Truth Discussion Time

On January 27 2019 06:25 Stroggoz wrote: Antifa does use violence, i disagree with this morally and tactically. Violence is clearly not a good strategy for a group like Antifa, since they operate in western societies where states can no longer be violent internally to dissidents. However, if a group does use violence, then it becomes acceptable for a state to respond in kind (to the public, to some degree), and no one is better at violence than a state. Even brutalized societies that face virtual genocide, often violence is an incorrect strategic response to winning freedom, take west papua for example, their strategy has been to just go around to the international community and tell people what's happening to them and to record atrocities and put them on the internet, and it worked a lot better than violence did. (also their military power is insignificant compared to their oppressors, Indonesia-so there is no hope of them winning through violence). Secondly, violence often alienates the rest of the population, so it isn't a good way of getting people to agree with you.

The state is inherently violent always, but I guess you mean they don't engage in overt violence 'unprovoked', which is a specious distinction that we should care little about since we know that its purpose is to impose violence structurally and to defend it, but states do engage in overt violence as well. There are countless examples of it. Just to take one recent example, the force that is being used against the Gilets Jaunes movement in France. Almost all of those people who were injured/mutilated/lost an eye were regular people who were protesting peacefully (or in some cases they were not even part of the protests, they were passing by). These were not accidents, the police force shot 'flashballs' at their faces purposefully and since I speak French, I can tell you there are recordings of police officers gleefully talking about what they're doing as they are doing it. Anyway, this is kind a topic on its own.

The goal of antifa is not to fight the state or to win popular approval, it's to disrupt fascist organizing, because if no one does, the ideology spreads like a cancer, which is a problem because liberals tend to sympathize with fascists for many reasons. Antifa uses violence on a case-by-case basis, and it has been effective in doing so. If you doubt this, I would invite you to watch a debate between Brian Tracy from Crimethinc and Chris Hedges or Philosophy Tube's video on Antifa as they both go in depth. Reasoning with fascists is not an option, nor is non-violence sometimes. The violence that is used by antifa is used to prevent worse violence as you know, that is the main distinction. This is not to justify individual acts of violence, of course there has been instances where they were unjustified. But if you are not ready to use violence, then your opponents will always have the advantage, since they will know your limits, your 'toolkit', and they are the ones who can catch you by surprise and feel comfortable at all times. The same is true with the state. Ultimately, you cannot win against the state at this point in time in any violent protest, but the state will be quicker to try to reach a compromise if the threat is serious enough. As for the 'people will not agree with you' argument, using the Gilet Jaunes example again, even if the media has attempted to delegitimize the movement due to a very small minority of people breaking things and setting things on fire etc., the movement has kept popular approval for nearly two months now. We can also mention the American Revolution, the Irish war for independence, the Haitian and Jamaican slave revolts, the American Civil Rights movement, Stonewall (the catalyst for LGBT rights), all used violence successfully for very good reasons.

There is some violence by western states against their own people but it is very mild-it's not the main source of population control, thought control is. If you don't understand this your essentially clueless about politics. But from what i gather you do understand it. The sources you cite, some are a long time ago, under different circumstances when states really were brutally violent and used it as a main source of control. The civil rights movement started in the 1930's and became very successful with non violent tactics in the 1960's. I still havn't been convinced, i won't watch that debate but i saw one between those two people on black bloc some years ago and wasn't convinced, although they were talking about the success of ows, what actually matters is how things like ows happen in the first place. exisiting capitalism is now basically fully reliant on controlling public opinion, if it doesn't, it will break down. so how to combat that, it is very obvious that changing public opinion is the answer, i don't think violence will get liberals to stop sympathizing with facism, i havn't seen any cases of this.

Yeah that's the debate I was talking about. Black bloc isn't used by all antifascists but it seems to be effective sometimes at least. You know that Trump's administration has criminalized wearing black during protests as a result of it being used, that is an example of violence that people gloss over. Minorities that participate in such things are singled out and criminalized, they are assumed to be guilty of a crime just by being there; most arrests are not directly charged with rioting, they are charged with incitement to riot or conspiracy to riot, which carries a very hefty sentence. Laws under consideration in Tennessee, North Carolina, and North Dakota would even allow motorists to plow into protesters in the street.

These tactics don't convince liberals, but at least during some events like the Brazilian education crisis in 2013, the black bloc protesters were welcomed. But it's not for them; the liberals are not the ones who can prevent lives from being lost during events like Charlottesville. Remember that these are designed as self-defense units to protect the front-line of protests. Keep in mind that while liberals were complaining about the incivility of punching Richard Spencer two years ago, they entirely ignored the fact that at the same time an alt-right activist shot an anti-fascist at a protest outside of a Milo Yiannopoulos speech at the University of Washington on Inauguration Day. He spent three weeks in the ICU and lost his gall bladder and part of his liver. Liberals have an incoherent worldview that they need to address through education. While such people catch up to reality, not everyone is content to sit around and let fascists organize, and I think that's for the better. They are not mutually exclusive things, but some are better suited to teach and others are people of action.

I am temperamentally against violence and will keep far from it, but I think it has its uses as a last resort or in situations where there is a lot of evidence that it will prevent worse violence. Have you seen how much violence the fascists have engaged in in Brazil, or how much violence and murder the Venezuelan opposition has taken part in? Whatever antifa has done is minimal (but you've rightfully pointed that out) in comparison. And yet it [the fascists; the opposition] has the tacit support of most people on this website and liberals, or at least they find no reason to look for it or speak of it. People claim to be anti violence or "anti collectivism" but it's through their omissions and the exceptions that they make when push comes to shove that their worldview is exposed as the incoherent and often morally bankrupt thing that it is.

yes, your last paragraph, i already agreed with that, like i said, antifa is hardly violent on the grand scheme of things and it doesn't merit much of a mention when compared to truly horrendous regimes. I also agree that it is certainly true that your standard liberal is simply incapable of perceiving their own violence, this goes all back through history, as when karl marx pointed out the paris commune got ridiculed for it's violence by the bourgousie but there was silence after the national guard massacred them.

Violence can be justfied, it has to be examined on a case by case basis. I don't see any other way. I just didn't think some of Anfia's methods were the best, imo they were helping legitimize the right.

On January 27 2019 06:25 Stroggoz wrote: Antifa is also a very small sector of the radical left but gets a lot of coverage from fox new's, cnn, ect because they want to point to the radical left and say 'that's what the radical left is'

Ironically there isn't a better recruitor for the far right than Antifa, nothing radicalizes an impressionable boy like watching an idiot in black beating up a girl in a MAGA hat who wants to attend a Milo talk.

On January 28 2019 12:47 Loco wrote: Laws under consideration in Tennessee, North Carolina, and North Dakota would even allow motorists to plow into protesters in the street.

Impending your freedom of movement is violence, you cannot infringe other's rights to protest against the government.

Keep in mind that while liberals were complaining about the incivility of punching Richard Spencer two years ago,

So I assume you disavow the whole "punch a Nazi" thing right?

they entirely ignored the fact that at the same time an alt-right activist shot an anti-fascist at a protest outside of a Milo Yiannopoulos speech

You mean one of these guys got shot? well it's a fucking tragedy that the rest didn't get shot too.

I am temperamentally against violence and will keep far from it, but I think it has its uses as a last resort or in situations where there is a lot of evidence that it will prevent worse violence

"my violence is good violence because it prevents even more future violence"

Not sure if ANTIFA or US foreign policy.

On January 29 2019 02:50 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On January 27 2019 06:25 Stroggoz wrote: Antifa is also a very small sector of the radical left but gets a lot of coverage from fox new's, cnn, ect because they want to point to the radical left and say 'that's what the radical left is' Ironically there isn't a better recruitor for the far right than Antifa, nothing radicalizes an impressionable boy like watching an idiot in black beating up a girl in a MAGA hat who wants to attend a Milo talk.

Except the evidence has been in for a long time, and you are wrong. You're not just a little bit wrong either, but massively wrong. It comes out of the alt right's mouth that antifa has been successful against them and is winning. You are literally just parroting their old talking points that "enlightened centrists" and liberals easily fall for. This is the reason antifa is needed, because if it were for you guys, the alt-right would have grown massively. I'd suggest you start getting out of your comfort zone and re-evaluate the evidence that you think you have on your side. I know it's something you have a really hard time doing, but on this one issue I think you will hate yourself later. You remember that quote you used to share from Bertrand Russell about being on the side of the majority and re-evaluating? Now's a good time to believe in it.






Yesterday there was another big neo-nazi rally planned in Stone Mountain, but guess what... they didn't show up. You can guess why.

"Our compañeros say that the only condition in which they will give up their weapons is over their dead bodies. It's that simple. If someone has to give up their weapons, we're willing to let the Federal Army give us the ones they give up. That's the only way. The difference is the cause of war is not who has the weapons but it's how they get used. We are ready to stop using them. Which means we'll stop using them for a while or forever but never to give them up. It's very clear. As soon as they propose the surrender of weapons it's over. No one will accept it. No one."

- Subcomandante Marcos

Don't fight a guy with a purple belt in BJJ and some muay thai and some boxing and some wrestling if you are an unarmed noob. Don't be unarmed in a knife fight. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Don't bring some white supremacist ass revolver to a rally where ex-military antifa are packing AKs.

do you have a reputable source or just vice

left wing militias I feel safer already

Yeah, because Nazis organizing is such a positive thing... Go shake and shudder in your mortgaged starter home you little bourgeois bitch.

On February 04 2019 05:59 Santafairy wrote: do you have a reputable source or just vice left wing militias I feel safer already

A reputable source for what? For fascists advocating for violence, committing it, and saying that they would have been successful doing more of it if it wasn't for antifa? Can you tell me what does it matter where the journalist is from when it comes straight from their mouth?

So you want it straight from their mouth without a journalist? Not sure why, but sure, here's a ton of footage by the alt-right themselves. 34:00 onward has a lot of it with little to no commentary.



If you're only talking about the Stone Mountain rally, here's another source:

https://www.ajc.com/news/breaking-new...ternal-strife/gvReqHeqcXNqFytV9xm1jK/

Saturday rally at Stone Mountain by small group of white supremacists and white nationalists seeking to grab media attention during Super Bowl weekend has collapsed amid apparent infighting and fears for their personal safety. On Thursday, Michael Weaver, another far-right activist who had emerged as the principal spokesman for the event, released a written statement saying the rally had been postponed until a future date out of fears of violence from counter-protesters.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking generally here to everyone, if you are against anti-fascist action (as a whole, or just when they use violence), what you are implying is that the state should have the monopoly on violence. If you want to explain your rationale, I'd like to hear it. Keep in mind that this is what they think of the "free speech" that you think they should have:

Re-posting because it should be re-posted:

--- Nuked ---

--- Nuked ---

On February 04 2019 00:24 RiKD wrote: "Our compañeros say that the only condition in which they will give up their weapons is over their dead bodies. It's that simple. If someone has to give up their weapons, we're willing to let the Federal Army give us the ones they give up. That's the only way. The difference is the cause of war is not who has the weapons but it's how they get used. We are ready to stop using them. Which means we'll stop using them for a while or forever but never to give them up. It's very clear. As soon as they propose the surrender of weapons it's over. No one will accept it. No one." - Subcomandante Marcos

So you are in favor the ownership of firearms to defend yourself against a tyranical government? :D


BTW the EZLN leader doesnt go by that name anymore, first he changed his pseudonim to delegate zero, then started to call himself the inox steel subcommander and now goes by the name of insurgent subcommander Galeano... narcissistic personality disorder much?

BTW I've been thinking of closing this thread since its virtually the same than "politics thread (US election)"


Poll: should we close this?
(Vote): Yes close it, only 1 politics thread
(Vote): No we dont have many threads anyway
(Vote): Close both!, fuck baal & loco

He has taken on the nickname of his dead friend... my father has narcissistic personality disorder; he doesn't have friends, and he certainly wouldn't care to draw attention to one over himself. Fernando Pessoa wrote under 80+ pseudonyms or "heteronyms", guess he was a narcissist too.

On February 08 2019 06:53 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On February 04 2019 00:24 RiKD wrote: "Our compañeros say that the only condition in which they will give up their weapons is over their dead bodies. It's that simple. If someone has to give up their weapons, we're willing to let the Federal Army give us the ones they give up. That's the only way. The difference is the cause of war is not who has the weapons but it's how they get used. We are ready to stop using them. Which means we'll stop using them for a while or forever but never to give them up. It's very clear. As soon as they propose the surrender of weapons it's over. No one will accept it. No one." - Subcomandante Marcos So you are in favor the ownership of firearms to defend yourself against a tyranical government? :D

Yes, I am in favor of ownership of firearms to defend myself against a tyrannical government. When did I ever say differently? This is one issue that I haven't really changed much my entire life. I believe there should be more gun "control" to a certain extent but in reality I am looking at changing the systemic issues that cause some of the more heinous crimes or really just any crime. There will always be shootings that occur. It is kind of like getting 1 outted on the river in poker. It is just going to happen if you play a million hands but what about the media's part in all of this? I mean it's a complex problem I don't have all the answers. The background checks could be more in depth. I am actually a good example. I have been diagnosed bipolar I with psychotic features. I have been to the psych ward twice. My criminal record is clean except for maybe some underage drinking and losing my license for speeding. If someone is 302'd at least in PA where I was living that means no guns. 302 is anything that isn't admitting myself. Here is the thing in that case. I was actually brought to the psych ward in an ambulance out of my mind. I literally moonwalked up the ramp into the ambulance. My parents came to the hospital. I think I took an Ativan. I calmed down. I was not admitted to the psych ward that night. The psychosis flared up even more the next day. I won't go into the details of that story. I think I have somewhere on here. Long story short I was butt naked doing Rob Van Dam 5-Star Frog Splashes off of a ladder onto a pillow on the bed of a female friend that I wanted to fuck then I went for a Macho Man Randy Savage Avalanche and was feeling great but when I went up again for the Shawn Michaels Elbow Drop a mutual friend showed up out of no where and interrupted me. I put some clothes on, and we had some discussions. I wanted to make a run for it but they convinced me that we should go to the psych ward. I really have no idea what the official status of the admittance was because I was pretty gone at that point. I think I was not 302'd because I could technically leave whenever I wanted but I really don't know. I remember doing like a 1 or 2 hour performance art piece by myself in my room. I thought I was creating a mating dance for let's call her B. It was crazy. It was like ballet mixed with parkour mixed with creating crayon drawings mixed with the haka. I ended it with yelling her name in Daniel Day Lewis fashion from There Will Be Blood and punching holes in the ceiling until my knuckles were bloody. I then drew a picture of her in a vampire costume on the sheets next to where I would lay and fell asleep. The next morning my room was a wreck. Holes in the walls. I had drawn drawings all over the walls with crayons. I think some poems as well. Paper askew everywhere. The next morning I remember trying to fire everyone up for the day by doing some sort of neo-Native American rain dance and chanting. It was Halloween. I did some coloring for the comrades I met at my table. I made a special purple coded one for the black woman at my table who sang Swing Low Sweet Chariot with me but it was more me singing with her because she initiated it and had a truly beautiful voice. I say special purple coded drawing because I believed her to be an archetype of Phil Ivey who was communicating messages to me through her. After our interactions I wasn't sure if she was really Phil Ivey but felt that she was an ally. Later, I would turn to discretely trying to figure a way out by doing some form of yogic movement through the area. There were a lot of archetypes in the area. Chris Gamble, All-Pro NFL Cornerback for the Carolina Panthers who I roomed with in University. I couldn't be sure if it was real but what was real was that they were my comrades in this place and time. Eventually, I got a bit better and they moved me in the not as crazy area. At that point I actually really enjoyed my stay until it was time to get out of there and get some fresh air. A lot of good people in there from the Doctors down to the craziest mo fucker in the place at any given time. I really have no idea what the status is in Indiana where I was admitted by the Drug Rehab Counselors and my parents.

Can I own a gun in PA? Can I own a gun in IN? Can I own a gun in SC? Should I be able to own a gun anywhere?

I am posting here to respond to your post. Politics is already crowded enough as it is.

Baal,

If you close this thread I will physically come down to Mexico and fight you. You better have a loaded gun ready and I will retreat or we can go mano y mano en serio bro. Or, we could do a decathlon:

- rally race
- bife de lomo a punto chef challenge
- MMA 3 3 min. rounds
- rifle target shooting
- best beard
- penis size
- whiskey drinking challenge
- build a wall challenge
- bench press challenge
-

I can't think of the last one. Oh well. We are all just humans. Some of us men. Some of us women. Some of us trans men and women and everything in between that I don't completely understand but the latter is a discussion for another place and time.

What is the best way to study?

I wish to be a broadly knowledgeable Anarchist.

Not an overspecialized bourgeiouse bitch.