In their search for justice that has endured for decades, the biggest challenge Nazi hunters face is time. The knowledge that war criminals are escaping prosecution through death by natural causes means their task has never been more pressing.  German state police arrested a 93-year-old man accused of being a guard at the Auschwitz concentration camp. Hans Lipschis is the first suspect to be facing charges as part of a drive launched earlier this year to track down 50 suspected Auschwitz guards who are believed to be living in Germany. Most of those involved in the murder of about 6 million Jews in the Holocaust and still alive will now be in their 90s, a ripe old age for people who carried out one the most heinous crimes in the history of humanity. This is very different from Japan.

Japan is restoring the use of the Rising Sun Flag, a symbolism of invasions by Imperial Japanese Army. This is basically the equivalent of Germans using the Nazi Germany Flag. This is proof that Japan still craves the desire for the failed Japanese imperialism. It's almost as if Japan is reenact the past invasions anytime soon. We can see Japan's fascism from their arguments that Korea's Dokdo is Japanese territory.

Europes Anarchist Battalions keep them down in Britain, germany and elsewhere Jessica. I expect the same to happen in Japan should it become necessary. the price of being NaziFree is eternal vigilance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhRvEFpAmSc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEhVP--zFfY&NR=1&feature=endscreen

Grey wrote on May 14^th, 2013 at 5:59pm:

Europes Anarchist Battalions keep them down in Britain, germany and elsewhere Jessica. I expect the same to happen in Japan should it become necessary. the price of being NaziFree is eternal vigilance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhRvEFpAmSc

lmao

heres the brave antifas going after a 93 year old man

http://youtu.be/0B2VaX_jOT8

fighting the good fight hey grey?

A small band of Anarchists making their point in a hostile environment. I'm proud to be associated with them.

Grey wrote on May 14^th, 2013 at 5:59pm:

Europes Anarchist Battalions keep them down in Britain, germany and elsewhere Jessica. I expect the same to happen in Japan should it become necessary. the price of being NaziFree is eternal vigilance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhRvEFpAmSc

Anarchism can only exist in cultures that are very liberal; in other words, Western countries. Given that Japan is more traditionalist, family orientated, and has respect for authority, I don't see anarchism existing there any time soon.


btw, do think it's kind of silly to rally against Nazis? I mean, they haven't existed since 1945.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 14^th, 2013 at 11:27pm:

Grey wrote on May 14th, 2013 at 5:59pm: Europes Anarchist Battalions keep them down in Britain, germany and elsewhere Jessica. I expect the same to happen in Japan should it become necessary. the price of being NaziFree is eternal vigilance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhRvEFpAmSc Anarchism can only exist in cultures that are very liberal; in other words, Western countries. Given that Japan is more traditionalist, family orientated, and has respect for authority, I don't see anarchism existing there any time soon.

The youth of Japan are a lot more worldly than you give them credit for MM.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHNyn2UllTY


Quote:

btw, do think it's kind of silly to rally against Nazis? I mean, they haven't existed since 1945.

You think? Seriously? "Right wing sympathy, in the countries security services and police force" .


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oreSVIC7DhE

Not bothered though, we got the numbers. :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuKMREabaQg

Grey wrote on May 14^th, 2013 at 10:01pm:

A small band of Anarchists making their point in a hostile environment. I'm proud to be associated with them.

yeah you're proud to be associated with a group that uses violence and force to shut down people with opposing ideas to them (like the elderly discoverer of DNA who made some statements about intergroup disparities in measurable psychological traits)

proud to be associated with violent loudmouth bullies who loathe scientific enquiry because it intersects their antiquated 19th century ideology?

Grey wrote on May 15^th, 2013 at 12:06am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 14th, 2013 at 11:27pm: Grey wrote on May 14th, 2013 at 5:59pm: Europes Anarchist Battalions keep them down in Britain, germany and elsewhere Jessica. I expect the same to happen in Japan should it become necessary. the price of being NaziFree is eternal vigilance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhRvEFpAmSc Anarchism can only exist in cultures that are very liberal; in other words, Western countries. Given that Japan is more traditionalist, family orientated, and has respect for authority, I don't see anarchism existing there any time soon. The youth of Japan are a lot more worldly than you give them credit for MM. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHNyn2UllTY

An anti-nuclear protest with the elderly and children seems far removed from anarchism.

Grey wrote on May 15^th, 2013 at 12:34am:

Not bothered though, we got the numbers. :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuKMREabaQg

Advocating violence are we? Funny how violence is permitted by anarchists but if anyone else does it, "oh they're Nazis!"

Quote:

Christian and anarchist. — When the anarchist, as the mouthpiece of the declining strata of society, demands with a fine indignation what is "right," "justice," and "equal rights," he is merely under the pressure of his own uncultured state, which cannot comprehend the real reason for his suffering — what it is that he is poor in: life. A causal instinct asserts itself in him: it must be somebody's fault that he is in a bad way. Also, the "fine indignation" itself soothes him; it is a pleasure for all wretched devils to scold: it gives a slight but intoxicating sense of power. Even plaintiveness and complaining can give life a charm for the sake of which one endures it: there is a fine dose of revenge in every complaint; one charges one's own bad situation, and under certain circumstances even one's own badness, to those who are different, as if that were an injustice, a forbidden privilege. "If I am canaille, you ought to be too" — on such logic are revolutions made. Complaining is never any good: it stems from weakness. Whether one charges one's misfortune to others or to oneself — the socialist does the former; the Christian, for example, the latter — really makes no difference. The common and, let us add, the unworthy thing is that it is supposed to be somebody's fault that one is suffering; in short, that the sufferer prescribes the honey of revenge for himself against his suffering. The objects of this need for revenge, as a need for pleasure, are mere occasions: everywhere the sufferer finds occasions for satisfying his little revenge. If he is a Christian — to repeat it once more — he finds them in himself. The Christian and the anarchist are both decadents. When the Christian condemns, slanders, and besmirches "the world," his instinct is the same as that which prompts the socialist worker to condemn, slander, and besmirch society. The "last judgment" is the sweet comfort of revenge — the revolution, which the socialist worker also awaits, but conceived as a little farther off. The "beyond" — why a beyond, if not as a means for besmirching this world?

Nietzsche - Twilight of the Idols

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 15^th, 2013 at 9:03am:

Quote: Christian and anarchist. — When the anarchist, as the mouthpiece of the declining strata of society, demands with a fine indignation what is "right," "justice," and "equal rights," he is merely under the pressure of his own uncultured state, which cannot comprehend the real reason for his suffering — what it is that he is poor in: life. A causal instinct asserts itself in him: it must be somebody's fault that he is in a bad way. Also, the "fine indignation" itself soothes him; it is a pleasure for all wretched devils to scold: it gives a slight but intoxicating sense of power. Even plaintiveness and complaining can give life a charm for the sake of which one endures it: there is a fine dose of revenge in every complaint; one charges one's own bad situation, and under certain circumstances even one's own badness, to those who are different, as if that were an injustice, a forbidden privilege. "If I am canaille, you ought to be too" — on such logic are revolutions made. Complaining is never any good: it stems from weakness. Whether one charges one's misfortune to others or to oneself — the socialist does the former; the Christian, for example, the latter — really makes no difference. The common and, let us add, the unworthy thing is that it is supposed to be somebody's fault that one is suffering; in short, that the sufferer prescribes the honey of revenge for himself against his suffering. The objects of this need for revenge, as a need for pleasure, are mere occasions: everywhere the sufferer finds occasions for satisfying his little revenge. If he is a Christian — to repeat it once more — he finds them in himself. The Christian and the anarchist are both decadents. When the Christian condemns, slanders, and besmirches "the world," his instinct is the same as that which prompts the socialist worker to condemn, slander, and besmirch society. The "last judgment" is the sweet comfort of revenge — the revolution, which the socialist worker also awaits, but conceived as a little farther off. The "beyond" — why a beyond, if not as a means for besmirching this world? Nietzsche - Twilight of the Idols

Good quote. If Nietzsche was writing today, he'd be talking about viewers of Today Tonight, Alan's listeners, and dull old boys who blame all social ills on JuLiar, the leftists and the Muselmen.

Slave morality is not a condition confined to socialists and Christians. It's now owned lock, stock and barrel by the tards.

Nietzsche's description and analysis of slave morality is the most fundamental insight of the (post)modern era. For example, Grey seems to think he's some kind of freedom fighter who holds the key to true justice, yet he is a most reactive person. He reacts against 'power structures' and has little ideas of his own, yet he calls himself the 'good' and the 'just.' He sits, waiting, for someone, somewhere to assert some power, and then he pounces on it and claims to be fighting the good fight.

However, I don't blame Grey and his ilk too much (this includes the whole plethora of slave moralists - feminists, socialists, liberals, reactive conservatives, pessimists). When the dominant ethos of the era tells you that negative freedom, 'freedom from oppression', and equality encapsulate and embody the absolute 'good', then you can't blame the sheep for believing such things. There will always be sheep and herds.

The overcoming, acceptance, and affirmation of pain, suffering, hardship, conflict, and misery is a personal journey, and not a political program.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 15^th, 2013 at 7:59am:

Grey wrote on May 15th, 2013 at 12:34am: Not bothered though, we got the numbers. :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuKMREabaQg Advocating violence are we? Funny how violence is permitted by anarchists but if anyone else does it, "oh they're Nazis!"

'Anarchist violence' , come off it, they're just letting off a little steam against the states thugs. Who you'll no doubt note, do nothing but protect the right of Nazis to demonstrate. But when the left demonstrate they turn up to rumble, armed and protected to the teeth. Smashing bank windows isn't my way; but I do get the giggles when Fascists complain about "a group that uses violence and force to shut down people with opposing ideas to them".

It was ever thus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FuXR2wFHA0

violence? peh!1 not violence, just letting off steam against the states thugs! not the same at all!

grey we can hear your rationalisation hamster wheel squeak.

Quote:

when Fascists complain about "a group that uses violence and force to shut down people with opposing ideas to them".

nope grey i couldnt give a toss about free speech

im just calling you out and all the people like you for this kind of inconsistent shite

http://cynicalreview.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/cronulla.jpg

violence? nah, just lettin off a little steam against some leb thugs  8-)

JC Denton wrote on May 15^th, 2013 at 5:56pm:

http://cynicalreview.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/cronulla.jpg violence? nah, just lettin off a little steam against some leb thugs  8-)

Except that the Leb wasn't a thug, just some innocent passer-by who happened to look Lebanese. Do you need it explained how that's different to punching out self declared wannabe Nazis? Dismissed.

cool grey

but we all know now youre all in favour of violence against people you don't like/disagree with and rationalise it out by saying its just "letting off steam" (not violence at all!!!) so what exactly makes you different from the nazis besides your choice of target?

Grey wrote on May 15^th, 2013 at 8:33pm:

Do you need it explained how that's different to punching out self declared wannabe Nazis? Dismissed.

yes please.  And while you're at it, would you mind explaining  how you can tell he wasn't a thug? 

the nose knows

... wrote on May 16^th, 2013 at 8:21am:

Grey wrote on May 15th, 2013 at 8:33pm: Do you need it explained how that's different to punching out self declared wannabe Nazis? Dismissed. yes please.  And while you're at it, would you mind explaining  how you can tell he wasn't a thug?

Yes I would mind explaining. We all know what went down in Cronulla that day. He was being beaten for being Lebanese.

Anarchists beat up Nazis. We can tell they're Nazis because they wave Nazi flags, wear the uniform, walk the walk and talk the talk. We are the lovers of freedom, they are the lovers of oppression. Natural enemies innit. You have to keep the rats down otherwise they become a plague.

"We are the lovers of freedom, they are the lovers of oppression. Natural enemies innit. You have to keep the rats down otherwise they become a plague."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1989-0821-502,_Joseph_Goebbels.jpg/170px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1989-0821-502,_Joseph_Goebbels.jpg

~ Joe Goebbels 1935

Grey wrote on May 16^th, 2013 at 10:27am:

[Yes I would mind explaining.

I suspected as much.

How much time and money is being devoted to rooting out 96 year old alleged war criminals?
What's it going to prove? Will they be compos mentis enough to know what the fck is going on? Or is it just for the gratification of the witch hunters? Were they even compos mentis at the time?
I was brought up on the horrors of Auschwitch (?) and Belsen but frankly now today I'd sooner see them devote the resources to finding the graffitti vandals, sexual predators and other desecrators of social order.

Grey wrote on May 15^th, 2013 at 8:33pm:

JC Denton wrote on May 15th, 2013 at 5:56pm: http://cynicalreview.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/cronulla.jpg violence? nah, just lettin off a little steam against some leb thugs  8-) Except that the Leb wasn't a thug, just some innocent passer-by who happened to look Lebanese. Do you need it explained how that's different to punching out self declared wannabe Nazis? Dismissed.

Wait, let me guess...  Does your reasoning involve some convoluted nonsense about how it somehow isn't assault as long as you disagree with their politics?

Grey wrote on May 16^th, 2013 at 10:27am:

Anarchists beat up Nazis. We can tell they're Nazis because they wave Nazi flags, wear the uniform, walk the walk and talk the talk. We are the lovers of freedom, they are the lovers of oppression. Natural enemies innit. You have to keep the rats down otherwise they become a plague.

Holyshit... I called it.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 15^th, 2013 at 12:23pm:

Nietzsche's description and analysis of slave morality is the most fundamental insight of the (post)modern era. For example, Grey seems to think he's some kind of freedom fighter who holds the key to true justice, yet he is a most reactive person. He reacts against 'power structures' and has little ideas of his own, yet he calls himself the 'good' and the 'just.' He sits, waiting, for someone, somewhere to assert some power, and then he pounces on it and claims to be fighting the good fight. However, I don't blame Grey and his ilk too much (this includes the whole plethora of slave moralists - feminists, socialists, liberals, reactive conservatives, pessimists). When the dominant ethos of the era tells you that negative freedom, 'freedom from oppression', and equality encapsulate and embody the absolute 'good', then you can't blame the sheep for believing such things. There will always be sheep and herds. The overcoming, acceptance, and affirmation of pain, suffering, hardship, conflict, and misery is a personal journey, and not a political program.

What is negative freedom?

Grey wrote on May 16^th, 2013 at 10:27am:

... wrote on May 16th, 2013 at 8:21am: Grey wrote on May 15th, 2013 at 8:33pm: Do you need it explained how that's different to punching out self declared wannabe Nazis? Dismissed. yes please.  And while you're at it, would you mind explaining  how you can tell he wasn't a thug?  Yes I would mind explaining. We all know what went down in Cronulla that day. He was being beaten for being Lebanese. Anarchists beat up Nazis. We can tell they're Nazis because they wave Nazi flags, wear the uniform, walk the walk and talk the talk. We are the lovers of freedom, they are the lovers of oppression. Natural enemies innit. You have to keep the rats down otherwise they become a plague.

Lebanese also bring a lot of problems on themselves with their overall negative contribution since turning up (principally unasked) to Australia.

Australian mainstream society tends to have an overall negative view of Lebanese for various reasons.

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 8:20am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 15th, 2013 at 12:23pm: Nietzsche's description and analysis of slave morality is the most fundamental insight of the (post)modern era. For example, Grey seems to think he's some kind of freedom fighter who holds the key to true justice, yet he is a most reactive person. He reacts against 'power structures' and has little ideas of his own, yet he calls himself the 'good' and the 'just.' He sits, waiting, for someone, somewhere to assert some power, and then he pounces on it and claims to be fighting the good fight. However, I don't blame Grey and his ilk too much (this includes the whole plethora of slave moralists - feminists, socialists, liberals, reactive conservatives, pessimists). When the dominant ethos of the era tells you that negative freedom, 'freedom from oppression', and equality encapsulate and embody the absolute 'good', then you can't blame the sheep for believing such things. There will always be sheep and herds. The overcoming, acceptance, and affirmation of pain, suffering, hardship, conflict, and misery is a personal journey, and not a political program. What is negative freedom?

It is freedom from constraint. It is the freedom to not be held back or shackled by a convention or authority. It is intimately related to liberal theory - the idea that the individual is sovereign and no one can tell it what to do.

It is often contrasted with positive freedom, which is a self-disciplining and an acquiring of a skill set to achieve a goal or task. Those who are experts in their field - scientists, philosophers, athletes, politicians - often embody a positive freedom of some description.

Chard wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 4:52am:

Grey wrote on May 16th, 2013 at 10:27am: Anarchists beat up Nazis. We can tell they're Nazis because they wave Nazi flags, wear the uniform, walk the walk and talk the talk. We are the lovers of freedom, they are the lovers of oppression. Natural enemies innit. You have to keep the rats down otherwise they become a plague. Holyshit... I called it.

I suppose you think a plea of 'obeying orders' at Nuremburg was a fair thing?

Grey wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 9:42am:

I suppose you think a plea of 'obeying orders' at Nuremburg was a fair thing?

It depends on the defendant Grey.
That's the danger of blanket assumption without delving deeper.

Goering for example had no such defence, he was a high ranking Nazi who gave the orders.

However other Nazis were faced with the prospect of obeying orders of certain death for themselves.

Hitler was not one for insubordination.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 11:57am:

Grey wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 9:42am: I suppose you think a plea of 'obeying orders' at Nuremburg was a fair thing? It depends on the defendant Grey. That's the danger of blanket assumption without delving deeper. Goering for example had no such defence, he was a high ranking Nazi who gave the orders. However other Nazis were faced with the prospect of obeying orders of certain death for themselves. Hitler was not one for insubordination.

Hitler was a long way from Auschwitz Andrei. what a Nazi structure requires is obedience to authority. In the case of the Nazis that was very much an usurped authority.

The heart of a genuine authority runs on a constant supply of respect. Fear of consequences isn't respect. If some parody of respect is coerced from people it's worthless.  Anarchists are not anti-authority. In fact there's a real joy in serving a genuine Authority; but obedience? That's for dogs.

Chard accuses me of
Quote:

reasoning involve(ing) some convoluted nonsense about how it somehow isn't assault as long as you disagree with their politics?

There's nothing convoluted about Anarchies (or my) attitude to fascists. But you might say it was nuanced. Anarchists don't want power, they're not interested in being elected or taking control. Anarchists are concerned with structures that facilitate co-operation. They're concerned with 'consciousness raising', teaching ways to think outside the box.

But if people want to keep on voting for their political gangs and jumping one way or another every few years that's up to them. Anarchists will never ever coerce anybody to adopt their way of doing. We know it simply cannot ever work, not in the long term.

People like the BNP, if all they wanted to do was get the trains running on schedule, we'd have no problem with that. We have a problem with them telling people the trains don't run on time because they're run by 'black people' who've stolen 'your' jobs. We have trouble with their violence, real and implied. We know from the past where people like that will take us if they ever get the numbers.

We'd be happy to leave it to the police to handle, but they don't. For one thing there's a lot of sympathy for groups like the BNP within police forces. Some of the most virulently racist orgs. in Britain and America are police forces. They're run on the same military lines, wear uniforms wave flags and have done their obedience training courses.

Chard here might vent off about racism, but Chard the policeman will never go after the KKK, he'll never be ordered to. When NeoNazis wanted to march across the German border into Warsaw to celebrate Crystal Night a few years ago, no police force was going to stop them, no government was going to stop them, Anarchists poured in from all over Europe and stopped them. We'll keep stopping them, if people like Chard don't like it they can sit on it and rotate.

Grey wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 2:10pm:

Chard here might vent off about racism, but Chard the policeman will never go after the KKK, he'll never be ordered to.

As long as they're obeying the law then there isn't valid justification to do so. When they do get out of line legally the law tends to come down on their heads like a very heavy object dropped from a great height.

See, in the US the same rights to free speech and peaceful assembly that would allow guys sharing your beliefs to shout slogans and protest whatever also apply to organizations like the KKK. As long as you or they limit your activities to lawful exercise of those rights the law not only cannot interfere with it, they actually are obligated to protect you from assault from those that disagree with you.



Quote:

When NeoNazis wanted to march across the German border into Warsaw to celebrate Crystal Night a few years ago, no police force was going to stop them, no government was going to stop them, Anarchists poured in from all over Europe and stopped them. We'll keep stopping them, if people like Chard don't like it they can sit on it and rotate.

So like I said, you believe that disagreeing with someone's politics is a valid justification for physically assaulting them. You can experiment with that idea.  Just go down to the pub and get into a political argument with someone, punch them in the face, and when the cops come see if they accept your justification or if they chuck you in a cell. do it for SCIENCE!

Grey wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 9:42am:

Chard wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 4:52am: Grey wrote on May 16th, 2013 at 10:27am: Anarchists beat up Nazis. We can tell they're Nazis because they wave Nazi flags, wear the uniform, walk the walk and talk the talk. We are the lovers of freedom, they are the lovers of oppression. Natural enemies innit. You have to keep the rats down otherwise they become a plague. Holyshit... I called it. I suppose you think a plea of 'obeying orders' at Nuremburg was a fair thing?

What does that have to do with my point or were you just trying to pull an ad Nazium argument our of your ass again?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 9:28am:

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 8:20am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 15th, 2013 at 12:23pm: Nietzsche's description and analysis of slave morality is the most fundamental insight of the (post)modern era. For example, Grey seems to think he's some kind of freedom fighter who holds the key to true justice, yet he is a most reactive person. He reacts against 'power structures' and has little ideas of his own, yet he calls himself the 'good' and the 'just.' He sits, waiting, for someone, somewhere to assert some power, and then he pounces on it and claims to be fighting the good fight. However, I don't blame Grey and his ilk too much (this includes the whole plethora of slave moralists - feminists, socialists, liberals, reactive conservatives, pessimists). When the dominant ethos of the era tells you that negative freedom, 'freedom from oppression', and equality encapsulate and embody the absolute 'good', then you can't blame the sheep for believing such things. There will always be sheep and herds. The overcoming, acceptance, and affirmation of pain, suffering, hardship, conflict, and misery is a personal journey, and not a political program. What is negative freedom? It is freedom from constraint. It is the freedom to not be held back or shackled by a convention or authority. It is intimately related to liberal theory - the idea that the individual is sovereign and no one can tell it what to do. It is often contrasted with positive freedom, which is a self-disciplining and an acquiring of a skill set to achieve a goal or task. Those who are experts in their field - scientists, philosophers, athletes, politicians - often embody a positive freedom of some description.

Acceptance and affirmation of pain and suffering may be a personal journey, but I don't see how it negates fighting oppression or promoting equality in any way.  While there is no absolute good, you must agree that by establishing a more egalitarian society, suffering is decreased and therefore the need to process it is lessened.

Chard wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 9:25am:

Grey wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 9:42am: Chard wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 4:52am: Grey wrote on May 16th, 2013 at 10:27am: Anarchists beat up Nazis. We can tell they're Nazis because they wave Nazi flags, wear the uniform, walk the walk and talk the talk. We are the lovers of freedom, they are the lovers of oppression. Natural enemies innit. You have to keep the rats down otherwise they become a plague. Holyshit... I called it. I suppose you think a plea of 'obeying orders' at Nuremburg was a fair thing? What does that have to do with my point or were you just trying to pull an ad Nazium argument our of your ass again?

Taking orders, doing what you're told, obeying the law, doesn't always cut the mustard. Ultimately you have to be guided by what you know to be right or wrong. Tolerance for the KKK is like a Dr. saying to his patient, 'we cut out the tumour, well most of it anyway, there's a bit left but we wont worry about that unless it grows again'.

Grey wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 11:04am:

Chard wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:25am: Grey wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 9:42am: Chard wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 4:52am: Grey wrote on May 16th, 2013 at 10:27am: Anarchists beat up Nazis. We can tell they're Nazis because they wave Nazi flags, wear the uniform, walk the walk and talk the talk. We are the lovers of freedom, they are the lovers of oppression. Natural enemies innit. You have to keep the rats down otherwise they become a plague. Holyshit... I called it. I suppose you think a plea of 'obeying orders' at Nuremburg was a fair thing? What does that have to do with my point or were you just trying to pull an ad Nazium argument our of your ass again? Taking orders, doing what you're told, obeying the law, doesn't always cut the mustard.

Because chaos and disorder are sooooo much better for society than rule of law. Oh, right, you're an anarchist so f*ck having an orderly society when we can have mob rule instead. The irony here is you not understanding that the very tactics you're advocating are often the same used by the fascists you're so hard up to go fight.



Quote:

Ultimately you have to be guided by what you know to be right or wrong.

Since when did lynch mobs become "right"? Seriously, do you even listen to yourself? You're basically saying that anyone who disagrees with you shouldn't have any right to conduct their business in a lawful manner. You go on about how they violate the rights of others, yet here you are doing the exact same smacking thing. If anything you're being just as much of a hateful, unethical, misanthropic bugger as the fascists you're so desperate to fight.



Quote:

Tolerance for the KKK is like a Dr. saying to his patient, 'we cut out the tumour, well most of it anyway, there's a bit left but we wont worry about that unless it grows again'.

You're terrible at analogies and know little or nothing about cancer treatment.

Counter-analogy: Running around in lynch mobs ignoring laws and the civil rights of others is like an oncologist killing his mesothelioma patient because he removed the mesothelium and both lungs instead of just the infected tissue.

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 9:35am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 9:28am: Annie Anthrax wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 8:20am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 15th, 2013 at 12:23pm: Nietzsche's description and analysis of slave morality is the most fundamental insight of the (post)modern era. For example, Grey seems to think he's some kind of freedom fighter who holds the key to true justice, yet he is a most reactive person. He reacts against 'power structures' and has little ideas of his own, yet he calls himself the 'good' and the 'just.' He sits, waiting, for someone, somewhere to assert some power, and then he pounces on it and claims to be fighting the good fight. However, I don't blame Grey and his ilk too much (this includes the whole plethora of slave moralists - feminists, socialists, liberals, reactive conservatives, pessimists). When the dominant ethos of the era tells you that negative freedom, 'freedom from oppression', and equality encapsulate and embody the absolute 'good', then you can't blame the sheep for believing such things. There will always be sheep and herds. The overcoming, acceptance, and affirmation of pain, suffering, hardship, conflict, and misery is a personal journey, and not a political program. What is negative freedom? It is freedom from constraint. It is the freedom to not be held back or shackled by a convention or authority. It is intimately related to liberal theory - the idea that the individual is sovereign and no one can tell it what to do. It is often contrasted with positive freedom, which is a self-disciplining and an acquiring of a skill set to achieve a goal or task. Those who are experts in their field - scientists, philosophers, athletes, politicians - often embody a positive freedom of some description. Acceptance and affirmation of pain and suffering may be a personal journey, but I don't see how it negates fighting oppression or promoting equality in any way.  While there is no absolute good, you must agree that by establishing a more egalitarian society, suffering is decreased and therefore the need to process it is lessened.

It depends on what you mean by 'oppression'. The 'oppression' in the Western world pales into insignificance in comparison to say, North Korea.

I am suspect of the terms 'oppression' and 'equality' because they presume, firstly, that such things actually exist, secondly, that it is achievable, and thirdly, that it is the highest goal of life.

They're bad ideas in the wrong hands because they breed envy, rancour, an entitlement mentality, laziness, pessimism, and the belief in a (unachievable) utopia.

The more the criteria of 'oppression' and 'inequality' become central to how to analyse and judge a society, the more of it you're likely to see. Remove these ideas from people's heads they cease to be an issue.  

Chard wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 12:04pm:

Grey wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 11:04am: Chard wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:25am: Grey wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 9:42am: Chard wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 4:52am: Grey wrote on May 16th, 2013 at 10:27am: Anarchists beat up Nazis. We can tell they're Nazis because they wave Nazi flags, wear the uniform, walk the walk and talk the talk. We are the lovers of freedom, they are the lovers of oppression. Natural enemies innit. You have to keep the rats down otherwise they become a plague. Holyshit... I called it. I suppose you think a plea of 'obeying orders' at Nuremburg was a fair thing? What does that have to do with my point or were you just trying to pull an ad Nazium argument our of your ass again? Taking orders, doing what you're told, obeying the law, doesn't always cut the mustard. Because chaos and disorder are sooooo much better for society than rule of law. Oh, right, you're an anarchist so f*ck having an orderly society when we can have mob rule instead. The irony here is you not understanding that the very tactics you're advocating are often the same used by the fascists you're so hard up to go fight. Quote: Ultimately you have to be guided by what you know to be right or wrong. Since when did lynch mobs become "right"? Seriously, do you even listen to yourself? You're basically saying that anyone who disagrees with you shouldn't have any right to conduct their business in a lawful manner. You go on about how they violate the rights of others, yet here you are doing the exact same smacking thing. If anything you're being just as much of a hateful, unethical, misanthropic bugger as the fascists you're so desperate to fight. [quote]Tolerance for the KKK is like a Dr. saying to his patient, 'we cut out the tumour, well most of it anyway, there's a bit left but we wont worry about that unless it grows again'.

You're terrible at analogies and know little or nothing about cancer treatment.

Counter-analogy: Running around in lynch mobs ignoring laws and the civil rights of others is like an oncologist killing his mesothelioma patient because he removed the mesothelium and both lungs instead of just the infected tissue.
[/quote]


Chard you're so excitable. Have you come across many Anarchist lynch mobs roaming the streets looking in the dark places for fascists to string up? Nope, and you would'nt find them in London either. But when they come to a neighbourhood with an Anarchist presence these aggressive people get met with aggression. When they start peddling their racist lies they get put right in the picture.

I was a big kid for my age Chard. When racist bullies picked on Jewish kids and black kids when I was at school they had to come through me first. Later when I saw people getting attacked on the streets for being black, and I did on occasion, I interferred. Sometimes I came off worse because they were gangs. Mostly when I interferred other people did to, or they ran away. I'm a bit old for fisticuffs now, though probably if the situation presented itself I'd still stand up.

But I tell you what, when I see gangs of racists getting met by bigger gangs of youing Anarchists I feel proud.
If people don't stand up to people like the BNP their numbers will grow. But the more people there are that do stand up to them the less there is. I know that, I've seen it. And there's black racists too, and they need standing up to as well. That's your job. Do you think people saying, 'Uh, I'm not getting involved that's the polices problem', is going to solve the problem? Do you? In your heart of hearts you think it's righteous seeing a bunch of racists kick the life out of somebody and simply reach for your IP? Bull. If that's the way it's done around you it's no wonder you've got a problem with street gangs.

Quote:

You're terrible at analogies and know little or nothing about cancer treatment. Counter-analogy: Running around in lynch mobs ignoring laws and the civil rights of others is like an oncologist killing his mesothelioma patient because he removed the mesothelium and both lungs instead of just the infected tissue.

You think you can write a better analogy than me?  ;D You conceited twat. You ever hear the saying, If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, has a ducks bill and webbed feet it's probably a duck? Trust me no nice people ever got hurt by me. I'm certain of that.

Grey wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 3:15pm:

Chard you're so excitable. Have you come across many Anarchist lynch mobs roaming the streets looking in the dark places for fascists to string up? Nope, and you would'nt find them in London either. But when they come to a neighbourhood with an Anarchist presence these aggressive people get met with aggression. When they start peddling their racist lies they get put right in the picture.

And none of that has anything to do with you advocating physically assaultingpeople because of a difference in political or eithnic views. If I am the excitable one then why am I arguing in favor of not hitting people simply because I don't agree with them?



Quote:

I was a big kid for my age Chard. When racist bullies picked on Jewish kids and black kids when I was at school they had to come through me first. Later when I saw people getting attacked on the streets for being black, and I did on occasion, I interferred. Sometimes I came off worse because they were gangs. Mostly when I interferred other people did to, or they ran away. I'm a bit old for fisticuffs now, though probably if the situation presented itself I'd still stand up. But I tell you what, when I see gangs of racists getting met by bigger gangs of youing Anarchists I feel proud.

Good for you.  Not understanding what the f*ck that had to do with any of my points, but good for you.



Quote:

If people don't stand up to people like the BNP their numbers will grow. But the more people there are that do stand up to them the less there is. I know that, I've seen it. And there's black racists too, and they need standing up to as well. That's your job. Do you think people saying, 'Uh, I'm not getting involved that's the polices problem', is going to solve the problem? Do you? In your heart of hearts you think it's righteous seeing a bunch of racists kick the life out of somebody and simply reach for your IP? Bull. If that's the way it's done around you it's no wonder you've got a problem with street gangs.

So your idea to drive people away from the BNP is to make them look like victims.  Seriously, have you actually sat down and thought any of this bullshit through? You cannot solve racism through violence, that just causes more racial violence.

For bugger's sake, look at the vcivil rights movement in the US. King and others like him did more to promote equality through non-violence than anyone has ever accomplished through violent means. By not being violent assholes about it every time a racist attacked one of them it swayed public opinion away from the racists. Had King advocated violence instead then then racists would have been able to point at incidents of civil rights protestors assaulting people and say "See, we told you them nigg*rs were dangerous".

Christ, man, learn your history so you can stop smacking repeating it.

Chard wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 3:38pm:

Grey wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 3:15pm: Chard you're so excitable. Have you come across many Anarchist lynch mobs roaming the streets looking in the dark places for fascists to string up? Nope, and you would'nt find them in London either. But when they come to a neighbourhood with an Anarchist presence these aggressive people get met with aggression. When they start peddling their racist lies they get put right in the picture. And none of that has anything to do with you advocating physically assaultingpeople because of a difference in political or eithnic views. If I am the excitable one then why am I arguing in favor of not hitting people simply because I don't agree with them? Quote: I was a big kid for my age Chard. When racist bullies picked on Jewish kids and black kids when I was at school they had to come through me first. Later when I saw people getting attacked on the streets for being black, and I did on occasion, I interferred. Sometimes I came off worse because they were gangs. Mostly when I interferred other people did to, or they ran away. I'm a bit old for fisticuffs now, though probably if the situation presented itself I'd still stand up. But I tell you what, when I see gangs of racists getting met by bigger gangs of youing Anarchists I feel proud. Good for you.  Not understanding what the f*ck that had to do with any of my points, but good for you. [quote]If people don't stand up to people like the BNP their numbers will grow. But the more people there are that do stand up to them the less there is. I know that, I've seen it. And there's black racists too, and they need standing up to as well. That's your job. Do you think people saying, 'Uh, I'm not getting involved that's the polices problem', is going to solve the problem? Do you? In your heart of hearts you think it's righteous seeing a bunch of racists kick the life out of somebody and simply reach for your IP? Bull. If that's the way it's done around you it's no wonder you've got a problem with street gangs.

So your idea to drive people away from the BNP is to make them look like victims.  Seriously, have you actually sat down and thought any of this bullshit through? You cannot solve racism through violence, that just causes more racial violence.

For bugger's sake, look at the vcivil rights movement in the US. King and others like him did more to promote equality through non-violence than anyone has ever accomplished through violent means. By not being violent assholes about it every time a racist attacked one of them it swayed public opinion away from the racists. Had King advocated violence instead then then racists would have been able to point at incidents of civil rights protestors assaulting people and say "See, we told you them nigg*rs were dangerous".

Christ, man, learn your history so you can stop smacking repeating it.
[/quote]

You know what? I respected Martin Luther King, I really did and Joan Baez is just amazing. But there was a hell of a lot of burning and looting going on in the sixties and Stokley Carmichael wrote and spoke as well as anybody. Pacifism didn't work to well  for the Jews of Germany did it? A dangerous N****er can garner a lot of respect too. 


http://www.hippy.com/archives/panthersatcapitol.jpg

The white guy is an Australian, the gloves were his :-)

http://agreatsociety.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/black-power-salute-poster-c1221_crop_340x234.jpg

Grey wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 4:03pm:

You know what? I respected Martin Luther King, I really did and Joan Baez is just amazing. But there was a hell of a lot of burning and looting going on in the sixties and Stokley Carmichael wrote and spoke as well as anybody.

Charmichel?  Are you shitting me? That man is a prime example of what I'm talking about. THe man was every bit as racist any Klansman and once he started advocating violent radicalism he did more damage to civil rights than he ever helped it.



Quote:

Pacifism didn't work to well  for the Jews of Germany did it?

Turns out violent resistance didn't work either. Jews in Germany and across Europe attempted violent resistance only to find that the Wehrmacht was far better at it, had better equipement for it, were trained for it, and outnumbered the Jews so badly it was more black comedy than an actual resistance movement.



Quote:

[A dangerous N****er can garner a lot of respect too.

To quote the great Negro poet, Ice Cube...

Left my niggaz house paid
Picked up a girl been tryin to f*ck since the twelve grade
It's ironic, I had the brew she had the chronic
The Lakers beat the Supersonics
I felt on the big fat fanny
Pulled out the jammy, and killed the punanny
And my dick runs deep so deep so deep
Put her ass to sleep
Woke her up around one
She didn't hesitate, to call Ice Cube the top gun
Drove her to the pad and I'm coasting
Took another sip of the potion hit the three-wheel motion
I was glad everything had worked out
Dropped her ass off, then I chirped out
Today was like one of those fly dreams
Didn't even see a berry flashing those high beams
No helicopter looking for a murder
Two in the morning got the fat burger
Even saw the lights of the Goodyear Blimp
And it read Ice Cube's a pimp
Drunk as hell but no throwing up
Half way home and my pager still blowing up
Today I didn't even have to use my A.K.
I got to say it was a good day.


That said, it's ok if you disagree with me.  You still my black person, Grey.

mainstream postracial black american conservative (chard) versus radical, white, anti-white racist (grey)

whoever wins, we all lose

JC Denton wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 5:57pm:

mainstream postracial black american conservative

This guy gets it.

Just remember conservative ≠ republican and it's all good.

Quote:

That said, it's ok if you disagree with me.  You still my black person, Grey.

You need some good ol'American Wild West culture. The bad guys run the saloon and the girls, they're rustlin' an' bank robin' and pretty soon they're drivin' out the ranchers and miners and buyin' the whole range. Killing folk too.

Then a medium size stranger rides into town and sorts them all out with his pacifist ways. Yeah right  ;D

JC Denton wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 5:57pm:

mainstream postracial black american conservative (chard) versus radical, white, anti-white racist (grey) whoever wins, we all lose

This guy's speaking for everybody. I've told him about that. Happens again i'll be wiping his trouble off my boots. ;D ;D ;D

Grey wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 6:57pm:

JC Denton wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 5:57pm: mainstream postracial black american conservative (chard) versus radical, white, anti-white racist (grey) whoever wins, we all lose This guy's speaking for everybody. I've told him about that. Happens again i'll be wiping his trouble off my boots. ;D ;D ;D

gotta love how you dont even try to deny it

PARANOIA ........be more concerned about Islam than Germany or Japan.........

Grey you're really a pathetic tale-teller.......battalions of anarchists keeping the baddies in check....ya bloody idiot......

Chard wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 4:18pm:

Charmichel?  Are you shitting me? That man is a prime example of what I'm talking about. THe man was every bit as racist any Klansman and once he started advocating violent radicalism he did more damage to civil rights than he ever helped it.

That's wrong and sad coming from a black man. He may have become bitter in his latter years, but Stokely was a great man, an eloquent writer and a gifted orator. He stuck his neck out so that you would have a life. I read his writing and I heard him speak in London. I didn't hear a thing that threatened me or sounded less than intelligent.

Socrates wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 7:27pm:

PARANOIA ........be more concerned about Islam than Germany or Japan......... Grey you're really a pathetic tale-teller.......battalions of anarchists keeping the baddies in check....ya bloody idiot......

You assert, I provide evidence, Haven't you been dismissed already?

Grey wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 8:56pm:

Chard wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 4:18pm: Charmichel?  Are you shitting me? That man is a prime example of what I'm talking about. THe man was every bit as racist any Klansman and once he started advocating violent radicalism he did more damage to civil rights than he ever helped it. That's wrong and sad coming from a black man. He may have become bitter in his latter years, but Stokely was a great man, an eloquent writer and a gifted orator.

All of which is true up until the point he lost his sh*t and actively pursued an agenda ever bit as racist as the status quo he initially sought to change.



Quote:

He stuck his neck out so that you would have a life.

When he was working for King this is true. When he crossed the line into advocating violence based on race himself and stated to think of himself as the black Che Guevara he working for himself and not for racial equality.



Quote:

I read his writing and I heard him speak in London. I didn't hear a thing that threatened me or sounded less than intelligent.

Yeah, he calmed down a bit once he figured out that no one really gave a sh*t anymore. At that point he became a curiosity, a relic of an era of US history that he ultimately became nothing more than a minor footnote in. You can tell yourself he's a great man or a shining paragon of civil rights, but he's just another head-lodged-firmly-up-his-own-ass failed wannabe revolutionary only remembered by history geeks and old guys pining for a time when their ideals were still relevant.

Chard wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 9:24pm:

Grey wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:56pm: Chard wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 4:18pm: Charmichel?  Are you shitting me? That man is a prime example of what I'm talking about. THe man was every bit as racist any Klansman and once he started advocating violent radicalism he did more damage to civil rights than he ever helped it. That's wrong and sad coming from a black man. He may have become bitter in his latter years, but Stokely was a great man, an eloquent writer and a gifted orator. All of which is true up until the point he lost his sh*t and actively pursued an agenda ever bit as racist as the status quo he initially sought to change. Quote: He stuck his neck out so that you would have a life. When he was working for King this is true. When he crossed the line into advocating violence based on race himself and stated to think of himself as the black Che Guevara he working for himself and not for racial equality. [quote] I read his writing and I heard him speak in London. I didn't hear a thing that threatened me or sounded less than intelligent.

Yeah, he calmed down a bit once he figured out that no one really gave a sh*t anymore. At that point he became a curiosity, a relic of an era of US history that he ultimately became nothing more than a minor footnote in. You can tell yourself he's a great man or a shining paragon of civil rights, but he's just another head-lodged-firmly-up-his-own-ass failed wannabe revolutionary only remembered by history geeks and old guys pining for a time when their ideals were still relevant.
[/quote]

I don't want to get in an argument about one guy.
But I'm buggered if you're going to get the last word.

He wasn't racist, he simply didn't want white activists in the black movement. He thought it worked better for them to work against racism in their own community. I agree with that. You let White deal with white racism and Black to deal with black racism. Good system.

It's alright, you don't have to be as tough on the issue  ;D Yeh big softie.

chowderheads

dropkick

Grey wrote on May 20^th, 2013 at 2:10pm:

I don't want to get in an argument about one guy. But I'm buggered if you're going to get the last word.

Yes, old Greywalker... Give in to your hatred, it makes you powerful... BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!



Quote:

He wasn't racist, he simply didn't want white activists in the black movement.

He advocated the use of violence against people solely because of differences in skin color.  If Charmichel isn't racist then I submit that former CSA Lieutenant General Nathan Bedford Forrest was not a racist either.



Quote:

He thought it worked better for them to work against racism in their own community by promoting violence against whites.

There, fixed to better reflect reality.



Quote:

I agree with that.

Of course you agree. You believe it's justified to use violence on others simply because of political differences just like Charmichel believed it was justifiable to do so against others based on race.



Quote:

You let White deal with white racism and Black to deal with black racism.

And that would be find if not for Charmichel's support of ethnic violence.



Quote:

It's alright, you don't have to be as tough on the issue  ;D Yeh big softie.

Dude, you talk a good game, but let's face facts. The real reason you support this crap is because you're yet another tail-end baby boomer that was to young to be a part real part of the various social movements of the 60s. Now you're an old guy, probably either still in or coming to the crash point of a midlife crisis, and you're desperate for something, any thing, that will keep you from fading into obscurity with all the other left overs of movements that moved on without you.

Not trying to be mean here, Grey.  I'm just sayin'.

Quote:

Of course you agree. You believe it's justified to use violence on others simply because of political differences just like Charmichel believed it was justifiable to do so against others based on race.

Nothing succeeds like exaggeration and putting words into mouths they never exited from.

No, no wait, I mean nothing sucks like...

I don't believe you should use violence on people who hold political differences. I think you should not. I think political violence and religious violence, which is much the same thing, are mankinds biggest problem.

These are the people I root for,

http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2008/s2167985.htm

the common people who don't want to be rulers or 'powerful', people who just want to live ordinary lives and raise kids in peace and security. People who don't care whether their neighbour is black or white, Jewish or Muslim, people who say no to the politics of division. People who only care about whether their neighbour is reaonable and hygenic and doesn't melt down during discussions on the new fence.

And when gangs come along who try, with their hate filled misphilosophies to divide those communities, using violence when they think they can get away with it, they'll be resisted. Anarchists will resist them.

We'll resist them because we are the opposite. We want a political structure that's open all the time to different opinions. Where ideas are talked about and acted on without being corrupted by deal making between gangs. We want a political structure that's free of racism and sexism and coercion. It's what makes us Anarchists and what makes us different to Socialists, Conservatives, Communists,  nazis, KKK's zionists, bolsheviks, shineing path guerillas and smacking polpot.

What you hide behind with your cringeworthy adherence to Mummy boy law, is what Nazis use. That while they don't break the law they should be allowed space. But they do break the law. You know it, I know it, they will do 'black ops' like beating and old white man or raping a white woman and stitching up the black man. Or they'll firebomb, or kick to death, and run away, and they wont confess in legalise to doing these things, but they will make it clear in their rhetoric that it was them, done with their approval. Because that's the point. That's the point of wearing a uniform, it's a threat. You know it, I know it, stop pretending. 

Anarchists don't stand for violence, they stand against it.

And while we're at it, got any evidence of what you're saying about carmichael? I mean I could be wrong, I'm not his official biographer or anything, but it's news to me that he was a racist.


Quote:

Dude, you talk a good game, but let's face facts. The real reason you support this crap is because you're yet another tail-end baby boomer that was to young to be a part real part of the various social movements of the 60s. Now you're an old guy, probably either still in or coming to the crash point of a midlife crisis, and you're desperate for something, any thing, that will keep you from fading into obscurity with all the other left overs of movements that moved on without you.

What are you trying to do, start some new bigotry against old or nearly old white guys? I was there in the sixties. In SixtyEight I was 18, the maths are easy. Now you know something, before you knew nothing. But you still don't know a thing worth knowing before you can set up as my judge. But carry on, it really says more about you than me.

Familiarise yourself with these:

Reductio ad Hitlerum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

Godwin's Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Grey wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 6:30pm:

Quote: Of course you agree. You believe it's justified to use violence on others simply because of political differences just like Charmichel believed it was justifiable to do so against others based on race. Nothing succeeds like exaggeration and putting words into mouths they never exited from. No, no wait, I mean nothing sucks like... I don't believe you should use violence on people who hold political differences. I think you should not. I think political violence and religious violence, which is much the same thing, are mankinds biggest problem.

Seriously?  I know you're old, but you can't remember what you posted previously in the thread?  Here, let's jog that foggy old Grey metter (pun intended).


Grey wrote on May 15^th, 2013 at 2:35pm:

'Anarchist violence' , come off it, they're just letting off a little steam against the states thugs. Who you'll no doubt note, do nothing but protect the right of Nazis to demonstrate. But when the left demonstrate they turn up to rumble, armed and protected to the teeth. Smashing bank windows isn't my way; but I do get the giggles when Fascists complain about "a group that uses violence and force to shut down people with opposing ideas to them".

From page one, where in you 1. call rioting and property damage "letting off a little steam", and 2. express support for people that commit such acts.



Grey wrote on May 16^th, 2013 at 10:27am:

Anarchists beat up Nazis. We can tell they're Nazis because they wave Nazi flags, wear the uniform, walk the walk and talk the talk. We are the lovers of freedom, they are the lovers of oppression. Natural enemies innit. You have to keep the rats down otherwise they become a plague.

Second page, where you continue to express support and admiration of people committing felony assault because you disagree with their politics.



Grey wrote on May 18^th, 2013 at 2:10pm:

When NeoNazis wanted to march across the German border into Warsaw to celebrate Crystal Night a few years ago, no police force was going to stop them, no government was going to stop them, Anarchists poured in from all over Europe and stopped them. We'll keep stopping them, if people like Chard don't like it they can sit on it and rotate.

Page three where you advocate and identify with people that go around assaulting others over political differences.


Tell me something, Grey.  What's it like having such terrible short term memory?

Quote:

Where you advocate and identify with people that go around assaulting others over political differences.

No not 'political differences' - I/we advocate standing up to Nazi thugs and by nazi we mean racist orgs. that use violence as a political tool.

Here we go ducking and weaving, ducking and weaving and sliding along on our belly hoping the racist man wont notice us.  ::) There's something wrong with you man if you go all gung ho on the use of nuclear weapons and all soft cock about punching a few nazi teeth in.  ;D

Grey wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 12:02am:

No not 'political differences' - I/we advocate standing up to Nazi thugs and by nazi we mean racist orgs. that use violence as a political tool.

Stop bullshitting, Grey. I just quoted you in three different posts in this thread where you advocate violence against others over politics.



Quote:

Here we go ducking and weaving, ducking and weaving and sliding along on our belly hoping the racist man wont notice us.  ::) There's something wrong with you man if you go all gung ho on the use of nuclear weapons and all soft cock about punching a few nazi teeth in.  ;D

Who the bugger are you trying to kid.  The closest you've ever been to fighting the fascists is getting your ass handed to you by a skinhead in a pub. Now go back to watching youtube vids of others doing something, pat yourself on the back and make believe you're actually part of it.

It didnt take chard long to figure grey out.

Grey, again I ask, how did you manage to get into Australia when, in your own words, you have assaulted police officers in UK, it's obviously an arrestable offence, therefore you are talking crap or you have a criminal record?

Chard wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 11:13pm:

Grey wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 6:30pm: Quote: Of course you agree. You believe it's justified to use violence on others simply because of political differences just like Charmichel believed it was justifiable to do so against others based on race. Nothing succeeds like exaggeration and putting words into mouths they never exited from. No, no wait, I mean nothing sucks like... I don't believe you should use violence on people who hold political differences. I think you should not. I think political violence and religious violence, which is much the same thing, are mankinds biggest problem. Seriously?  I know you're old, but you can't remember what you posted previously in the thread?  Here, let's jog that foggy old Grey metter (pun intended). Grey wrote on May 15th, 2013 at 2:35pm: 'Anarchist violence' , come off it, they're just letting off a little steam against the states thugs. Who you'll no doubt note, do nothing but protect the right of Nazis to demonstrate. But when the left demonstrate they turn up to rumble, armed and protected to the teeth. Smashing bank windows isn't my way; but I do get the giggles when Fascists complain about "a group that uses violence and force to shut down people with opposing ideas to them". From page one, where in you 1. call rioting and property damage "letting off a little steam", and 2. express support for people that commit such acts. Grey wrote on May 16th, 2013 at 10:27am: Anarchists beat up Nazis. We can tell they're Nazis because they wave Nazi flags, wear the uniform, walk the walk and talk the talk. We are the lovers of freedom, they are the lovers of oppression. Natural enemies innit. You have to keep the rats down otherwise they become a plague. Second page, where you continue to express support and admiration of people committing felony assault because you disagree with their politics. Grey wrote on May 18th, 2013 at 2:10pm: When NeoNazis wanted to march across the German border into Warsaw to celebrate Crystal Night a few years ago, no police force was going to stop them, no government was going to stop them, Anarchists poured in from all over Europe and stopped them. We'll keep stopping them, if people like Chard don't like it they can sit on it and rotate. Page three where you advocate and identify with people that go around assaulting others over political differences. Tell me something, Grey.  What's it like having such terrible short term memory?

What's it like having no comprehension skills? 'Nazi' in all those posts. a common thread. How about answering some questions softcock? 

... wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 1:37pm:

It didnt take chard long to figure grey out.

Why would it? Chard's a conservative, Chard can pidgeon hole people by reading chicken entrails.

Socrates wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 1:42pm:

Grey, again I ask, how did you manage to get into Australia when, in your own words, you have assaulted police officers in UK, it's obviously an arrestable offence, therefore you are talking crap or you have a criminal record?

You ask again sock? Go check the answers I gave to simple Simon.

Grey wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 2:05pm:

... wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 1:37pm: It didnt take chard long to figure grey out. Why would it? Chard's a conservative, Chard can pidgeon hole people by reading chicken entrails.

yeah.  but you'd never do that ,would you?

Look!  A nazi!

... wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 2:08pm:

Grey wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 2:05pm: ... wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 1:37pm: It didnt take chard long to figure grey out. Why would it? Chard's a conservative, Chard can pidgeon hole people by reading chicken entrails. yeah.  but you'd never do that ,would you? Look!  A nazi!

Well shiieeet it's not like they make it difficult  ;D

My goodness Grey,  an anarchist, who is a vacant minded old geezer with society hating tendencies sounds more like a despot than a peace loving good guy.

Now play nice old chap....otherwise we'll think you're one of those illegals.

Socrates wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 2:17pm:

My goodness Grey,  an anarchist, who is a vacant minded old geezer with society hating tendencies sounds more like a despot than a peace loving good guy. Now play nice old chap....otherwise we'll think you're one of those illegals.

Now let's not get silly 'Socrates' (pretentious, much?), you know it's you Thatcherites who hate society to the point of denial of existence. All I'm doing is advocating that society be protected from the sort of people that caused it 80,000,000 dead in five years of mayhem.

Grey wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 2:02pm:

What's it like having no comprehension skills? 'Nazi' in all those posts. a common thread. How about answering some questions softcock?

Which sounds even lamer as now your justification comes down to "Anarchists vs Nazis" like you're part of the world's most irrelevant remake of West Side Story. Fact still remains that you support physically assaulting people because they have differing political views.



Grey wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 2:05pm:

... wrote on May 22nd, 2013 at 1:37pm: It didnt take chard long to figure grey out. Why would it? Chard's a conservative, Chard can pidgeon hole people by reading chicken entrails.

We're using goat entrails now.  Chickens are sooooo last season.

Quote:

Fact still remains that you support physically assaulting people because they have differing political views.

No, no, no, I'm anti politics generally, but I don't think you should beat people up over it. You know in the US you have Anarchists that are right wing? Which doesn't go well with European Anarchists that are left wing.

I think they're both wrong, because if it's to mean anything Anarchism has to be inclusive of all views. But I'm a lot closer to PJ O'Rourke than a Communist.

So what's different about Nazis? Let me say first, I use the word as a generic term, I include the KKK, BNP, et al, you know that, but I can see I have to spell things out. Nazis intimidate, using actual or implied violence on people and property. That their politics are racist doesn't help but :-) 

Grey wrote on May 23^rd, 2013 at 1:28pm:

So what's different about Nazis? Let me say first, I use the word as a generic term,

yes, we know.  A generic term for anyone you disagree with.