.It may be objected that arbitration only works successfully because the courts enforce the award of the arbitrator. However, arbitration was unenforceable in the American courts before 1920, but that this did not prevent voluntary arbitration from being successful and expanding in the United States and in England. Furthermore, to the successful operations of merchant courts since the Middle Ages, those courts which successfully developed the entire body of the law merchant. None of those courts possessed the power of enforcement. The private courts of shippers developed the body of admiralty law in a similar way.How then did these private anarchistic voluntary courts ensure the acceptance of their decisions? By the method of social ostracism, and by the refusal to deal any further with the offending merchant. This method of voluntary enforcement, indeed provided highly successful. The merchants' courts were voluntary, and if a man ignored their judgment, he could not be sent to jail. Nevertheless, it is apparent their decisions were generally respected even by the losers; otherwise people would never have used them in the first place. Merchants made their courts work simply by agreeing to abide by the results. The merchant who broke the understanding would not be sent to jail, to be sure, but neither would he long continue to be a merchant, for the compliance exacted by his fellows provide if anything more effective than physical coercion. Nor did this voluntary method fail to work in modern times. It was precisely in the years before 1920, when arbitration awards could not be enforced in the courts, that arbitration caught on and developed a following in the American mercantile community. Its popularity, gained at a time when abiding by an agreement to arbitrate had to be as voluntary as the agreement itself, casts doubt on whether legal coercion was an essential adjunct to the settlement of most disputes. Cases of refusal to abide by an arbitrator's award were rare; one founder of the American Arbitration Association could not recall a single example. Like their medieval forerunners, merchants in the Americas did not have to rely on any sanctions other than those they could collectively impose on each other. One who refused to pay up might find access to his association's tribunal cut off in the future, or his name released to the membership of his trade association; these penalties were far more fearsome than the cost of the award with which he disagreed. Voluntary and private adjudications were voluntarily and privately adhered to, if not out of honor, out of the self-interest of businessmen who knew that the arbitral mode of dispute settlement would cease to be available to them very quickly if they ignored an award. It should also be pointed out that modern technology makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of information about people's credit ratings and records of keeping or violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an anarchist society would see the expansion of this sort of dissemination of data and thereby facilitate the ostracism or boycotting of contract and arbitration violators.How would arbitrators be selected in an anarchist society? In the same way as they are chosen now, and as they were chosen in the days of strictly voluntary arbitration: the arbitrators with the best reputation for efficiency and probity would be chosen by the various parties on the market. As in other processes of the market, the arbitrators with the best record in settling disputes will come to gain an increasing amount of business, and those with poor records will no longer enjoy clients and will have to shift to another line of endeavor. Here it must be emphasized that parties in dispute will seek out those arbitrators with the best reputation for both expertise and impartiality and that inefficient or biased arbitrators will rapidly have to find another occupation.The advocates of government see initiated force (the legal force of government) as the only solution to social disputes. According to them, if everyone in society were not forced to use the same court system, disputes would be insoluble. Apparently it doesn't occur to them that disputing parties are capable of freely choosing their own arbiters they have not realized that disputants would, in fact, be far better off if they could choose among competing arbitration agencies so that they could reap the benefits of competition and specialization. It should be obvious that a court system which has a monopoly guaranteed by the force of statutory law will not give as good quality service as will free-market arbitration agencies which must compete for their customers. Perhaps the least tenable argument for government arbitration of disputes is the one which holds that governmental judges are more impartial because they operate outside the market and so have no vested interests. Owning political allegiance to government is certainly no guarantee of impartiality! A governmental judge is always impelled to be partial – in favor of the government, from whom he gets his pay and his power! On the other hand, an arbiter who sells his services in a free market knows that he must be as scrupulously honest, fair, and impartial as possible or no pair of disputants will buy his services to arbitrate their dispute. A free-market arbiter depends for his livelihood on his skill and fairness at settling disputes. A governmental judge depends on political pull.If desired, furthermore, the contracting parties could provide in advance for a series of arbitrators. It would be more economical and in most cases quite sufficient to have only one arbitration agency to hear the case. But if the parties felt that a further appeal might be necessary and were willing to risk the extra expense, they could provide for a succession of two or even more arbitration agencies. The names of these agencies would be written into the contract in order from the first court of appeal to the last court of appeal. It would be neither necessary nor desirable to have one single, final court of appeal for every person in the society, as we have today in the United States Supreme Court. Arbitration, then, poses little difficulty for a portrayal of the free society. But what of torts or crimes of aggression where there has been no contract? Or suppose that the breaker of a contract defies the arbitration award? Is ostracism enough? In short, how can courts develop in the free-market anarchist society which will have the power to enforce judgments against criminals or contract breakers?In the wide sense, defense service consists of guards or police who use force in defending person and property against attack, and judges or courts whose role is to use socially accepted procedures to determine who the criminals or tortfeasors are, as well as to enforce judicial awards, such as damages or the keeping of contracts. On the free market, many scenarios are possible on the relationship between the private courts and the police; they may be vertically integrated, for example, or their services may be supplied by separate firms. Furthermore, it seems likely that police service will be supplied by insurance companies who will provide crime insurance to their clients. In that case, insurance companies will pay off the victims of crime or the breaking of contracts or arbitration awards and then pursue the aggressors in court to recoup their losses. There is a natural market connection between insurance companies and defense service, since they need pay out fewer benefits in proportion as they are able to keep down the rate of crime.Courts might either charge fees for their services, with the losers of cases obliged to pay court costs, or else they may subsist on monthly or yearly premiums by their clients, who may be either individuals or the police or insurance agencies. Suppose, for example, that Smith is an aggrieved party, either because he has been assaulted or robbed, or because an arbitration award in his favor has not been honored. Smith believes that Jones is the party guilty of the crime. Smith then goes to a court, Court A, of which he is a client, and brings charges against Jones as a defendant. In my view, the hallmark of an anarchist society is one where no man may legally compel someone who is not a convicted criminal to do anything, since that would be aggression against an innocent man's person or property. Therefore, Court A can only invite rather than subpoena Jones to attend his trial. Of course, if Jones refused to appear or send a representative, his side of the case will not be heard. The trial of Jones proceeds. Suppose that Court A finds Jones innocent. In Rothbard's view, part of the generally accepted law code of the anarchist society is that this must end the matter unless Smith can prove charges of gross incompetence or bias on the part of the court.Suppose, next, that Court A finds Jones guilty. Jones might accept the verdict, because he too is a client of the same court, because he knows he is guilty, or for some other reason. In that case, Court A proceeds to exercise judgment against Jones. Neither of these instances poses very difficult problems for our picture of the anarchist society. But suppose, instead, that Jones contests the decision; he then goes to his court, Court B, and the case is retried there. Suppose that Court B, too, finds Jones guilty. Again, it seems to me that the accepted law code of the anarchist society will assert that this ends the matter; both parties have had their say in courts which each has selected, and the decision for guilt is unanimous.Suppose, however, the most difficult case: that Court B finds Jones innocent. The two courts, each subscribed to by one of the two parties, have split their verdicts. In that case, the two courts will submit the case to an appeals court, or arbitrator, which the two courts agree upon. There seems to be no real difficulty about the concept of an appeals court. As in the case of arbitration contracts, it seems very likely that the various private courts in the society will have prior agreements to submit their disputes to a particular appeals court. How will the appeals judges be chosen? Again, as in the case of arbitrators or of the first judges on the free market, they will be chosen for their expertise and their reputation for efficiency, honesty, and integrity. Obviously, appeals judges who are inefficient or biased will scarcely be chosen by courts who will have a dispute. The point here is that there is no need for a legally established or institutionalized single, monopoly appeals court system, as states now provide. There is no reason why there cannot arise a multitude of efficient and honest appeals judges who will be selected by the disputant courts, just as there are numerous private arbitrators on the market today. The appeals court renders its decision, and the courts proceed to enforce it if, in our example, Jones is considered guilty – unless, of course, Jones can prove bias in some other court proceedings.No society can have unlimited judicial appeals, for in that case there would be no point to having judges or courts at all. Therefore, every society, whether statist or anarchist, will have to have some socially accepted cutoff point for trials and appeals. My suggestion is the rule that the agreement of any two courts, be decisive. Two is not an arbitrary figure, for it reflects the fact that there are two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant, to any alleged crime or contract dispute.If the courts are to be empowered to enforce decision against guilty parties, does this not bring back the state in another form and thereby negate anarchism? No, for at the beginning of this paper I explicitly defined anarchism in such a way as not to rule out the use of defensive force – force in defense of person and property – by privately supported agencies. In the same way, it is not bringing back the state to allow persons to use force to defend themselves against aggression, or to hire guards or police agencies to defend them.It should be noted, however, that in the anarchist society there will be no district attorney to press charges on behalf of society. Only the victims will press charges as the plaintiffs. If, then, these victims should happen to be absolute pacifists who are opposed even to defensive force, then they will simply not press charges in the courts or otherwise retaliate against those who have aggressed against them. In a free society that would be their right. If the victim should suffer from murder, then his heir would have the right to press the charges.What of the Hatfield-and-McCoy problem? Suppose that a Hatfield kills a McCoy, and that McCoy's heir does not belong to a private insurance, police agency, or court, and decides to retaliate himself? Since under anarchism there can be no coercion of the noncriminal, McCoy would have the perfect right to do so. No one may be compelled to bring his case to a court. Indeed, since the right to hire police or courts flows form the right of self-defense against aggression, it would be inconsistent and in contradiction to the very basis of the free society to institute such compulsion. Suppose, then, that the surviving McCoy finds what he believes to be the guilty Hatfield and kills him in turn? What then? This is fine, except that McCoy may have to worry about charges being brought against him by a surviving Hatfield. Here it must be emphasized that in the law of the anarchist society based on defense against aggression, the courts would not be able to proceed against McCoy if in fact he killed the right Hatfield. His problem would arise if the courts should find that he made a grievous mistake and killed the wrong man; in that case, he in turn would be found guilty of murder. Surely, in most instances, individuals will wish to obviate such problems by taking their case to a court and thereby gain social acceptability for their defensive retaliation – not for the act of retaliation but for the correctness of deciding who the criminal in any given case might be. The purpose of the judicial process, indeed, is to find a way of general agreement on who might be the criminal or contract breaker in any given case. The judicial process is not a good in itself; thus, in the case of an assassination, such as Jack Ruby's murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, on public television, there is no need for a complex judicial process, since the name of the murderer is evident to all. Will not the possibility exist of a private court that may turn venal and dishonest, or of a private police force that turns criminal and extorts money by coercion? Of course such an event may occur, given the propensities of human nature. Anarchism is not a moral cure-all. But the important point is that market forces exist to place severe checks on such possibilities, especially in contrast to a society where a state exists. For, in the first place, judges, like arbitrators, will prosper on the market in proportion to their reputation for efficiency and impartiality. Secondly, on the free market important checks and balances exist against venal courts or criminal police forces. Namely, that there are competing courts and police agencies to whom victims may turn for redress. If the Prudential Police Agency should turn outlaw and extract revenue from victims by coercion, the latter would have the option of turning to the Mutual or Equitable Police Agency for defense and for pressing charges against Prudential. These are the genuine checks and balances of the free market, genuine in contrast to the phony check and balances of a state system, where all the alleged balancing agencies are in the hands of one monopoly government. Indeed, given the monopoly protection service of a state, what is there to prevent a state from using its monopoly channels of coercion to extort money from the public? What are the checks and limits of the state? None, except for the extremely difficult course of revolution against a power with all of the guns in its hands. In fact, the state provides an easy, legitimated channel for crime and aggression, since it has its very being in the crime of tax theft, and the coerced monopoly of protection. It is the state, indeed, that functions as a mighty protection racket on a giant and massive scale. It is the state that says: Pay us for your protection or else. In the light of the massive and inherent activities of the state, the danger of a protection racket emerging from one or more private police agencies is relatively small indeed.Moreover, it must be emphasized that a crucial element in the power of the state is its legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the public, the fact that after centuries of propaganda, the depredations of the state are looked upon rather as benevolent services. Taxation is generally not seen as theft, nor war as mass murder, nor conscription as slavery. Should a private police agency turn outlaw, should Prudential become a protection racket, it would then lack the social legitimacy which the state has managed to accrue to itself over the centuries. Prudential would be seen by all as bandits, rather than as legitimate or divinely appointed sovereigns bent on promoting the common good or the general welfare. And lacking such legitimacy, Prudential would have to face the wrath of the public and the defense and retaliation of the other private defense agencies, the police and courts, on the free market. Given these inherent checks and limits, a successful transformation from a free society to bandit rule becomes most unlikely. Indeed, historically, it has been very difficult for a state to arise to supplant a stateless society; usually, it has come about through external conquest rather than by evolution from within a society.Within the anarchist camp, there has been much dispute on whether the private courts would have to be bound by a basic, common law code. Ingenious attempts have been made to work out a system where the laws or standards of decision-making by the courts would differ completely from one to another. But in my view all would have to abide by the basic law code, in particular, prohibition of aggression against person and property, in order to fulfill our definition of anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression. Suppose, for example, that one group of people in society holds that all redheads are demons who deserve to be shot on sight. Suppose that Jones, one of this group, shoots Smith, a redhead. Suppose that Smith or his heir presses charges in a court, but that Jones's court, in philosophic agreement with Jones, finds him innocent therefore. It seems to me that in order to be considered legitimate, any court would have to follow the basic libertarian law code of the inviolate right of person and property. For otherwise, courts might legally subscribe to a code which sanctions such aggression in various cases, and which to that extent would violate the definition of anarchism and introduce, if not the state, then a strong element of statishness or legalized aggression into the society.But again Rothbard sees no insuperable difficulties here. For in that case, anarchists, in agitating for their creed, will simply include in their agitation the idea of a general libertarian law code as part and parcel of the anarchist creed of abolition of legalized aggression against person or property in the society.In contrast to the general law code, other aspects of court decisions could legitimately vary in accordance with the market or the wishes of the clients; for example, the language the cases will be conducted in, the number of judges to be involved, and so on.There are other problems of the basic law code which there is no time to go into here: for example, the definition of just property titles or the question of legitimate punishment of convicted offenders – though the latter problem of course exists in statist legal systems as well. The basic point, however, is that the state is not needed to arrive at legal principles or their elaboration: indeed, much of the common law, the law merchant, admiralty law, and private law in general, grew up apart from the state, by judges not making the law but finding it on the basis of agreed-upon principles derived either from custom or reason. The idea that the state is needed to make law is as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services.An anarchist system for settling disputes would be both viable and self-subsistent: that once adopted, it could work and continue indefinitely. How to arrive at that system is of course a very different problem, but certainly at the very least it will not likely come about unless people are convinced of its workability, are convinced, in short, that the state is not a necessary evil.-

**