The Maelstrom of Violence

[Warren Dew]

You think X_4AD_84 is a neocon? That might explain why he calls himself a conservative, I guess. Certainly nothing he's ever posted has seemed conservative to me.

[pbrower2a]

(09-15-2017, 07:02 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-15-2017, 10:57 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(09-15-2017, 08:46 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Anti-fascists range from conservatives to communists by way of liberals and socialists. Fascism is nothing but thuggery with a thin veneer of appeal to tradition. Most conservatives recognize the thinness of the veneer and insist upon more than the veneer.

Exactly. I'm a Rightist who's also an Anti Fascist.

Then you should be all primed to support the President, considering that a mere 20 years ago he would be a business democrat, or do you actually buy all the bullshit Clinton News Network has to sell?

It's what he is now that matters, and not what he was 20 years ago. In 1938, did it matter that twenty years ea4rlier that Mussolini was a socialist?

Quote:Note:  That question is rhetorical.  I don't actually care, I've already figured out what your problem with Trump is.  He's neither a Neocon nor a Neolib.

He is a mean-spirited demagogue.

[Kinser79]

(09-14-2017, 09:42 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: If the Alt Right and Antifa want to duke it out, I might call the police slowly.  Neither are my favorite people.  However, many of both seem to be seeking out verbal ugliness and violence.  Let them have joy of one another.

But the Alt Right and allies want to be ugly to everyone.  That I don't want.  If that means you don't think you have free speech, so be it.  Your delusion, not mine.  Negative rights never guaranteed a right to harm.  You think this a fine exception to a general rule, while I don't.

Any negative right implies an organization that prevents it from being taken away.  Any negative right that can be abused, that its exercise can cause harm, needs somebody to enforce it.  Some think this is a major reason why "Governments were instituted among Men."  Why is this one special?  Are you suddenly an all out anarchist?

Bob, I'm starting to wonder what you're smoking and where I can get some.

1.  I for one do not want the left or the right duking it out in the streets--as for calling the police, feel free to.  But in Blue Cities it seems there are stand down orders from the political leadership so it always devolves into a riot.

2.  I disagree with you on your negative rights position.  This concept is really simple, so simple it is actually beyond most people really.  Either one has the right to say whatever the fuck they want, not including incitement, or slander/libel or they do not.  It is a binary a hard binary it is either on or off.

If the price of freedom is speech is that someone gets their fee fees hurt so be it.  Life is tough, get a helmet.

3. I wouldn't say that the first amendment is special.  I am also pretty partial to the second too.  The kid found me a nifty tee-shirt about it.


https://teespring.com/shop/get-shall-not...&sid=front

[Kinser79]

(09-15-2017, 07:08 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: You think X_4AD_84 is a neocon?  That might explain why he calls himself a conservative, I guess.  Certainly nothing he's ever posted has seemed conservative to me.

It isn't a matter of think.  Read what he posts, figure it out for yourself. 

As for Neocons, well no they aren't conservative, not one bit.  And one really shouldn't expect them to be.  It is an outgrowth of Trotskyism, they just happen to be in the elephant party at the moment, the populists are slowly purging the party of them.

@PBR

1.  Yes it does matter.  Fascism like communism is a creature of the left.  The difference between the two is whether one focuses on a particular nation or preaches internationalism.

2.  I could care less if the President is mean or a demagogue.  He was elected to do the job, and provided he does it, any means he uses is justified. 

Like I told Bobby life is tough get a helmet.

[Eric the Green]

(09-15-2017, 07:09 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-15-2017, 07:02 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-15-2017, 10:57 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(09-15-2017, 08:46 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Anti-fascists range from conservatives to communists by way of liberals and socialists. Fascism is nothing but thuggery with a thin veneer of appeal to tradition. Most conservatives recognize the thinness of the veneer and insist upon more than the veneer.

Exactly. I'm a Rightist who's also an Anti Fascist.

Then you should be all primed to support the President, considering that a mere 20 years ago he would be a business democrat, or do you actually buy all the bullshit Clinton News Network has to sell?

It's what he is now that matters, and not what he was 20 years ago. In 1938, did it matter that twenty years ea4rlier that Mussolini was a socialist?

Quote:Note:  That question is rhetorical.  I don't actually care, I've already figured out what your problem with Trump is.  He's neither a Neocon nor a Neolib.

He is a mean-spirited demagogue.

Ha ha. Yes, and he is BOTH a Neo-con and a Neo-lib, especially the latter.

[Kinser79]

(09-16-2017, 12:43 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-15-2017, 07:09 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-15-2017, 07:02 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-15-2017, 10:57 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(09-15-2017, 08:46 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Anti-fascists range from conservatives to communists by way of liberals and socialists. Fascism is nothing but thuggery with a thin veneer of appeal to tradition. Most conservatives recognize the thinness of the veneer and insist upon more than the veneer.

Exactly. I'm a Rightist who's also an Anti Fascist.

Then you should be all primed to support the President, considering that a mere 20 years ago he would be a business democrat, or do you actually buy all the bullshit Clinton News Network has to sell?

It's what he is now that matters, and not what he was 20 years ago. In 1938, did it matter that twenty years ea4rlier that Mussolini was a socialist?

Quote:Note:  That question is rhetorical.  I don't actually care, I've already figured out what your problem with Trump is.  He's neither a Neocon nor a Neolib.

He is a mean-spirited demagogue.

Ha ha. Yes, and he is BOTH a Neo-con and a Neo-lib, especially the latter.

Then explain why the Neoliberal Dimocratic party hates Daddy (when a mere 20 years ago he would have been considered a New York Business Democrat) and why the NeoCons in the GOP hate him.  As for the difference between the two different schools, from where I sit as a classical liberal and civic nationalist I can't see much difference at all.

Of course this could just be a case of your KDS acting up.  And I should probably chalk up your disagreement with my position that Trump is neither a neocon nor a neoliberal to being a matter of the correctness of my previous statement.

[Warren Dew]

(09-13-2017, 01:23 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-13-2017, 12:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-13-2017, 10:08 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-12-2017, 11:52 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: A competitive free market always provides what customers on the whole actually prefer.  This may not be to your liking if, for example, you prefer a roof over gasoline that is 2c/gal cheaper, while everyone else prefers the cheaper gasoline, but regulating to your preference against the preferences of everyone else is worse for everyone but you.

If the preference is instant gratification (cheap gas, for instance), but well hidden long term costs make that option bad, should it be allowed?  For decades, we wanted cheaper products delivered quickly, so we ignored intentional pollution that eventually lead to thousands of superfund sites that have had to be mitigated at greatly inflated taxpayer expense. Of course, those taxpayers were not the same people who benefitted from the cheap products produced decades earlier.  Today, the EPA is trying to prevent a repeat of that experience, but industry is wailing about the cost to their businesses.  If they win, then we get cheaper products and our children get the mess to correct later ... if they even can.

The problem isn't about whether costs are long term or hidden; they are about whether costs are borne by the consumer.  In the case of the gas, the consumers that pay for the cheaper gas are the ones that stand in the rain, so that isn't an issue.

A better example than superfund sites, which have little impact on most Americans' everyday lives, would be the original purposes of the EPA:  clean air and clean water.  Back in the 1960s and 1970s, Lake Erie was so polluted it caught fire regularly, and the air in most major cities was so unhealthy it stank.  This was because consumers who bought goods got the benefit of low prices, but the costs of production processes that polluted were borne by the general population, and not just by the consumers that bought the low priced goods.

In that situation, there's room for government intervention.  Ideally, it would be through taxes that made the consumer pay for the pollution caused by production of his goods.

There are any number of examples of Federal intervention that began in response to some failing in the private sector.  Look at the airlines.  They are pushing more and more people on planes because they can.  Travel is worse than uncomfortable, especially on long flights, and they want to push even more.  It's already life threatening to  some people, but who cares.  Right?  This will lead to a resumption of Federal regulation at some point, because that's the only way to protect the public.  Don't blame the government when that happens.

People who need more space can always book business class or first class.  Did you ever pay for airplaine tickets before deregulation?  You basically paid, inflation adjusted, today's business class rates for service that was between business class and tourist class.  Deregulated prices are far better.

Quote:

Warren Dew Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:This is only one of many similar examples in all fields of endeavor.  It's why our medical care is so expensive and piss-poor to boot.  The market is not a perfect vehicle, not by a long shot.

The problem with our health care system is too much government intervention, not too little.

I'm on Medicare and it works really well.  There's even room for private insurance for those who want it.  Part D is bad, but it was the mandate that drug prices could not be negotiated that makes it bad.  I'll be happy to kill that requirement.  So what involvement would you end?  How about the FDA drug approval process.  We can go back to believing what the drug companies say.  Or maybe you wish to kill the requirement that keeps every medical practice from operating an MRI, making them impossibly expensive to use.  Give me an example or two.

Medicare is "free stuff" paid for by taxpayers.  Of course it works well for people who receive it - because they aren't paying for it.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-15-2017, 07:14 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Bob, I'm starting to wonder what you're smoking and where I can get some.

1.  I for one do not want the left or the right duking it out in the streets--as for calling the police, feel free to.  But in Blue Cities it seems there are stand down orders from the political leadership so it always devolves into a riot.

2.  I disagree with you on your negative rights position.  This concept is really simple, so simple it is actually beyond most people really.  Either one has the right to say whatever the fuck they want, not including incitement, or slander/libel or they do not.  It is a binary a hard binary it is either on or off.

If the price of freedom is speech is that someone gets their fee fees hurt so be it.  Life is tough, get a helmet.

3. I wouldn't say that the first amendment is special.  I am also pretty partial to the second too.  The kid found me a nifty tee-shirt about it.


https://teespring.com/shop/get-shall-not...&sid=front

Um…  Really?  You are having a hard time understanding?  Your values lock is usually on facts which you refuse to acknowledge rather than logic.  I’ll take you for your word.  My thought are alien enough for you that you cannot comprehend?

I’d put  hate speech in with incitement, slander and libel.  Many think incitement, slander, libel and hate speech are acts which can cause harm.  This should be comprehensible, even for those with severe values lock.

Being I accept the ‘whig’ label with emphasis on Jefferson’s self evident truths at the core of my political values, it should not be a surprise that I hold the prevention of harm close to my political core.  I am more than a little stubborn in that area.

You and I can rant all we like, but the self evident truths paragraph will remain untainted and prominent.

Now, I do remain confused (if that is the right word) that most among the alt right and a few elsewhere cannot see free speech apart from hate speech.  If they can’t speak hate, somehow they aren’t free.  I’ll freely acknowledge this is so.  I will note it as a obscure minority opinion, and there are may countries where hate speech can be censored by law and the people are content with it.  But the alt right strongly disagrees.

I think I can see one perspective on that.  If one has had enough insults thrown at one, they bounce off.  You almost seem prideful and defiant of being a black homosexual.  In a way that is cool.  An ability to let ugliness bounce off can feel like a good thing.  More power to  you.

But I’ll disagree on a point that because some are immune from insult, all should be expected to be.  Insult and abuse can be harmful and demeaning enough that the government should be able to protect their people.  Some governments claim this right.  More should.

That brings us back to the question of whether there is any form of free speech that the alt right wishes to advocate rather than hate speech.  I am as in favor of free speech as I am any part of the Bill of Rights.  It’s barely below the self-evident paragraph in my opinion.  I, however, do not believe negative rights grant a protected ability to do harm.  For example, while we both highly respect the 2nd, the right to keep and bear arms in no way interferes with writing either federal or state laws regarding firearm assault or murder.  

That being the case, what harm if any does the alt right wish to do?

Today’s Nazi and Confederates, sure, they have a history which includes a desire to be harmful.  If they want harmful speech, no surprise.  That is who they are, what they do.

But the alt right generally tries to keep plausible deniability.  Most alt right folk seem to want to keep that two millimeters distance from hate speech.

Is there a form of Free Speech other than hate speech which you are advocating, or is it all about hating people?

I'll note the 'get a helmet' motto opposes the idea that governments exist to protect the people from harm and that human rights are a list of ways people might be harmed.  Intuitively, this feels incorrect to me.  It seems like you, as well as the Nazi and Confederates, are embracing harm.

[Eric the Green]

The stand down approach at Cal Berkeley is ending.

[Warren Dew]

(09-17-2017, 01:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: It seems like you, as well as the Nazi and Confederates, are embracing harm.

Implying that Kinser is basically a Nazi, as you just did, looks like hate speech to me.  But hey, it's always been clear that you're fine with hate speech when you're the one speaking.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-17-2017, 01:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: It seems like you, as well as the Nazi and Confederates, are embracing harm.

Implying that Kinser is basically a Nazi, as you just did, looks like hate speech to me.  But hey, it's always been clear that you're fine with hate speech when you're the one speaking.

Kinser did not explicitly endorse the Nazi or Confederate positions, but he does seem to violently oppose Canadian and European speech laws intended to stop hate speech.  This makes him...  how do you say it politely... an odd duck.  What is it that he advocates if not hate speech?

I'd like him to be explicit.  Other countries oppose hate speech, and the alt red are vehemently against a few specific countries.  Can the alt right at least be explicit in the type of speech they are advocating?  They like to dance around the issue.  I'm opposed to the dance.

Of late I have been against the blue evening comedy people and the red daytime political radio pundits.  Some of them do and some of them don't use dirty words.  Just about all of them will vile stereotype, will poorly describe what their opponents actually want, will characterize opponent's motives and models poorly and maliciously.  I oppose that, and believe I have said as much.

I would prefer honest evaluation and decent language.  Working with others, it is impossible to get. 

Could you give a few examples of what you perceive as my hate speech?

[Warren Dew]

(09-17-2017, 03:35 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-17-2017, 01:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: It seems like you, as well as the Nazi and Confederates, are embracing harm.

Implying that Kinser is basically a Nazi, as you just did, looks like hate speech to me.  But hey, it's always been clear that you're fine with hate speech when you're the one speaking.

Kinser did not explicitly endorse the Nazi or Confederate positions, but he does seem to violently oppose Canadian and European speech laws intended to stop hate speech.  This makes him...  how do you say it politely... an odd duck.  What is it that he advocates if not hate speech?

I'd like him to be explicit.  Other countries oppose hate speech, and the alt red are vehemently against a few specific countries.  Can the alt right at least be explicit in the type of speech they are advocating?  They like to dance around the issue.  I'm opposed to the dance.

Of late I have been against the blue evening comedy people and the red daytime political radio pundits.  Some of them do and some of them don't use dirty words.  Just about all of them will vile stereotype, will poorly describe what their opponents actually want, will characterize opponent's motives and models poorly and maliciously.  I oppose that, and believe I have said as much.

I would prefer honest evaluation and decent language.  Working with others, it is impossible to get. 

Could you give a few examples of what you perceive as my hate speech?

Just gave you one.  Seems like you managed to talk yourself into ignoring it.

If you actually wanted honest evaluation and decent language, you'd apologize and stop it instead.  Alternatively, you could learn to ignore what you perceive to be others' hate speech, and count on them to ignore yours, too.

But really, it seems you don't want honest evaluation and decent language; you just want to confirm your biases.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-17-2017, 03:41 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-17-2017, 03:35 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-17-2017, 01:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: It seems like you, as well as the Nazi and Confederates, are embracing harm.

Implying that Kinser is basically a Nazi, as you just did, looks like hate speech to me.  But hey, it's always been clear that you're fine with hate speech when you're the one speaking.

Kinser did not explicitly endorse the Nazi or Confederate positions, but he does seem to violently oppose Canadian and European speech laws intended to stop hate speech.  This makes him...  how do you say it politely... an odd duck.  What is it that he advocates if not hate speech?

I'd like him to be explicit.  Other countries oppose hate speech, and the alt red are vehemently against a few specific countries.  Can the alt right at least be explicit in the type of speech they are advocating?  They like to dance around the issue.  I'm opposed to the dance.

Of late I have been against the blue evening comedy people and the red daytime political radio pundits.  Some of them do and some of them don't use dirty words.  Just about all of them will vile stereotype, will poorly describe what their opponents actually want, will characterize opponent's motives and models poorly and maliciously.  I oppose that, and believe I have said as much.

I would prefer honest evaluation and decent language.  Working with others, it is impossible to get. 

Could you give a few examples of what you perceive as my hate speech?

Just gave you one.  Seems like you managed to talk yourself into ignoring it.

If you actually wanted honest evaluation and decent language, you'd apologize and stop it instead.  Alternatively, you could learn to ignore what you perceive to be others' hate speech, and count on them to ignore yours, too.

But really, it seems you don't want honest evaluation and decent language; you just want to confirm your biases.

Really?

I might be called many things.  Among them - accurate and descriptive - might be White, Democratic, Whig, lapsed Catholic, heterosexual and yankee.  I’m inclined to believe there are insulting and / or obscene variations for most if not all of the above groups.  The important thing is that there must be a legitimate way to refer to the various groups.  Obscenities might be inevitable, but I would hope to avoid them holding a civil conversation.  There ought to be legitimate names.

I suppose I could call people neo-NSDAP or neo National Socialist German Workers Party members.  That would be the official names.  A lot of folk wouldn’t know what I was talking about.  It would also be more than a little inaccurate as the philosophy isn’t particularly German anymore.  I might also not capitalize anything.  Wiki suggests that uncapitalized, the more common word is a more generic slang word and held to be offensive by many.  I don’t trust simply not capitalizing, though, to convey that significant difference.

I also don’t feel a particular need to apologize to Kinser.  He wears a helmet.  If his boasts are right, insults bounce of him.  This can be a fine thing, though not as universal as he seems to think.  Many, like you, will object to the use of certain words in certain ways.  Anyway, Kinser and I seem to avoid sending unnecessary insults at each other.  His notes to me are significantly different than his other notes.  I assume this is deliberate, and appreciate it.

Anyway, what is the non-insulting politically correct term for the German political party that dominated during World War II?  Do you have a political correctness problem with the usual name of the pro slavery side of the US Civil War?  How much political correctness will you demand?

And you are disavowing the alt right?  From Kinser’s arguments, free speech seems to mean that any speech is allowed.  There is no such thing as obscene, no such thing as politically correct.  Free speech to him seems to mean use any word at any time.  Everyone should wear helmets.

I would, of course, disagree.

Confirming biases?  To some degree we are all here to confirm biases and force them on others.  There are legitimate fields and perspectives that can be confirmed by observation and experiment.  Climate science and evolution are among them.  People with strong political or religious perspectives have been known to cast away entire fields of science to keep their world views intact.  The statistical aspect of gun policy and salt / fresh water economics are on the other hand not confirmed.  Rival schools have not been able to convince their opposites of a clear truth, and let their political values over ride their knowledge of science.  They will assert their opinions as True.

We have very different ideas about how to confirm biases.  I started out on the usual liberal side of the gun policy question, and wound up flipping to the mostly conservative perspective during the bias confirming processes.  The founding father’s opinions and intent are quite clear, if in conflict with the modern values of some.

And, of course, much of politics involves hopeful yet contradictory assertions.  I have asserted mine in Jefferson’s self-evident truths paragraph and Bill of Rights.  Can they be proven in anything like a scientific sense?  Not really.  Can they be defended as a solid place to start?  Absolutely.  Should one check vigilantly and often that the assumed matches the real world?  Absolutely.

My feeling, though, is that I’m dealing with unidentified and unquestioned assumptions.  Much of the ‘conversation’ here is just ever louder stating of assumptions.  Destination?  Nowhere.

[pbrower2a]

(09-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-17-2017, 01:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: It seems like you, as well as the Nazi and Confederates, are embracing harm.

Implying that Kinser is basically a Nazi, as you just did, looks like hate speech to me.  But hey, it's always been clear that you're fine with hate speech when you're the one speaking.

He is simply Eric Hoffer's True Believer, attracted to extremist, ruthless causes. He was recently a Stalinist and is now a Trump supporter. I can see him becoming a fanatical Muslim once he finds President Trump irrelevant or discredited.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-17-2017, 09:32 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-17-2017, 01:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: It seems like you, as well as the Nazi and Confederates, are embracing harm.

Implying that Kinser is basically a Nazi, as you just did, looks like hate speech to me.  But hey, it's always been clear that you're fine with hate speech when you're the one speaking.

He is simply Eric Hoffer's True Believer, attracted to extremist, ruthless causes. He was recently a Stalinist and is now a Trump supporter. I can see him becoming a fanatical Muslim once he finds President Trump irrelevant or discredited.

What makes you personally not a true believer?  I’m not picking on you.  Really wondering.  

We all believe in our own perspective and advocate them.  I’ve tried to isolate mine, and come up with the self-evident paragraph and the Bill of Rights.  To that, maybe I’d add cautiously the S&H cycles.  In a true crisis, one works together for the common good, while in an unravelling one can tend to be selfish.  There are some who want to make the cyclical selfishness permanent.

Have you thought through your anchors?  Are there things that must be changed?  How desperately?  What makes one a true believer?

While this is addressed to Pbrower, anyone might feel free to answer.

[Ragnarök_62]

(09-17-2017, 05:01 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The stand down approach at Cal Berkeley is ending.

Good!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-17...al-liberty


I'm getting sick and tired of all of these special snowflakes and antifa motherfuckers finding some reason or other to make asses of themselves.


I'm also sick and tired of this double standard.  Fuck snowflakes, damn them to hell. Rats and roaches are far more worthy of biomass than fucking shitass antifas. 

OK, antifa triggers Rags.  Does that mean I can shut them down because they piss me off?

For Bob:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_S..._of_Skokie

That's  settled.  If folks don't want to experience marches, either hold a counter protest somewhere else of just fucking ignore it.  I'll be there if there's an anti antifa march here in Oklahoma.  Look, I do want to expose antifas to some really nasty chemicals like benzene, but I won't do it because that's illegal.  That's how much I hate, hate, hate, those self righteous motherfuckers.

[Ragnarök_62]

(09-15-2017, 07:21 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-15-2017, 07:08 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: You think X_4AD_84 is a neocon?  That might explain why he calls himself a conservative, I guess.  Certainly nothing he's ever posted has seemed conservative to me.

It isn't a matter of think.  Read what he posts, figure it out for yourself. 

As for Neocons, well no they aren't conservative, not one bit.  And one really shouldn't expect them to be.  It is an outgrowth of Trotskyism, they just happen to be in the elephant party at the moment, the populists are slowly purging the party of them.

@PBR

1.  Yes it does matter.  Fascism like communism is a creature of the left.  The difference between the two is whether one focuses on a particular nation or preaches internationalism.

2.  I could care less if the President is mean or a demagogue.  He was elected to do the job, and provided he does it, any means he uses is justified. 

Like I told Bobby life is tough get a helmet.

1.  Fascism and Communism are both equally evil.  I can't for the life of me why people are always, always dissing Fascists , which is correct, but nothing, nothing about those evil motherfucking Antifa scum.  Which ideology killed more people in the 20th century.   Answer  , it's the commies. I mean one can also look at Cynic Heroes list of his, uh heroes.   So where's the damnation of the evils of Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Khmer Rough?  I bet Antifas would love to suck off Stalin's cock.  Where's the denunciation of Antifa's black/red flags and other symbols?  They may as well be adorned with swastikas. 

2. 21st century axis of evil:  Neocons/Neoliberals.

3. Yeah, antifas are also stupid for their internationalism.  They may as well go suck off McStain's cock.  Mcstain has cancer and isn't long for this world.  He deserves a treat of having his cock sucked by antifas.

4. Life is touch... Well... I guess I can print a picture stuff related to antifa and go burn it in the backyard to make myself to feel better. <- I know folks think  it's weird, but burning shit is very relaxing.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-18-2017, 06:10 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: 1.  Fascism and Communism are both equally evil.  I can't for the life of me why people are always, always dissing Fascists , which is correct, but nothing, nothing about those evil motherfucking Antifa scum.  Which ideology killed more people in the 20th century.   Answer  , it's the commies. I mean one can also look at Cynic Heroes list of his, uh heroes.   So where's the damnation of the evils of Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Khmer Rough?  I bet Antifas would love to suck off Stalin's cock.  Where's the denunciation of Antifa's black/red flags and other symbols?  They may as well be adorned with swastikas. 

2. 21st century axis of evil:  Neocons/Neoliberals.

3. Yeah, antifas are also stupid for their internationalism.  They may as well go suck off McStain's cock.  Mcstain has cancer and isn't long for this world.  He deserves a treat of having his cock sucked by antifas.

4. Life is touch... Well... I guess I can print a picture stuff related to antifa and go burn it in the backyard to make myself to feel better. <- I know folks think  it's weird, but burning shit is very relaxing.

There is an idea, a saying, usually expressed religiously, usually associated with the neo Wiccans, that varies around “Do as you will, but harm none.”

Now I try to run my values scientific first, political second, with religious a poor third.  However, this one can become or illustrate political ideas.  If you assume the Bill of Rights guarantees a right to what you want without interference from the government, from anyone, the first phase is a general and inclusive as you like.  If one accepts that negative rights to not guarantee a protected right to do harm, the second phase is solid.

I guess ‘Do as you will, but harm none” could be the short version.

Thus one can ask, do we really need the Maelstrom of Violence?

I mean, I can admire Martin Luther King.  Lots of folks do.  Would he have got as far as he did without Malcom X lurking in the background?

Kinser has started to call out for folks to wear a helmet.  As a Whig, can I ask if the idea of government is that people shouldn’t have to wear helmets?  If the purpose of government is to subdue those who do harm, why should we embrace an idea of helmets for all?

This left me more than a little disturbed by Ragnarok’s recent post.  There are lots of points I can agree with.  I see lots of Agricultural Age government tainted by authoritarian tyrants, and the political struggles against tyranny as tightly tied with the struggles over industry.  I see any appearance of re-establishing colonialism, which Bush 43 gave, as related to what the Neocons and Neoliberals might attempt.  A lot of the conflicts Ragnarok raises are pertinent.

And, yes, I have a fireplace screen saver.

But I get cold feet.  Do as you will, but harm none.  Can those who would do harm, for whatever reason, be subdued without doing harm.  Can the desire of each to do as he will be honored, not be answered by threats to coerce?

Fact aside, is Ragnarok’s tone necessary?

No answers.  Some questions.

[Ragnarök_62]

(09-18-2017, 07:18 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-18-2017, 06:10 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: 1.  Fascism and Communism are both equally evil.  I can't for the life of me why people are always, always dissing Fascists , which is correct, but nothing, nothing about those evil motherfucking Antifa scum.  Which ideology killed more people in the 20th century.   Answer  , it's the commies. I mean one can also look at Cynic Heroes list of his, uh heroes.   So where's the damnation of the evils of Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Khmer Rough?  I bet Antifas would love to suck off Stalin's cock.  Where's the denunciation of Antifa's black/red flags and other symbols?  They may as well be adorned with swastikas. 

2. 21st century axis of evil:  Neocons/Neoliberals.

3. Yeah, antifas are also stupid for their internationalism.  They may as well go suck off McStain's cock.  Mcstain has cancer and isn't long for this world.  He deserves a treat of having his cock sucked by antifas.

4. Life is touch... Well... I guess I can print a picture stuff related to antifa and go burn it in the backyard to make myself to feel better. <- I know folks think  it's weird, but burning shit is very relaxing.

There is an idea, a saying, usually expressed religiously, usually associated with the neo Wiccans, that varies around “Do as you will, but harm none.”

Now I try to run my values scientific first, political second, with religious a poor third.  However, this one can become or illustrate political ideas.  If you assume the Bill of Rights guarantees a right to what you want without interference from the government, from anyone, the first phase is a general and inclusive as you like.  If one accepts that negative rights to not guarantee a protected right to do harm, the second phase is solid.

I guess ‘Do as you will, but harm none” could be the short version.

Thus one can ask, do we really need the Maelstrom of Violence?

I mean, I can admire Martin Luther King.  Lots of folks do.  Would he have got as far as he did without Malcom X lurking in the background?

Kinser has started to call out for folks to wear a helmet.  As a Whig, can I ask if the idea of government is that people shouldn’t have to wear helmets?  If the purpose of government is to subdue those who do harm, why should we embrace an idea of helmets for all?

This left me more than a little disturbed by Ragnarok’s recent post.  There are lots of points I can agree with.  I see lots of Agricultural Age government tainted by authoritarian tyrants, and the political struggles against tyranny as tightly tied with the struggles over industry.  I see any appearance of re-establishing colonialism, which Bush 43 gave, as related to what the Neocons and Neoliberals might attempt.  A lot of the conflicts Ragnarok raises are pertinent.

And, yes, I have a fireplace screen saver.

But I get cold feet.  Do as you will, but harm none.  Can those who would do harm, for whatever reason, be subdued without doing harm.  Can the desire of each to do as he will be honored, not be answered by threats to coerce?

Fact aside, is Ragnarok’s tone necessary?

No answers.  Some questions.

1. Yes, the I take a lot of ideas from Wicca, tbh.

2. Wrt antifa, it's the lack of a spotlight as to how evil they are. Big Tech denied the Fascists should of course be banned, but so should Antifa.  That's the point, there's no equal treatment hardly anywhere. If one thing is evil, and another thing is equally evil, why is one evil called out, but the other is not.  It's the basic  fairness doctrine. Fascists for the most part , just troll around, but Antifa not only trolls, but attacks things / people who aren't actually Fascists.  Here's a good video for this.







And uh, so I here from Antifa that Ben Shapiro is a Nazi?   Really,  not Antifa's weed is something I can believe in.

I'm not sure if I get what your stating wrt Martin Luther King vs. Malcolm X.

The way I'm taking it is that Malcolm X is also tied to The Weather Underground and SLA. ? Do you see these 3 as similar to each other. IOW, they seek ends of the counterculture like chucking Jim Crow and the 'Nam war, but with some sort of mixed violent means.

[Eric the Green]

I am not nearly so angry and rebelled by antifa as Rags is. For one, I agree with a lot of their views, tho not their extreme ones if and when they are communists, etc. But most are just protesting racism and inserting themselves in their face. So, they broke a few windows at Cal. Not smart strategy, no; but I don't find such an action stirring hatred in me towards them.

They make a good point that racism can't be tolerated. I don't know if I agree that people who are racists should be silenced or attacked, but there's a good case to be made for silencing them, especially for laws against hate crimes and such. If their actions make people like Rags hate them, though, then their movement may well be counter-productive. Hard to say, really. If they start bombing people and buildings, like the Weather Underground did a few times, then that is criminal, and not good; nor would I agree with such an action.