How to act in self defense - concealed carry saves the day

[Razer]

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

>
>
> *From:* Razer <g2s at riseup.net>
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 39500 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20170201/1469339a/attachment.txt>