subject:"Re\: How to act in self defense \- concealed carry saves the day"

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



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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

On 02/01/2017 08:52 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
> 
>>> Then observe the typical gun owner.
> 
> On 2/2/2017 10:39 AM, Razer wrote:
>> Yeah. They're pussies. And UGLY STUPID DEPENDENT-ON-THEIR-LITTLE-PECKER
>> PUSSIES at that.
> 
> That is what you progressives may have thought when you attacked, with
> brass knuckles and odds of several to one, a short middle aged man in a
> yellow hat outside Milo's meeting.
> 
> http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1957328_Video-of-UW-Seattle-protest-shooting-outside-Milo-Yiannadeoupoulis-speech.html=3=bottom#bottom
> 
> 
> But then if you actually thought that, why the brass knuckles and the
> many-on-one odds?
> 
> 
http://crustpunks.com/images/followyourleader2.png



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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

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



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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

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



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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

2017-02-04 Thread juan

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
>

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

2017-02-03 Thread Razer


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

Rr



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

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

2017-02-03 Thread 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

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

2017-02-03 Thread Razer

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
>
>
>
>

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

2017-02-02 Thread jim bell

 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

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

2017-02-02 Thread 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.

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

2017-02-02 Thread juan

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.

sothe 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.

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

2017-02-02 Thread Steve Kinney

-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-

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

2017-02-02 Thread Razer

On 02/02/2017 09:30 AM, Joshua Case wrote:

> Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national
> syndicalists who drew upon left-wing and right-wing political views.

Just goes to show how unreliable Wikipedia is.

An old Italian on the subject.

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

PDF for your essay collection:
http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf

Fascism goes back to prehistory. It IS NOT "Politics", it LEECHES on
societies through their political systems, and FWIW, Mussolini said it
was better called "Corporatism", rejecting the word "Fascism" as
description.

Rr

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

2017-02-02 Thread Razer

On 02/01/2017 11:20 PM, jim bell wrote:
>
>
> *From:* Razer 
> On 02/01/2017 08:34 PM, jim bell wrote:
>> *From:*Razer  
>> 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=fascism+definition=chrome..69i57j0l5.4048j0j7=chrome=UTF-8
>>  
>>  
>>
>>   / fas·cism //ˈfaSHˌizəm/ //noun  //an authoritarian and
>> nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization./
>>
>> 1.
>> /synonyms:/  /authoritarianism
>> 
>> ,
>>  totalitarianism
>> 
>> ,
>>  dictatorship
>> 
>> ,
>>  despotism
>> 
>>

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

2017-02-01 Thread jim bell



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


 >>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.
 
>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.


 >>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.  
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.
 
 >>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.
 
  >>I looked up the (Google?) definition of "fascist", and it stated:   
https://www.google.com/search?q=fascism+definition=fascism+definition=chrome..69i57j0l5.4048j0j7=chrome=UTF-8
    
     fas·cism     ˈfaSHˌizəm/     noun      an authoritarian and nationalistic 
right-wing system of government and social organization.  
   -  
  | synonyms:| authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, 
despotism, autocracy; 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".

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

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

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.

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

Missed this


On 02/01/2017 09:20 PM, Razer wrote:
> So why isn't "fascism" merely seen as being another form of "Socialism"?

Fascism is National Socialism. 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.

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... Albeit
Gadaffi was making a pretty good effort at it by using the country's oil
revenues to fund AU development projects if the country's government
promised to attempt to root out corruption . FWIW, his "Little Green
Book", which is available in English online reads very much like an
Anarcho-Syndicalist treatise.

Rr

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

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.)
>
>

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

2017-02-01 Thread jim bell

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"?
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?
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.
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.
I think the term "slippery slope" comes to mind.
"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?
" 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?
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. AND2. 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=fascism+definition=chrome..69i57j0l5.4048j0j7=chrome=UTF-8
fas·cism ˈfaSHˌizəm/ noun an authoritarian and nationalistic
right-wing system of government and social organization.
-
| synonyms:| authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship,
despotism, autocracy; 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"?
I am well aware of the "Nolan Chart",

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

2017-02-01 Thread Zenaan Harkness

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 02:30:00AM +, 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.

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


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.

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



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

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




Then observe the typical gun owner.


On 2/2/2017 10:39 AM, Razer wrote:

Yeah. They're pussies. And UGLY STUPID DEPENDENT-ON-THEIR-LITTLE-PECKER
PUSSIES at that.


That is what you progressives may have thought when you attacked, with 
brass knuckles and odds of several to one, a short middle aged man in a 
yellow hat outside Milo's meeting.


http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1957328_Video-of-UW-Seattle-protest-shooting-outside-Milo-Yiannadeoupoulis-speech.html=3=bottom#bottom

But then if you actually thought that, why the brass knuckles and the 
many-on-one odds?

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

2017-02-01 Thread Steve Kinney

-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-

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



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

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



On 02/01/2017 02:02 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>


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.

Rr

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