On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 09:22:43AM +0000, Ben Tasker wrote:

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Ray Cis wrote:

...

...

On Tue, Jan 31 01:45:24 -0100 "Ben Tasker" <ben at bentasker.co.ck>

An alternative view of that situation, of course,

Comes from a cucked citezen of the UK who cannot lawfully own a handgun.

Given that the per-capita rate of crimes the US counts as "Violent Crimes" are an absolute shitload lower in the UK, I'm more than happy not to own a handgun in exchange. Given the huge variance between what the US and UK classify as a "Violent crime" the categorical numbers can't be compared directly. If someone breaks into my house overnight, the probability of them having a firearm is incredibly low, so I've got the option to go downstairs and lamp them with whatever's at hand without worrying about getting shot the second I appear on the stairs.

We had a shooting at a primary school, and it was decided that the costs of handgun ownership were too high. Australia had something similar too before they tightened controls.

I've posted our longer term stats before, but despite a one-year drop in certain gun related crimes after the Port Arthur false flag (abhorrent crime in the extreme just to get legislation on the books), crime ended up rising again, and ultimately gun ownership and crime rates both now exceed what they were pre-Port Arthur massacre. So, Australia's not an example of "effective gun control legislation".

The US had the Sandy Hook massacre, but seems to have decided that owning a weapon is more important, despite repeated school shootings.

You might call the UK cucked, but that's still comparably better than willingly standing by and watching the NRA fuck your kids to death.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/01/2017 11:03 AM, Razer wrote: ...

I make a note of exactly who they are and put them on my 'no mercy' mental list (and I have an excellent memory for faces)

If I ever have an inkling I might be involved in an altercation with them they'll NEVER have time to grab their little dickie and the first of many things I break is their soft little dick-handing hand.

#NaziPunch #ProTip / #SafetyFirst

THINK before you punch! (and don't tuck your thumb either in K?)

LOL. I put this text up on The Facebook in response to the "Safety First" advisory graphic. Response was uniformly positive, but y'all know how echo chambers work... Bruce Lee say: "Before king fu training, a punch is just a punch. During kung fu training, a punch is a complex process to study, refine and develop. After kung fu training, a punch is, again, just a punch." For best effect, practice punching a padded surface. Train with both hands, left - right - left - right etc. A vertical fist has slightly more reach and power than a horizontal one. Do not "twist" the fist, no matter what somebody told you. Speed = power, to hit harder concentrate on speed. Fist should move in a straight line. Pulling it BACK even faster than it went forward adds shock, enables you to block an incoming response better, and enables you to take fast second shot if indicated. Nazi punching is a felony, but not if he visibly and unmistakably tried to hit you first. Aggravated battery (i.e. hitting first in response to insults) carries a higher penalty for some reason I never understood. This information is offered as-is with no guarantee or claim of fitness for use of any purpose. User assumes risk of injury. A Jeet Kune Do speed training technique: Turn a TV to some show like a cartoon that has frequent scene changes. Stand in front of it, feet planted a little wide, knees slightly bent. Make a hand-washing gesture in front of your chest with your hands. Keep your arms as loose and relaxed as you can. Unfocus your eyes, see the whole area in front of you not just the TV. Every time the scene changes, snap whichever hand is in front of the other toward the screen as fast as you can, and retract it just as fast or faster. Resume the hand-washing movement. Continue for five to ten minutes per session, daily. In a couple of weeks you will be able to punch VERY fast. The nerves that control voluntary muscle are of two types: One governs steady contraction, the other twitch contraction. This exercise trains several systems and reflexes at once, and causes the "twitch" function nerves to actually grow stronger and more active. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYklsCAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqYJMH/1t6E8RZb8q3Lb3AWChMlWT7 zfJ1e1HNothc5myqlKtMZHR1pUXOHdSqo5M80VNlT7cNqA7mn6VLeioTRL5mQm0a i2lXo9ddElKsYvGBPhBqAzB2YlQ/0C9QNPbcziQmGlottzOKJiOPM3blmINA9hKS d7SDPdQed7B4MJoZlf/XBtO7yyH1LKDDM7FcICMoogeIHLM/ZNz7zswhIeZz1dws +8HaBEm3GmE58BIfWt2+DpTiFVF4BvuELZzu2Z61ZlHH6oR1YNJgh9FVrE3Ln8p5 q7GIsNuGNeVRFZ/TAyGriGAbsHGo0a3M5Wo44dzwtm5AhPKCTTxLHzWO3LfmhDk= =vapr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 02/01/2017 03:21 PM, The Don wrote:

Then observe the typical gun owner.

Yeah. They're pussies. And UGLY STUPID DEPENDENT-ON-THEIR-LITTLE-PECKER PUSSIES at that. That's why so many of them end up dead by their own weapon. Dude, or whatever you are. You have NO IDEA AT ALL where I've been, what I've done, and who I know. Stick to email lists for your threat levels. Your reality would be much bleaker, and very very short-lived, irl. Rr

James A. Donald asked a stupid question:

why the brass knuckles and the many-on-one odds?

I can't speak for the participants but quite simply any way you kill a nazi is a good way. They think people they target are subhuman. So they earn subhuman treatment from the people they target. And saying that makes the potential victim just like the victimizer is a logical fallacy. It's also a sociological fallacy that someone peaceful whose existence is threated by someone whose violent will continue to be violent after the threat from their victimizer is exterminated. Whereas the victimizer... IF they're left to go about their way will simply commit another act of violence against another victim their ideology tells them is subhuman. Rr

On 02/01/2017 11:14 PM, James A. Donald wrote:

James A. Donald asked a stupid question:

...

...

why the brass knuckles and the many-on-one odds?

On 2/2/2017 12:30 PM, Razer wrote:

...

any way you kill a nazi is a good way. They think people they target are subhuman. So they earn subhuman treatment from the people they target.

This would be a more convincing answer if:

1. I had ever seen progs attack without many to one odds in their favor, or without hitting and running.

2. If all Putin supporters and Trump supporters were not deemed nazis and fascists.

3. If the world was not full of conspicuously subhuman people artificially designated by the state as human, which people are allowed to cause problems for the real humans.

4. If whenever subhumans harass humans, as for example Pussy Riot desecrating a Cathedral, leftists did not react as that adding to leftist status and reducing the status of regular humans.

My point being that you depict leftists as strong and powerful, and everyone else as weak and vulnerable, but leftists in action do not in actual practice act as if they feel themselves to be strong individually. Rather they adopt the female strategy of whining and weeping a lot and claiming to be victimized.

During the Occupy protests, an Occupy mob descended upon a Koch event. One of the Koch brothers came out with three rentacops, (I don't recall exactly how many, but it was three or so) facing perhaps something like a hundred protesters, and forced them back. Protesters called for police to intervene in favor of the protesters against the Koch brother and his horribly brutal rentacops.

Leftists identify with subhumans, supposedly because they care so deeply about far away people they have never met, but they identify primarily when subhumans do bad things to regular humans.

http://crustpunks.com/images/followyourleader2.png

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 02:30:00AM +0000, Razer wrote:

James A. Donald asked a stupid question:

...

why the brass knuckles and the many-on-one odds?

I can't speak for the participants but quite simply any way you kill a nazi is a good way.

Interesting.

They think people they target are subhuman.

They have thoughts with which you (one can presume here) disagree. Fair enough.

So they earn subhuman treatment from the people they target.

And ... deserve to be pre-emptively murdered for said views. Gotcha. "Libertarian" I suppose.

And saying that makes the potential victim just like the victimizer is a logical fallacy. It's also a sociological fallacy that someone peaceful whose existence is threated by someone whose violent will continue to be violent after the threat from their victimizer is exterminated. Whereas the victimizer... IF they're left to go about their way will simply commit another act of violence against another victim their ideology tells them is subhuman.

Rr

Because the victim-with-a-different-point-of-view suffering random acts of violence and pre-emptive murder for his views ... ensures the victim won't perpetrate further acts of violence, like speaking his views publicly. Ahah! "The victim is the perpetrator!" Of course - why didn't I think of that?! No wonder I felt like I was missing something - such erudite elucidations require extensive dissection ... TFW you feel "more libertarian" by the second, when reading Rayzer's psycho pathetic "free speech" emanations.

On 02/01/2017 08:34 PM, jim bell wrote:

*From:* Razer James A. Donald asked a stupid question:

...

...

why the brass knuckles and the many-on-one odds?

...

I can't speak for the participants but quite simply any way you kill a nazi is a good way. They think people they target are subhuman. So they earn subhuman treatment from the people they target.

Uh, where do I start? When you say, "...a nazi...", how do you define a nazi? And is it a person who actually claims to be a 'nazi', or merely somebody that you, yourself, have labelled "...a nazi"?

A person who claims to be a Nazi, albeit actions speak louder than words.

You've described one of their (you claim) faults: "They think people they target are subhuman"... So, you are labelling them as being attackable because of what "they think..."? That's their freedom of thought you are objecting to, even if you are right. And you also referred to "people they target...". What do you mean by "target"? Actually physically attack? Or people they openly criticize? Or people they simply don't like? Sounds like you're saying you want to physically attack people merely for thinking different thoughts than you, right?

No. Although anyone whose actually lived through the 3rd Reich will tell you When they said Vernichtung no one actually thought they meant Vernichtung and wished the response to the rise of Nazism was proactive.

If they are actually actively physically attacking people (as opposed to defending themselves), that sounds like it is unjustified, so you may go ahead and defend the people attacked. But somehow, I don't think that was what you intended to limit yourself to.

You're right. I listened to my German Jewish elders who survived I believe a proactive response is not only appropriate it's necessary.

Does it occur to you that if, as you claim, it's okay for a person to attack another simply because of what they THINK, or merely say, that somebody reading what YOU say here might very well come to the same conclusion: That it's okay to attack (kill?) you simply because you say it's okay to attack people solely because of what they thought or said.

You can THINK whatever you like. But promulgating it is not the same as thinking it.

I think the term "slippery slope" comes to mind.

I think recent history comes to mind and the slippery slope that led to Vernichtung that no one believed would be Vernichtung.

"And saying that makes the potential victim just like the victimizer is a logical fallacy. It's also a sociological fallacy that someone peaceful whose existence is threated"

Depends a lot on what you define as "...whose existence is threated [sic]" Is your very existence threatened merely because somebody calls himself "a nazi", or "a fascist", etc? Is your existence threatened merely because YOU call them those names?

The words Nazi and Fascist have definitions. I use them. Nazi is a bit archaic. I prefer to refer to it as Hitler-worshiping Fascism.

" by someone whose violent will continue to be violent after the threat from their victimizer is exterminated. Whereas the victimizer... IF they're left to go about their way will simply commit another act of violence against another victim their ideology tells them is subhuman."

You are hypothesizing a series of continued attacks, without specific examples. How often do such attacks actually occur? And when they do occur, are they actually the fault of "a nazi" or "a fascist"? Or, did they occur because somebody who didn't like nazis or fascists decided to attack the people they labelled as that?

The 'attack' is existential... Eternal, as Umberto Eco suggested. You keep going back to people's so-called 'labeling'. If the label fits the definition...

A famous incident from 1979 was the "Greensboro Massacre", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_massacre , where a group of KKK/Nazis drove past a protesting group of Communists. The Communists attacked them with rocks and boards and guns as well, and the KKK/Nazis then retrieved their guns from their cars' trunks, and began to shoot the Communists. It may be supposed that the KKK/Nazis expected to be attacked by the Communists, but I don't think that absolves the latter of their obvious guilt in that situation.

I also see a problem with the labels nazi and fascist. I strongly suspect that people who heavily use those labels use them merely to refer to others who are: 1. Conservative or very conservative. AND

Conservatives aren't Fascists or Nazis, nor, according to traditional definition of political conservative, can they be. Fascism is extremism

2. People they desire to attack. (It's much easier to attack people if you can lump them with other people whose guilt or undesirability is already establlished.)

So, is there any reliable way to distinguish a mere "conservative" from a "fascist"?

I looked up the (Google?) definition of "fascist", and it stated: https://www.google.com/search?q=fascism+definition&oq=fascism+definition&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.4048j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

/ fas·cism //ˈfaSHˌizəm/ //noun //an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization./

1. /synonyms:/ /authoritarianism https://www.google.com/search?q=define+authoritarianism&forcedict=authoritarianism&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi19JrYuvDRAhUC8WMKHQDeAEoQ_SoIHzAA, totalitarianism https://www.google.com/search?q=define+totalitarianism&forcedict=totalitarianism&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi19JrYuvDRAhUC8WMKHQDeAEoQ_SoIIDAA, dictatorship https://www.google.com/search?q=define+dictatorship&forcedict=dictatorship&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi19JrYuvDRAhUC8WMKHQDeAEoQ_SoIITAA, despotism https://www.google.com/search?q=define+despotism&forcedict=despotism&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi19JrYuvDRAhUC8WMKHQDeAEoQ_SoIIjAA, autocracy https://www.google.com/search?q=define+autocracy&forcedict=autocracy&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi19JrYuvDRAhUC8WMKHQDeAEoQ_SoIIzAA; More/

* /(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice./ / / / /

/×/ // But that seems to be a circular definition: It refers to "right-wing", but doesn't explain why (other than common usage) "fascism" is thought to be "right wing". I was under the impression that 'traditional' fascism involved government control (but not ownership) of the means of production. But Socialism, I thought, amounted to heavy taxation of the means of production, which is tantamount to government control, too. And Communism might simply be labelled a form of extreme Socialism. So why isn't "fascism" merely seen as being another form of "Socialism"?

Refer to Umberto Eco. Fascism is an ideology, a reactionary ideology without politics. It 'shape-shifts'. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

I am well aware of the "Nolan Chart", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart and the World's Smallest Political Quiz. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_Smallest_Political_Quiz

Together, they illustrate that 'dictators of the right' and 'dictators of the left' tend to approach a Nolan score of (0/0): Both don't believe in economic freedom, nor do they believe in social freedom. That would certainly explain why conditions in dictatorships of the left look remarkably similar to dictatorships of the right.

Fascism can UTILIZE right or left modes of analysis, but anarchism, despite what some might say, is in direct opposition and there can never be anything such as "Anarcho-Fascism" because, simply, Fascism is the 'cult of traditionalism' and Anarchy is NEVER traditionalism .

Stop thinking that you can justify physically attacking people just because they have thoughts, or express ideas, that you don't like. Lest they decide that it's okay to do the same thing to you. "Golden Rule"

My point IS that Fascists and Nazis, by their very existence, have made the decision "that it's okay to do the same thing to you"... Even if you've never had one bad thing to say about them or harmed them in any way except their deluded self-perceived harm because, lets say, you're black, or Jewish. Rr

On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 21:29:20 -0800 Razer wrote:

Missed this

...

JB: So why isn't "fascism" merely seen as being another form of "Socialism"?

Fascism is National Socialism.

That's the only thing rayzer got one third right. Funnily enough, after constant rants against fascists, he admits that they are socialists...exactly like himself. Rayzer is just as unhinged and incoherent as james donald (and both are anti-conspiracy nutcases - hardly surprising)

As opposed to international socialism where there's ostensibly as much concern for the worker in some foreign country making your clothing as there would be for your own workers.

so....the diference betwen fascists and commies is that commies want to enslave the whole world.

It's an Ideal... BUT it's an ideal that IS possible to accomplish. Cuba is the olny country in my lifetime that's even come close...

and rayzer breaks his own record in the unhinged game. Cuba is a nation state and allegedly socialist. So cuba is pretty much 'national' 'socialism'. Or 'national' 'communism'. Or fascism. Or something. Or anything, given the complete confusion in rayzer's mind and political classification. And furthermore "Benign (or at least non-malignant) totalitarianism is possible. Monarchies tend to be that." No doubt a totalitarian, national, commie cesspool like cuba can be described as a monarchy.

On 02/02/2017 12:56 AM, James A. Donald wrote:

On 2/2/2017 3:20 PM, Razer wrote:

...

My point IS that Fascists and Nazis, by their very existence, have made the decision "that it's okay to do the same thing to you"..

Fair enough. If it is war you want, there are plenty of reasons.

Commies murdered about a hundred million. Nazis have murdered about eleven million. Surely it is a lot more important to kill commies like you than Nazis.

At Odessa the Cheka tied White officers to planks and slowly fed them into furnaces or tanks of boiling water; in Kharkiv, scalpings and hand-flayings were commonplace: the skin was peeled off victims’ hands to produce “gloves”; the Voronezh Cheka rolled naked people around in barrels studded internally with nails; victims were crucified or stoned to death at Dnipropetrovsk; the Cheka at Kremenchuk impaled members of the clergy and buried alive rebelling peasants; in Orel, water was poured on naked prisoners bound in the winter streets until they became living ice statues; in Kiev, Chinese Cheka detachments placed rats in iron tubes sealed at one end with wire netting and the other placed against the body of a prisoner, with the tubes being heated until the rats gnawed through the victim’s body in an effort to escape.

Executions took place in prison cellars or courtyards, or occasionally on the outskirts of town, during the Red Terror and Russian Civil War. After the condemned were stripped of their clothing and other belongings, which were shared among the Cheka executioners, they were either machine-gunned in batches or dispatched individually with a revolver.

Those killed in prison were usually shot in the back of the neck as they entered the execution cellar, which became littered with corpses and soaked with blood. Victims killed outside the town were moved by truck, bound and gagged, to their place of execution, where they sometimes were made to dig their own graves.

According to Edvard Radzinsky, “it became a common practice to take a husband hostage and wait for his wife to come and purchase his life with her body.” During Decossackization, there were massacres, according to historian Robert Gellately, “on an unheard of scale”. The Pyatigorsk Cheka organized a “day of Red Terror” to execute 300 people in one day, and took quotas from each part of town. According to the Chekist Karl Lander, the Cheka in Kislovodsk, “for lack of a better idea,” killed all the patients in the hospital.

In October 1920 alone more than 6,000 people were executed. Gellately adds that Communist leaders “sought to justify their ethnic-based massacres by incorporating them into the rubric of the ‘class struggle'”.

Members of the clergy were subjected to particularly brutal abuse. According to documents cited by the late Alexander Yakovlev, then head of the Presidential Committee for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression, priests, monks and nuns were crucified, thrown into cauldrons of boiling tar, scalped, strangled, given Communion with melted lead and drowned in holes in the ice. An estimated 3,000 were put to death in 1918 alone.

And, of course, there is the Haitian revolt.

Squads of soldiers moved from house to house, torturing and killing entire families. Even whites who had been friendly and sympathetic to the black population were imprisoned and later killed. A second wave of massacres targeted white women and children.

All whites in Haiti were murdered, presaging what is likely when America becomes nonwhite majority.

All commies should be killed, preferably dropping them into the Pacific ocean from helicopters. After that, we prohibit Jews, nonwhites, women, people who do not own land, and people who are not legally entitled to bear arms from voting or holding any government or quasi government office which involves exercising authority over adult white males.

You want war? We shall see who wins.

http://crustpunks.com/images/followyourleader2.png

On 02/01/2017 11:20 PM, jim bell wrote:

*From:* Razer On 02/01/2017 08:34 PM, jim bell wrote:

...

*From:*Razer mailto:g2s@riseup.net James A. Donald asked a stupid question:

...

You're right. I listened to my German Jewish elders who survived I believe a proactive response is not only appropriate it's necessary.

...

...

Does it occur to you that if, as you claim, it's okay for a person to attack another simply because of what they THINK, or merely say, that >>somebody reading what YOU say here might very well come to the same conclusion: That it's okay to attack (kill?) you simply because you say it's okay to attack people solely because of what they thought or said.

...

You can THINK whatever you like. But promulgating it is not the same as thinking it.

Okay, but TALKING about something is a kind of "promulgating" it, too.

Right. Nazis have no right to be espousing the extermination of people because of ethnic or other fate-of-birth traits alone. You can think whatever you fucking well like but once you try to spread it, you become susceptible to public opinion, and the general sentiment among most people in the US and Europe is DIE NAZI DIE! Whether the public is confused and vote for one is a completely different issue. You're seeing the backlash now.

...

...

...

You are hypothesizing a series of continued attacks, without specific examples. How often do such attacks actually occur? And when >>they do occur, are they actually the fault of "a nazi" or "a fascist"? Or, did they occur because somebody who didn't like nazis or fascists >>decided to attack the people they labelled as that?

...

The 'attack' is existential... Eternal, as Umberto Eco suggested.

You speak in a kind of jargon that I think most people (including myself) don't understand.

Existential has a definition, So does Eternal. Look it up if you don't understand the 'jargon'.

...

You keep going back to people's so-called 'labeling'. If the label fits the definition...

In your mind, it might. Problem is, it's only your own mind.

You use the word "Labelled" to describe something that's well-defined. Humans "Label" things. As long as the 'label' fits the well-defined definition "Label" is simply a loaded word.

...

...

...

I also see a problem with the labels nazi and fascist. I strongly suspect that people who heavily use those labels use them merely to refer >>to others who are: 1. Conservative or very conservative. AND

...

Conservatives aren't Fascists or Nazis, nor, according to traditional definition of political conservative, can they be. Fascism is extremism

Sorry you missed the point. Problem is, you are being too literal.

ROTF. Absolutely! If you want non-literal discuss this with someone else.

Functionally, a Communist bullet will kill a person just as dead as a Fascist bullet will. Don't get too caught up in these labels, particularly thinking that they have precise definitions. To YOU, they might, but I think most people see totalitarian regimes as similarly dangerous.

Dead by firearm is dead but Totalitarian is not necessarily Fascist. Stalin wasn't Fascist. Fascism is a throwback. A 'return to the days of yesteryear... "Make America Great ... Again". Traditionalism. No matter the society's traditions. Read Eco. And yes Totalitarianism is dangerous, but not as dangerous as the IDEOLOGY of Fascism combined with a totalitarian state. Benign (or at least non-malignant) totalitarianism is possible. Monarchies tend to be that. Fascism is never benign no matter what political system it leeches on.

...

...

...

2. People they desire to attack. (It's much easier to attack people if you can lump them with other people whose guilt or undesirability is already establlished.)

...

...

So, is there any reliable way to distinguish a mere "conservative" from a "fascist"?

I wish you'd have been able to answer this question.

See the bottom where you essentially reiterate this ...

...

...

...

I looked up the (Google?) definition of "fascist", and it stated: https://www.google.com/search?q=fascism+definition&oq=fascism+definition&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.4048j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

/ fas·cism //ˈfaSHˌizəm/ //noun //an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization./

1. /synonyms:/ /authoritarianism https://www.google.com/search?q=define+authoritarianism&forcedict=authoritarianism&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi19JrYuvDRAhUC8WMKHQDeAEoQ_SoIHzAA, totalitarianism https://www.google.com/search?q=define+totalitarianism&forcedict=totalitarianism&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi19JrYuvDRAhUC8WMKHQDeAEoQ_SoIIDAA, dictatorship https://www.google.com/search?q=define+dictatorship&forcedict=dictatorship&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi19JrYuvDRAhUC8WMKHQDeAEoQ_SoIITAA, despotism https://www.google.com/search?q=define+despotism&forcedict=despotism&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi19JrYuvDRAhUC8WMKHQDeAEoQ_SoIIjAA, autocracy https://www.google.com/search?q=define+autocracy&forcedict=autocracy&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi19JrYuvDRAhUC8WMKHQDeAEoQ_SoIIzAA; More/

* /(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice./ / / / /

/×/ //

...

...

But that seems to be a circular definition: It refers to "right-wing", but doesn't explain why (other than common usage) "fascism" is thought to be "right wing". I was under the impression that 'traditional' fascism involved government control (but not ownership) of the means of production. But >>Socialism, I thought, amounted to heavy taxation of the means of production, which is tantamount to government control, too. And Communism might simply be labelled a form of extreme Socialism. So why isn't "fascism" merely seen as being another form of "Socialism"?

...

Refer to Umberto Eco. Fascism is an ideology, a reactionary ideology without politics. It 'shape-shifts'.

...

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

Yes, but does it 'shape-shifts' into Socialism and Communism, as well? I think so: Functionally, I think of extreme regimes of 'the left' and of 'the right' as functionally identical. Don't talk as if "the right wing" is somehow especially dangerous, compared to "the left wing".

I answered in the follow up. Fascist Socialism is possible. As a matter of fact most national government who call themselves Socialist are in some way Fascist... Fascism and Communism, as I mentioned about Anarchism, are contradictory.

...

...

...

Stop thinking that you can justify physically attacking people just because they have thoughts, or express ideas, that you don't like. Lest >>they decide that it's okay to do the same thing to you. "Golden Rule"

I'll reiterate my main point "they decide that it's okay to do the same thing to you" even if you've never done, nor have any interest in, "Doing a thing" to them. That's why proactive, 'preventative' if you will, response is an imperative.

...

My point IS that Fascists and Nazis, by their very existence, have made the decision "that it's okay to do the same thing to you"... Even if >you've never had one bad thing to say about them or harmed them in any way except their deluded self-perceived harm because, lets say, you're black, or Jewish.

You are utilizing a lot of history, including very old history,

Those who don't learn from it are condemned to repeat it. Someone a lot wiser than me said that.

for the specific purpose of trashing people today, and based nearly solely on YOUR CHOICE to apply these labels to them. I still want to hear from you a definition that actually helps a person to distinguish between "a conservative" and a "fascist".

A conservative holds traditional values but they ARE mutable in relation to change of times. For instance a conservative understands that the internet wasn't part of the founders of the US understanding and modifying laws to 'compensate' for that doesn't necessarily go against conserving the constitution in some 'pristine state'. With Fascism it's NEVER mutable and if the internet interferes with their tradition in any way it is eliminated. Just as surely as they'd eliminate a Jew or a Gypsy or any other scapegoat. Rr

From: James A. Donald On 2/3/2017 2:14 AM, Razer wrote:

...

Right. Nazis have no right to be espousing the extermination of people because of ethnic or other fate-of-birth traits alone.

But none of the people you are calling nazis and beating up have espoused the extermination of ethnic groups.

Rather you equate disagreeing with the left on any of enormous number of points with nazism.  There is hardly anyone on the Republican side of politics, and not many on the Democrat side, that are progressive enough to be not be nazis.

Excellent point:  On 2/01/2017, at 11:20, I asked, and then answered my own question, since Razer didn't provide any answer:I asked:

...

So, is there any reliable way to distinguish a mere "conservative" from a "fascist"? [no response by Razer, so I said,] I wish you'd have been able to answer this question.[end]

To Razer and his ilk, a  "Nazi", or "fascist",  is simply a person more-rightward than [fill in the blank], where that "fill in the blank" is probably a leftist.            Jim Bell

No, you made comments on my posting, but you ignored certain parts, including my question about how you distinguish between "fascists" and "conservatives".   Says a lot.  You are aware that you still haven't explained how you distinguish that.                 Jim Bell From: Razer To: "cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org" Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 9:26 AM Subject: Re: How to act in self defense - concealed carry saves the day I answered the question, and won't reiterate. On 02/02/2017 11:37 PM, jim bell wrote: From: James A. Donald On 2/3/2017 2:14 AM, Razer wrote:

...

Right. Nazis have no right to be espousing the extermination of people because of ethnic or other fate-of-birth traits alone.

But none of the people you are calling nazis and beating up have espoused the extermination of ethnic groups.

Rather you equate disagreeing with the left on any of enormous number of points with nazism.  There is hardly anyone on the Republican side of politics, and not many on the Democrat side, that are progressive enough to be not be nazis.

Excellent point:   On 2/01/2017, at 11:20, I asked, and then answered my own question, since Razer didn't provide any answer: I asked: >>So, is there any reliable way to distinguish a mere "conservative" from a "fascist"? [no response by Razer, so I said,] I wish you'd have been able to answer this question. [end] To Razer and his ilk, a  "Nazi", or "fascist",  is simply a person more-rightward than [fill in the blank], where that "fill in the blank" is probably a leftist.            Jim Bell

On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 13:27:06 -0800 Razer wrote:

On 2017-02-03 12:40, jim bell wrote:

...

No, you made comments on my posting, but you ignored certain parts

No I answered it unequivocally

the rayzer made it unequivocally clear that he is a state commie - a castro cocksucker to be more precise. Which is basically the same thing as being a national socialist, which in turn means, as even himself correctly noted, he is a fascist. rayzer is also an apologist for the most despicable kind of conservatism there is : joo-kkkristian conservative theocracy. This should be underscored : the rayzer both claims that fascism is characterized by 'traditionalism' and then reveals himself as the most reactionary theocratic conservative you can find.

Rr

“fascism” from wikipedia - come on, there’s enough history and stuff here where we don’t need private definitions of the terms, you can actually even go read “the Doctrine Of Fascism: written when it was a viable political marketing strategy and not simply pejorative : Fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational.[39] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-ah.brookes.ac.uk-39 A number of historians regard fascism as either a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine that mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things.[40] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-sr3-40[41] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-er71-41 Fascism was founded during World War I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I by Italian national syndicalists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_syndicalism who drew upon left-wing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics and right-wing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics political views. Some scholars consider fascism to be right-wing because of its social conservatism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism and its authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism.[42] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-The_Routledge_companion_to_f...[43] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-Modern_Free_Society_and_Its_... Roderick Stackelberg places fascism—including Nazism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism, which he says is "a radical variant of fascism"—on the political right, explaining that, "The more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be."[44] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-google6-44 Italian Fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Fascism gravitated to the right in the early 1920s.[45] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-ZeevSternhell-45[46] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-massachusetts-46 A major element of fascist ideology that has been deemed to be far-right is its stated goal to promote the right of a supposedly superior people to dominate, while purging society of supposedly inferior elements.[47] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-Oliver_H._Woshinsky_2008._p.... In 1919 Benito Mussolini https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini described fascism as a movement that would strike "against the backwardness of the right and the destructiveness of the left".[48] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-varldenshistoria.se-48[49] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-littlefield-49 Later, the Italian Fascists described their ideology as right-wing in the political program The Doctrine of Fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doctrine_of_Fascism, stating: "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century."[50] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-Jeffrey_Thompson_Schnapp_200...[51] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-Benito_Mussolini_1935.2C_p._... Mussolini stated that fascism's position on the political spectrum was not a serious issue for fascists: "Fascism, sitting on the right, could also have sat on the mountain of the center ... These words in any case do not have a fixed and unchanged meaning: they do have a variable subject to location, time and spirit. We don't give a damn about these empty terminologies and we despise those who are terrorized by these words."[52] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-Gentile.2C_Emilio_2005._p._2... ---- Joshua Case jwcase@gmail.com mailto:jwcase@gmail.com “International tensions. Mounting international tensions. First there were states of precautionary alert, then there were enhanced readiness centers. This was followed by maximum arc situational preparedness. We can measure the gravity of events by tracing the increasingly abstract nature of the terminology. One more level of vagueness and that could be it."

On Feb 2, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On 02/01/2017 11:34 PM, jim bell wrote:

...

I looked up the (Google?) definition of "fascist", and it stated: / fas·cism //ˈfaSHˌizəm/ //noun //an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization./

1. /synonyms:/ /authoritarianism

...

/(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice./

...

But that seems to be a circular definition: It refers to "right-wing", but doesn't explain why (other than common usage) "fascism" is thought to be "right wing". I was under the impression that 'traditional' fascism involved government control (but not ownership) of the means of production. But Socialism, I thought, amounted to heavy taxation of the means of production, which is tantamount to government control, too. And Communism might simply be labelled a form of extreme Socialism. So why isn't "fascism" merely seen as being another form of "Socialism"?

My preferred definition of fascism describes it as rule by a wealthy oligarchy composed of industrialists and financiers, a.k.a. capitalists, under a veneer of pretended "democracy."

On the domestic front, fascist States consolidate and expand the power of a ruling elite through a propaganda regimen presenting an existential conflict between the country's racial and ethnic "rightful owners" and selected racial, ethnic and foreign scapegoats.

On the international front, fascist States wage aggressive wars to further the commercial interests of their ruling elites, under the pretext of national self defense against notional existential threats to the State's racial and ethnic "rightful owners."

Today, I view U.S. Progressive Liberal and Conservative Right constituencies as products of marketing campaigns respectively promoting covert and overt, or soft and hard, fascist values and agendas to the public. I view the political conflict between the nominal Left and Right at the national policy level as a friendly competition between financiers (Left) and industrialists (Right) for dominance in setting national policy for their own benefit.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYk2f8AAoJEECU6c5XzmuqXfcH/38DCslWU8jQgdrvOud9lulg ICOfW8x4+exsSh219n8okLtJ+zQxRD6yMF+4On44Eur7VDSAON5n9SLevwzujsCF /ut5LocisehG5n3YF+J49C0EL+7MCaCSBuDmW75eTuBorwO3L35fBy8t7yLhiTzc nB9Pu7MoZDz8+rFCWb9f32EuVljn8aJjlDEWceJxLM3Q7Wjh7Z2MtQrL/BslqMwn TjeyM8Bvl+KHmfRBK1JwTyHM9cKExRbSE7dDmdGAPuZmCdj3sQJ53tUnHQUOGdpj l/sn0JxD9FsqWO8/zusUBOqT9HQP2PI0S6C8K2GoJjGKvTIHAGRB7mvc518xvVc= =6JtU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/02/2017 12:30 PM, Joshua Case wrote:

“fascism” from wikipedia - come on, there’s enough history and stuff here where we don’t need private definitions of the terms, you can actually even go read “the Doctrine Of Fascism: written when it was a viable political marketing strategy

Come on, "the map is not the territory" and the meanings of abstract terminology are always context dependent. Insistence on definitions developed as components of "a viable political marketing strategy" means deliberate submission to terms dictated by propagandists. Sure, responsible people are obligated to do so: If we fail to kneel in submission before our rightful owners and the overseers they appoint for us, chaos would result and all the rewards and concessions granted to us for obedience would be lost. This, of course, presumes those people are "responsible to" their de facto owners, and do materially benefit from being good obedient propert y. But my principal responsibility is to myself, and by extension the natural world that makes "me" possible. My map of the world's physical and functional dimensions indictes that cultivating obedience to authority, physical or symbolic, does not contribute to responsible stewardship of either myself or the world I live in. So, homey don't play that. Your mileage may vary, especially after my kind of people are done pouring carbide grit in your gearbox. :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYk3ePAAoJEECU6c5Xzmuqb0MIAImKXm3JmES0EyK/95Obs4wf rppwRKLCO6+sQJbl7eo993D8XclXCAMDQW6PeBMk7SjfBgMXG0x3nTwHiIh6c0p3 Ot2a5zKvAiOggDft3k5pzw2gZrBqBcMdUdRPoGVen8ezkqB01mlQDeDj8sgIVpXe wC4eegmBiTbA2dB6o1eWRZldVAqsPUmG4DdMYp1NNEww906TON8IdbGV5GT7pxcQ vQdqySkpsPe7X18ms3hESmXjzGq0GJ0xJe1E9eAkgeGiT9OJQRPtoO6nU417LKFx LA9Ov7lgITPGqB9o7q/FRYWKhUHIj7jwUAKvL3C9qM4H2gGcXakF9nLMTM1UxAc= =Ozl+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 02/01/2017 06:21 PM, James A. Donald wrote:

On 2/2/2017 8:02 AM, Steve Kinney wrote:

...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On 02/01/2017 11:03 AM, Razer wrote:

...

I make a note of exactly who they are and put them on my 'no mercy' mental list (and I have an excellent memory for faces)

If I ever have an inkling I might be involved in an altercation with them they'll NEVER have time to grab their little dickie and the first of many things I break is their soft little dick-handing hand.

Big words:

Observe the typical prog.

Then observe the typical gun owner.

Progs do not have a chance.

Recall the altercation outside Milo's talk when the bald man with brass knuckles and a knife and the assistance of his numerous buddies attacked the short middle aged guy in a yellow hat.

The attack went on for twelve seconds before yellow hat chose to use his gun. Facing two new adversaries in front of him, and glancing at the bald man behind him out of the corner of his eye, he pulled his gun and cleared a line of retreat with one shot.

Despite being attacked by multiple assailants for twelve seconds, one of them employing brass knuckles, he suffered no injuries that would have impaired his ability to fight or shoot, or even provoke him to draw his gun. He only drew his gun when the bald man got additional reinforcements cutting off his line of escape.

And this is absolutely typical of every conflict I have seen. Progs either hit and run, or they attack a dozen on one. They are absolutely terrified of an equal fight, and with good reason to be terrified.

you idiot, those were not progs or liberals. They were antifa. ie people who post images like this. http://crustpunks.com/images/followyourleader2.png

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/01/2017 07:35 PM, Razer wrote:

See: "In movies, punching is the way to deal with Nazis. Reality is more complicated." https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/826912273704841216

My response: "@washingtonpost No it isn't I'll take the rap As a matter of fact if one dies from the beating I'll be glad to take the rap for that too K?"

But first they'll have to catch me. Like a fish in a big big sea with a lot of fish who don't like nazis either.

Lao Tzu say: "I dare not advance an inch but retreat a foot instead." But Lao Tzu also say: "A man most conversant in the rites acts, but when no one responds rolls up his sleeves and resorts to persuasion by force." Long story short, there are no universal solutions. It is better to win without contending, but it is better to contend than to lose - when something of real value is at stake and nothing else serves. To fight from vanity or to obtain precedence over others, or simply because one is afraid, betrays too-close kinship with the simpler animals - but without their innocence. "When victorious in war, one should observe the rites of mourning." :o/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYkoYQAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqoHoH/2jhBA82A8ZFdkjvBgUbZ/UV qiSkg3hiKoKW5JwTWvmtj9g7lg+HHhtWQAOE4EK6f/Ru5wdokyabIS/xvCmeGsFu DXxzVEnH9gwht4svQvbbQ8jTB0r4fisb05ZscDkR9OZL5st+N8lvqIxnKGhKCJW8 2k9afsPExvTZ3ykbC3CzDF4LRPhFu+EPZjzL6Gs0ppbaIm7HXODTPR14b+KNZCD1 vMksv1b/XfOGEommFI0PoPhvKcEsQQTZt5HUJnjo44s253AtNtxAr1m/GleFPOHe URcmPLSnMbRWwUD1eHligB8dzeyEVN1BSckC5jwLWJryl4wZM4bR4qHqEn33/vw= =NE5n -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----