Re: "Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”

[juan]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 21:50:33 -0500
bbrewer  wrote:

> 
> > On Feb 7, 2017, at 9:20 PM, juan  wrote:
> > 
> > Your first statement is plainly wrong. 
> > 
> > Anarchism is a political philosophy that rejects
> > government BECAUSE government is a criminal enterprise.
> > 
> > http://www.dictionary.com/browse/anarchism?s=t
> > 
> > "a doctrine urging the abolition of government or
> > governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full
> > social and political liberty. " 
> > 
> > People who claim they are against gov't but don't respect
> > rights are NOT anarchists. For example, all the 'anarcho'
> > commie clowns are not really anarchists. 
> > 
> 
> I was curious about your stance on this matter, actually. I happen to
> agree with you here; share the wealth away, if you wish… But forcing
> someone to belong to such an agreement seems so not anarchist at all
> — It is curious to me as to why so many ‘old tyme’ anarchists thought
> this way. 


If you are thinking about 19th century anarchists, I don't know
how many were anti property. Maybe many were, but I can't say
for sure. At any rate, people like Bakunin had interesting
ideas apart from their (not so good) economic analyses.



> For what it’s worth, my license plate reads: “Agorist”. I
> believe in it, and unlike so much writing, I believe the doing is
> what matters. 

Yes, true. But the theory needs to be worked out sometimes...  
 

> One can only write so much. (Yes, I realize paying the
> state for such a plate is ironic, but it’s a double edged sword of
> irony, and it costs $25 a year for this pleasure…).

What may be more problematic is that tagging yourself with such
a plate sort of gives the game away?


> 
> Juan, would you define yourself as ‘anarchist without adjectives’? 

Not sure. Probably not, because there are some substantial
differences in what different people consider true anarchism. 
 
> 
> > 
> > 2.   A 'Libertarian' is not NECESSARILY an anarchist.
> > 
> > Of course WRONG AGAIN.
> > 
> > Libertarianism is based on rights to life liberty and
> > property. Government violates those rights, by definition.
> > 
> > So yeah, the only real libertarians are the ones who fully
> > reject government. Advocates of  so called 'limited'
> > government on the other hand are frauds and dangerous criminals. 
> > 
> 
> The notion, and fact, that there are self proclaimed ‘minarchists’
> makes me very very sad and confused indeed. Actually, the ‘party’ of
> libertarianism probably most aligns with this term, no? 

More than likely I guess. The serious and academic people who 
get invited to cocktail parties are all Respectable Statists.


> 
> Core underlying insane problems here? a) minarchist. U. b)
> everyone has their own pieces of the pie that they like; group them;
> guess what? Entire pie. So, useless functionally, and useless
> conceptually.

Yes, exactly. Just like some minarchist 'libertarians' believe
in the divine right of the state to control the courts and
police others believe in 'free' state-controlled 'education' or
'healthchare' or 'science' or whatever. And of course the
result is state control of everything.



> 
> 
> > 
> >>  (example:  A person who is opposed to violations of the NAP, but
> >> who has no problem with a 'government' which doesn't employ
> >> violations of NAP.
> > 
> > That's pretty much absurd. Governments by definition violate
> > the 'nap'. Governments are based on the "obey or die"
> > 'philosophy'. 
> > 
> 
> 
> Yup. This is what I said in an earlier post, but far more succinct.
> If you or your group are not forcing beliefs on others who do not
> fully align, well, you ain’t no ‘government’, are ye?


Right. Even the talk about groups doesn't make much sense to
me. Seems like a case of "if you don't like porn, don't watch
porn". One can say that there's a "group of people who don't
like porn" but it's mostly an abstraction. If a member of the
group one day decides that he now likes porn, the porn-haters
have no 'jurisdiction' over him.


> 
> Side note: I find it funny, amusing, depressing, and perhaps
> regretful that so many post from un-attributable accounts. This is my
> name; This is my domain; Domain is registered to the house in which I
> am sitting in, in which my children are sleeping.

Well, you can find my surname in the archives =P

 
> Accountability in belief goes a long way.

Re: "Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”

[juan]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 20:48:25 -0800
Razer  wrote:

> 
> 
> On 02/07/2017 08:46 PM, juan Forgot to comment on this part:
> >>>   'Course the chinese are not joos at all like you. Your joo
> >>> god created them to serve you =)
> >> Fate of birth antisemite. 
> >
> 
> No comment Nazi?

you fucking joo are the nazi here - from goldman-sachs to the
palstinian concentration camp, to your 'dad' a US military 
murder to your praises for commie dictators and dictatorships,
Benign Totalitarianism et cetera

as to the  'antisemitism' charge, I have nothing against arabs
or 'semites' in general. As a matter of fact the classification
of people based on 'race' is arbitrary. On the other hand your
joo 'culture' of frauds and murdereres, that is well defined =)

Re: "Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”

[Razer]

On 02/07/2017 08:46 PM, juan Forgot to comment on this part:
>>> 'Course the chinese are not joos at all like you. Your joo
>>> god created them to serve you =)
>> Fate of birth antisemite. 
>

No comment Nazi?

Re: "Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”

[juan]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 20:19:34 -0800
Razer  wrote:

> 
> 
> On 02/07/2017 08:00 PM, juan wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 19:47:53 -0800
> > Razer  wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Soo... You work your net majick from a public library computer?
> >>
> > I'm not a piece of commie-fascist shit like you. I 'own'
> > 'my' computer. 
> >
> >
> 
> 
> How "anarchist'.

What 'we' are all still wanting and waiting to hear is the
justification for a True Commie like you  to own property. 

Come on rayzer. Impress 'us'. How do you manage such a
Metaphysical Marxist Miracle?  You are a Commie. Property is a 
burgeois abomination created by burgeois lawyers...yet you
behave as if it were legitimate? 


> 
> Mine's approaching obsolete. 

Yours? 'your' computer? Like 'your' iphone (made using chinese
slave labor)? That's all yours, no? More property? 

What an interesting commie mystery!

> 
> 
> 
> >
> > Do you remember rayzer that you told us that you are the
> > proud owner of an iphone,  right? I guess you enjoy the fact thar
> > your phone was manufactured using slave labor from china. 
> 
> 
> ROTF I found the 4s in the gutter about a year ago 


So? even if that was true, now it is 'your' iphone, which you
gladly own and use. 




> while it was
> starting to rain. Took pity on it, and rescued it.


You took pity on a piece of plastic garbage manufactured by
Apple Inc? You are surely fucked up...


> I also waited
> about 3 months for the owner to call and retrieve it, 


How touching. So you are actually a Model Libertarian? It's
amazing that, although property is a burgeois social construct,
you belive in it.


>ut instead the
> # went away so I had it turned on.
> 
> Ps. It was expropriated by a sneak thief at a coffee shop about a
> month ago. So it's no longer around.


Are you sure it was a thief? Because, you know, if there's no
such thing as property then...Or are you saying that you The
Communist Philosopher King own property? 


> 
> 
> >
> > 'Course the chinese are not joos at all like you. Your joo
> > god created them to serve you =)
> 
> Fate of birth antisemite. 
Whats it got to do with anything? I'm
> actually a practitioner of Santeria, and I'm gonna do some
> Afro-Catholicized voodoo on you... Waving my black cat bone now.
> 
> 
> >
> >> Rr
> 

Re: "Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”

[Razer]

On 02/07/2017 08:00 PM, juan wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 19:47:53 -0800
> Razer  wrote:
>
>
>> Soo... You work your net majick from a public library computer?
>>
>   I'm not a piece of commie-fascist shit like you. I 'own' 'my'
>   computer. 
>
>


How "anarchist'.

Mine's approaching obsolete. 10 years and 32 bits, and works fine. I'm
acutely aware people are dying to make these things and the reason Elon
Musk is chewing Trump's ear is b/c China. Where almost every speck of
Lithium on the planet is and most of the neodymium needed for Musk's
little Yuppie electric utterly non-recyclable toy cars.

I post on stuff like this regularly and what exactly is it you do
besides troll, troll?

Waste of airspace on the planet and bandwidth. Conserve oxygen.
Suffocate yourself.

>
>> Or do you steal them from children?
>
>   How can I steal if property doesn't exist. 


OIC You just take from the kid like a child takes a toy away from
another child.



>
>   Do you remember rayzer that you told us that you are the proud
>   owner of an iphone,  right? I guess you enjoy the fact thar your
>   phone was manufactured using slave labor from china. 


ROTF I found the 4s in the gutter about a year ago while it was starting
to rain. Took pity on it, and rescued it. I also waited about 3 months
for the owner to call and retrieve it, but instead the # went away so I
had it turned on.

Ps. It was expropriated by a sneak thief at a coffee shop about a month
ago. So it's no longer around.


>
>   'Course the chinese are not joos at all like you. Your joo god
>   created them to serve you =)

Fate of birth antisemite. Whats it got to do with anything? I'm actually
a practitioner of Santeria, and I'm gonna do some Afro-Catholicized
voodoo on you... Waving my black cat bone now.


>
>> Rr

Re: "Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:00:36AM -0300, Juan wrote:

>   'Course the chinese are not joos at all like you. Your joo god
>   created them to serve you =)

Oww! Low blow!!! :D :D

I believe quoting from or discussing the Talmud publicly (or at least,
discussing it with non-joos) is a death-punishable offence - better
watch him: (((Rayzer))) joo, gonna come get you :D

(I know, I know Razer, you're only doing it for the good of mankind -
gotta kill all the fascists before they krystallnach you ... yeah, yeah,
keep playing that violin, 'cause MUH 6 MUFUGGIN GAZILLION)

Re: "Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”

[juan]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 19:47:53 -0800
Razer  wrote:


> 
> Soo... You work your net majick from a public library computer?
> 

I'm not a piece of commie-fascist shit like you. I 'own' 'my'
computer. 


> As far as property... If someone tried to steal my computer   

OOPS. The rayzer talks about 'his' computer. Commie rayzer is
senile and suffering from propertarian hallucinations. How sad. 



> Or do you steal them from children?


How can I steal if property doesn't exist. 

Do you remember rayzer that you told us that you are the proud
owner of an iphone,  right? I guess you enjoy the fact thar your
phone was manufactured using slave labor from china. 

'Course the chinese are not joos at all like you. Your joo god
created them to serve you =)

> 
> Rr

Re: "Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”

[juan]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 18:59:23 -0800
Razer  wrote:

> having your own domain and using your own name so the feds can
> track you verifies anarchist tendencies.


self parody never ends. The feds are the ones who pay rayzer's
wages. So they know pretty well how to find him.

On the other hand, if rayzer were not a US
informant/troll/agitator,  and if the garbage he posts here was
true, then he fucktard has given tons of 'clues' about his
'real' 'identity'. So either all his vomits about his joo, nazi
dad/murderer from the US military and all the rest of personal
bullshit nobody gives a fuck about, are lies...or an example of
how good rayzer is at playing 'anarchist'.



> 
> Rr

Re: "Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”

[Razer]

On 02/07/2017 07:09 PM, bbrewer quoted me responding to the Argentine
fascist (small 'f') claiming to be an anarchist:
>> other idiot who thinks having your own domain and using your own name
>> so the feds can track you verifies anarchist tendencies.
>> Rr

and replies:

> Verifies one thing; I am me.
>
> Calling people idiots that mostly agreed with you, seems a bit crass,
> I will say.
> oop, more info, Jim Bell may refer to these forms as kites. Curious as
> to if he’ll answer.
>
> Hide all you want; I’m not suggesting to kill the president; I’m
> suggesting there be no president. Someone has an issue with that and
> knocks on my door? Slightly concerned, far more with the action itself.
>
> Grow a sack. You know, rise up.


Listen. I've been using this handle most likely longer than you've been
playing on the www along with another nick that's entirely traceable to
the same physical person (my fem alter-persona 'auntieimperial'). There
a good reason for it and it has NOTHING to do with the fedz., or my
legal status (not wanted for anything by any leo or court or ex) and
it's really none of your biz why I feel the need to do so except to say
'local activism in a provincial environment', nor does the use of an
alias in any way negate my opinions or facts stated. Attack or agree
with my statements. Not me.

And IF you're aware that's how debate and conversations work, why did
you bother bringing it up?

Passive-Aggressive trolling is STILL trolling.

Rr

Re: "Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 09:50:33PM -0500, bbrewer wrote:
> Side note: I find it funny, amusing, depressing, and perhaps regretful
> that so many post from un-attributable accounts. This is my name; This
> is my domain; Domain is registered to the house in which I am sitting
> in, in which my children are sleeping.
> 
> Accountability in belief goes a long way.

Aye. Ack.

Re: "Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”

[juan]

OK, I indulge your pathetic trolling for 30 seconds. 

Razer wrote:
> As far as property... If someone tried to steal my computer 

YOUR computer? I thought that the High Priests of Communism like
you didn't believe in property, let alone actually own some?

So not only now you claim you 'own' stuff, but stuff that in
turn requires a vast manufacturing network...based on
MORE property? 

Then again, somebody who believes in "Benign Totalitarianism"
is obviously unable to write even one sentence without
including one or three contradictions in it.

Re: "Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”

[bbrewer]

> On Feb 7, 2017, at 9:59 PM, Razer  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 02/07/2017 06:51 PM, juan wrote:
>> 
>>  Get lost scumbag. Call some accomplices and go murder some
>>  'white' non-joo burgeoise pig. 
>> 
> 
> Aww... butthurt. And I'm plumb out of Butthurt Assessment forms.
> 
> I think it's adorable that a good ol fashion Shout 'em down Nazi like you 
> should refer to yourself as an Anarchist and that other idiot who thinks 
> having your own domain and using your own name so the feds can track you 
> verifies anarchist tendencies.
> 
> Rr

Verifies one thing; I am me.

Calling people idiots that mostly agreed with you, seems a bit crass, I will 
say. 
oop, more info, Jim Bell may refer to these forms as kites. Curious as to if 
he’ll answer.

Hide all you want; I’m not suggesting to kill the president; I’m suggesting 
there be no president. Someone has an issue with that and knocks on my door? 
Slightly concerned, far more with the action itself.

Grow a sack. You know, rise up.

Re: "Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”

[Razer]

On 02/07/2017 06:51 PM, juan wrote:
>
>   Get lost scumbag. Call some accomplices and go murder some
>   'white' non-joo burgeoise pig. 

Aww... butthurt. And I'm plumb out of Butthurt Assessment forms.

I think it's adorable that a good ol fashion Shout 'em down Nazi like
you should refer to yourself as an Anarchist and that other idiot who
thinks having your own domain and using your own name so the feds can
track you verifies anarchist tendencies.

Rr

Re: "Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”

[juan]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 18:45:20 -0800
Razer  wrote:

> 
> 
> On 02/07/2017 06:36 PM, juan wrote:
> >
> > rayzer, you should go troll somewhere else 
> >
> > "Benign (or at least non-malignant) totalitarianism
> > is possible. Monarchies tend to be that. " 
> >
> 
> Fuck off. That had no bearing on what I just wrote. 

"Benign (or at least non-malignant) totalitarianism
 is possible. Monarchies tend to be that. " 

Get lost scumbag. Call some accomplices and go murder some
'white' non-joo burgeoise pig. 

Re: "Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”

[bbrewer]

> On Feb 7, 2017, at 9:20 PM, juan  wrote:
> 
>   Your first statement is plainly wrong. 
>   
>   Anarchism is a political philosophy that rejects
>   government BECAUSE government is a criminal enterprise.
> 
>   http://www.dictionary.com/browse/anarchism?s=t
> 
>   "a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental
>   restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and
>   political liberty. " 
> 
>   People who claim they are against gov't but don't respect
>   rights are NOT anarchists. For example, all the 'anarcho' commie
>   clowns are not really anarchists. 
> 

I was curious about your stance on this matter, actually. I happen to agree 
with you here; share the wealth away, if you wish… But forcing someone to 
belong to such an agreement seems so not anarchist at all — It is curious to me 
as to why so many ‘old tyme’ anarchists thought this way. For what it’s worth, 
my license plate reads: “Agorist”. I believe in it, and unlike so much writing, 
I believe the doing is what matters. One can only write so much. (Yes, I 
realize paying the state for such a plate is ironic, but it’s a double edged 
sword of irony, and it costs $25 a year for this pleasure…).

Juan, would you define yourself as ‘anarchist without adjectives’? 



> 
> 2.   A 'Libertarian' is not NECESSARILY an anarchist.
> 
>   Of course WRONG AGAIN.
> 
>   Libertarianism is based on rights to life liberty and property.
>   Government violates those rights, by definition.
>   
>   So yeah, the only real libertarians are the ones who fully
>   reject government. Advocates of  so called 'limited' government
>   on the other hand are frauds and dangerous criminals. 
> 

The notion, and fact, that there are self proclaimed ‘minarchists’ makes me 
very very sad and confused indeed. Actually, the ‘party’ of libertarianism 
probably most aligns with this term, no? 

Core underlying insane problems here? a) minarchist. U. b) everyone has 
their own pieces of the pie that they like; group them; guess what? Entire pie. 
So, useless functionally, and useless conceptually.


> 
>>  (example:  A person who is opposed to violations of the NAP, but who
>> has no problem with a 'government' which doesn't employ violations of
>> NAP.
> 
>   That's pretty much absurd. Governments by definition violate
>   the 'nap'. Governments are based on the "obey or die"
>   'philosophy'. 
> 


Yup. This is what I said in an earlier post, but far more succinct. If you or 
your group are not forcing beliefs on others who do not fully align, well, you 
ain’t no ‘government’, are ye?

Side note: I find it funny, amusing, depressing, and perhaps regretful that so 
many post from un-attributable accounts. This is my name; This is my domain; 
Domain is registered to the house in which I am sitting in, in which my 
children are sleeping.

Accountability in belief goes a long way.

Re: "Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”

[Razer]

On 02/07/2017 06:36 PM, juan wrote:
>
>   rayzer, you should go troll somewhere else 
>
>   "Benign (or at least non-malignant) totalitarianism
> is possible. Monarchies tend to be that. " 
>

Fuck off. That had no bearing on what I just wrote. Further, your
assumption that because I wrote the above the other day about a
completely different topic means I think it's fine and dandy,
illustrates exactly why you're a nasty troll without any purpose other
than to obfuscate threads with feces-like spew.

Rr

Re: "Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”

[juan]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 18:29:54 -0800
Razer  wrote:

> 
> 
> On 02/07/2017 06:20 PM, juan wrote:
> > Libertarianism is based on rights to life liberty and property
> 
> In order to maintain those rights requires cooperation, 

rayzer, you should go troll somewhere else 

"Benign (or at least non-malignant) totalitarianism
is possible. Monarchies tend to be that. " 

Re: "Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”

[juan]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2017 01:44:06 + (UTC)
jim bell  wrote:


> okay...' Three statements I will make:1.   An 'anarchist' is not
> NECESSARILY a Libertarian. (example:  A person who is opposed to the
> existence of government, but who feels free to initiate force against
> others.)


Your first statement is plainly wrong. 

Anarchism is a political philosophy that rejects
government BECAUSE government is a criminal enterprise.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/anarchism?s=t

"a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental
restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and
political liberty. " 

People who claim they are against gov't but don't respect
rights are NOT anarchists. For example, all the 'anarcho' commie
clowns are not really anarchists. 


2.   A 'Libertarian' is not NECESSARILY an anarchist.

Of course WRONG AGAIN.

Libertarianism is based on rights to life liberty and property.
Government violates those rights, by definition.

So yeah, the only real libertarians are the ones who fully
reject government. Advocates of  so called 'limited' government
on the other hand are frauds and dangerous criminals. 


>  (example:  A person who is opposed to violations of the NAP, but who
> has no problem with a 'government' which doesn't employ violations of
> NAP.

That's pretty much absurd. Governments by definition violate
the 'nap'. Governments are based on the "obey or die"
'philosophy'. 


3.   But, a person could, conceivably, be BOTH a Libertarian and
> an anarchist. 

The proper word is not "could". It is "must". 



> Above, when you used the term, 'governing forces', you
> probably assumed forces which employed violations of NAP.  But if you
> expanded your definition of 'governing forces' to include NOT
> violating NAP, perhaps you can see a common ground where both
> "libertarians" and "anarchists" can be satisfied. Jim Bell
> 
> 
>

You know, you are playing in the hands of fascist clowns like
rayzer.

Re: "Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”

[bbrewer]

> On Feb 7, 2017, at 8:44 PM, jim bell  wrote:
> 
> Even that has a problem:  What is your definition of "governing forces”?  

any group of people that expresses the notion or intent to apply their policy 
on individuals, as there is no way each and every individual will align, or to 
be kind, perfectly align with said policies.

> I'll say this:  A "Libertarian" has no problem with "government", at least a 
> government of a type which does not employ violations of the Non-Aggression 
> principle.  Now, I understand that this may seem to be a non-sequitur, since 
> essentially every existing government we know of does, indeed, violate the 
> NAP.  
> 
> What I am saying, instead, is that it is not entirely inconceivable that a 
> new form of government could begin to exist which did not violate the NAP.  
> One, for example, that is based upon voluntary agreements, rather that 
> collectively-defined dictates.  (AKA "laws"). 

You cannot have a group of people that considers themselves ‘governing’ that a) 
isn’t the definition of a collective b) can prescribe said , er, ‘suggestions’ 
(read: alt-truth ‘laws’) that are to be followed but without violating the NAP.

It can’t happen. The anarchist doesn’t subscribe. Now, if said government 
doesn’t force these, again ‘suggestions’ onto said ‘anarchist who doesn’t 
subscribe’, this is wonderful. But the anarchist remains an anarchist, and the 
government isn’t governing beyond those who follow. What you’re effectively 
describing is… A different group of anarchists that align differently, and have 
gathered, and.. An anarchist is fine with this — But it certainly isn’t a 
notion of a government, a (however nationalistic / dictatorship to whatever 
minimalistic) centralized governing being. 


> We can ask ourselves a question:  Does a person who, today, calls himself an 
> 'anarchist' NECESSARILY opposes a 'government' that is implemented not by 
> violations of the NAP, but instead is implemented by voluntary agreements?   
> Simplistically, he might say, 'If something is called a 'government', then I 
> must automatically oppose it!'.  But if we asked him if he was unalterably 
> against voluntary agreements by two or more people, he might think a little 
> longer and decide, 'That would be okay…'  

Between two people is okay; because that math is fucking possible. You cannot 
expect everyone in a ‘state or nation’ to subscribe to whatever agreement, 
voluntarily. You’re not suggesting as such. However, what I am suggesting is 
that if no coercion is present in these actions, of which I applaud, then this 
mystical government of voluntary actions isn’t a government at all ; It is a 
group of people agreeing to something; where others are free to not participate.

This government you speak of isn’t a government at all; It is a group of 
anarchists.

The notion of government simply cannot exist without coercive elements. 

Thereby, perhaps you’re a bit more ‘anarchist’ than you realize; Or perhaps 
you’ve mis-understood the notion of libertarian and THEIR PARTY.

My brain works fine, I assure you. I may occasionally use a slightly wrong 
term, or not quite get my point across because i’m responding in discourse 
mode, not ‘deep deep’ thought mode, or perhaps it’s all the beers , the 
exhaustion from working, and 2 small children, but it works, and I can fully 
recognize the break between ‘a government of any sort’ and anarchist, and 
start, deep, deep , deep into that abyss. It, in fact, stares back.

Sp, Mr bell, I implore you. Stop straddling the fence with these combo terms 
that will split you down the middle.

Do you believe in a group of people having ‘say’ over others, or do you not? A 
group of people who ‘abide by the NAP’ , and do not force their views upon 
others by any forceful means , well, that isn’t government at all. It’s a group 
of people, living their life, no matter whom subscribes. It’s a group of 
anarchists — Against government. 

Re: "Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”

[Razer]

On 02/07/2017 05:44 PM, jim bell wrote:
>
> Anarchist:  Non-believer in government, at least government as we
> currently understand it.
> Libertarian:  Believer in the Non-Aggression Principle.  (NAP;  
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle 
>
> Your statement implies that "Libertarian" NECESSARILY amounts to the
> 'approval of governing forces.'
>
> Even that has a problem:  What is your definition of "governing forces"? 

Your "Non-Aggression principles (not that I believe Libertarians possess
such a thing as fixed principles) only apply to the other psychopaths
like you. For as long as necessary. No longer. That's what I've seen in
practice (since I first observed such a thing as 'Libertarianism' in...
was it the late 1970s?) and action IS THE ONLY THING that matters.
EVERYONE writes shit down. Ask any Indigenous person on the North
American continent what that writing's worth.

Further, Feudalism is a form of government and Libertarians, when they
aren't busy being Economic Republicans with Democrat social morals
(fwtw) are Feudal... Absolutely. The argument is always "The biggest
guns win" also belying your so-called NAP So does your  "Assassination
Market. How "Non-Agressive"

You're full of shit.

Re: "Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”

[jim bell]

 From: bbrewer 

>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 4:47 PM, Razer  wrote:
> 
>> "Anarchist Libertarian" has to be the BIGGEST FUCKING CROCK OF SHIT ever put 
>> in two words.


>Thank you. This hit my brain hard as well. 
Maybe because it wasn't working?  Or maybe you don't have much of an 
imagination?
>I’m not sure how someone can think that the term ‘anarchist’ can align with 
>the slightest measurement of approval of governing forces.
>It’s instantly outwardly apparent that, well, said claimant is not there yet; 
>May get there, isn’t there yet.
Anarchist:  Non-believer in government, at least government as we currently 
understand it.Libertarian:  Believer in the Non-Aggression Principle.  (NAP;   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle 
Your statement implies that "Libertarian" NECESSARILY amounts to the 'approval 
of governing forces.'
Even that has a problem:  What is your definition of "governing forces"?  
I'll say this:  A "Libertarian" has no problem with "government", at least a 
government of a type which does not employ violations of the Non-Aggression 
principle.  Now, I understand that this may seem to be a non-sequitur, since 
essentially every existing government we know of does, indeed, violate the NAP. 
 
What I am saying, instead, is that it is not entirely inconceivable that a new 
form of government could begin to exist which did not violate the NAP.  One, 
for example, that is based upon voluntary agreements, rather that 
collectively-defined dictates.  (AKA "laws").     
We can ask ourselves a question:  Does a person who, today, calls himself an 
'anarchist' NECESSARILY opposes a 'government' that is implemented not by 
violations of the NAP, but instead is implemented by voluntary agreements?   
Simplistically, he might say, 'If something is called a 'government', then I 
must automatically oppose it!'.  But if we asked him if he was unalterably 
against voluntary agreements by two or more people, he might think a little 
longer and decide, 'That would be okay...'  
Three statements I will make:1.   An 'anarchist' is not NECESSARILY a 
Libertarian.  (example:  A person who is opposed to the existence of 
government, but who feels free to initiate force against others.)2.   A 
'Libertarian' is not NECESSARILY an anarchist.  (example:  A person who is 
opposed to violations of the NAP, but who has no problem with a 'government' 
which doesn't employ violations of NAP.3.   But, a person could, conceivably, 
be BOTH a Libertarian and an anarchist.
Above, when you used the term, 'governing forces', you probably assumed forces 
which employed violations of NAP.  But if you expanded your definition of 
'governing forces' to include NOT violating NAP, perhaps you can see a common 
ground where both "libertarians" and "anarchists" can be satisfied.
              Jim Bell



×   
   

Re: "Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 11:01:17AM -0800, Razer wrote:
> > Antifa hit the big-time in 2017 when an as-yet-unidentified
> > inauguration protester punched 38-year-old professional fascist
> > cheerleader Richard Spencer in the face on camera. The clip went
> > viral, and the Internet memed it to death—now you can even punch
> > Spencer in a mobile game!
> >
> > As the video spread, interest in anti-fascism spiked, and I can say,
> > based on personal experience, that the attitude at demonstrations has
> > changed. Where masked and black-clad antifa used to get wary glares,
> > now it’s thumbs-up and “right on!” from kid-toting parents. Former
> > congressman and Michigan institution John Dingell tweeted “When I was
> > a pup, punching Nazis was encouraged. Hell, some of my Army buddies
> > won medals for it.” 
> 
> https://psmag.com/antifascists-have-become-the-most-reasonable-people-in-america-92525aceabd5
> 
> 
> Ps. The Revolution WILL NOT be televised
> 
> V2 rc1: https://youtu.be/_GaN7900LwA
> 
> rc2: https://youtu.be/zYEITk-X6_0
> 
> Rr


>From some anonymous internet troll:
"
> Yes, it's actually good for our side that they escalate things,
> because they will force Trump to take extreme action.

The Russians have a saying that there are always two revolutions --
the first one which brings down the old order, and the second one
where the people who bided their time during the first revolution
spring into action and take power while liquidating the
revolutionaries of the first group.

So to Antifa I say this in all sincerity: "You guys are #1!"
"



Those who are fed up with everything could be inclined to say
"bring it on!"

Although history tends to repeat, things are NEVER the same
the second time around :wry_smile:



Another anonymous internet troll:
> Don't piss of the white boys. I mean, they have a lot of
> patience (witness the apathetic German response to their
> women being raped) but when that thread of patience finally
> ends, you don't wanna be anywhere near!

Re: "Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”

[Razer]

Man who regularly calls people delicate ‘snowflake’ outraged by beer
advert, broadway play...


http://newsthump.com/2017/02/06/man-who-regularly-calls-people-snowflakes-outraged-by-beer-advert/

Re: "Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”

[jim bell]

 From: Razer 

>Antifa hit the big-time in 2017 when an as-yet-unidentified inauguration 
>protester punched 38-year-old professional fascist cheerleader Richard Spencer 
>in the face on camera. The clip went viral, and the Internet memed it to 
>death—now you can even punch Spencer in a mobile game! 

Interestingly, there used to be an online game called "Slap Hillary",  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8npN-sYKTWE  
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/anti-hillary-clinton-super-pac-re-launches-slap-hillary-online-game/
  
Naturally, the Democrats and leftists considered that abusive, and decried it 
immensely. 
https://act.weareultraviolet.org/sign/hillarygame/? 
Now, when the shoe is on the other foot, Razer talks up 'punching Spencer', as 
if that's somehow a new and innovative concept.  Is Razer merely pretending to 
not know about "Slap Hillary", or is he just displaying his immense ignorance?
>"As the video spread, interest in anti-fascism spiked,"
I could also say, "As Germany invaded Poland and France, interest in Naziism 
spiked".   Hint:  "Interest" is not necessarily a positive point of view.  But 
you knew that, right?  You weren't trying to mislead anybody, right?
>and I can say, based on personal experience, that the attitude at 
>demonstrations has changed."

Yes, we now see them as "rioters", and not mere "protestors".
>" Where masked and black-clad antifa used to get wary glares, now it’s 
>thumbs-up and “right on!” from kid-toting parents."
In the area of sales, this kind of statement is called "puffery".  If there 
were even only two "kid-toting parents" somewhere in the country that 
"thumbs-up'd" and "right on!"d such riots, technically you could say your 
statement is correct.  But it would still be extremely misleading...as you no 
doubt intended.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery
×   
> Former congressman and Michigan institution John Dingell tweeted “When I was 
> a pup, punching Nazis was encouraged. Hell, some of my Army buddies won 
> medals for it.”

  
>https://psmag.com/antifascists-have-become-the-most-reasonable-people-in-america-92525aceabd5
 
Except that the definition of "Nazis" that Dingell used when he was young had 
virtually nothing to do with the sloppy and overbroad brush that you, Razer, 
paint with.   Dingell's "Nazis" actually CLAIMED to be Nazis, were proud of 
that characterization, they invaded countries, gassed people, etc, and were not 
merely people who wanted the country to break with its 8-year path of Obama's 
policies, and another 8 of Clinton's.  (Not to mention 8 years of Bush 43's 
invasion of Iraq; Don't forget him!)
                  Jim Bell
Full disclosure:  Since my discovery of the idea I labelled, "Assassination 
Politics", I have been an anarchist Libertarian.  Thus, I have no particular 
objection to GENUINE anarchists protesting Trump's policies, or Milo 
Yiannopoulis' speeches, etc, __IF__ they are consistently objecting to ALL 
government, at least in proportion to its size and level of intrusiveness.   
Did they protest, and riot, against  Obama's administration?  To Hillary 
Clinton's proposals?  Bernie Sander's ideas?  Bill Clinton's administration?  
Or even George Bush 43?
Do a Google Trends search of "anarchism" over the last 12 months:  The results 
hit a local peak during the week of Jan 22-28, just after the inauguration.   
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%2012-m=anarchism    (set 
time to last 12 months)  Not surprising, I suppose.
The problem is, I suspect that the large majoriity of "anarchists" we are 
recently (weeks, months) hearing about are actually not objecting to government 
in general:  They are just complaining that the existing government is changing 
in control to people who they don't like.  Some (most?) of them may actually 
like, or even love, government, but only if the kind of people and philosophies 
they like are controlling it.  But it's much more convenient for them to drop 
any overt association with government, because if they didn't they'd actually 
have to defend that position, and not merely object to the policies of the new 
Administration.