"Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”
Antifa hit the big-time in 2017 when an as-yet-unidentified inauguration protester punched 38-year-old professional fascist cheerleader Richard Spencer in the face on camera. The clip went viral, and the Internet memed it to death—now you can even punch Spencer in a mobile game!
As the video spread, interest in anti-fascism spiked, and I can say, based on personal experience, that the attitude at demonstrations has changed. Where masked and black-clad antifa used to get wary glares, now it’s thumbs-up and “right on!” from kid-toting parents. Former congressman and Michigan institution John Dingell tweeted “When I was a pup, punching Nazis was encouraged. Hell, some of my Army buddies won medals for it.”
https://psmag.com/antifascists-have-become-the-most-reasonable-people-in-ame... Ps. The Revolution WILL NOT be televised V2 rc1: https://youtu.be/_GaN7900LwA rc2: https://youtu.be/zYEITk-X6_0 Rr
From: Razer <g2s@riseup.net>
Antifa hit the big-time in 2017 when an as-yet-unidentified inauguration protester punched 38-year-old professional fascist cheerleader Richard Spencer in the face on camera. The clip went viral, and the Internet memed it to death—now you can even punch Spencer in a mobile game!
Interestingly, there used to be an online game called "Slap Hillary", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8npN-sYKTWE http://www.cbsnews.com/news/anti-hillary-clinton-super-pac-re-launches-slap-... Naturally, the Democrats and leftists considered that abusive, and decried it immensely. https://act.weareultraviolet.org/sign/hillarygame/? Now, when the shoe is on the other foot, Razer talks up 'punching Spencer', as if that's somehow a new and innovative concept. Is Razer merely pretending to not know about "Slap Hillary", or is he just displaying his immense ignorance?
"As the video spread, interest in anti-fascism spiked," I could also say, "As Germany invaded Poland and France, interest in Naziism spiked". Hint: "Interest" is not necessarily a positive point of view. But you knew that, right? You weren't trying to mislead anybody, right? and I can say, based on personal experience, that the attitude at demonstrations has changed."
Yes, we now see them as "rioters", and not mere "protestors".
" Where masked and black-clad antifa used to get wary glares, now it’s thumbs-up and “right on!” from kid-toting parents." In the area of sales, this kind of statement is called "puffery". If there were even only two "kid-toting parents" somewhere in the country that "thumbs-up'd" and "right on!"d such riots, technically you could say your statement is correct. But it would still be extremely misleading...as you no doubt intended. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery × Former congressman and Michigan institution John Dingell tweeted “When I was a pup, punching Nazis was encouraged. Hell, some of my Army buddies won medals for it.”
https://psmag.com/antifascists-have-become-the-most-reasonable-people-in-ame...
Except that the definition of "Nazis" that Dingell used when he was young had virtually nothing to do with the sloppy and overbroad brush that you, Razer, paint with. Dingell's "Nazis" actually CLAIMED to be Nazis, were proud of that characterization, they invaded countries, gassed people, etc, and were not merely people who wanted the country to break with its 8-year path of Obama's policies, and another 8 of Clinton's. (Not to mention 8 years of Bush 43's invasion of Iraq; Don't forget him!) Jim Bell Full disclosure: Since my discovery of the idea I labelled, "Assassination Politics", I have been an anarchist Libertarian. Thus, I have no particular objection to GENUINE anarchists protesting Trump's policies, or Milo Yiannopoulis' speeches, etc, __IF__ they are consistently objecting to ALL government, at least in proportion to its size and level of intrusiveness. Did they protest, and riot, against Obama's administration? To Hillary Clinton's proposals? Bernie Sander's ideas? Bill Clinton's administration? Or even George Bush 43? Do a Google Trends search of "anarchism" over the last 12 months: The results hit a local peak during the week of Jan 22-28, just after the inauguration. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%2012-m&q=anarchism (set time to last 12 months) Not surprising, I suppose. The problem is, I suspect that the large majoriity of "anarchists" we are recently (weeks, months) hearing about are actually not objecting to government in general: They are just complaining that the existing government is changing in control to people who they don't like. Some (most?) of them may actually like, or even love, government, but only if the kind of people and philosophies they like are controlling it. But it's much more convenient for them to drop any overt association with government, because if they didn't they'd actually have to defend that position, and not merely object to the policies of the new Administration.
Man who regularly calls people delicate ‘snowflake’ outraged by beer advert, broadway play... http://newsthump.com/2017/02/06/man-who-regularly-calls-people-snowflakes-ou...
PS. Vol 84,#18 01/26/2017 08:30 AM The LI(E)_BERTARIAN A LIE promoted as "TRUTH"...... remains a LIE. ~Ben Morea, Motherfucker... Motherfucker. http://e-blast.squarespace.com/journal/2017/1/26/vol-8418.html "Anarchist Libertarian" has to be the BIGGEST FUCKING CROCK OF SHIT ever put in two words. Self-interested political trash can NEVER be an anarchist. Shapeshifting fascism warping terminology ... Like "Bannon, Leninist" or that cunt 'journalist' Neocon who kicked off a few years ago and his claim to be a "Trotskyist" Go snivel on the Argentine troll's lapel about it. It thinks it's one too.
On Feb 7, 2017, at 4:47 PM, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
"Anarchist Libertarian" has to be the BIGGEST FUCKING CROCK OF SHIT ever put in two words.
Thank you. This hit my brain hard as well. I’m not sure how someone can think that the term ‘anarchist’ can align with the slightest measurement of approval of governing forces. It’s instantly outwardly apparent that, well, said claimant is not there yet; May get there, isn’t there yet.
From: bbrewer <bbrewer@littledystopia.net>
On Feb 7, 2017, at 4:47 PM, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
"Anarchist Libertarian" has to be the BIGGEST FUCKING CROCK OF SHIT ever put in two words.
Thank you. This hit my brain hard as well. Maybe because it wasn't working? Or maybe you don't have much of an imagination? I’m not sure how someone can think that the term ‘anarchist’ can align with the slightest measurement of approval of governing forces. It’s instantly outwardly apparent that, well, said claimant is not there yet; May get there, isn’t there yet. Anarchist: Non-believer in government, at least government as we currently understand it.Libertarian: Believer in the Non-Aggression Principle. (NAP; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle Your statement implies that "Libertarian" NECESSARILY amounts to the 'approval of governing forces.' Even that has a problem: What is your definition of "governing forces"? I'll say this: A "Libertarian" has no problem with "government", at least a government of a type which does not employ violations of the Non-Aggression principle. Now, I understand that this may seem to be a non-sequitur, since essentially every existing government we know of does, indeed, violate the NAP. What I am saying, instead, is that it is not entirely inconceivable that a new form of government could begin to exist which did not violate the NAP. One, for example, that is based upon voluntary agreements, rather that collectively-defined dictates. (AKA "laws"). We can ask ourselves a question: Does a person who, today, calls himself an 'anarchist' NECESSARILY opposes a 'government' that is implemented not by violations of the NAP, but instead is implemented by voluntary agreements? Simplistically, he might say, 'If something is called a 'government', then I must automatically oppose it!'. But if we asked him if he was unalterably against voluntary agreements by two or more people, he might think a little longer and decide, 'That would be okay...' Three statements I will make:1. An 'anarchist' is not NECESSARILY a Libertarian. (example: A person who is opposed to the existence of government, but who feels free to initiate force against others.)2. A 'Libertarian' is not NECESSARILY an anarchist. (example: A person who is opposed to violations of the NAP, but who has no problem with a 'government' which doesn't employ violations of NAP.3. But, a person could, conceivably, be BOTH a Libertarian and an anarchist. Above, when you used the term, 'governing forces', you probably assumed forces which employed violations of NAP. But if you expanded your definition of 'governing forces' to include NOT violating NAP, perhaps you can see a common ground where both "libertarians" and "anarchists" can be satisfied. Jim Bell
×
On 02/07/2017 05:44 PM, jim bell wrote:
Anarchist: Non-believer in government, at least government as we currently understand it. Libertarian: Believer in the Non-Aggression Principle. (NAP; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
Your statement implies that "Libertarian" NECESSARILY amounts to the 'approval of governing forces.'
Even that has a problem: What is your definition of "governing forces"?
Your "Non-Aggression principles (not that I believe Libertarians possess such a thing as fixed principles) only apply to the other psychopaths like you. For as long as necessary. No longer. That's what I've seen in practice (since I first observed such a thing as 'Libertarianism' in... was it the late 1970s?) and action IS THE ONLY THING that matters. EVERYONE writes shit down. Ask any Indigenous person on the North American continent what that writing's worth. Further, Feudalism is a form of government and Libertarians, when they aren't busy being Economic Republicans with Democrat social morals (fwtw) are Feudal... Absolutely. The argument is always "The biggest guns win" also belying your so-called NAP So does your "Assassination Market. How "Non-Agressive" You're full of shit.
On Feb 7, 2017, at 8:44 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Even that has a problem: What is your definition of "governing forces”?
any group of people that expresses the notion or intent to apply their policy on individuals, as there is no way each and every individual will align, or to be kind, perfectly align with said policies.
I'll say this: A "Libertarian" has no problem with "government", at least a government of a type which does not employ violations of the Non-Aggression principle. Now, I understand that this may seem to be a non-sequitur, since essentially every existing government we know of does, indeed, violate the NAP.
What I am saying, instead, is that it is not entirely inconceivable that a new form of government could begin to exist which did not violate the NAP. One, for example, that is based upon voluntary agreements, rather that collectively-defined dictates. (AKA "laws").
You cannot have a group of people that considers themselves ‘governing’ that a) isn’t the definition of a collective b) can prescribe said , er, ‘suggestions’ (read: alt-truth ‘laws’) that are to be followed but without violating the NAP. It can’t happen. The anarchist doesn’t subscribe. Now, if said government doesn’t force these, again ‘suggestions’ onto said ‘anarchist who doesn’t subscribe’, this is wonderful. But the anarchist remains an anarchist, and the government isn’t governing beyond those who follow. What you’re effectively describing is… A different group of anarchists that align differently, and have gathered, and.. An anarchist is fine with this — But it certainly isn’t a notion of a government, a (however nationalistic / dictatorship to whatever minimalistic) centralized governing being.
We can ask ourselves a question: Does a person who, today, calls himself an 'anarchist' NECESSARILY opposes a 'government' that is implemented not by violations of the NAP, but instead is implemented by voluntary agreements? Simplistically, he might say, 'If something is called a 'government', then I must automatically oppose it!'. But if we asked him if he was unalterably against voluntary agreements by two or more people, he might think a little longer and decide, 'That would be okay…'
Between two people is okay; because that math is fucking possible. You cannot expect everyone in a ‘state or nation’ to subscribe to whatever agreement, voluntarily. You’re not suggesting as such. However, what I am suggesting is that if no coercion is present in these actions, of which I applaud, then this mystical government of voluntary actions isn’t a government at all ; It is a group of people agreeing to something; where others are free to not participate. This government you speak of isn’t a government at all; It is a group of anarchists. The notion of government simply cannot exist without coercive elements. Thereby, perhaps you’re a bit more ‘anarchist’ than you realize; Or perhaps you’ve mis-understood the notion of libertarian and THEIR PARTY. My brain works fine, I assure you. I may occasionally use a slightly wrong term, or not quite get my point across because i’m responding in discourse mode, not ‘deep deep’ thought mode, or perhaps it’s all the beers , the exhaustion from working, and 2 small children, but it works, and I can fully recognize the break between ‘a government of any sort’ and anarchist, and start, deep, deep , deep into that abyss. It, in fact, stares back. Sp, Mr bell, I implore you. Stop straddling the fence with these combo terms that will split you down the middle. Do you believe in a group of people having ‘say’ over others, or do you not? A group of people who ‘abide by the NAP’ , and do not force their views upon others by any forceful means , well, that isn’t government at all. It’s a group of people, living their life, no matter whom subscribes. It’s a group of anarchists — Against government.
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 01:44:06 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
okay...' Three statements I will make:1. An 'anarchist' is not NECESSARILY a Libertarian. (example: A person who is opposed to the existence of government, but who feels free to initiate force against others.)
Your first statement is plainly wrong. Anarchism is a political philosophy that rejects government BECAUSE government is a criminal enterprise. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/anarchism?s=t "a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty. " People who claim they are against gov't but don't respect rights are NOT anarchists. For example, all the 'anarcho' commie clowns are not really anarchists. 2. A 'Libertarian' is not NECESSARILY an anarchist. Of course WRONG AGAIN. Libertarianism is based on rights to life liberty and property. Government violates those rights, by definition. So yeah, the only real libertarians are the ones who fully reject government. Advocates of so called 'limited' government on the other hand are frauds and dangerous criminals.
(example: A person who is opposed to violations of the NAP, but who has no problem with a 'government' which doesn't employ violations of NAP.
That's pretty much absurd. Governments by definition violate the 'nap'. Governments are based on the "obey or die" 'philosophy'. 3. But, a person could, conceivably, be BOTH a Libertarian and
an anarchist.
The proper word is not "could". It is "must".
Above, when you used the term, 'governing forces', you probably assumed forces which employed violations of NAP. But if you expanded your definition of 'governing forces' to include NOT violating NAP, perhaps you can see a common ground where both "libertarians" and "anarchists" can be satisfied. Jim Bell
You know, you are playing in the hands of fascist clowns like rayzer.
On 02/07/2017 06:20 PM, juan wrote:
Libertarianism is based on rights to life liberty and property
In order to maintain those rights requires cooperation, or should I say collusion, on the part of a group of people to supress other people who might 'deprive them of what they believe is rightfully theirs. Feudalism... A form of government. As an anarchist I only would support that sort of cooperation or collusion for existential self-defense. ie. to defend against Fascists who, by ideology, believe because 'A', 'B' has no right to exist. As far as property... If someone tried to steal my computer I'd kick the living shit out of them, but I wouldn't be 'calling a posse' to help recover it if they got away with it. I'd 'deal with it' myself. And fwiw "Liberty" in the US constitutional sense of the word means 'the liberty to own property' including people. Rr
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 18:29:54 -0800 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
On 02/07/2017 06:20 PM, juan wrote:
Libertarianism is based on rights to life liberty and property
In order to maintain those rights requires cooperation,
rayzer, you should go troll somewhere else "Benign (or at least non-malignant) totalitarianism is possible. Monarchies tend to be that. "
On 02/07/2017 06:36 PM, juan wrote:
rayzer, you should go troll somewhere else
"Benign (or at least non-malignant) totalitarianism is possible. Monarchies tend to be that. "
Fuck off. That had no bearing on what I just wrote. Further, your assumption that because I wrote the above the other day about a completely different topic means I think it's fine and dandy, illustrates exactly why you're a nasty troll without any purpose other than to obfuscate threads with feces-like spew. Rr
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 18:45:20 -0800 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
On 02/07/2017 06:36 PM, juan wrote:
rayzer, you should go troll somewhere else
"Benign (or at least non-malignant) totalitarianism is possible. Monarchies tend to be that. "
Fuck off. That had no bearing on what I just wrote.
"Benign (or at least non-malignant) totalitarianism is possible. Monarchies tend to be that. " Get lost scumbag. Call some accomplices and go murder some 'white' non-joo burgeoise pig.
On 02/07/2017 06:51 PM, juan wrote:
Get lost scumbag. Call some accomplices and go murder some 'white' non-joo burgeoise pig.
Aww... butthurt. And I'm plumb out of Butthurt Assessment forms. I think it's adorable that a good ol fashion Shout 'em down Nazi like you should refer to yourself as an Anarchist and that other idiot who thinks having your own domain and using your own name so the feds can track you verifies anarchist tendencies. Rr
On Feb 7, 2017, at 9:59 PM, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
On 02/07/2017 06:51 PM, juan wrote:
Get lost scumbag. Call some accomplices and go murder some 'white' non-joo burgeoise pig.
Aww... butthurt. And I'm plumb out of Butthurt Assessment forms.
I think it's adorable that a good ol fashion Shout 'em down Nazi like you should refer to yourself as an Anarchist and that other idiot who thinks having your own domain and using your own name so the feds can track you verifies anarchist tendencies.
Rr
Verifies one thing; I am me. Calling people idiots that mostly agreed with you, seems a bit crass, I will say. oop, more info, Jim Bell may refer to these forms as kites. Curious as to if he’ll answer. Hide all you want; I’m not suggesting to kill the president; I’m suggesting there be no president. Someone has an issue with that and knocks on my door? Slightly concerned, far more with the action itself. Grow a sack. You know, rise up.
On 02/07/2017 07:09 PM, bbrewer quoted me responding to the Argentine fascist (small 'f') claiming to be an anarchist:
other idiot who thinks having your own domain and using your own name so the feds can track you verifies anarchist tendencies. Rr
and replies:
Verifies one thing; I am me.
Calling people idiots that mostly agreed with you, seems a bit crass, I will say. oop, more info, Jim Bell may refer to these forms as kites. Curious as to if he’ll answer.
Hide all you want; I’m not suggesting to kill the president; I’m suggesting there be no president. Someone has an issue with that and knocks on my door? Slightly concerned, far more with the action itself.
Grow a sack. You know, rise up.
Listen. I've been using this handle most likely longer than you've been playing on the www along with another nick that's entirely traceable to the same physical person (my fem alter-persona 'auntieimperial'). There a good reason for it and it has NOTHING to do with the fedz., or my legal status (not wanted for anything by any leo or court or ex) and it's really none of your biz why I feel the need to do so except to say 'local activism in a provincial environment', nor does the use of an alias in any way negate my opinions or facts stated. Attack or agree with my statements. Not me. And IF you're aware that's how debate and conversations work, why did you bother bringing it up? Passive-Aggressive trolling is STILL trolling. Rr
From: Razer <g2s@riseup.net> On 02/07/2017 07:09 PM, bbrewer quoted me responding to the Argentine fascist (small 'f') claiming to be an anarchist: other idiot who thinks having your own domain and using your own name so the feds can track you verifies anarchist tendencies. Rr
and replies: Verifies one thing; I am me.
Calling people idiots that mostly agreed with you, seems a bit crass, I will say. oop, more info, Jim Bell may refer to these forms as kites. Curious as to if he’ll answer.
I'm not sure what is being said, here. But I know of two kinds of "kites": First, the light, wood-and paper, wind-driven flying devices, tethered with string. Or, in prison a "kite" is a written message from one person to another. (Alternatively, if it goes to a guard or administrator, it's called a "cop-out".) Jim Bell
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 18:59:23 -0800 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
having your own domain and using your own name so the feds can track you verifies anarchist tendencies.
self parody never ends. The feds are the ones who pay rayzer's wages. So they know pretty well how to find him. On the other hand, if rayzer were not a US informant/troll/agitator, and if the garbage he posts here was true, then he fucktard has given tons of 'clues' about his 'real' 'identity'. So either all his vomits about his joo, nazi dad/murderer from the US military and all the rest of personal bullshit nobody gives a fuck about, are lies...or an example of how good rayzer is at playing 'anarchist'.
Rr
OK, I indulge your pathetic trolling for 30 seconds. Razer wrote:
As far as property... If someone tried to steal my computer
YOUR computer? I thought that the High Priests of Communism like you didn't believe in property, let alone actually own some? So not only now you claim you 'own' stuff, but stuff that in turn requires a vast manufacturing network...based on MORE property? Then again, somebody who believes in "Benign Totalitarianism" is obviously unable to write even one sentence without including one or three contradictions in it.
On 02/07/2017 07:13 PM, juan wrote:
OK, I indulge your pathetic trolling for 30 seconds.
Razer wrote:
As far as property... If someone tried to steal my computer YOUR computer? I thought that the High Priests of Communism like you didn't believe in property, let alone actually own some?
So not only now you claim you 'own' stuff, but stuff that in turn requires a vast manufacturing network...based on MORE property?
Then again, somebody who believes in "Benign Totalitarianism" is obviously unable to write even one sentence without including one or three contradictions in it.
Soo... You work your net majick from a public library computer? Or do you steal them from children? Rr
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 19:47:53 -0800 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
Soo... You work your net majick from a public library computer?
I'm not a piece of commie-fascist shit like you. I 'own' 'my' computer.
As far as property... If someone tried to steal my computer
OOPS. The rayzer talks about 'his' computer. Commie rayzer is senile and suffering from propertarian hallucinations. How sad.
Or do you steal them from children?
How can I steal if property doesn't exist. Do you remember rayzer that you told us that you are the proud owner of an iphone, right? I guess you enjoy the fact thar your phone was manufactured using slave labor from china. 'Course the chinese are not joos at all like you. Your joo god created them to serve you =)
Rr
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:00:36AM -0300, Juan wrote:
'Course the chinese are not joos at all like you. Your joo god created them to serve you =)
Oww! Low blow!!! :D :D I believe quoting from or discussing the Talmud publicly (or at least, discussing it with non-joos) is a death-punishable offence - better watch him: (((Rayzer))) joo, gonna come get you :D (I know, I know Razer, you're only doing it for the good of mankind - gotta kill all the fascists before they krystallnach you ... yeah, yeah, keep playing that violin, 'cause MUH 6 MUFUGGIN GAZILLION!!!!!!!!)
On 02/07/2017 08:00 PM, juan wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 19:47:53 -0800 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
Soo... You work your net majick from a public library computer?
I'm not a piece of commie-fascist shit like you. I 'own' 'my' computer.
How "anarchist'. Mine's approaching obsolete. 10 years and 32 bits, and works fine. I'm acutely aware people are dying to make these things and the reason Elon Musk is chewing Trump's ear is b/c China. Where almost every speck of Lithium on the planet is and most of the neodymium needed for Musk's little Yuppie electric utterly non-recyclable toy cars. I post on stuff like this regularly and what exactly is it you do besides troll, troll? Waste of airspace on the planet and bandwidth. Conserve oxygen. Suffocate yourself.
Or do you steal them from children?
How can I steal if property doesn't exist.
OIC You just take from the kid like a child takes a toy away from another child.
Do you remember rayzer that you told us that you are the proud owner of an iphone, right? I guess you enjoy the fact thar your phone was manufactured using slave labor from china.
ROTF I found the 4s in the gutter about a year ago while it was starting to rain. Took pity on it, and rescued it. I also waited about 3 months for the owner to call and retrieve it, but instead the # went away so I had it turned on. Ps. It was expropriated by a sneak thief at a coffee shop about a month ago. So it's no longer around.
'Course the chinese are not joos at all like you. Your joo god created them to serve you =)
Fate of birth antisemite. Whats it got to do with anything? I'm actually a practitioner of Santeria, and I'm gonna do some Afro-Catholicized voodoo on you... Waving my black cat bone now.
Rr
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 20:19:34 -0800 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
On 02/07/2017 08:00 PM, juan wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 19:47:53 -0800 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
Soo... You work your net majick from a public library computer?
I'm not a piece of commie-fascist shit like you. I 'own' 'my' computer.
How "anarchist'.
What 'we' are all still wanting and waiting to hear is the justification for a True Commie like you to own property. Come on rayzer. Impress 'us'. How do you manage such a Metaphysical Marxist Miracle? You are a Commie. Property is a burgeois abomination created by burgeois lawyers...yet you behave as if it were legitimate?
Mine's approaching obsolete.
Yours? 'your' computer? Like 'your' iphone (made using chinese slave labor)? That's all yours, no? More property? What an interesting commie mystery!
Do you remember rayzer that you told us that you are the proud owner of an iphone, right? I guess you enjoy the fact thar your phone was manufactured using slave labor from china.
ROTF I found the 4s in the gutter about a year ago
So? even if that was true, now it is 'your' iphone, which you gladly own and use.
while it was starting to rain. Took pity on it, and rescued it.
You took pity on a piece of plastic garbage manufactured by Apple Inc? You are surely fucked up...
I also waited about 3 months for the owner to call and retrieve it,
How touching. So you are actually a Model Libertarian? It's amazing that, although property is a burgeois social construct, you belive in it.
ut instead the # went away so I had it turned on.
Ps. It was expropriated by a sneak thief at a coffee shop about a month ago. So it's no longer around.
Are you sure it was a thief? Because, you know, if there's no such thing as property then...Or are you saying that you The Communist Philosopher King own property?
'Course the chinese are not joos at all like you. Your joo god created them to serve you =)
Fate of birth antisemite.
Whats it got to do with anything? I'm
actually a practitioner of Santeria, and I'm gonna do some Afro-Catholicized voodoo on you... Waving my black cat bone now.
Rr
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 20:48:25 -0800 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
On 02/07/2017 08:46 PM, juan Forgot to comment on this part:
'Course the chinese are not joos at all like you. Your joo god created them to serve you =) Fate of birth antisemite.
No comment Nazi?
you fucking joo are the nazi here - from goldman-sachs to the palstinian concentration camp, to your 'dad' a US military murder to your praises for commie dictators and dictatorships, Benign Totalitarianism et cetera as to the 'antisemitism' charge, I have nothing against arabs or 'semites' in general. As a matter of fact the classification of people based on 'race' is arbitrary. On the other hand your joo 'culture' of frauds and murdereres, that is well defined =)
On Feb 7, 2017, at 9:20 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Your first statement is plainly wrong.
Anarchism is a political philosophy that rejects government BECAUSE government is a criminal enterprise.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/anarchism?s=t
"a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty. "
People who claim they are against gov't but don't respect rights are NOT anarchists. For example, all the 'anarcho' commie clowns are not really anarchists.
I was curious about your stance on this matter, actually. I happen to agree with you here; share the wealth away, if you wish… But forcing someone to belong to such an agreement seems so not anarchist at all — It is curious to me as to why so many ‘old tyme’ anarchists thought this way. For what it’s worth, my license plate reads: “Agorist”. I believe in it, and unlike so much writing, I believe the doing is what matters. One can only write so much. (Yes, I realize paying the state for such a plate is ironic, but it’s a double edged sword of irony, and it costs $25 a year for this pleasure…). Juan, would you define yourself as ‘anarchist without adjectives’?
2. A 'Libertarian' is not NECESSARILY an anarchist.
Of course WRONG AGAIN.
Libertarianism is based on rights to life liberty and property. Government violates those rights, by definition.
So yeah, the only real libertarians are the ones who fully reject government. Advocates of so called 'limited' government on the other hand are frauds and dangerous criminals.
The notion, and fact, that there are self proclaimed ‘minarchists’ makes me very very sad and confused indeed. Actually, the ‘party’ of libertarianism probably most aligns with this term, no? Core underlying insane problems here? a) minarchist. Uhhhh. b) everyone has their own pieces of the pie that they like; group them; guess what? Entire pie. So, useless functionally, and useless conceptually.
(example: A person who is opposed to violations of the NAP, but who has no problem with a 'government' which doesn't employ violations of NAP.
That's pretty much absurd. Governments by definition violate the 'nap'. Governments are based on the "obey or die" 'philosophy'.
Yup. This is what I said in an earlier post, but far more succinct. If you or your group are not forcing beliefs on others who do not fully align, well, you ain’t no ‘government’, are ye? Side note: I find it funny, amusing, depressing, and perhaps regretful that so many post from un-attributable accounts. This is my name; This is my domain; Domain is registered to the house in which I am sitting in, in which my children are sleeping. Accountability in belief goes a long way.
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 09:50:33PM -0500, bbrewer wrote:
Side note: I find it funny, amusing, depressing, and perhaps regretful that so many post from un-attributable accounts. This is my name; This is my domain; Domain is registered to the house in which I am sitting in, in which my children are sleeping.
Accountability in belief goes a long way.
Aye. Ack.
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 21:50:33 -0500 bbrewer <bbrewer@littledystopia.net> wrote:
On Feb 7, 2017, at 9:20 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Your first statement is plainly wrong.
Anarchism is a political philosophy that rejects government BECAUSE government is a criminal enterprise.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/anarchism?s=t
"a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty. "
People who claim they are against gov't but don't respect rights are NOT anarchists. For example, all the 'anarcho' commie clowns are not really anarchists.
I was curious about your stance on this matter, actually. I happen to agree with you here; share the wealth away, if you wish… But forcing someone to belong to such an agreement seems so not anarchist at all — It is curious to me as to why so many ‘old tyme’ anarchists thought this way.
If you are thinking about 19th century anarchists, I don't know how many were anti property. Maybe many were, but I can't say for sure. At any rate, people like Bakunin had interesting ideas apart from their (not so good) economic analyses.
For what it’s worth, my license plate reads: “Agorist”. I believe in it, and unlike so much writing, I believe the doing is what matters.
Yes, true. But the theory needs to be worked out sometimes...
One can only write so much. (Yes, I realize paying the state for such a plate is ironic, but it’s a double edged sword of irony, and it costs $25 a year for this pleasure…).
What may be more problematic is that tagging yourself with such a plate sort of gives the game away?
Juan, would you define yourself as ‘anarchist without adjectives’?
Not sure. Probably not, because there are some substantial differences in what different people consider true anarchism.
2. A 'Libertarian' is not NECESSARILY an anarchist.
Of course WRONG AGAIN.
Libertarianism is based on rights to life liberty and property. Government violates those rights, by definition.
So yeah, the only real libertarians are the ones who fully reject government. Advocates of so called 'limited' government on the other hand are frauds and dangerous criminals.
The notion, and fact, that there are self proclaimed ‘minarchists’ makes me very very sad and confused indeed. Actually, the ‘party’ of libertarianism probably most aligns with this term, no?
More than likely I guess. The serious and academic people who get invited to cocktail parties are all Respectable Statists.
Core underlying insane problems here? a) minarchist. Uhhhh. b) everyone has their own pieces of the pie that they like; group them; guess what? Entire pie. So, useless functionally, and useless conceptually.
Yes, exactly. Just like some minarchist 'libertarians' believe in the divine right of the state to control the courts and police others believe in 'free' state-controlled 'education' or 'healthchare' or 'science' or whatever. And of course the result is state control of everything.
(example: A person who is opposed to violations of the NAP, but who has no problem with a 'government' which doesn't employ violations of NAP.
That's pretty much absurd. Governments by definition violate the 'nap'. Governments are based on the "obey or die" 'philosophy'.
Yup. This is what I said in an earlier post, but far more succinct. If you or your group are not forcing beliefs on others who do not fully align, well, you ain’t no ‘government’, are ye?
Right. Even the talk about groups doesn't make much sense to me. Seems like a case of "if you don't like porn, don't watch porn". One can say that there's a "group of people who don't like porn" but it's mostly an abstraction. If a member of the group one day decides that he now likes porn, the porn-haters have no 'jurisdiction' over him.
Side note: I find it funny, amusing, depressing, and perhaps regretful that so many post from un-attributable accounts. This is my name; This is my domain; Domain is registered to the house in which I am sitting in, in which my children are sleeping.
Well, you can find my surname in the archives =P
Accountability in belief goes a long way.
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 11:01:17AM -0800, Razer wrote:
Antifa hit the big-time in 2017 when an as-yet-unidentified inauguration protester punched 38-year-old professional fascist cheerleader Richard Spencer in the face on camera. The clip went viral, and the Internet memed it to death—now you can even punch Spencer in a mobile game!
As the video spread, interest in anti-fascism spiked, and I can say, based on personal experience, that the attitude at demonstrations has changed. Where masked and black-clad antifa used to get wary glares, now it’s thumbs-up and “right on!” from kid-toting parents. Former congressman and Michigan institution John Dingell tweeted “When I was a pup, punching Nazis was encouraged. Hell, some of my Army buddies won medals for it.”
https://psmag.com/antifascists-have-become-the-most-reasonable-people-in-ame...
Ps. The Revolution WILL NOT be televised
V2 rc1: https://youtu.be/_GaN7900LwA
rc2: https://youtu.be/zYEITk-X6_0
Rr
From some anonymous internet troll: " Yes, it's actually good for our side that they escalate things, because they will force Trump to take extreme action.
The Russians have a saying that there are always two revolutions -- the first one which brings down the old order, and the second one where the people who bided their time during the first revolution spring into action and take power while liquidating the revolutionaries of the first group. So to Antifa I say this in all sincerity: "You guys are #1!" " Those who are fed up with everything could be inclined to say "bring it on!" Although history tends to repeat, things are NEVER the same the second time around :wry_smile: Another anonymous internet troll:
Don't piss of the white boys. I mean, they have a lot of patience (witness the apathetic German response to their women being raped) but when that thread of patience finally ends, you don't wanna be anywhere near!
participants (5)
-
bbrewer -
jim bell -
juan -
Razer -
Zenaan Harkness