The Maelstrom of Violence

[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.